Why Traditionalist Orthodox MUST split from World Orthodoxy!

[CGW]

I think you misunderstand me a bit in that I don't think there is a clear distinction between entertainment and the other functions of internet interaction. In this wise it is different from a medium like TV. Well, not exactly; that's too strong. When you see a TV program, for you it may be entertainment, but for those at the other end it mostly has other purposes (e.g., keeping the Nielsen numbers up). There is a component of entertainment (if that is the right word) in that those actually making the show may be pleasing themselves in doing so. But in an Internet forum, the situation is both more and less symmetrical. Everyone appears to come at the forum the same as you, but in practice they have a huge mixture of intentions.

And while there is something to be said for being freed from official channels, the flip side is that, for the most part, the official channels, as it were, don't want anything to do with the internet, at least not in terms of fora. And to be quite blunt, they don't participate because they don't have time or patience to deal with blockheads. They have day jobs with theology, after all. It's hard enough to deal with parish crises or problem parishs and priests, but then to go on line and have to deal with every opinionated kids with a modem-- it's just too much.

And therefore fora are full of opinionated hardheads, because the internet gives everyone an equal voice (at least in proportion to their willingness to type) and simultaneously makes it easy to walk away (if you aren't addicted, anyway). So there is every reason to be suspicious, because by and large the extremist positions will get more air time.

It isn't a question of sincerity. And I do think the issues of heresy can be ignored, because within the context of Orthodoxy heresy is inescapably a political issue. You must not trust that someone who brings up an issue of heresy is sincere-- you cannot even trust yourself. If you jump to every suggestion or accusation of heresy, you simply make yourself a pawn to everyone who uses it for any ulterior purpose, even if they aren't even aware of their motivation themselves.

That's precisely what's wrong about deciding the fate of the Church in a forum such as this. Orthodoxy, like Anglicanism, is supposed to be conciliar. This isn't even remotely a proper council; in this wise its closest analogue in polity is a Baptist congregation. And what is going to tend to happen is that discussion will tend to be dominated by the extremes, either those of authority, or those of rebellion. Here I think rebellion is winning, as evidenced by the drift of the top posters from ROCOR to dissenting jurisdictions.

I of course cannot claim in-depth experience in Orthodox theology; but my experience with internet religious discussion dates back to its earliest days, some two decades ago. I think in this wise I have accrued a depth of experience in the matter which you might do well to heed.

Anyway, to pull this back to the original point: a forum is the ideal place for the rebellious (especially the authoritarian rebellious) to transmit every little issue all over the world in a flash, without any moderation in terms of its proportion. And in Orthodoxy, such moderation belongs, by right, to bishops. Even if they are not utterly trustworthy (and I agree, they are not) it seems to me that, from an Orthodox perspective, discussions in a forum tend to transgress on their authority more often than not.

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

CGW,

I believe the entire premise of your arguments are unorthodox and just an easy escape. We are each responsible as individuals to cleave to the true Christian faith - accepting whatever might be involved to do that, even death.

Truly, with such thinking as yours it is not hard to see how and why you have homosexual "bishops". If you think that was a "cheap shot", consider who is really responsible for allowing me to say it - you.

(I don't mean to offend you in any way, but what you have written is indeed a prescription for homosexual "bishops")

[Seraphim Reeves]

As surprising as it may seem for me to say this, in many ways I am plagued by the kind of doubts CGW brings up..."what do I know?" or to further (perhaps further than CGW would be willing to go) even question whether or not we as human beings can really "know" anything at all. Do any two men see anything the same way, can words have some trancendent meaning we can all clue into under the right circumstances... or are we all walking away with our own "truths"?

Thoughts like these are not unique...they seem to be the bread and butter of much post Enlightenment thought.

However...

What I have come to realize is that such doubts are more theoretical than practical - they serve more to confuse than to clarify. The reality is much less confusing than we tend to make it out to be - in fact I'd say we often add complexity purposely if not (to borrow what was perhaps one of the genuine insights of modern psychology) always consciously... that is to say, we do it unconciously, due to motives we do not want to own up to.

The reality is, the ecumenists either teach outright heresy, or in the "best" case scenario, are ambivilent towards it. Existential doubt doesn't change (at least not for reasonably literate persons with some access to common sense) the heretical design clearly laid out in the Patriarchal Synodical Letter which inaugerated the "caledendar reform". No amount of self instigated doubt can truly obscure the canonical violations (both according to the letter, and to the spirit of said canons) endemic to the ecumenical movement, it's congresses, it's agreed statements.

So what about those "hidden motives"? A few I can think of right off the bat would include...

• ...but that would mean all of those nice people I've met are in reality perishing.

• ...if I cut ties with the heretics, I would lose many of my friends, even cause a split in my family!

• ...but that would mean "the Church" is only composed of a relatively small group of people...yes, yes I've read the Apocalypse and similar writings...but it can't be, not in my lifetime.

• ...but that would mean my spiritual life has become all the more difficult! I cannot enjoy taking for granted that I can participate in liturgical services regularly, or I may even have to pack up and move far away, to wherever there are true brethren gathering.

• ...the Old Caledendarists/Genuine Orthodox are too strict! I don't want to give up my little (often not so little!) vices...they're what make my life interesting/bearable!

etc., etc.

Of course, approached soberly and (in so far as we can manage, being passionate sinners) dispassionately, none of the above hold water on their own - they are clearly selfish excuses, nothing more. This is why we (with our nearly infinite ability to deceive ourselves) dress up such belly aching in other ways. This is the same thing people often do with the basic questions of God and morality as well - dress up their real motives (I can scarcely call them "reasons" since they're quite unreasonable) with a sophsticated camoflauge of self interested "doubt." Very few people are willing to subject their entire existance to the kind of doubting and pain staking contrariness that they do the question of God, purpose, or morality. No, that kind of hair splitting seems to be reserved for those aspects of life which stand the best chance of making us uncomfortable or otherwise "cramping our style." Were we consistant, we should be so perpetually filled with uncertainty that we should not be able to get up in the morning and crawl into the shower without having some kind of personal crisis. Of course, this generally doesn't happen - the hypocricy of it all being the clearest indicator of how empty such nay-saying really is.

Refusing communion with heretics, or the communers and flatterers of heresy is a basic ecclessiological principle - if the Fathers are to be any sort of guide (let alone the Holy Canons) you cannot escape this. Such rolls off of their lips, or off of their quills, every time this topic (erring heirarchs) comes up in their writings.

Seraphim

[CGW]

All the reasons you give, Mr. Reeves, are cause for concern. But that isn't the end of it. It can also be comforting to believe that friends and family reject you because you dare to defend the truth, when the truth may be that they reject you because of your off-putting self-righteousness.

That's also the problem with the word "easy", OOD. What is easy for one is hard for another. I must say that there seems to be something easy about dismissing my words as "unOrthodox" without analysis. It seems to me to be an easy dismissal of something that is really quite difficult.

Somewhere along the line you must confront the truth that it is paradoxical to say that only bishops may state the faith, and then as a layman pass judgement upon what they say. Something has to give-- either the absolutist quality of both positions, or your integrity. Binding yourself to one set of bishops isn't enough; if someone points out that you aren't being consistent with what these bshops teach-- or more importantly, with what their Master teaches-- then you are bound to take it seriously. Dismissing it as "unOrthodox" is a cop-out.

And as you reject bishops, eventually you may well run out of bishops. What do you do then-- become a vagante bishop yourself?

Part of the problem here is that it is extremely easy to come up with self-serving explanations of the actions (or inaction) of others. There's a definite air here of "if it's so uncomfortable to remain in communion with Robinson, why do you do it?" Conversely, accepting death is easy if it's not a real threat. This simply isn't the road to any truth; it's road to a different relativism, an effective relativism of collegiality denied.

What's most striking is that the big point is being totally ignored. You should be thinking: "Forums attract controversialists and extremist hardheads. I'm here; maybe I might be one of them."

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

CGW,

I must admit I have a hard time eliciting a point in your responses. It also seems to me you like to talk about generalizations rather than specific points.

Generalizations are easy, they are easy to make up and defend. They are like a 7-headed hydra from Greek mythology, you cut off one head and three more spring up.

Somewhere along the line you must confront the truth that it is paradoxical to say that only bishops may state the faith...

I have never said this nor would I. In fact, quite the opposite.

...and then as a layman pass judgement upon what they say.

Yes, I "pass judgement" on what they say. Said another way, I recognize what they say as Orthodox or not.

Binding yourself to one set of bishops isn't enough; if someone points out that you aren't being consistent with what these bshops teach-- or more importantly, with what their Master teaches-- then you are bound to take it seriously. Dismissing it as "unOrthodox" is a cop-out.

I feel I am very consistent with the faith of my bishops, but if you could show the inconsistency I am not at all adverse to admitting it. Until then, I will state my generalizations by dismissing your generalizations as unorthodox.

And as you reject bishops, eventually you may well run out of bishops. What do you do then-- become a vagante bishop yourself?

It is also easy to invent a hypothetical situation, that is, there are no bishops left, and then create a hypothetical reaction, all which is impossible since there will always be a true confessing bishop.

But I would like to clarify your comment: I do not "reject bishops", I merely find real bishops.

Part of the problem here is that it is extremely easy to come up with self-serving explanations of the actions (or inaction) of others. There's a definite air here of "if it's so uncomfortable to remain in communion with Robinson, why do you do it?" Conversely, accepting death is easy if it's not a real threat. This simply isn't the road to any truth; it's road to a different relativism, an effective relativism of collegiality denied.

They are self-serving explanations because you say so? Don't try to pass this off and move on as if it were fact. Perhaps they seem "self-serving" to you since they are very inconvenient to admit. They are just more generalizations.

As I have stated before and seraphim repeated and which you have persistantly ignored: If you want to finally get down to specifics, we as Orthodox Christians invent nothing or create nothing new; we have the Holy Fathers, the Holy Synods, and the Holy Canons. If you have an issue with anything I say, please, be specific, because I am confident it is not me you have an issue with, but the Holy Fathers of the Church.

[CGW]

I must admit I have a hard time eliciting a point in your responses. It also seems to me you like to talk about generalizations rather than specific points.

I see little point in specific points if you are not prepared to hear them. Also, it isn't a matter of generalizations so much as it is a question of attitudes, or (if you like) philosophy. I feel the discussion must stay at that level for two reasons. One is practical: discussion of many specific points would simply bury this in distraction. The other is that the one real specific point we are discussing has to do with general attitudes.

That specific point has to do with the judging of bishops.

Somewhere along the line you must confront the truth that it is paradoxical to say that only bishops may state the faith...

I have never said this nor would I. In fact, quite the opposite.

...and then as a layman pass judgement upon what they say.

Yes, I "pass judgement" on what they say. Said another way, I recognize what they say as Orthodox or not.

But that begs the question with regards to the first statement! If you aren't getting truth only from bishops, then how can you render an Orthodox judgement? Who says that what you believe is a standard of Orthodoxy, since you aren't a bishop?

After all, if I look at these bishops, and the scripture that they work from, and I were to say that, based on what they say, the way you believe is not Orthodox, how is not that valid? And I don't mean "valid" in the sense that it is necessarily true, but "valid" in that it requires consideration and refutation (or acceptance) strictly on its content? If you dismiss it because I'm not Orthodox, you are dismissing it because I disagree with you. And if some from the OCA were to repeat my arguments (and thus have a better claim to being Orthodox), you would still be in the same boat. All of these dismissals are manifestly self-serving, because they represent avoidance of having to deal with the substance of the matter.

Binding yourself to one set of bishops isn't enough; if someone points out that you aren't being consistent with what these bshops teach-- or more importantly, with what their Master teaches-- then you are bound to take it seriously. Dismissing it as "unOrthodox" is a cop-out.

I feel I am very consistent with the faith of my bishops, but if you could show the inconsistency I am not at all adverse to admitting it. Until then, I will state my generalizations by dismissing your generalizations as unorthodox.

Well, this is sufficient cause to dismiss you as just another sectarian.

I don't know your personal history. But it seems to me that if your "Orthodoxy" has driven you from one jurisdiction to another, then you are inconsistent with this. It creates a spurious faithlessness; if your faith drives you from one "true church" to another, then you are (by your standards) faithless to your old church, and by extention (according to your standards) you were always faithless. But I think that's not what happens. I think the faith is always there, inside the individual, and that the jurisdiction changes result from the individual holding himself up as a standard by which the churches are to be judged.

And that's what is happening in the following exchange:

And as you reject bishops, eventually you may well run out of bishops. What do you do then-- become a vagante bishop yourself?

It is also easy to invent a hypothetical situation, that is, there are no bishops left, and then create a hypothetical reaction, all which is impossible since there will always be a true confessing bishop.

If there will always be such a bishop, I see no guarantee that you will be following him! Indeed, right now you are identifying him on the basis of his agreement with you! And if he disagrees with you, you will go off and follow a bishop of the wrong faith, and then there is no guarantee that there will be a bishop who agrees with you.

There's no room in what you say here for you to be corrected by a bishop. And while this may not be so dire in practice, due to the imperfection of your execution of this program, the implication of everything here is that if a bishop tells you that you are wrong, then you will reject him.

As I have stated before and seraphim repeated and which you have persistantly ignored: If you want to finally get down to specifics, we as Orthodox Christians invent nothing or create nothing new; we have the Holy Fathers, the Holy Synods, and the Holy Canons.

I am not going to pick away at this claim, because I don't have the time or the energy to put myself through such a fire fight. But it is a false statement, at least if you take a non-metaphysical interpretation of "invent/create". And even then it is quite relevant whether the Fathers created and invented-- or developed. But it's not really relevant to this discussion. The question is only who-- NOW-- is to be an expert on what the Fathers and the Canons and the Synods said. I can read them just as you can, when it comes to that, so I have no problem with testing your statements against my reading of these documents. You wouldn't be the first Orthodox Christian to state to me something in abject contradiction to the actual words of a canon.

[Seraphim Reeves]

CGW,

All the reasons you give, Mr. Reeves, are cause for concern. But that isn't the end of it. It can also be comforting to believe that friends and family reject you because you dare to defend the truth, when the truth may be that they reject you because of your off-putting self-righteousness.

More contrariness for it's own sake?

Somewhere along the line you must confront the truth that it is paradoxical to say that only bishops may state the faith, and then as a layman pass judgement upon what they say.

I'm not sure where you would have heard that on this forum...save for a few visiting neo-papists perhaps.

As for passing judgements...the reality is we do this all of the time, and for very good (and obvious!) reasons. It's what prevents you from confusing a Mosque for an Anglican Church, or recognizing the categorical difference between a collection of St.John Chrysostom's writings as opposed to say, those of an Al-Ghazzali.

I know from past conversations that you reject this comparison - you see no comparison whatsoever between the divide seperating Islam and "generic Christianity", and that which separates pseudo-Orthodoxy from Orthodoxy...apparently on the basis of what those completely removed from these controversies think. I always found this an odd position, since it basically holds up the ignorance of others as a bar by which those better informed should use to pass their own judgements.

The fact of the matter is, that which separates Orthodoxy from it's cunning counterfeit is very serious...serious so long as one has not completely given up on the notion of "truth", and just as important, that the truth matters.

I suspect one thing which fundamentally separates you and I, is not our belief in some kind of Christian "orthodoxy" - rather it is where we place that bar, how minimalistic that "deposit of teachings" really is. If my hunch here is correct, then I'm left wondering how you can speak of the Genuine Orthodox "position" as if it were an absurdity for existing - since it would seem you yourself, by simply being a reasoning, rational being, makes similar judgements all the time. Their content/conclusion is obviously not the same, but their presence does make your whole critique seem just a bit hypocritical.

And as you reject bishops, eventually you may well run out of bishops. What do you do then-- become a vagante bishop yourself?

Because the Priesthood is an essential part of the Church's constitution, it is believed that there will always be confessing Bishops. Few perhaps, but they will exist.

Seraphim