Waldemar asks, What if St. Ambrose is still sticking around?

[尼古拉前执事]

You keep taking the patristic witness out of context to try and fit your own desires Waldemar. You choose to ignore what the canons say because you want to se grace everywhere even in heretics' mysteries. Please read the thread on the closet ecumenist and red it with your mind open please.

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Waldemar,

Do you believe those outside the Church, such as the Mormons for instance, have the Grace of the Church of Christ?

[Waldemar]

Do you believe those outside the Church...

The problem with this question, and the very crux of the matter of our failure to communicate is that to you "the Church" are those sectarians of like-mind with you. You exclude millions upon millions of Orthodox Christians around the world outside of your definition of "Church."

Mormons?! As much as I like herring (Ah, pickled herring on black bread!) I will not bite on your proferred red herring. This particular discussion has been about Orthodoxy versus faithless double-mindedness!

Who needs heresy to separate oneself from the Church when faithlessness will more than suffice?

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Waldemar,

No red-herrings, I asked a simple question since I have no idea what you believe and am trying to figure it out. After all, if you believe Mormons are part of the Church, then of course new-calendarists are.

But I suspect your cryptic answer is no.

Ok then, how about the unia. Many of these people are completley Orthodox in their theology (that of course should be qaulified to say the least), and are very pious. Do they have the Grace of the Church of Christ?

This is not even an orange ruffy question.

[Seraphim Reeves]

Waldemar,

Is it possible that St. Ambrose is praying for the repentance of the ROAC as well?

Perhaps, though for different reasons.

St. Ambrose did not abandon his monasteries, whereas ROAC declares his monasteries to be heretical and without grace.

It seems to me that faithlessness is more of an impediment to the grace of God than geography.

I notice that you glossed over my point about St.Benedict. Perhaps the history involved isn't familiar to you, or the point apparent.

St.Benedict of Nursia is an Orthodox saint. He's the father of western monasticism, bringing the monastic traditions of the east to the west, and codifying his own "rule" for his followers. His monastery of Monte Cassino still exists in Italy to this day; however, it is obviously a Papist monastery now (and has been for many centuries.)

My question then is, if this pious saying of St.Ambrose need be taken rigidly as a rule by which one can discern the grace and truth present in a particular monastic establishment (I don't happen to believe his saying should be taken so slavisly literal, but I'll grant this for the sake of argument for now), then what do you make of Monte Cassino? Is it too an Orthodox monastery, part of the Orthodox Church?

The problem with this question, and the very crux of the matter of our failure to communicate is that to you "the Church" are those sectarians of like-mind with you. You exclude millions upon millions of Orthodox Christians around the world outside of your definition of "Church."

Mormons?! As much as I like herring (Ah, pickled herring on black bread!) I will not bite on your proferred red herring. This particular discussion has been about Orthodoxy versus faithless double-mindedness!

If you really dispute that the ecumenists are heretics, or that those who commune them and call them brothers are de facto to be regarded in the same way by genuine Orthodox, then that is one issue. But the principle that heresies will not inherit the kingdom of God is much more basic; if you deny this, then it's pointless to even be talking about "graceless" ecumenists.

As for the "millions upon millions" you speak of, it's not anyone here who is "excluding them" from anything - it is either a personal decision on their part, or the lies of their leaders who are keeping them from the communion of the Orthodox Church. All white-washing heresy, schism, and endemic anti-canonical activities would do on "our" part, would bring us under the same condemnation - it wouldn't bring anyone any closer to the truth.

I've written a few thoughts on this subject here, if you're interested. It may make things a little bit clearer.

Seraphim

[Vicki]

:ohvey:

[Justin Kissel]

Waldemar,

With all due respect, the question by OOD was not a red herring. It was an attempt to work through something to its logical conclusion. You are jumping in at the deep end of the question, but this isn't a good idea if different people in the discussion are working from different premises. If I understand correctly, OOD was trying to see how you responded to the basic and fundamental stuff first, so that we could investigate where everyone stood. Once it was established that everyone was on the same page regarding the basic principles, I'm sure that OOD would have loved to have gone on to the deeper and more complicated subjects. The problem is that sometimes we don't understand why people think what they think; people seem inconsistent or contradictory. Please don't take OOD's line of questioning as a red herring: take it as an effort to understand your position better, as an attempt to have productive dialogue. Regarding your question:

If St. Ambrose is still hanging out at Optina, and Optina is still under the MP, does that make St. Ambrose a heretic without grace?

I think that Seraphim gave a far better answer than I could have given, so I'll not try to add to it.