Rdr.Vladimir Moss on "Cyprian" Ecclessiology

[Seraphim Reeves]

Rdr.Vladimir makes some good points in the following article,

Can Heretics Have the Grace of the Sacraments?

Your thoughts, as always, would be appreciated.

Seraphim

[Seraphim Reeves]

My own immediate thoughts...

Rdr.Vladimir's argument makes sense, and is well stated. One point which he emphasizes, and I think rightly, is the idea that falsehood does not simply become such upon concilliar verdict - whether local or Ecumenical - but is false and separates souls from Christ wherever it is assimilated. He cites a vision of St.Peter (heiromartyr, Archbishop of Alexandria), which occured before even the first local synodal condemnations of Arius and his doctrine.

Is a conciliar verdict necessary in order to expel a heretic? At first sight it would seem that the answer to this question is: yes. However, there are grounds for thinking that Arius was invisibly expelled from the Church not only before the First Ecumenical Council of 325, but even before the local Councils of 321 and 323. For when the Lord Jesus Christ appeared to Hieromartyr Peter, Archbishop of Alexandria, in the form of a twelve year old child in torn clothing, and was asked by St. Peter: “O Creator, who has torn Your tunic?”, the Lord replied: “The mindless Arius; he has separated from Me people whom I had obtained with My Blood.” And this took place before St. Peter’s martyrdom, which was in 311.

The question arises, then: What is the purpose of the Councils? Is it they, and they alone, which bind heretics and cast them out of the Church? Or do they simply discern that binding has already taken place, “knowing,” as the apostle says, “that he that is such [a heretic] is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself” (Titus 3.11)?

However, this begs a question - is there a difference between the alienation caused by Arius' blasphemy BEFORE the first local condemnations of his heresy, and afterward? And further, a difference before and after the condemnation of the first Ecumenical Council?

The first (and obvious) difference would be one of consciousness on the part of others, particularly those who were confused by the matter. However, what about the issue of "grace", in particular sacramental grace? Was Arius deprived of his priesthood before the first local condemnations (or the Ecumenical Council of Nicea)?

While I think Rdr.Vladimir makes a good argument that an "Ecumenical" Council is not needed to actually expell a person or party from the Church (he rightly points to pre-Nicean heresies and heretics as examples of this, which were dealt with by local Councils), I have to wonder what we make of the situation of a bare headed heretic who has not been openly condemned at any level - neither by his peers, nor by his superiors. While one can obviously say he became a fallen man in deadly sin, and through falsehood put a divide between souls and God, is that the same as saying his priesthood ceased? Particularly given that when all is said and done, the Priesthood is not private property (or dependent upon personal sanctity), but ultimatly of the Church which Arius at this time would have (even if only nominally) belonged to.

Seraphim

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

I have no comments other than to qoute him on something...

"...as Bishop Ephraim of Boston points out, the new calendarists and the Moscow Patriarchate have adopted a distinctly “Matthewite” position in relation to the True Orthodox, declaring that they have no grace of sacraments – while at the same time declaring that the Western heretics do have grace!"

[Seraphim Reeves]

OOD,

I have no comments other than to qoute him on something...

Yes, I agree, and it is disgusting. It demonstrates what I've always understood to be the fratercidal nature of ecumenism; they gush with "luv" toward those clearly outside of the Orthodox Church, yet will turn like wild beasts on any ostensibly Orthodox person(s) who dare try and interupt the luv-fest with so much as a cautionary note (let alone anything sterner.) I remember hearing about how in the 90's, the EP practically ordered the JP to re-ordain Cyprianite clergy they received. Apparently such things are not uncommon. Yet, the ecumenists are very promiscuous in their signing "joint statements" with Roman Catholics which to varying degrees amount to a mutual recogition of each other's sacraments.

Seraphim

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Seraphim,

As time goes on I am increasingly convinced that those who out of ignorance defend the ecumenist communion, or those who are otherwise are just in doubt and speak their mind, simply lack the entire picture.

Adding to the pile of evidence for this is their common argument (probably even more common of a thought) that we are "extremists" and "fanatics" simply (and perhaps solely) because we deny there is Grace in ecumenist "Mysteries". But clearly the quote previously mentioned demonstrates this is not really their trouble, that is, declarations of "no Grace", although it does appear related. This is proven by the fact that a reverse declaration by the ecumenists is of no interest or trouble to them. So what is it?

For a long time now I have tried to describe what I believe their real problem is but have so far failed. And I at one time had this problem myself (and perhaps still do in other ways).

In a word it is delusion.

It is something along the lines of a deep influence and gravity large organized and institutional style churches have with all of their "scholars", deep thinkers, and splendid domes. Something about this is attractive, powerful, and very influential. To destroy this utopian image in ones mind a person must be driven with an open heart to find Christ as he really is, but not only that, but also be of such a character that the awe of earthly grandeur can be deconstructed.

I don't know if that will even make sense to anyone, but so far my best attempt to put it into words.

[Gregory]

It is something along the lines of a deep influence and gravity large organized and institutional style churches have with all of their "scholars", deep thinkers, and splendid domes. Something about this is attractive, powerful, and very influential.

I am currently reading Against False Union and the author, Alexandre Kalomiros, is making this same point.

My take on his point is that man naturally is attracted by the masses. If visible externals are clothed in acceptable garments, and that the external structure is supported by those who are "knowledgeable" and appear to have a "critical eye", then the masses will follow with little or no regard to the heart of what their church stands for and against.

I guess it is a lot easier and acceptable to say a small group has no Grace rather than large, established churches. A small group is easy to put under one's thumb and pronounce a verdit. It is like everything else in life: if we can put our arms around it and isolate it and pick apart the small pieces and construct a caricature or a false mosaic, then we have control over it and we feel free to announce our verdit on it. But this is purely a rational and empirical approach.

Gregory

[CGW]

My take on his point is that man naturally is attracted by the masses. If visible externals are clothed in acceptable garments, and that the external structure is supported by those who are "knowledgeable" and appear to have a "critical eye", then the masses will follow with little or no regard to the heart of what their church stands for and against.

But you of course are above all this. Sorry: hubris.