Rdr.Vladimir Moss on "Cyprian" Ecclessiology

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Austindoc,

sigh

I am not unaware that there are certain areas which are problematic with our synod, but I think they "seem" much more than they "are". I also believe Christ gave us these "imperfections" so that we might be a bit humbled by them - but few people are, including myself.

But what distresses me most is when one traditionalist takes it upon themselves to magnify the problems of others as if they have an unassailable position. This is the kind of self-righteousness that has kept our synods apart all of these years. It is not enough to hope for unity just like it is not enough to hope for salvation - we must act to first examine ourselves, and once we do that, I doubt we will be able to ignore the planks in our own eye.

So now I feel compelled to muster more time later to refute yet more inaccuracies, state a more balanced picture of Met. Chrysostoms superior and pastoral views, and also perhaps demonstrate the same thinking was shared by sufragan bishop Mathew, that sufragan bishop Mathew's ecclesiology denies his own legitimacy, that sufragan bishop Mathew also held "cyprian" ideas, and finally that's his errors culiminated with their own repentance in 1971. I think it unfair not to tell the whole story, don't you?

Unless you want to reword and shorten your response to put this to rest, I was not asking for more of your version of "history" - it would have been enough to say, "I believe what I wrote".

[Seraphim Reeves]

OOD,

So are you saying that the quotes provided by Austindoc are forgeries or misattributed to Metropolitan Chrysostomos?

Seraphim

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Seraphim,

No, I don't believe I said that. A few are simply misrepresented which I will show later this evening - along with a few other things. God-willing.

[Seraphim Reeves]

Here are some thoughts - I'd like the two cents of others on them, as there are many people here representing different vantage points (Florinites, Matthewites, ROAC, etc.)

The Church of Christ is characterized by truth (ortho - correct, doxos - opinion), for ultimatly Christ Himself is Truth, and the source of Grace (St.John 1:14). It is to this Church which the Priesthood was given, and the Sacraments which are part of this Priesthood.

Orthodoxy is not Roman Catholicism - legitimacy is not guaranteed by allegiance or communication with this or that individual or institution. There is no "Pope" or "Popes" in Orthodoxy, as understood in Catholicism. As such "all" the Church has, is the truth. If Catholicism has the primacy of the Pope, Orthodoxy has the primacy of the truth - where the truth is, there is the Church.

Thus, if such and such a person has abandoned the truth, all there is to conclude is that they have abandoned the Church. This is true of anyone, but is particularly true (if only because the consequences for everyone are more important) of Bishops, for obvious reasons.

God will do as He will - we are accountable to Him, not He to us (though out of His own incredible humility, in the end He will show to all at the Final Judgement the rectitude of His will, His Justice - as the fiftieth Psalm says, though He owes us no explanations, He will be shown Just seeing as He is being judged by men) - as such the Holy Spirit will do as He wills. This is why, without equating the priesthood of the Latins with that of the Orthodox Church, let alone the ministries of the various Protestant confessions, the blessed 19th century Metropolitan of Moscow (Philaret) would say things of the heterodox westerners which to untrained ears may sound like so called "crypto-ecumenism" - when in reality all he was affirming is that God will do as He pleases (thus, if He decides to give salvific grace to those whose ancestors led them from the unity of the Church, that is up to Him - we cannot pretend that such is utterly impossible, as if God was our servent).

However, the Church as Christ established it was intended by Him to be visible, sensible - it has marks, several of them. Hence why, those who are not in this unity of truth, have to be regarded as being (if in various degrees) foreign to Her.

How foreign, is a prudential judgement for the Church's shepherds, though they do receive some guidance in this in the canons themselves - and this is reflected in the manner of receiving people from bodies who have broken with the doctrinal and canonical unity of the Church.

Would this then explain in part, ostensible "signs of grace" amongst those who have become alien to the canonical unity of the Church, or worse yet, in situations where even issues of doctrine have been contested? While diabolical deception cannot be ruled out, I don't think it needs to be considered a "crypto-ecumenist" scandal to recognize the possibility that the Holy Spirit can work in extraordinary ways (miracles even) amongst those who are not with the Orthodox Church.

Things get muddy, because when you have a pan-heresy like ecumenism, human ignorance can cause confusion in the perception of things - thus various parties will depart or expell people on different time tables. Simply put, it is possible to be Orthodox, but blamelessly in communion with heterodox parties. This can raise the issue of what to do with such people - how are they to be received? Prudence would seem to indicate (imho) that there is no one answer to this - for example, someone coming out of the OCA in America, or the Antiochians, should probably be dealt with (again, imho) differently than someone leaving the JP. It is precisely because it may be unclear whether one is coming over from wanton falsehood, or from people who are genuinely Orthodox but through some ignorance or neglect long remained in communion with heretics, that perhaps a very liberal economy should be excercised in such cases. Again, this is a question of discretion.

However, I cannot but be sympathetic to the reasoning that "well, they've had long enough", since it would seem that things only become increasingly clear in this regard. However, that's a very subjective appraisal - and it can just as easily mean I've had long enough, as it can be a judgement on reality.

Though it is now the position of most Florinites, I will call it a "Matthewite" position - and I will say that substantially, I am in agreement in a basic sense with that "Matthewite" position. My problem is not with drawing a line in the sand, based upon the canons and the decisions of local and pan-Orthodox councils - heretics are like deposed clergyman, they do not celebrate the mysteries either licitly or fruitfully. My only real problem, is with holding with absolute certitude that everyone in the whole "world Orthodox" milieu has sufficient understanding of these matters, heirarchs included. That is something which only time will tell, and as time goes on, I do think it's fair to say that the prospects grow more dim - but like I said, to say things with certainty is what is troubling.

Maybe it's just a scruple of mine - but it ultimatly has nothing to do with my disputing that ecumenism is a heresy, that the calendar change was in fact (even if it took time for some to see this clearly) inadmissable, or even that heretical Bishops before some kind of "official" declaration become "pseudo-Bishops".

Seraphim

[Gregory]

Here are my two cents (as one investigating these issues):

Things get muddy, because when you have a pan-heresy like ecumenism, human ignorance can cause confusion in the perception of things

This is something I have been thinking through right now. Because we live in a world where there are many Protestants, Catholics, Universalists, etc and where there are so many heresies that abound, we have become so immune to the sting of heresy. In other words, with so much heresy surrounding us, we often do not even perceive that our churches, in some cases, teach heresy. The externals tell us that we are Orthodox and the teachings and life of piety seem to confirm that this is such. We look to our priests and bishop for correct teaching, as well as those within the community who help us along in the life of piety. Most, or a great deal of people do not know that the Orthodox Church exists. Many who call themselves Orthodox might not even know that their church engages in ecumenical activity of that there is a "Calendar issue". I am not making excuses for them, but I would agree that there are so many who are just plain ignorant of this issues. God is the final and ultimate Judge.

On the other hand, if a bishop teaches heresy, then it seems to follow that all the local churches under that bishop cannot celebrate the Eucharist (regardless if the priest celebrating does not hold the same heretical beliefs). A priest can only celebrate the Eucharist with the permission of the bishop (because in reality only a bishop can celebrate the Eucharist). That is why the priest always needs to celebrate the Eucharist with a signed antimension. A heretical bishop cannot celebrate the Eucharist; hence, each antimension that the bishop has signed now becomes "invalid" so to speak.

It seems to me that, if this is not the case, then a priest can celebrate the Eucharist wherever he wants outside of a unity with his bishop. Obviously this is foolish. Even a "right-believing" priest under a "right-believing" bishop cannot celebrate the Eucharist without the bishop's antimension, even though the priest is completely Orthodox.

Gregory

Gregory

[Austin Doc]

Dear OOD and list,

I'll try to clarify the reasoning of my Posts, but first let me respond to your comments:

1) You said:

But what distresses me most is when one traditionalist takes it upon themselves to magnify the problems of others as if they have an unassailable position. This is the kind of self-righteousness that has kept our synods apart all of these years.

Code: Select all

   My reply: 
   I was not trying to "magnify" the problems of others, I guess in this case you mean the "Florinite" jurisdictions of today.  Also, I do not presume I have an unassailable position.  There is much that is murky for all of us, especially since the vast majority of us did not even live in those turbulent times in Greece.  Look how difficult it is to know the truth with Modern day events:  Current ROAC/Colorado issues, Kiousite/Lamian issues and the Matthewite neo-iconclast schism of 1995.  A lot of it depends on what kind of information you get and who you believe and trust.

I for one, was told for many years the Matthewites were nothing but fanatic schismatic kooks. Yet, I never met a Matthewite to really discuss the issues. When I finally was able to dialogue with them, the information I received was radically different from the "Florinite"/ROCOR information which was primarily hearsay, inuendo, and slander. The Matthewites provided me with documents, copies of articles, and rationally articulated their history. So, there was a big difference. I have tried to demonstrate a point in the previous posts that Cyprianism is really a continuation of Florinism, and I have done so by providing the actual writings of Met. Chrysostom himself. Have I called him names or degraded him in some way? I don't think so. Have I used inflammatory words like, "...that's just Matthewite propoganda", and so on? No. ( If I've offended you then I ask your forgiveness.)

If I use the actual words of Met. Chrysostom where he says he will not consecrate more bishops, or statements that show he believed the OC church was just a branch of the State Church, is this "self righteousness" that you write of?

2) You say:

It is not enough to hope for unity just like it is not enough to hope for salvation - we must act to first examine ourselves, and once we do that, I doubt we will be able to ignore the planks in our own eye.

Code: Select all

  As I have clearly stated on this List, I am for unity of the "Florinite' and Matthewite jurisdictions.   I guess that makes me an "Old Calendar" ecumenist in the eyes of some of my fellow Matthewites and by some fanatic ROAC America groups.    Are there problems within the Matthewites?  Sure.   Could Bp. Matthew have done things differently?  Sure he could have, but things happened the way they did, and I personally believed he did the right things, based on the information I have.

3) YOu said:

So now I feel compelled to muster more time later to refute yet more inaccuracies, state a more balanced picture of Met. Chrysostoms superior and pastoral views, and also perhaps demonstrate the same thinking was shared by sufragan bishop Mathew, that sufragan bishop Mathew's ecclesiology denies his own legitimacy, that sufragan bishop Mathew also held "cyprian" ideas, and finally that's his errors culiminated with their own repentance in 1971. I think it unfair not to tell the whole story, don't you?

Code: Select all

   If you believe that Met. Chrysostom had "superior and pastoral views", so be it.  I never said that he had inferior views, I only presented historical facts to support my point that Cyprianism was predated by Met. Chrysostoms's ecclesiology.

Regarding the rest of your comments about Bp. Matthew, I would welcome you providing me information that he also held "cyprian ideas", as that would be new to me...as well as to my fellow Matthewites, that his ecclesiology denies his "legitimacy" and that the Matthewites repented in 1971 -- which I presume you are referring to the cheirothesia received from ROCOR. Please send me this privately or publically...either way, based on your preference to keep this thread going or not. I have yet to see anything referencing any of these points you just made.

Code: Select all

  I am open to facts, because they are hard to come by.  We are all just a bunch of Americans (I'm presuming your American), who don't speak Greek and mostly have to rely on the information of others.  I have yet to find significant reliable information from the "Florinite" side of things with the exception of HOCNA's, book, The Stuggle Against Ecumenism, which  I think is a good book in general -- though they omit some significant details and information about Bp. matthew and his perspective.

4) Last point: I think it incorrect to call the synods of the Kiousites, Lamians, HOCNAites, Cyprianites, and so on, as Florinites, as none of these received their Apostolicity from Met. Chrysostom of Florina. Also, none of them, with the exception of the Cyprianites, are even ecclesiologically in the same line of thinking as Met. Chrysostom.

They should really be called, Acacians, being that their conserations originated via Acacios Papas the Elder. Their current ecclesiology is consistent with the position the Matthewites have held since 1935. Because of this, I don't understand the rigid defense of Met. Chrysostom, since he has nothing directly to do with the origins of the Acacian lineage or their thinking.

Code: Select all

     Since you speak of unity, something which I am for, the sticking point has been the "Acacians" not wanting to discuss anything from 1935 to 1971, whereas the Matthewites have wanted to discuss this time frame.    Can there be dialogue?  Sure, and I understand that there are some of our bishops who are favorable towards "dialogue", but I think the problem is with the "Acacians/Kiousites, etc" not wanting to discuss anything prior to 1971.   Why?  

in Christ,

Nectarios
Exaltation of the Cross Mission
Austin, TX

[Justin Kissel]

seraphim

I'm going to try and make this as short as possible. Exhaustive discussion is good, but there's a point past which I just don't feel like responding (ie. I'll read long posts, but I can't bring myself to respond to

While all this might indicate is that ROCOR itself was a "fallen Church", the fact that all of the Greek Old Calendarists (including the Matthewites themselves) at some point recognized the ROCOR, and indeed received their episcopate from Her (or in the case of the Matthewites, at least admit they had the canonicity of their episcopal consecrations corrected, if not their validity)...

I think there is a difference between being schismatic, and being in communion with schismatics. If a Church does not automatically fall from grace once they are schismatic, but there is sometimes a period in which things must be sorted out--how much more so would that be true for those in communion with schismatics? Especially considering 1) how confusing the Orthodox situation was in the 20th century, and 2) how ROCOR always seemed vague in it's positions regarding other groups.

2) While the then unified GOC of Greece's act of 1935 may have satisified those with Her that the heirarchy and clergy of the Greek Church had fallen and now were (in effect) expelled/deposed, can such an act be understood automatically as speaking not only the mind of the universal Church, but also acting on Her behalf?

Of course, it is for the Church Catholic to either agree to or dismiss a synod or document. However, if the document is true, waiting for this synod or agreement is not necessary.

Yes, exactly - disputable. Hardly self evident, in fact I'd argue very far from it.

Well, my point was not focusing on whether the lapses were disputable. My main point was that the things you mentioned (strange God, changing the gospel) were not the only ways to fall away from the Church. However, even regarding the disputable part, I think it is arguable that one can seperate over disputed issues. The filioque was to some extent a disputed issue at one point even within the Church--that didn't make those who seperated from the Latins at the time wrong.

The question perhaps, is what do you make of those who through ignorance, confusion, and/or bad judgement are still yoked with men who should be deposed,

I think excusing ignorance can only go so far. There will always be people who are in heretical groups and are ignorant of that fact. That can't prevent us from treating Universalists, JW's, etc. as anything less than completely outside the Church. I'm not willing to say the same thing about those in World Orthodoxy--but the time must surely be approaching, and some already believe the time has passed, and I would not judge those people for holding to that position.