Rdr.Vladimir Moss on "Cyprian" Ecclessiology

[Seraphim Reeves]

Justin,

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.

I agree with the sense of the above - but then again, what is implicit to what you're saying that this is ultimatly an intuitive, subjective appraisal - at least it is in the case of those who, if you pressed them, would offer an Orthodox confession.

Personally, I think if things go on as they are, eventually things will sort themselves out, in the sense that there will be two clearly different bodies. I also think whoever ends up writing the history of this period (sometime in the future), will recognize the plurality of views, but will not make the kind of harsh judgements about those who have "come out" of the mess which is "canonical world Orthodoxy" at different times (particularly later than sooner) that some contemporary to this situation do.

Seraphim

[Austin Doc]

Dear Seraphim and Justin,

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, so I'd like to clarify the response Justing made to Seraphim's quote: (Seraphim's comment is first)

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.

My response: regarding the the New Calendar and when it entered schism and whether the Church Catholic agrees with the 1935 Declaration of the Greek TOC, don't forget that the Church ALREADY condemned and anathematized it in the 3 Pan Orthodox councils of the 1500's, plus the 11 other local councils that reaffirmed this by their condemnations of the calendar innovation. (Please refer to the list of Council dates I listed in a previous post on this Thread.)

So, in essence, the Church doesn't not need a another council to determine if the New Calendar is Orthodox or not, condemned or not. It was already determined, several times over. This is why Met. Chrysostom- of Florina and his synod was wrong in this respect, as they felt it would be up to a 'future' synod to judge on this. This is also the same reason that Justin's -- I think it's Justin's -- comment is incorrect. (BTW, I'm not meaning to offend you with this statement.)

The TOC's 1935 Declaration did not impose any new regulation on the Church regarding the calendar innovation, but rather was a reaffirmation of what was already stated by the Church at large.

I hope my point is clear. If someone has another viewpoint on this I'm open to hear it.

in Christ,

Nectarios

[Justin Kissel]

I guess the question is whether the multiple councils before the 20th century meant to condemn changing any part of the calendar and accepting any part of the Gregorian calendar, or whether it's main purpose was just to protect the dating of Pascha. Last night, I re-read the 1935, 1950, and 1974 condemnations of the new calendar. Interestingly, the 1935 Encyclical mentions staying faithful to what the Ecumenical Councils said about the calendar. However, so far as I am aware (I hope I am wrong), the only thing discussed at an Ecumenical Council (the 1st one) regarding the calendar was how to date Pascha (though at a later Ecumenical Council, certain heretics who didn't follow the agreed upon way for determining Pascha were also anathematized). I argued in the other thread that the Sigillion spoke of the calendar in totality, not just part of it. However, I think it's far from totally clear, and even the language of the more recent documents confuse me on some points (e.g., the comment about following the Ecumenical Councils mentioned above).

"...the orthodox festal calendar... has been consecrated by the Seven Ecumenical Councils and ratified by the age-long practice of the Orthodox Eastern Church" - Encyclical of 1935

Certainly the second part is true regarding the entire calendar, but has the entire calendar been "consecrated" by the Ecumenical Councils, or only a part of it (ie. the part explicitly discussed at the First Council)? Does anyone have some quotes from the earlier councils which anathematized the Gregorian Calendar? As I said, I hope I'm just blind and am seeing muddy waters when the waters are in fact crystal clear. Wouldn't be the first time.

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Seraphim,

Justin always says I am blunt, so here is some more bluntness.

There will always be people "coming out" of "world orthodoxy" just like there are still people who come out of the RCC and Protestantism.

The definitions you are striving for are ambiguous, paralyzing, and can only be known by God. They are also uniquely your own, and while we all hope God is protecting those certain individuals, those who are aware of a well established and persistent heresy are bound to follow in the footsteps of St. Photius and all the Fathers. Could you imagine if St. Photius did something less than what he did? Oh! You would have every small and large supporter of heresy holding up his example, that despite "our differences, we must remain united"...at least until we all fell off the cliff.

I am sorry Seraphim, all we know says Mysteriological Grace flows through the bishops and the bishops alone. There is not a single bishop anywhere in the new-calendar world who does not either hold ecumenist views or at least accepts them. Although beyond the bishops it doesn't matter, I would also say this applies to their priests as well, even their monks who are cut-off from the world know what is going on.

So as you say, when the church historians look back on these events they will hold certain people as great confessors of the faith, and others they will cast into the same lot as the Nestorians, the Iconoclasts, the Latins, ect. whether there was well-intentioned people or not within either side, the outcome will be the same.

But no matter what I just wrote, if I am inclined to agree with you, what are you suggesting should be done?

[Justin Kissel]

Austindoc,

*** 1583 Pan Orthodox Council anathematizes the Gregorian cal.
*** 1587 " " " "
*** 1593 ditto
*** 1670 Pat. Dositheos of Jerusalem and synod condemns it
*** 1827 Ecu Pat. Agathangelos and Synod condemns it
*** 1895 Ecu Pat. Anthimos VII and Synod
*** 1902 Ecu Pat. Joachim III and synod
*** 1903 Pat. Damianos of Jerusalem and synod
*** 1903 Church of Russia
*** 1903 Church of Romania
*** 1903 Church of Greece
*** 1904 Ecu. Pat.Joachim IIi and synod again
*** 1919 Synod of Church of Greece
*** 1923 the future Abp. of Greece writes "No Orthodox autodephalous Church can separate itself from the rest and accept the New Cal. without becoming schismatic in the eyes of the others".
*** 1935 TOC of Greece condemns the NC. calls it a schism and reaffirms it as being without Grace. Why? Because 3 Pan-Orthodox councils anathematized it and 10 local churches condemn it.

Where can I get more information on these condemnations of the new calendar and/or false dating of Pascha?

[Austin Doc]

Dear Justin,

The best source is the book published by Holy Transfiguration Monastery/HOCNA called, The Struggle Against Ecumenism.

Nectarios

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Seraphim,

As you know, the ROCOR recently declared in a synodal meeting, and by communion, that they are now "Cyprian" in faith.

So am I understanding this correctly, that you are joining the ROCOR? If so, it seems disingenuous since you started this thread by denying Cyprianism?