ROCOR

Joshua F · Post by **Joshua F** » Thu 20 January 2005 1:42 am

Sorry Justin, what about the anathema against ecumenism? Or am I completely mistaken?

Sean · Post by **Sean** » Thu 20 January 2005 1:48 am

ROCOR certainly did call the ecumenists heretics when they anathematized ecumenism in 1983. The reinterpretation of the Anathema as only applying to those in ROCOR didn't come about until after the Grabbes and the Greeks were ostracized shortly after the repose of St. Philaret. As for those who follow the new calendar, they have already been anathematized by three previous Pan-Orthodox councils.

I have always tried to be respectful when disagreeing with my brethren. Not to sound harsh, but I'd like to ask that you don't patronize me, when addressing any opinions I have.

Justin Kissel · Post by **Justin Kissel** » Thu 20 January 2005 2:09 am

I apologize for the ironic and patronizing tone of my last post, it was unChristian of me.

Regarding the ROCOR. I totally agree that the 1983 anathema was a good thing, and that it has more than just a "local character". Now, the question I have then is, who specifically has been condemned by the anathema, and when, and in what manner? That is to say, if someone is condemned by the Church, I think we should be able to provide 1) names, 2) dates, 3) and the cirumstances of the condemnation (e.g., who investigated and how long did they investigate? how long were the debates among bishops? what evidence was presented? what bishops were present? what ukaz number? and so on). At the bare minimum, I'm looking for names of the specific hierarchs and/or synods that were condemned by the ROCOR, and the date(s) that the ROCOR hierarchs issued their decision(s)?

I mean, otherwise, yes I am willing to admit that the anathema has more than a local character, but then I don't think that I have the discernment to apply it in a better manner than my bishops. It will stand as a witness against anyone engaging in ecumenism, but if my bishops have not seen fit to publically apply it yet, then I don't think it is proper (in more ways than one) for me to jump the gun and try to do so myself. It's not the nature or content of the anathema I'm disputing, I'm just trying to remain faithful to my bishops, and to remember my role as a neophyte laymen.

The new calendar, I believe, is a different situation, since what was condemned at the former Councils is not exactly what was adopted when the "new calendar" innovation was introduced. And if the condemnations were applicable to today's situation, then that would mean that most people, including ROCOR, would have been tainted by now, since ROCOR was in communion with and concelebrating with new calendarists for decades after the calendar innovation, and many of the Greek Old Calendarists who now exist derive their episcopacy from ROCOR. So if that's the case, we can forget the 1983 anathema, because ROCOR would apparently have been corrupted long before that. Personally, I believe that things are much muddier than that, and that even the Finnish situation needs some leeway. Leastwise, my bishops haven't seen fit to condemn anyone over the issue, so far as I've read.

Anastasios · Post by **Anastasios** » Thu 20 January 2005 2:27 am

The Anathema of 1983 has to be interpreted in the light of the OFFICIAL Synod Decision of ROCOR in 1971 that only an Ecumenical Council can determine who has grace.

Anastasios

Orthodox New England · Thu 20 January 2005 8:30 am

anastasios wrote:
The Anathema of 1983 has to be interpreted in the light of the OFFICIAL Synod Decision of ROCOR in 1971 that only an Ecumenical Council can determine who has grace.

Anastasios

Where can I find a copy of the 1971 decision? Also, how does that apply to those who do not consider themselves Orthodox? For example, the Roman Catholic church. No Ecumenical Council has declared them graceless, or am I wrong?

Gregory

Anastasios · Post by **Anastasios** » Thu 20 January 2005 2:45 pm

Orthodox New England wrote:
anastasios wrote:
The Anathema of 1983 has to be interpreted in the light of the OFFICIAL Synod Decision of ROCOR in 1971 that only an Ecumenical Council can determine who has grace.

Anastasios

Where can I find a copy of the 1971 decision? Also, how does that apply to those who do not consider themselves Orthodox? For example, the Roman Catholic church. No Ecumenical Council has declared them graceless, or am I wrong?

Gregory

I will attempt to provide you with a copy, which I obtained last week in the ROCOR Synodal archives, while working on a thesis with the blessing of the Metropolitan (this statement is public and was mailed to many different people in response to their questions about New Calendarists so I feel I can send it to you; it might even be posted online somewhere).

There have been several councils or meetings of patriarchs which spoke against Roman Catholicism:

879, St Sophia: Filioque is heresy
1285, Blachernae: Filioque is heresy, even with "single spiration" language
1347, Hesychast Councils: the "simple essence" is heretical
1484, Constantinople: Roman Catholicism is heretical
1587, Jerusalem: Roman Catholicism is heretical
175(1): 4 eastern patriarchs: Roman Catholics must be baptized
1848: Reply of eastern patriarchs to Pope Pius: Papal primacy is heretical
1895: Encyclical of Eastern Patriarchs: Roman Catholicism is heretical.

OrthodoxyOrDeath · Post by **OrthodoxyOrDeath** » Thu 20 January 2005 4:20 pm

Sean wrote:

3. The Eucharistic communion in which the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia exists, formally, at any rate, with uncanonical groups which have separated for various reasons from other Local Orthodox Churches, some active on the canonical territories of Romania, Bulgaria and the Greek Churches. Recently these groups have tried to also expand their activity on our canonical territory and the territory of the Georgian Patriarch. [Alas, we have been guilty of creating schismatic groups and are in Eucharistic communion with schismatic churches. Bp. A.]
[Emphasis mine]

That is indeed very interesting - personally. My how fast the ROCOR is hopping around communing with different synods all the while changing their views, and as always, after the fact, we have the ROCOR apologists arguing, "that's how it has always been!".

Met. Cyprian of Oropos and Fili, considered to be the most "moderate" of the Greek Old Calendarist primates voiced his concern to ROCOR over an apparent "distancing" of ROCOR from his own Synod in a March 2001 epistle:

It has never sat well with me that people (no offense Sean) should refer to certain synods as "extremists" or "moderates", based their outlook towards heretics (or "sickly" Orthodoxy, as some may prefer).

It seems to me that this attitude presupposes the "sick" heretics as the Rule in which all others are measured against. The less dasterdly you think they are, the more "moderate", the more "pleasant" you are. This doesn't seem right, I mean if everyone recognizes them as having a corrupt, or corrupted practice, however bad you may think that to be, then it is the same to say they are killing people spiritually, or maybe hurting them severally. Wouldn't this be a bit like calling grandma an extremist right-wing liberal because she thought Idi Amin was a bad man? Truly, if Orthodoxy is the Rule, and not something or whatever else, then this whole way of thinking gets turned on its head.

And this doesn't even mention the fact that the ecumenists, the heretics don't believe there is Grace among the Orthodox, yet nobody thinks of them as "extremists". How much more extreme can you be than to be far away from the Truth, Christ; communing with His enemies, abolishing Confession, ect.?

I really believe this says something about a persons way of thinking.

I recommend new terminology.

Just my thoughts.