I'm confused

[Justin Kissel]

OOD

The reason for bringing up the fact that the GOC consider the Cyprians schismatics and heretics was to illustrate that since the ROCOR was with both groups at one time or another, they "played" both sides of a deep divide.

But the entering into communion with the TOC happened 25 years after the entering into communion with the GOC. And according to some, communion had been broken for like 20 years (and to be honest, I think it's more problematic for the GOC if they maintain that communion wasn't broken until 1994--what with all the concelebrations with "world orthodoxy," communion of new calendarists/ecumenists, and so forth). There were completely different bishops in 1994, and it was a completely different situation in the (ecclesiastical) world. I'm not about to say that there is nothing to what you are saying: ROCOR certainly made some decisions which I find confusing, and there does seem to be a tendency to take anyone and everyone who is willing to say "I promise to be good". Maybe that's a fault and they should be more cautious; then again, maybe that's a virtue, and it's easy (and sinful) for me to sit here at my computer desk and sit in judgment of people who have far better discernment than I. I wonder if I would have sat in judgment of St. Basil for unknowingly defending heretics, or St. Gregory for unknowningly defending a schisty, would-be usurper of the see of Constantinople. Have you ever read what lofty things St. Gregory said about Maximus the Cynic before his betrayal, and then the strong condemnation he lauched afterwords? Even things as unimportant as Maximus' hair/hairstyle were not to escape condemnation by St. Gregory! The difference in rhetoric was like the difference between night and day; shall we say he was fickle or driven by passions?

I would say more but this is not the correct subject for this forum index.

Well, you're a moderator, and can split the thread, no?

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Gregory,

I had not realized you were with the Cyprians until only recently. To be clear on what I mean, it is public knowledge that we believe an idea that there can be heretic Orthodox bishops and priests in the church is a new teaching. In addition, you have declared (not us )that you are a part of the ecumenist church; and we all know what the GOC has long held about them. This is why I thought it was obvious. Maybe not stated, but "obvious".

Justin,

Of course I agree. Simply put, the ROCOR is like a Democrat who condemns the Libertarians then becomes a Republican and then waffles again to actually become a Libertarian.

This is why I believe that despite the "ROCOR" having seamless (or so it seems ) administrative continuity, it is actually far from the ROCOR of old in thought, which is best evidenced by its current communion and positions.

[George Australia]

To be clear on what I mean, it is public knowledge that we believe an idea that there can be heretic Orthodox bishops and priests in the church is a new teaching.

Dear in Christ, OOD,
And infallability of bishops and priests is a traditional Orthodox doctrine? Even the Roman Catholic schismatics have not dared to extend their "doctrine of infallability" to include individual bishops and priests!
We whom you call 'Cyprianites' seem to be being condemned for refusing to condemn other Orthodox Christians as heretics and schismatics.
In his epistle to the Galatians, St. Paul writes:

Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed (Galatians 2:11)

and St. Paul goes on to tell us that the reason he rebuked St. Peter was because:

they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel (Galatians 2:14)

Therefore, one of the first bishops of the Church, in fact, the first in honour among them, was at one stage, "not straightforward about the truth of the gospel" according to the Divine Apostle Paul. This is our spin on things today- Just as St. Peter was not "outside the Church" because of his mistake, we refuse to say that others today who are "not straightforward about the truth of the Gospel" are outside the Orthodox Church. If this makes us believers in a doctrine of "holy heretics", then you must concede that St. Paul was also a believer in this doctrine, and that St. Peter was a "holy heretic".

In addition, you have declared (not us )that you are a part of the ecumenist church; and we all know what the GOC has long held about them.

No, we haven't declared this- the Matthewites have interpreted this based on their own logic. According to them (you), the Church of Greece is schismatic, and therefore you believe you have the right to place bishops in diocese where there is already a bishop of the Church iof Greece. We do not hold that the Church of Greece is schismatic, rather, as Metropolitan Cyprian has stated, we have "walled off" from it. Given this situation, we have no right according to the Canons to place bishops on thrones where there are already bishops of the Church of Greece unless schism is formally declared. What a situation it would be if we did! Athens would not only have a bishop of the Church of Greece and a GOC bishop from you guys, but one of our bishops as well! Given that the subject of this topic is "I'm Confused"- would we be adding to or clearing up people's confusion by such an obvious display of worldy power-seeking and vainglory?
George

P.S. Why is it OOD, that despite the fact that I have told you my name ( a courtesy not yet reciprocated), and have twice corrected you when you called me "Gregory", you once again address me as "Gregory"? It's almost as if I'm "George" when you don't mind what I say, but "Gregory" when you do. Is there, perhaps, a recalcitrant "Gregory" in your aquaintance, the antipathy to whom you are projecting on to me?

[Mor Ephrem]

I guess I have to wonder why I should bother to take part in a forum where the moderators consider me to be a heretic and a schismatic

Oh come on, George...if I can do it, so can you!

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

George,

You can have the last word, I'm just happy your not bishop Tikhon. :mrgreen:

[George Australia]

Oh come on, George...if I can do it, so can you!

Dear in Christ Mor Ephrem,
To what end?
Look at the subject title chosen by the person who started this discussion. How many others seeking answers in their confusion have read this thread? What answer have we given them?
The worst thing which we who call ourselves "Traditionalists" have done is that we have brought Orthodoxy and ultimately, Christ, into discredit by our neverending 'anathemas' and proclaimations of 'heretic!' and 'schismatic!' on one another. And the internet is the worst forum for this- where eveyone sees this stupidity to our shame. We are innoculating people against Orthodoxy and Christ.
The world is sinking, people are drowning in evil, and forums like this one make it appear to them as though the only True Ark of Salvation has broken into fragments-
"Come and join my fragment- it's the only true fragment left!" ...
"Don't swim to that fragment- its sinking too and you'll be drowned!"...
Worse still:
"Christ is in my Church, not in that one, don't go there"... "No, Christ is here in mine, they are lying"....
I seem to recall Our Lord giving some advice about this- but then, why listen to Our Lord any more? We have our declarations of "anathema!", "heretic!" and "schismatic!" to guide us and define what Orthodoxy is about.
It's as though people believe that the more Orthodox bretheren they are not in Communion with, the more Orthodox they become, and the best answer they can come up with to those in confusion who are seeking the Truth is: "It's very simple- we are the true Church, they are not".
Two recent Internet jokesare very telling:

Orthodox ‘Survivor’
Robinson Krusovsky was shipwrecked on an empty Pacific island. When after a long time a rescue ship came to pick him up, the rescue party found two churches Robinson had built, complete with domes and three-bar crosses on top. ‘Why two?’ they asked. ‘One is the church I go to,’ Robinson explained. ‘The other is the church I don’t go to!’

Train Tale
Two people meet on a train. After some introductory chat, they discover both are Orthodox and of Russian descent.
Vlad: Old Calendar or New Calendar?
Alex: Old.
Vlad: Very good. Do you have a three-hour Vigil in church every Saturday night and before every holy day, even if the holy day is on a Monday?
Alex: Yes.
Vlad: Excellent. Pews or no pews?
Alex: No.
Vlad: Clean-shaven or bearded priest?
Alex: Bearded.
Vlad: Does he wear his cassock and cross on the street?
Alex: Da.
Vlad: Is your jurisdiction ecumenist or non-ecumenist?
Alex: Non.
Vlad: Do you have an old-man Trinity icon?
Alex: Uh, yes.
Vlad: Aha! Heretic!

Tertullian once quoted the pagans as saying of us Orthodox Christians: "See how they love one another!" Now look what they are saying about us.
So, dear in Christ Mor Ephrem, in response to your statement:

Oh come on, George...if I can do it, so can you!

I reply: "yes, I can do it, but simply being able to do something doesn't make it good or beneficial. I can do it, but to what end? To bring yet further disrepute to Christ and His Church? To innoculate yet more people against Christ? "
George

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

George,

I would have to very much agree with your statement about "innoculating people". The divisions are a major impediment to people from coming over from the WCC churches.

I don't think we should be afraid of discussing these things like adults however, these same people do wonder "why" there are divisions. Often we never here the position of the people who don't agree with us because we only read and here our own synods position. Having said that, I believe the only time to have this type of discussion is when the parties are not taking matters personal; in this case, we are simply creating anamosity and possibly weakening a person in their faith.

Now with regard to you Australians adrift in the Pacific, I didn't even think word of the new-calendar reached you yet.