OrthodoxyOrDeath wrote:George did not answer my question, which by the way, has never been answer by a supporter of the ecumenists.
Dear in Christ, OOD,
I know it's a probably a mistake to write on this forum after Church....
I'm not sure what question you asked. Could you please clarify.
OrthodoxyOrDeath wrote:First I think we need to lighten the tone a bit. This is not simply a fight or an argument, as I think you pointed out, but hopefully an opportunity where peoples opinions are discussed and hopefully someone takes something away from it.
So far, all I have taken away is a disheartening sense that some people wish to divide the Church. When we declare "schisms", somebody is cut off from the Church, and therefore cut off from Grace. I don't think we can be certain that those whom we point the finger at and call "schismatics" are necessarily the ones who have lost Grace, it may be us. Either way, how could anyone find this heartening or edifying? I'm not afraid of discussion, but the division of the Church and people making pronouncements of "anathema" and "schism" is what I want to avoid. I say this not just as a "Cyprianite", but as a fellow descendant of Adam, and therefore a brother in blood (even if not in spirit.) Remember- whenever we declare "schism", somebody is cut off from Grace, and it may not be 'them'. It is better not to declare schisms until we are absolutely certain of what we are doing.
I do not doubt your sincerity in your beliefs. Nor do I believe that the introduction of the New Calendar was necessarily free from ecumenist agenda. Nor do I believe that the New Calendarists and some of the Patriarchates and Autocephalous Churches have freed themselves entirely from the false ecumenist heresy- conflicting decrees are made by all their heirarchs: "We don't believe this but we are in the WCC for the sake of diplomacy", "Even though we disagree with it, we cannot leave the WCC independantly of the other Orthodox Churches."
The lack of clarity of the current situation, I believe, admits the sad necessity of suspension of Communion. As Patriarch Alexy II put it in regards to the suspension of Communion between ROCOR and the MP:
This is a figurative way (and a good one in my opinion) of describing suspended Communion. On the other hand, when we declare "schism", we are saying that this inherent unity of the Body of Christ has been broken, and therefore, one part of the schism must be outside the Church and Graceless. This is the case with the "Great Schism".- Even if Patriarch Athenagoras' "lifting of the Anathema" against the Pope were valid and effectual, it would still not mean there is no schism. Either we, or the latins are still outside the Church. I believe that we are the Church, they believe that they are the Church- where can any dialogue between us possibly lead? The only option is that those outside the Church repent and be received into the Church.
Now look at this present discussion. Basically, you say there is a schism, and I say there is not. Therefore, either you are in the Church and I am not, or you have cut yourself off from the Church and I haven't. If the former is true- what can I say? However, you re-iterating and re-iterating your position is not convincing me that it is true. And stating that "the heresy (of ecumenism) did not take form until 1924" isn't convincing me either- that is still a subjective opinion, even though you believe it to be objective fact. By comparison, even after the shameful treatment at the hands of Pope Nicholas of the holy Patriarch St Photios who bravely resisted papal supremacy, there was still no schism between East and West for another 200 years. Isn't Papal Supremacy also a heresy? Why was there no schism immediatley?
If the latter is true, that is, that you have cut yourself off from the Church- what can I say? Will my re-iterating and re-iterating my position convince you? In one thousand years, neither the East nor the West has been able to convince the other side that they are the one's who have been cut off from the Church by either re-iterating their position, nor by presenting evidence. And look at the calibre of men who have presented evidence on behalf of the East- St. Gregory Palamas, St. Mark Evgenikos to name a few. If these Saints could not convince schismatics by ther rebukes they were wrong in order to effect their repentance, what hope have you or I?
Do you see now why I don't think it's a good idea that we persue this discussion?
Addit: I'm sorry, but I can't 'lighten the tone' as you requested. I could pretend that this vastly different ecclesiology doesn't exist between us, and 'dialogue' around it, but isn't this the very thing the ecumenists say that they are doing in the WCC? Why is it alright for us to avoid facing doctrinal differences, but not for them?
