Can anyone give me advise?

[Chrysostomos]

Nikodem,

OOD said:

I do not believe bishops, priests, and layman who are heretics or knowingly/uncaringly commune with heretics have the Grace of the Church - in other words, they are not the Church. We have always believed this and all of the saints, holy fathers, and councils emphatically declare it.

You said:

but I thought that only a synod could decide this question, not laymen?

Good point Nikodem.

Perhaps all of us should consider the words of St. Irenaeus:

They therefore form opinions on what is beyond their limits of understanding. For this cause also the apostle says, "Be not wise beyond what it is fitting to be wise, but be wise prudently" [Rom. 12:3]
(c. 180, E/W), 1.548

Your fellow struggler in Christ,

Rd. Chrysostomos

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Chrysostomos,

You have my utmost respect, seriously, as I cannot remember the last time someone defending “world orthodoxy” actually appealed to the fathers of the church – they are usually avoided.

In the quote you mentioned from “Against Heresies”, St. Irenaeus is talking about people “who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters, not taking into consideration of how much greater consequence is a religious man.”

Would it be fair to say that those who have called into question the Saints and “preaching of the Church” are those who teach that the Saints of the forth Ecumenical Council were gravely mistaken, sinned, and were in error for the anathemas against the Monophysites? Are they the people who preach the Latin heresy with all her corrupt teachings, which the fathers and Saints of the Church declared anathema, are a part of the Church of Christ?

Who indeed is deserting “the preaching of the Church”, calling into “question the knowledge of the holy presbyters, not taking into consideration of how much greater consequence is a” Saint?

St. Irenaeus goes on about the heretics, that “since they are blind to the truth, and deviate from the [right] way, will walk in various roads; and therefore the footsteps of their doctrine are scattered here and there without agreement or connection.”

Could it be said that the footsteps of the doctrines of the ecumenists are without agreement and connection between themselves and with the Church, when those in Finland are celebrate Pascha with the Latins, the Antiochians and OCA commune and exchange clergy with Monophysites and build churches together, some recognize heretic baptisms and others do not, part the clergy recognize all the Latin doctrines as “good enough” whereas the other part think it is an abomination, some believe the church has been sinning and some don’t, ect. Is this who St. Irenaeus is describing?

St. Irenaeus continues, “But the path of those belonging to the Church circumscribes the whole world, as possessing the sure tradition from the apostles, and gives unto us to see that the faith of all is one and the same…”

Could it be said that the Synod of the GOC of Greece agrees and subscribes with all that has been taught and preached by the Saints and the Church this day, and at every time? I believe so.

St. Irenaeus says, “And undoubtedly the preaching of the Church is true and stedfast, in which one and the same way of salvation is shown throughout the whole world.” Do the ecumenists, who preach that salvation can be found in other churches with foreign ideas and alien traditions, preach there is one and the same way to salvation ”throughout the whole world”?

Really Chrysostomos, I pray you will read all of this and decide if this great saint is talking about me or the ecumenists.

References:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103.htm
http://www.orthodoxunity.org/statements.html
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ea_balamand.aspx

[Nikodemus]

I think Chrysostomos meant that we all first must ask who we are who make judgements and from this conclude that we are not given the authority from the Church to judge that some orthodox are without grace, but other have full grace. What we can and must do, according to the Holy Fathers, First Ecumenica Synod and St Mark of Ephesus in special remebrance, is to "wall of" from those who preach heresy and at the same time say that only a Council may judge them ( I am i first hand speaking of those non-ecumenist who beong to a jurisdiction with many bishops who preach ecumensim).

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

I believe Chrysostomos used his qoute out of context if that is the case. I do respect that he looked in the right direction however, and if I am wrong, I pray he will show me quickly.

As for waiting for a council to decide, I believe the Touchstone addresses this thoroughly in several places. But I do not want to discuss this with you directly as I sense your situation is delicate. May the Lord guide you and keep you.

[Chrysostomos]

OOD,

Nikodem was correct when he said:

I think Chrysostomos meant that we all first must ask who we are who make judgements and from this conclude that we are not given the authority from the Church to judge that some orthodox are without grace, but other have full grace.

OOD said in response to Nikodem:

I believe Chrysostomos used his qoute out of context if that is the case.

I respectively disagree, as I was also pointing to St. Paul's word to the Romans in Chapter 12:3.

I cannot remember the last time someone defending "world orthodoxy" actually appealed to the fathers of the church - they are usually avoided.

I do not view myself as a defender of "world orthodoxy" and do not recognize such an organization, or know of any Eastern Orthodox jurisdiction that calls themselve such. I consider myself, a defender of the Orthodox Faith.

As to the Touchstone article, I wish to point to something that is very interesting.

In the article, it is stated that:

For these people, a bishop is a false bishop only when he has been condemned by a Council. According to this view, it is not God, but a Council who withdraws grace. As the canon would have it, however, a heretical bishop falls from grace the moment he begins publicly preaching his heresy.

So if I understand the writers train of thought.

The new calendarist believes it is a council who withdraws grace, and not God.

The old calendarist believes it is a canon that withdraws grace, and not God. (he doesn't say it (and not God, but I must bring this to light)

I would think that the Council, who declared the canons, would have more authority, than the canons themselves - would they not?

Yet it appears that the writer is making a statement that it is the canons that withdraw grace, and not God. The very thing he accuses the new calendarist of in regards to the Council.

So in the writer's opinion, the canons have a higher authority than the council who declared them.

That is just one issue. I could bring up others, but for what gain?
That is why I stand by what I have said in numerous posts previously, that we must seek purification, and then God willing, perhaps we will receive illumination. We must all heed the words of St. Paul and do as instructed - via verses 12:4-21.

Your fellow struggler in Christ,

Rd. Chrysostomos

[Nikodemus]

To Orthodoxy or Death

In truth I have only superficial knowledge about these matters. I was Roman catholic for ten years before God guided me to the Church. Now, I have discovered that the divisions among orthodox are far greater than I imagined. A neophyte could be afraid of all these quarells and run away completely from grace ( I beieve hÍ have grace after my baptism). But that is not going to happen in my case, God prevent me. Christ gives powerful signs where his Church is. I dont want to repeat that I think Patriarch Diodoros had grace and that God showed this by the mirace of the Holy Fire. Also, the personal eperience of grace in the christian heart is a ure sign. In lack of information I must trust these things.

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Chrysostomos,

The new calendarist believes it is a council who withdraws grace, and not God.

The old calendarist believes it is a canon that withdraws grace, and not God. (he doesn't say it (and not God, but I must bring this to light)

I would think that the Council, who declared the canons, would have more authority, than the canons themselves - would they not?

In truth, I don't know what the ecumenists believe about this; I really don't think it is an issue in their circles since everyone is good except us.

Of the "Old Calendarists", it is the Cyprianites who believe that in the absence of a specific canon regarding a heresy, only a council can decide and cut heretics off from the Church.

Most "Old Calendarists" believe that a heresy is a heresy irregardless of whether a council declares it or not. There are many examples of this in the practice through the history of the church. One of the more notable times is during the iconoclast period. Then many Orthodox withdrew from communion with the heretics and when an "ecumenical council" was finally convened in 754, it condemned the Orthodox! There are other documented cases which really demonstrate this clearly.

Nikodem,

I dont want to repeat that I think Patriarch Diodoros had grace and that God showed this by the mirace of the Holy Fire. Also, the personal eperience of grace in the christian heart is a ure sign.

When we talk about "Grace", we are talking about the Grace of the Church. Of course nobody knows where the Grace of God might be at work, but this is not the same as the promise of His Church which only abides in Truth.

As for Patriarch Diodoros: Holy Scripture says, if anyone preaches a Gospel different than Christ's, even if he be an angel from heaven, we must call him accursed. In other words, even if there are signs and miracles which appear to be sent by God, we must curse this if it supports something against our rational thoughts of what we know of Holy Tradition. These are powerful words and very against what many people tend to do. Should we trust pure rational knowledge of Christ and His church and opppose miracles and signs if they counterdict this? Yes. And not only yes, but curse the signs and miracles. Now I am not about to curse anything I suppose, but I do know for sure that the Church has always preached the Word of God when it says people in communion with heretics are outside the Church, and the JP does have communion with heretics. And the Grace of the Church (ie. Baptism, Communion with God, ect.) is only found in the Church.

And who knows the Mysteries of God? If we presume the Holy Fire is indeed a miracle from Christ for a moment, how then do we leap to the assumption it is proof of something. Perhaps the Holy Fire happens despite the JP? Just some thoughts, I really have to run so maybe we can pick this up more thoroughly later.