A Traditionalist Imperative: Unity, Coordination, Dialogue

[Kollyvas]

To say a few things, I would emphasize that now more than ever the proliferation of jurisdictions without a clear unified goal is deleterious to the Orthodox witness. Moreover, it seems to me necessary to maintain dialogue stressing the heretical nature of ecumenism, sergianism and renovationism while being open to considering joint prayer and intercommunion with select bodies once dialogue is successful. ROCOR has given amnesty to world Orthodoxy on these pressing issues and given a green light to their future legitamacy without any Orthodox resistance. This is the moral fall of the Lebedeff camarilla. On a one by one basis, a unified traditionalist synod should propagate a moderate ecclesiology and stress an incumbency for dialogue for the recovery of the entire Oikumene. I suggest:

1). Moderate ecclesiology akin to the Florina model, never undermining the principle of resistance.
2). Unity in Eucharist and formation of a Proto-Synod like SCOBA to coordinate missionary work, dialogue, etc.
3). Attempts to reach compacts with SCOBA Orthodox as regards the education of seminarians, coordinated efforts at evangelization, etc.
4). Formation of a dialogue commission to present traditionalist points of view to World Orthodoxy as well as the heterodox and pursue implementation of agreed statements, never compromising Orthodoxy. For world Orthodoxy, local body by local body, intercommunion should be reached based on condemnations of ecumenism, sergianism and renovationism. As for the heterodox, only pure and unblemished acceptance of Orthodoxy, even if a matter of incrementalism, is the ONLY possible option.
5). The role of such a Proto-Synod should be viewed as a voice of reason at any future "pan-Orthodox" conferences and as a propagater of Orthodox evangelism the world over.

Just a few thoughts.

Orthodoxia I Thanatos!
Rostislav Mikhailovich Malleev-Pokrovsky

[Priest Siluan]

I agree with your point. I think that ROAC, ROCOR-V and GOC under the Archbishop Crisostomos II have that ecclesioliogy that you propose. I think the same thing that our Metropolitan said in last ROAC Congress of Clergy - Laity : The reasons for the divisions between the ROAC and these other Churches result not so much from a difference in confession of Faith, as from differences arising from the personal ambitions of the different bishops involved.

I think that your idea is very good and most of traditionalist ones agree with the traditionalist unity. Also, I think that the unity among us is very important, we only will be able to this way to be a real option. Since the ecumenists takes our disunion (which is our weakness) and they use it like jeer against us.

As for intercomunion among the Traditionalist Churches, it doesn't exist officially, but if in fact that many priests allow to people of their jurisdiction who live far that live far so that they receive the Mysteries in a Traditionalist Church although it is a differet jurisdiction.

[GOCPriestMark]

I suggest:

1). Moderate ecclesiology akin to the Florina model, never undermining the principle of resistance.

Hi Rostislav,
What does this above quote mean? By "Florina model" do you mean Archbishop Chrysostomos of Florina when he signed the Declaration of 1935?

[Kollyvas]

Bless Father.

Yes to some degree, keeping the view in mind that baptized Orthodox Christians in other places remain such and that other places have not been condemned by a Council. They are still to be considered Orthodox and their Mysteries valid.

In the LOVE of Christ,
Rostislav Mikhailovich Malleev-Pokrovsky

[DavidHawthorne]

Christ is Amog Us!

What is the essential difference between "Cyprianite ecclesiology" and the "Florina model"?

In Christ,
David Hawthorne

[Kollyvas]

He is and ever shall be!

Essentially, it isn't appropriate to speak as much of difference as derivation. The Florinite model, if you will, is a reflection especially of the ecclesiological thought of the Cappadocian Fathers vis a vis conciliarity, heresy and schism. The Fili interpretation is a later development of the Florinite position which better defines the reason for resistance, ie the heresy of ecumenism. In approach, Fili calls for "walling itself off" until such a time as their position can be discussed in Council; whereas, the position I put forward, also a derivative of the Florina model, is one of active engagement and dialogue which only makes a council necessary as a rubber stamp of ridding the Oikumene of unsavoury trends and reconciling such bodies as were walled off, for the dialogue is to be used as a vehicle to incrementally obtain objectives and restore joint prayer and intercommunion. The aspect I postulate is the incumbency of evangelization as opposed to walling off.

In The LOVE Of Christ,
Rostislav Mikhailovich Malleev-Pokrovsky

[Priest Siluan]

Bless Father.

Yes to some degree, keeping the view in mind that baptized Orthodox Christians in other places remain such and that other places have not been condemned by a Council. They are still to be considered Orthodox and their Mysteries valid.

In the LOVE of Christ,
Rostislav Mikhailovich Malleev-Pokrovsky

This is the same thing that Kyprianite Eclessiology thinks, it is near to the Declaration of 1937 not to that of 1935 (also Declaration 1950).

Because the Declaration of 1935 doesn't consider with the Grace to the Mysteries of the New Calendarist.

Then, Eclesiology of ROAC, ROCOR-V and GOC-Arz Chrysostomos II is near to the declaration of 1935 and 1950 not to that of 1937.