Reflections

[Kollyvas]

Christ is in our midst!

Let me reinforce a point. The letters are extant from St. Basil to his brother and OTHERS where he calls for severing of communion with arians and semi-arians BEFORE AND AFTER COUNCILS. We can also remember ST. Cyril severing communion with the nestorians, the monothelite heresy and St. Maximos, the iconoclast heresy and St. Jon Damascene and St. Theodore, St. Photios and the latins, St. Tikhon and the renovationists, St. Mark Evgenikos and the uniates, St. Gregory Palamas and those who teach created grace, Blessed +Metropolitan Philaret and the ecumenists, etc., etc.

Ecclesiologically speaking to recap, those bodies which enter resistance preserve the Faith unblemished whilst those bodies in error drift away or return to health when the Holy Spirit speaks in Council. Here is where condemnations originate and here is where heretics and schismatics are properly determined. Until that point, dissident and errant bodies, although the Church is traumatized by breach of Communion, continue to surmount it mystagogically, and BOTH are Orthodox and still constitute the Church and their Mysteries are valid...until the Holy Spirit speaks in Council. This is sobornost'.

Just a few words...

Orthodoxia I Thanatos!
R M Malleev-Pokrovsky

[Edward]

Certainly, the Church Fathers called for a separation from heresy. However, I point to Church History and the that the Fathers never immediately cut people off. The Arians had already been condemned in several local Synods before the First Ecumenical Synod. But let us look to the Latins, the filioque first appeared as early as the 5th century and then was added by the Latins to the creed in the 6th century, nearly 500 years before the Great Schism. 200 years before the Great Schism, we see the Filioque firmly established in the Latin Church. From the 9th-11th centuries there were minor separations between the Eastern and Western Churches, but 1054 is the cut off. That is when the Church saw fit to finally declare the Latin Church to be schismatic and heretical over issues like the filioque and Papal Supremacy. Both of these heresies, you can see, existed in the Latin Church centuries before the Great Schism, but the Orthodox Church first sought to heal the division internally.

The Calendar change happened 81 years ago, Metropolitan Sergius' declaration occurred 78 years ago, and Patriarch Athenagoras' "lifting" of the 1054 Anathema occurred 41 years ago.

Whether one sees these as mistakes, errors, heresy, etc., they are fairly recent in the scope of Church History. Members of the Church have had to wait much longer for other heresies to be finally fully driven out of the Church.

It is my opinion that "Sergianism" is no longer an issue because the Moscow Patriarchate has stated on several occasions that the Declaration is not a policy for them and they are not bound to it in any way. The Basic Social Concepts Document teaches principles that are quite opposite of what we see in the 1927 Declaration. Just as the Church never deemed it necessary to condemned Saint Augustine of Hippo or Saint Gregory of Nyssa for their errors, but even glorify them as saints, so has the Church not deemed it necessary to anathematize Patriarch Sergius.

What the Church needs, in my opinion, is a Pan-Orthodox Synod (whether or not to call it Ecumenical is another discussion) that would deal with:

1. Ecumenism- The Orthodox Church as the Body of Christ and it's relations with other religious and Christian bodies.
2. The Revised Julian Calendar
3. The status of the Patriarchate of Constantinople as "Ecumenical" being that Constantinople is no longer the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire and that the number of Orthodox faithful in Turkey are now less than 2000.
4. The uncanonical governance of Orthodox Churches outside traditional Orthodox lands (ie. North America, Western Europe, Australia, etc.)
5. Contemporary Moral, Social, and Pastoral issues (abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia, world poverty, etc.)
6. The Schismatic Churches in Ukraine and Macedonia, the Old Ritualist Churches, the Old Calendar Churches, etc.

Again, this is just my opinion, concerning a Council.

Edward
geh8988@gmail.com

[ioannis]

You are sorrowly mistaken Edward.

Any father who understood who was an Arian never communed with them - even before a council condemned the heresy. And as soon as Orthodox Christians discovered the Filioque they condemned it.

The seeds of the Filioque heresy came from St. Augustine, the great teacher of the Westerners. But the Filioque itself first appeared at the Councils of Toledo around the 550's and even though it had Orthodox motives, it was a rationalistic invention. But the Filioque was not being preached and did not find its way into the local confessions of the Franks until a little after 767, and immediately those maintaining the Orthodox faith broke from communion with people confessing this. This is especially seen in Jerusalem. It climaxed when Charlemagne’s “theologians”, asked Pope Leo III to add the Filioque to the Symbol of Faith spoken in Rome - but he summarily rejected the addition and placed two silver plaques with the Symbol of Faith inscribed in Greek and Latin without the Filioque in the Church of St. Peter. The divisions and "schisms" were healed because of this - it was no small matter.

And then as soon as this heretical confession was resurrected by the first truly heretic pope Nicholas I, the Church immediately struck it down again with an anathema in the Council of 867.

But turning to what you are saying: This, indeed, is the Filioque in all its glory. You say that we should not break away from heretical "bishops" because we have some sort of canonical dependence on them. As for matters of the faith, we will disagree, we will protest, we will stand in opposition. Therefore, subjection is fundamental, while the Faith is secondary. What fault, indeed, could the Papists find with such an ecclesiology? Here is the Filioque in all its glory. The Holy Spirit takes a second, subordinate place in His relationship to the Son, and becomes dependent on Him,a nd then really has no reason for existence! The Faith is inferior to the Bishops charged to preach and protect it, so it loses every reason for its existence - and has truly already been overturned! Christ has been overruled!

[CGW]

Pijatala

So there is no problem for you that MP under Sergej and Patriark Alexis talked about Stalin with these words:

“the new Constantine”, the “wise, God-established”, “God-given Supreme Leader”.

As you say, Stalin has been dead for over fifty years.

And yet, you are still burying him.

"Remember? Forever! Forgive? Never!"

[Edward]

I think you are reading too much into my words when I say obedience to the faith comes secondary to obedience to ecclesiastical authorities. The Church Fathers were pastors and did not want to see souls cut off from the Church. You seem to deny any ounce of compassion or mercy on the part of God or the Church in that if anyone, even through ignorance, strays from Orthodox teachings, then they are immediately cut off from the Church and condemned to Hell. That understanding is clearly wrong. One can find errors in the teachings of various Church Fathers. Saint Augustine of Hippo is a clear example as is Saint Gregory of Nyssa. There are many others. That is why we look to the collective wisdom of the Church Fathers while not exulting one above the others. This is precisely what the Latin Church did with Saint Augustine. Even when we look back to the "glory days" of the Russian Church Abroad, we see major differences between Father Seraphim Rose and Father Pantelemon of Boston over The Dogma of Redemption, Toll Houses, World Orthodoxy, Evolution, even Saint Augustine himself. There are people today in the Orthodox Church who do not regard him as a Saint at all. Many Orthodox theologians have pointed to the degree scholasticism infected 18th and 19th century Russian theology, but no one here has put forward any arguments that the Russian Church in the 18th and 19th centuries was heretical. The Old Believers have, but they are not represented here in the debates.
I do not support Metropolitan Anthony's Dogma of Redemption and agree with Father Seraphim's criticism of it. In the midst of this controversy, nobody ever called Met. Anthony a heretic, even when calling this dogma heretical.
Part of the reason the Old Calendarists are so divided, is that they knit pick over every little detail and break with one another over small things. The Matthewites split over the Old Man Trinity Icon. I agree that that icon does not properly reflect Orthodox Trinitarian Theology and could be seen as heretical, but it has been in the Church now for centuries. One can visit plenty of churches in Russia, Greece, and elsewhere, where, under Western influence (and perhaps even Masonic), the All-Seeing Eye is depicted. I have seen a good number of these in Churches in Saint Petersburg and they have been there since the 19th century. It is not right.

It is as I have said before, if we are going to take this legalistic line of things, as is often the case among the Old Calendarists, then we must take it all the way and look for the roots of the New Calendar and Ecumenism, which go back further than 1920. Ofcourse, we may find ourselves alone doing Old Rite reader services at home, with a limited number of icons because we find errors in teachings of certain saints and so judge them to be heretics as well.

I would highly recommend the writings of Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos of Nafpaktos, whom I believe to be a living Church Father. (www.pelagia.org) Canons are not rigid laws that incur punishment when they are not obeyed. They are cures for spiritual illnesses, they are therapies and it is left to the Bishops and Priests to decide to what measure they must be applied.

To repeat myself, no Church Council (whether it be local, Pan-Orthodox, or Ecumenical) has ever anathematized Patriarchs Meletius, Sergius, or Athanagoras. At the same time, "World" Orthodoxy has not entered into communion with Rome or the Protestants or the Monophysites. Constantine Cavarnos once pointed out at a lecture that 80% of all Orthodox Christians are still on the Julian Calendar. Most Orthodox Christians within "World" Orthodoxy, do not support the Branch Theory or Religious Syncretism. Perhaps a council will be called one day to anathematize but if ecumenism dies out, when seems to be the case, we may see an end to this crisis anyway.

We must believe and live the Orthodox faith. Church History attests that there have always been problems outside and within the Church. Eventually, we know that this World will pass away. We just must make ready.

Edward
geh8988@gmail.com

[Chrysostomos]

"I would highly recommend the writings of Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos of Nafpaktos"

I agree.

Your fellow struggler in Christ,

Rd. Chrysostomos

[Kollyvas]

Christ is in our midst!

It's great that you mention +Metropolitan Hierotheos. We could talk about his views on secularized versus therapeutic Orthodoxy and how true Orthodoxy creates relics. We could talk about how he maintains that error impacts the noetic health of the body and prevents its full cure in the Church. We could speak of his opposition to the theological minimalism and compromise embodied in ecumenical dialogue. Now carrying those points forward, here is what we have ST JUSTIN OF CHELJE condemning ecumenism as THE HERESY OF HERESIES. THE RELICS OF BLESSED +METROPOLITAN PHILARET INCORRUPT. THE OPPOSITION PUT IN PLACE BY ROCOR WHICH KEPT THE FORCES OF error at bay, waiting for their opportunity--that's why the robbers have not accomplished their goals, but read the communiques from the ep: THEY'RE ALL TOO CLEAR. renovationism HAS BEEN ANATHEMIZED BY THE RUSSIAN CHURCH AT ITS OUTSET. Other local churches have voiced simlar condemnations of it and ecumenism. The issue of sergianism involves a religious COUNTERFEIT in place of THERAPEUTIC ORTHODOXY, and then there's the matter of MILLIONS OF NEW MARTYRS. Shall we forget?! I think NOT. As I have stated before RESISTANCE IS PATRISTIC and mandated when error is affecting the noetic health of the Oikumene--it is SOBORNOST', FOR THE CHURCH IS MAINTAINED UNBLEMISHED IN RESISTANCE while in other places things begin to fall away and noetic health is impeded by the darkness of error. That type of pride is to be uprooted and overcome as soon as it rears its ugly and that is the PATRISTIC STANDARD. The alternative you pose us with is to acquiesce to the reality put forward by the Fr. Komarovskys and Bishops Fyodor Karamazov of the world who turn a blind eye to Truth in the hopes of currying favour, all the while empowering the spirit of iniquity. Oh no, such spiritual sergianism WE DO NOT NEED, and such a church is a blasphemy, the herald of the abomination of desolation in the Holy Place. ANAXIOS! ANAXIOS! ANAXIOS!

Orthodoxia I Thanatos!
R M Malleev-Pokrovsky