Reflections

[Kollyvas]

Christ is in our midst!

Illustrative of Mr. Edward are his views on ecumenism. We can either accept them or those of the Fathers, like St. Justin of Chelje AND HIS UTTER DECONSTRUCTION of the ecumenical movement or Mr. Edward. Echoing +Metropolitan Hierotheos, who seems to have been surreptitiously dropped, we again reinforce our point by alluding to the INCORRUPT relics of Blessed +Metropolitan Philaret. Show us ecumenist relics. A wile back I circulated this on the web--it is an utter indictment and diminishing of Mr. Edward's ecumenism:

The Ecumenical Challenge

Code: Select all

1. Is ecumenism a viable means of witnessing Orthodoxy?

1. Is it a legitimate means?
2. Can two parties in dialogue reach any real agreement when the criteria
   of this dialogue and its objective are dissonant, many
   times
   at odds, with each other?
3. Is there any oversight of those persons speaking for Orthodoxy? What is
   their relationship to the faithful? Who frames their
   agendas?
   Who finances them? Are these elites above the Church? What is their
   ultimate objective? Who are they?
4. Are our pastors and archpastors beyond scrutiny? If not, whom do they
   answer to? Is the canonical framework and the Communion of Saints, the idea
   of "catholicity", merely a podium for certain "special interests" to be
   empowered and not for all the faithful?
5. Are our loyalties bound to personalities or to Christ?
6. Is our Faith deficient in that it cannot save us? Does our Faith possess
   the fulness of the Truth? Can a life lived solely in Christ
   in
   the Orthodox Church achieve the fulness of the life in Christ? Do
   any
   other traditions present this Truth? How might they?
7. Is authority in the Church apriori based upon a Mystical
   Tradition
   or is this Mystical Tradition a part of a long defunct faith system
   of
   superstitions which has to be shored up by modern academic scholarship? If
   it is based upon a Mystical Tradition, is this mysticism sovereign and
   whole in that it is self-sufficient and transcendant of all times and
   epochs?
8. Is there an historical judgement which allows one to establish a
   heirarchy of relative dogmas and lex orendi relative to time and locality?
   Is Tradition and "traditions" a valid relativism in
   regard
   to the sufficiency of Orthodox belief and piety? The question that
   is
   begged, was there a time when Orthodoxy and "orthopraxis" were insufficient
   or superfluous in uniting the people of God with
   Christ?
   10.What ultimately is the relevance of Apostolic Succession, Tradition, the
   "mind" of the Church in a time-locality specific relativism? (viz.
   Tradition and "traditions?")
   11.Is the Bible Divine Revelation? Are there parts of this
   revelation
   which are subject to historical or time-locality based assessment?
   Can
   certain parts of the Bible be dismissed as primitivism, mythical language,
   historically inaccurate fiction? Is positivism in
   biblical
   scholarship a valid Orthodox approach? Can modern biblical
   scholarship
   exist divorced from Patristic exegesis?
   12.Is there a sovereignty to Divine Revelation in the Tradition and the
   Scriptures in the Orthodox Church?
   13.Ultimately, can Orthodoxy be reduced or augmented or must it be reduced
   or augmented to aid the people of God in attaining full
   union
   with Christ?
   14.Can ecumenical dialogue be pursued if it breaks the unity of
   local
   churches or even dioceses within a local church in the Body of
   Christ?
   15.Is the ecumenical movement in light of these queries necessary
   or
   even possible in the Orthodox Church? If it is not, then must we
   not
   abandon it? Is it ecclesiological heresy bolstered by heretical protestant
   (masonic) presuppositions?

And I underscore my assault on Mr. Edward's position by showing you all what it has allowed to creep into Holy Russia:

http://www.namb.net/evangelism/iev/PDF/ ... Manual.pdf

This is how ecumenism has bore fruit for the Orthodox. I wonder if it will
have the imprimatur of the Fr. Komarovskys or the Bishops Fyodor Karamazov or the endorsement of one
of their apologists.

I think I have made my case against the nonsense he put forward in defense of the pan-heresy of ecumenism, but I will go one further. Mr. Edward seems to have a disdain for Greek Old Calendarists, Cyprianites, the "old" ROCOR, etc. He doesn't desire any dialogue with any of them--THE POSITION I PUT FORWARD as he labels me a "Cyprianite" to dismiss me. This alludes to an insincerity regarding his views on "ecumenism as evangelical dialogue." It underscores that, yes, he is comfortable with dialogue with the heterodox, but his own Orthodox Christians are UNWORTHY of any due consideration. Such a model of sobornost'.

Lastly, my family on my father's side was involved with the aftermath of WWI in Russia. Those bodies, representing "Ukrainian" interests were curiously either Austrian imports or dissidents released by the kerensky regime to prevent a restoration of the monarchy. They in no way represented the people--an anecdote comes down of how one of the Hrushevskyites was addressing a band of soldiers of Little Russian backround and telling them how they were really Ukrainians and that they should band together for their own nation. One of the wizened old men replied, "My russkije lyudi i nashi pradjedi buly russkije ispokonvika. Perestan' piti samohonku i buntovati prostoho naroda. Ty nam schastje ne prinosish', ta tilki razrukhu." That was heard in the Western Ukraine. That was the general sentiment regarding the separatists. My family supported the hetmanate as an alternative to the kerenskyites and the bolsheviks and a restoration of order in Russia that would spillover and restore the monarchy. And, indeed, Hetman Pavel Skoropadsky, may his memory be eternal, did utilize as much of the tsarist apparat as he could. Once freed of the German yoke, he put forward a plan of federation for the salvation of Russia, a true son of Holy Russia and faithful servant to the Holy Tsar' Martyr. The Ukraine is as much Holy Russia as Russia itself, and a separate territory it cannot be if Holy Russia is to be saved from the Mr. Edwards, the Fr. Komarovskys and the Bishops Fyodor Karamazov that blight us.

In closing, I ask the reader to kindly speak to himself and say wouldn't it be so much better if we worked as ONE, if the MP could finally arise from the mire of sergianism, assume its rightful role in symphonia with an Orthodox government for an Orthodox people. Why is it such a task for the Mr. Edwards to reinforce anathemas either already laid or pronounced by Saints?! Could it be heterodox money is more precious to some than Orthodoxy?!

Orthodoxia I Thanatos!
R M Malleev-Pokrovsky

[Edward]

Once again, you assume to much. Edward is not my last name. I do not believe in the Branch Theory. I am not an Ecumenist in the sense that I do not view the Roman Catholic Church as possessing sanctifying grace in her mysteries. I would say the same for other Christian groups. They are outside the Church. The Orthodox Church alone preserves the fullness of Truth and Life in Christ. The Orthodox Church alone carries full Apostolic Succession. Only in the Orthodox Church can a human soul experience illumination and deification in Christ.

How much longer must I go on with this? I do not think myself wiser than the Church Fathers. I am just giving my opinions on these issues, having thought about them a great deal. They are here for you to comment on. But what I see a great deal of in many of these forums is reading into words and coming to conclusions that are not the authors'. I said the ecumenism is not a heresy, not because I support ecumenism, but because of what it is. Ecumenism is not a teaching or doctrine or dogma, therefore it cannot be a heresy. It's like saying stealing is a heresy. Stealing is a sin but it is not a heresy because it is not a teaching, dogma, or doctrine. When we see so much criticism of ecumenism as a heresy, what we need to do is call a spade a spade. What really is being criticized (and rightfully so) is the Branch Theory and Religious Syncretism. Ecumenism is an activity which has as it's basic goal greater harmony and cooperation between different Christian groups as well as different religious groups. It involves dialogue and involves common prayer and it involves humanitarian work. So we can see how the Branch Theory and Syncretism can be so connected with ecumenism. We as Orthodox Christians, cannot worship with those outside the Church. Dialogue in and of itself is not wrong, but it often has led to false statements on the part of Orthodox representatives. So, as I have said before, it would be better for the Orthodox not to be involved in ecumenism.

So, while some would like to paint me as an ecumenist, I will repeat that I am not. I would actually agree with Kollyvas' statements on "The Ecumenical Challenge".

I think many love to paint those in World Orthodoxy as gleefully working to get rid of all our traditions, any form of struggle, and unite with Rome. Well, that is a flawed image you have of us. I have pointed out evidence that ecumenism is dying out among the Orthodox. Some of you have called us heretics and graceless and fault us for being in communion with bishops who are deeply involved in ecumenism. They do not represent the whole of Orthodoxy or even World Orthodoxy.

WE ARE NOT AS BAD AS YOU WOULD LIKE US TO BE!
That is as far as I am going with this now, it is late and I must sleep now. So, please don't judge me.

Edward
geh8988@gmail.com

[Kollyvas]

Christ is in our midst!

And now you curiously avoid my query, those questions I asked regarding ecumenism. There was a reason why I asked them. You see, THEY CEMENT WHAT ecumenical dialogue is all about and question its methodology. According to St. Justin of Chelje, who is not Mr. Edward, ecumenism is precisely A PAN-HERESY because it accumulates in itself all the heresies of the past and introduces new ones and also assaults a central Orthodox Christological theme--the CHURCH AS THE BODY OF CHRIST UNTIL THE END OF TIME IN DOING SO CEMENTING A PRIDE AND SPIRITUAL DELUSION WHICH PREVENTS THE THEANDRIC TRANSFORMATION OF THE PEOPLE OF GOD. ecumenism is predicated upon "REFOUNDING THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH" or euphemistically "MAKING CONCRETE THAT WHICH HAS EXISTED MYSTICALLY". What part has Christ with belial, Mr. Edward? Yes, Mr. Edward, Fr. Komarovskys, Bishops Fyodor Karamazov, FOR PRECISELY THE SAME TYPE OF REASON iconoclasm IS HERESY, SO TOO ecumenism, renovationism and as ALL TOO CLEAR BY YOUR OPINIONS, sergianism, for the TRIADOLOGY which the Fathers have spoken to us in the Holy Spirit manifest by the ecclesiological, soteriological, etc. dimensions of the Church are overthrown by "ecumenical dialogue" in the interests of a new "better understanding." If that is not the same as smashing icons, Mr. Edward, I doubt very seriously you have a real grasp of Orthodoxy. No, Mr. Edward, ecumenism is a heresy, an evil one, BUT IT IS CURIOUS how you would defend those who partake in iniquitous banquets, oftentimes for no other reasons THAN MONEY, but denigrate those who share a common Cup with you and Church who seek the spiritual well being of the People of God. I don't believe I've spoken as a Council, so the fatuous attempt at a straw man to pitch me as a "heretic hunter" fails you: my statements on record are to the contrary. No, Mr. Edward, put Orthodoxy FIRST, for it is later than you think. AND DID YOU NOT NOTICE THAT HANDBOOK THE HETERODOX ARE USING TO LURE SOULS?! Some of your "world Orthodoxy" leaders did INDEED open the door for that with ecumenical participation. And it is either disingenuous of you or utterly repugnant THAT YOU WOULD AID AND ABET THE PROSELYTIZATION OF YOUR COUNTRYMEN in order to defend A CORRUPT status quo of sergianism. TO YOU AND THE Fr. Komarovskys, the Bishops Fyodor Karamazov, I issue the challenge: STAND FOR THE ORTHODOX CHURCH OR REVEAL TO YOUR FLOCKS AND THOSE WHO KNOW YOU THAT YOU DON'T!!!

Orthodoxia I Thanatos!
R M Malleev-Pokrovsky

[Justin Kissel]

What I find most interesting is that, in spite of St. Justin Popovich's comments on ecumenism (and there usage among traditionalists as though they were a club to beat people into submission with), St. Justin himself didn't condemn "world Orthodoxy" as graceless or heretical, but said: "I bow in reverence before the age-old achievements of the Great Church of Constantinople, and before her present cross which is neither small nor easy, which, according to the nature of things, is the cross of the entire Church--for, as the Apostle says, 'When one member suffers, the whole body suffers.' Moreover, I acknowledge the canonical rank and first place in honour of Constantinople among the local Orthodox Churches, which are equal in honour and rights."

Indeed, St. Justin did condemn ecumenism, and did discuss the EP's errors, and quite strongly at that. However, the fact remains that he established quite explicitly in a letter meant to make his beliefs known to certain bishops, that he acknowledged the EP to be Orthodox; he discussed the errors of the EP within that context (ie. that they were a Church, but with problems). St. Justin did not say that they were graceless; he acknowledge them as the first in honor and first in canonical rank among the Local Churches. This was 12 years after the "lifting of anathemas". This was 42 years after the Greek Old Calendarist bishops condemned the calendar change. This was 53 years after the calendar change itself. This was 57 years after the infamous EP epistle of 1920. The EP had been participating in the Ecumenical movement for decades--generations even--and yet St. Justin recognized them as being Orthodox. A similar history (indeed, a stronger one) can be shown in other great saints of the 20th century, such as St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco.

[Kollyvas]

Christ is in our midst!

I have gone over the issue of grace, sobornost', why ecumenism is heresy and St. Justin's thought. Go back through the thread and enjoy, and when you can engage the points, we can discuss them.

Orthodoxia I Thanatos!
R M Malleev-Pokrovsky

[Justin Kissel]

No thanks. I've been discussing those issues at this forum now for about 3 years, and am approaching the end of the line, I think. Considering how much negative I have said over the years about ecumenism (some of my older diatribal threads would make you look like a master of brevity!) I'm preparing a post that will sum up my position, and then hopefully I can move on. I don't expect that it will convince anyone to change their minds, but the way I figure it, I've probably done a good bit of damage with my rash comments over the years, so I owe God (not to mention all the faithful in "world Orthodoxy") some attempt at a personal apology in the form of a theological apology. I figured out the outline in my head at work tonight (assistant manager isn't too demanding a job! ), and will probably post it tomorrow sometime.

Justin (who took St. Justin as his patron saint when he was chrismated in the Antiochian Church)

[Edward]

Kollyvas,

Is writing scathing messages a hobby for you? I suppose you see yourself as the standard for Orthodoxy. Phrases calling me to "put Orthodoxy first" are totally inappropriate.
I will not criticize Saint Justin Popovich, as I would agree with his teachings regarding ecumenism. But you cannot dance around the fact that, as Justin just wrote, Saint Justin remained in communion with World Orthodoxy. You have said that you do not view World Orthodoxy as graceless. If World Orthodoxy still contains grace in her mysteries and her hierarchs still bear Apostolic Succession, then we must be in communion with it. We could go through Church History and find many examples of corruption, greed, sinfulness, and canonical violations in the Church. These things are not right and, as you correctly indicated, Orthodox involvement in Ecumenism has been fruitless and has led to heresy being taught by Orthodox theologians. How they will be judged before the throne of God is not for me to say. No do I, as a layman, have any authority or right to anathematize. This is for the Church. We know that Saint Justin and Metropolitan Philaret were right in their views on Ecumenism. We know that Patriarchs Athengoras and Demetrios were wrong, which is why their coffins were tighly sealed and their remains are not incorrupt. But until the Church excommunicates and anathematizes the New Calendarists, Modernists, and Syncretic ecumenists, they are in the Church. As long as the Mysteries celebrated by World Orthodox hierarchs are valid and possess the fullness of divine grace, they are the Canonical Orthodox Church and we must be under them.

Now I leave it to you to rant and rave again, which I am sure you are thoroughly enjoying!

Edward
geh8988@gmail.com