Moderator: Mark Templet
ioannis wrote:I am not legalistic and absolute when it comes to how, but that it did is what every Holy Father in the church teaches about heretics.
ioannis,
Your grammar is impossible to follow here- could you clarify what you are talking about please? When you say "but that it did", what do you mean? ......."but what did what"?
George
"As long as it depends on Monothelitism, then Miaphysitism is nothing but a variant of Monophysitism."
GOCTheophan wrote:Dear Anastasios,
When we refer to a certain "Church" as not having Grace we mean of course sacramental Grace, that the Holy Spirit does not descend on their altars and transform the bread and the wine for instance. God in His uncreated energies is everywhere and fills all things as we confess each morning and evening.
I understand what you are saying. While I can say that Catholics and Protestants without exception are without grace (while still retaining charismatic grace via the uncreated energies of God) I cannot say that all New Calendarists are without grace--all heretics are certainly without grace, but I do not believe that all New Calendarists are heretics yet. Mistaken, yes, and sinful to be in communion with heretics, but not automatically cut off (God will approach each in his good time to make the final decision about whether to leave communion with the heretics). That's why we cannot commune with them--they have lost the consistency of Orthodoxy and it is not clear who is still holding on to the edge of the cliff and who is not.
However either the Holy Spirit descends and preforms the Sacraments or He does not. There is no middle ground- either the bread on the Altar becomes the Body of Christ and the Wine His Blood or they do not. So there is a straight cut off point for sacramental Grace even if we humans cannot point to where exactly it is and until that point comes no matter "sick" how that Church gets it still contains within it the fullness of sacramental Grace.
Clearly, that is true--but I do not believe in the way you are suggesting. Some bishops clearly have already lost it and their mysteries are inefecatious, and others may still have it. I have to believe this because there are still New Calendarist Churches producing saints--which would be impossible if all of them are completely without grace. However, those who have already succomed personally to heresy, such as Met Philip or Pat Bartholemew--are outside the Church. But I do not believe that all have fallen yet.
Maybe I am not understanding you correctly but anything else but the "light switch theory" doesnt make any sense at all to me.
Theophan.
When grace is gone, it is gone. But it may not have left every bishop in "World Orthodoxy" yet.
Anastasios
GOCTheophan wrote:What about the millions of Roman Catholics many of whom have never heard of Orthodoxy- do they Commune because they act in ignorance?
This is a straw man. Roman Catholics do not even call themselves the Orthodox Church. They have no living memory of it and no connection to it. This is vastly different from the New Calendarists.
Anastasios
George Australia wrote:And as much as I disagree with Theophan's opinion of which side of the schism is still the Church, I appreciate the honesty of his ecclesiology. There is no escaping the fact that if a group of Bishops declare a schism, then one side of the schism is no longer the Church, and therefore, it's Mysteries are no longer Mysteries but simply social rituals which impart no Grace, and are no different to saluting the flag or blowing out candles on a birthday cake.
This is quite crude and in my opinion contrary to the history of the Church. When the Arsenite schism was healed, both sides were accounted as having been Orthodox the whole time.
(Not that I believe Ecumenists are a "part" of the Orthodox Church now--I don't--but I am merely suggesting things are not always so clear-cut).
Anastasios
GOCTheophan wrote:The date of their falling away varies from Church to Church, the Serbian Patriarchate only fell away in 1965 by commiting fornication with the WCC and so signing up to a protestant eccelsiogly. Others fell earlier. I believe there is a priest in ROCOR under met Vitaly who holds that the Jerusalem Patriarchate only fell away in the year 2000. So yes in the eyes of us- sinfull and passion ridden as we are- there are lots of grey areas where WE cant say anything for definite as in the case of ROCOR-L in the USA and Australia at the moment.
See, I would just extend this to bishops and maybe even individual priests in the last times. The local GOA priest I know is clearly not an ecumenist. Another priest I know in the NC Church says he believes the Old is correct and wants to switch over if he can figure out how to. These people seem to me to be in communion with Christ. Other NC priests I would clearly say are fallen.
Anastasios
1937 Miraculous Cross wrote:We can blow smoke, so-to-speak, all we want. the truth is, is that it doesn't matter what you or me, or anyone else who wants to speculate on this 'Grace" issue thinks. what matters is what the Holy synods proclaim. So far all we have is that the 'reconstituted' GOC under the presidency of Abp. Germanos of Demetria in 1935 said the NC was a schism and WITHOUT Grace. End of story. No synod has given us any further clarification on whether it left like a "light switch" in 1924, or whether it was a gradual leaving, or whether it was a "light switch" phenonemna in 1935, or whether some other "mechanism" occured. One can only assume it left immediately in 1935 -- according to the "letter of the law".
The Holy Synod of the GOC in 1935 was clearly NOT the entire Orthodox Church. Therefore, its proclamations were merely local opinions. I respect these proclamations since I belong to the GOC and would never venture to say that any given New Calendarist Church DOES DEFINTELY have grace still--but I tend to believe that some MAY on a bishop by bishop basis still have it based on the saints still being produced. However, honestly, seeing them remain in communion with heretics casts a doubt over my opinion and I certainly would never adopt Cyprianism (mother churches, healthy and sick parts, etc). To me it's just simply if we say they are all fallen 100% in all cases, we might open ourselves up to deny that God might still be working in some corners (like the JP--one Matthewite priest told me two years ago that the Holy Fire is a demonic distraction. I have a hard time rationalizing that so prefer to plead "maybe" to some World Orthodoxy bishops still being in the Church somehow by extreme economy).
Anastasios