Moderator: Mark Templet
By the way, I am fully aware that when I wake up tomorrow I will have been beat down by pretty much everyone. I do not arrive at my convictions out of some bareheaded stubbornness and am open to being corrected if it can be shown I am in error--my observations and clearly what I say are speculations come from personal experience moreso than sitting around and "thinking about this logically."
Anastasios
I think there is too much legalism here... People want to know when Grace was lost. Which hour, which day, which year? Why not asking for an official signature from God Himself...
Well I think the departure of Grace is a progressive one. We can compare this with the Latin heresy... It is difficult to give a date... 1054 is too simple... We could choose 1009 when Pope Serge's name was erased from the Dyptichs... Or 1204... Or even the IXe century... In fact, is spite of these events, we coulf find concelebrations between Orthodox and Latins... So it is not a clear and administrative process.
As regards World Orthodoxy, entering in the WCC is an element but not the only one...It seems too simple... I think we should not ask this question... Indeed, if we had decided belonging to World Orthodoxy was spriritually harmful and that we had better leave, it has no relevance for us to argue about the World Orthodox mysteries...
Personnaly, I think that the process is progressive : so you can find several places where things are still correct but the situation is so confuse that I would not take the risk to be spiritually poisoned... So we simply apply the canon to leave a bishop cteaching heresy... but we do not discuss about him having grace or not...
Priidite, poklonimsja i pripadem ko Hristu.
Anastasios,
I'm not gonna beat you down. But I will say that I espy a serious "problem", with the ecclesiology you espouse. Well, not really a "problem" since I actually agree with it in part, but a problem inasmuch as holding it places you at odds with your Church.. One of the things you guys pride yourselves on is rejecting the "Cyprianite" ecclessiology of "healthy" and "ailing" Churches. But what else is the idea of "some" Bishops of a local Church having Sacramental Grace and others in the same Church not having Sacramental Grace if not the notion of an "ailing Church"?
The Apocalypse contains the Seven Letters which Christ sent to the Seven Churches of Asia Minor. Have a read again of what Our Lord has to say to the Churches of Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis and Laodicea. See what He says about them, and the heresies they espoused. Yet Our Lord Himself says that even though they contain heresies, their lamps are still lit before His Throne. Yes, he threatens some with having their Lamps extinguished, but despite what has been going on in them (heresy, sexual immorality, greed, idolatry....), He still addresses them as His Churches, and their Lamps are still burning before Him. He seems to address them as His "sick" Churches. Is Our Lord's ecclessiology wrong? Should we give Him some lessons in Theology?
"As long as it depends on Monothelitism, then Miaphysitism is nothing but a variant of Monophysitism."
Ioannis and Anastasios,
Firstly I do not see anything wrong in and of itself in seeking certainity, the reason that I became Orthodox was that I could find no certainity in the Popes of Rome and yes of course it can only be found in God and not in any of the sons of Adam no matter how holy they are or what rank in the Church they hold whether they be Reader Vladimir, Gregory the Patriarch of the universe,Joseph Ratzinger, Blessed Chrystomsos or Blessed Matthew. I also believe that God speaks through the Church, particurly in valid and canonical Councils of Bishops.
There is a "loyal son of the MP" posting on Paradosis at the moment who spells out in very aggressive terms arguments in favour of World Orthodoxy still being within the sacred enclosure of the Church but these very same arguments that he uses I have heard from the lips of self-confessed ecumenists for Roman Catholicism and possibly Anglicanism also being still part of the Church- a position that this loyal son of the Moscow Patriarchate most emphatically does not hold. Why not given that that is where is position naturally leads?
I can only suspect nationalist hatred and many of his other utterances would support this fact- nationalism also seems to be behind the fact that he seemingly cannot imagine that the historically Orthodox peoples could ever end up outside of the Church- thats Russians or Greeks ( though he believes Greeks are "silly") could ever really be heretics. We cannot build anything sound on such an unChristian foundation. Yes patriotism is a good thing.I am not denying that but Christ did not come down to earth to give Russians and Greeks a cultural identity.
As opposed to sane Orthodox Catholicism (which is not at all forgein to healthy patriotism but rather confirms it) the whole of World Orthodoxy reeks of either of nationalists passions or cosmopolitianism ( it is interesting to see how that "mystical body of satan" Freemasonary was behind both those spiritual sicknesses in so many cases in the 19 th and 20 th century). They wish to use an Orthodox covering for strictly worldly interests.
I on the other hand believe that local Councils if they speak with the vioce of Christ have an ecumenical ( in the true sense) bearing as reflecting the Will of Almighty God. The reason I left World Orthodoxy is that I came to understand that my Bishop within it was under at least two Anathemas and therefore cut off from the Church. Unless false Ecumenism, New Calendar renovationism and Sergianism are not aganist the Will of God- which "resistors from within" also accept as does our loyal son of the MP-these anathemas have to be taken extremely seriously. What did Christ say about those who would not hear the Church? Anastasios the New Calendar priest you mentioned for all his nostalgia for the Orthodoxy refuses to hear the clear vioce of the Church expressed in three pan-Orthodox synods and later on the Holy Synod. I am not judging him just stating the facts.
Anastasios what saints have New Calendarist Churches produced? What about the Uniates, I mean many of them believe could be said to believe in an Orthodox fashion? Fr Serge for instance doesnt accept the immaculate conception, purgatory, papal infallibility and I think the Filioque- does that have any bearing on the validity of his Sacraments?
Recently I was shocked to hear from the Abbess of our Covenent in Serbia (who is anything but a "ranter") that she does not accept Archimandrite Justin Popovich. I think that his case is ambigous and I am not about to offer any judgements on it, but if a lot of our Serbian faithful dont accept him than how can we accept Elder Paisos the new for instance?
Theophan.
Just for the record, I think of the Ecumenists in much the same way as the Church thought of the Arians. Most Arians were certainly not Arian in their confession of faith, that is, the lay people, priests, and even many bishops. The Arian confession of faith was rarley taught openly. This has been demonstrated in many ways, St. Athanasios for one said this very directly.
Therefore, I don't believe that a lay person must himself be a heretic in order to inherit the consequences of what they are a part of - Mysteriological Grace flows through the bishops.
I am of the opinion that Grace departs in insofar as the heresy is made known to people, or as with the case today, it could be known if anyone really cared or had the Grace of God to see.
I don't believe in the light switch theory primarily because it instantly condemns other local churches spread accross the globe who are in communion with the schismatic church. When Nestorius was condemned locally as a heretic, the great number of local churches and their people, such as Jerusalem, Antioch, ect., were not also comdemned because they were in communion. If there was any kind of instant condemnation "across the board", it would have to come from a General Council, and right away then we are flirting with Cyprianism.
So again, Grace departs in insofar as the heresy is made known to people (or could be known) - no light switch, more like a domino effect.
But Ioannis no one holds that all the Churches in Communion with the New Calendar schismatics immediately became Graceless in 1924 or 1935 with the one expectation of a Matthewite splinter group which I believe only has one Bishop. There were however grave consequences for them that flowed from remaining in Communion with the apostates.
Also remember that St Ignati and St Theophan the recluse predicted the apostasy of the 20 th century, they were able clearly to see it coming in the 19 th- I am sure some Greek saints from the period must have also been able to read the signs of the times but I havent come across them. Things never just come out of the blue.
Theophan.
GOCTheophan wrote:But Ioannis no one holds that all the Churches in Communion with the New Calendar schismatics immediately became Graceless in 1924 or 1935 ... <snip>
Dear Theophan, thank you for clearing that up, that is usually what ones mean when they believe in the "light-switch theory". That may be where some of the confusion is coming from. 
