Official OCA position

Justin Kissel · Post by **Justin Kissel** » Sat 12 July 2003 12:45 pm

Methodius

There are local canons that have been accepted by the whole of Orthodoxy and are listed in the Rudder.

And they were accepted either by an ecumenical council, or by the mind of the Church over a period of time. At the very least, the canons were not universally binding until they gained the acceptance of the whole Church--the affirmation of the whole mind of Christ. What we have with the anathema of 1983 was one Church speaking to protect its own flock, and then other Churches, groups, sects, and individual people wrongfully claiming that they have the authority to use the anathema. Well, if they accept it in their local Church, they can do so. If they want say that they are applying it to those outside of their jurisdiction, then let they can do so (though I think them wrong). What they don't have the right to do, however, is to 1) tell ROCOR how it must use it's own anathema, and 2) tell ROCOR how it should interpret the anathema based on their own beliefs. If ROAC or anyone else uses the anathema text, it is not the ROCOR anathema, it is the ROAC version or interpretation of the ROCOR anathema. ROCOR is under no obligation to say "oh look, they think that jurisdiction X is heretical according to their interpretation of the 1983 anathema, well I guess we need to follow along".

The Old Calendar Churches seem to have accepted our anathema in this case.

I would disagree. You can use the same words, and agree to the same canons, but act in different ways. Let's put it this way, many of the old calendar churches certainly have not accepted ROCOR's interpretation of the anathema (or at least the interpretation of many within ROCOR).

To say that anthemas are only good in one's jurisdictions would mean we could only anathemize Latins or Monophysites within Orthodoxy, which of course there are not any of.

I'm not sure where exactly I am not articulating myself well. Just because the ROCOR Anametha in particular cannot be applied elsewhere, that does not mean that other Churches, and indeed other pronouncements, cannot effect those outside of their jursidiction. What it does mean is that ROCOR's anathema was issued by a temporary body to protect it's flock. If people want to go further, then let them do so: no one said that more expansive anathemas could not be issued, all that was said was that the ROCOR one was not one of these.

I am afraid I may not be being clear, so let me try to explain. If a person professed the branch theory in ROCOR, for instance saying that the Oriental churches and Roman Catholic churches have grace and were the Church invisibly, he would be tried and if he did not repent of his heresy he would be labelled a heretic and anathemized/excommunicated. But if he was in OCA he would not be a heretic? Do you see my problem with this?

You want to judge your brother rather than waiting for your bishop to take care of things? You don't understand, therefore you rebel? You can grab a few canons that support your position, so no one can tell you differently?

Am I being uncharitable? Yeah, probably. The same questions could be asked of me, I'm sure. I'm a hypocrite, and guilty, no doubt. Forgive me. But please also consider my questions. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

In Christ our God,

Justin

Methodius · Post by **Methodius** » Sat 12 July 2003 12:49 pm

No that's not my intent. I am just saying that heresy is heresy no matter what jurisdiction it is in. Surely we can agree on this?

Justin Kissel · Post by **Justin Kissel** » Sat 12 July 2003 12:50 pm

And now I've gone and destroyed that civility I was so happy about Though not really applicable to real life, there is some realy truth in the saying "If you find a perfect Church: leave, you'll ruin it!"

Justin Kissel · Post by **Justin Kissel** » Sat 12 July 2003 12:51 pm

Yes, we can agree on that my friend The dispute is really over who has the authority to condemn someone, and when.

Methodius · Post by **Methodius** » Sat 12 July 2003 12:55 pm

Just to clarify, who would you say has the right to condemn and whom do they have a right to condemn?

Justin Kissel · Post by **Justin Kissel** » Sat 12 July 2003 1:18 pm

That differs from situation to situation. Sometimes an individual bishop/patriarch excommunicated another, for instance, and he was cheered and supported. Another time he did so and he was condemned for his presumption. I think we'd find this with all the sorts of evidence brought forth. It depends on the situation/context. Ecumenism is certainly a grave heresy--a pan-heresy even. Sergianism, recognizing the sacraments of heretics, admitting heretics to communion, etc. are certainly things that need to be condemned. By me? No. By my bishops? Probably. Quickly to protect their own flock (which they did). Eventually the whole Church must weigh in on the issue. Unfortunately we are divided amongst ourselves :-\ There's nothing wrong with being a "Saint Mark of Ephesus" (ie. using his methodology to fight off heresy). This isn't the time or context for that method, though, IMO. It is indeed true that no saint is infallible by himself, but I will still follow the more moderate ones from recent and ancient history in this particular case. IF a saint filled with grace like Mark of Ephesus comes along, and takes a different approach, I'll most certainly listen. Until that time though, as long as it's just sinful layman and priests and bishops speaking--saints in the making to be sure, but not saints yet--then I will stay where I am (since I am not called to do anything more; it is not my duty to worry about condemning this heresy or that).

This is my position. I don't condemn those who don't hold to it (no pun intended).

Nektarios14 · Post by **Nektarios14** » Sat 12 July 2003 1:56 pm

Here it is:

From the Orthodox perspective, the issue is not whether the baptism is "valid" or "invalid," which are purely Latin categories; rather, what concerns us is whether the sacrament is "with grace" or "without
grace." Obviously, since there is no need to rebaptize, the sacrament is considered to be "with grace," and there is no way to "quantatively" discern "how much" grace is or is not imparted, as "grace" as Orthodox understand it is not a "quantative" thing, as Latins would define it. It is clearly understood by the Orthodox that the Holy Spirit "heals that which is infirm and completes that which is lacking," so if there is anything lacking in any way in the baptism, it is "healed" and "completed" through Chrismation, which is the "Seal of the Gift of the Holy Spirit."

On a personal note I may be withdrawing from this discussion as I am leaving town Monday for a week and have a pretty busy weekend planned - but I'll jump right back in when I do get a chance.