Who's Who?

Savva24 · Post by **Savva24** » Wed 16 July 2003 10:17 am

[

2) I said this. It was not so much a negative comment as it was a simple observation. Metropolitan Philaret was the last bishop in the ROCOR who knew St. John Maximovitch and the last part of his circle of conservative bishops.

Sorry, I have one more thought. I don't think things are always on the level conservative vs. liberal. An Orthodox mindset is beyond that. St. John was the only bishop in the far east to staunchly refuse contact and communion with Moscow. However, it is well known that he believed that Moscow had Grace and while bishop in Europe, he had New Calendar parishes under his juristiction and allowed his clergy and laity to sometimes commune with the Paris Juristiction (the latter event much to the shagrin of Blessed Metropolitan Philaret, who is by the way, equally as great a saint in my opinion.).

Makes things a little multi-dimentional, doesn't it?

In Christ,

Nicholas

Justin Kissel · Post by **Justin Kissel** » Wed 16 July 2003 10:33 am

According to some, St. John also allowed new calendarists to sometimes commune here in America as well. It's reported in his biography that Fr. Seraphim also allowed this later on in life.

OrthodoxyOrDeath · Post by **OrthodoxyOrDeath** » Wed 16 July 2003 12:29 pm

Stephen,

Yes, some very strong bonds remain between the ROCOR and the GOC of Greece. Our Synod has never said anything relative to the status of the ROCOR - in fact, we hope that communion can one day be acheived again. Only God knows where they will go from here.

OrthodoxyOrDeath · Post by **OrthodoxyOrDeath** » Wed 16 July 2003 12:49 pm

I am very pressed for time right now so please forgive my sloppy reply.

Nicholas (savva32),

I believe I say things as they are to a great degree. I think it is important to have a respectable and most of all, honest discussion - so do not worry about offending me.

I read several messages so I hope i don't mix them up...

St. Maximos also said the if he was the only one who was confessing the Orthodox faith, then "HE WAS THE CHURCH". The GOC has not condemned anyone - we simply say, as ALL of the Holy Fathers, that there are no Mysteries of the Church among heretics and those who commune with them. Any condemnation is self inflicted and between them and God.

As for the "GOC having to draw the line somewhere" comment, I think that is an overly simplistic and shallow summary, even if it came from one of our bishops. As I have mentioned before, the sacramental Grace of the Church does not exist among heretics, we are compelled to confess the same spiritual reality which was confessed by ALL of the Saints and holy Synods of the Orthodox Church. This is not some new idea, or a convenient position - it is what the Church has always taught.

Stephen,

I forgot to mention, the cases where new-calendarists were communed was repented of as a sad lapse of judgment. These people were later told that they would have to be received and could not commune. Some left and some stayed.

Sorry, but that's all I have time for today...

OrthodoxyOrDeath · Post by **OrthodoxyOrDeath** » Wed 16 July 2003 12:58 pm

Savva24 wrote:
[

Sorry, I have one more thought. I don't think things are always on the level conservative vs. liberal. An Orthodox mindset is beyond that. St. John was the only bishop in the far east to staunchly refuse contact and communion with Moscow. However, it is well known that he believed that Moscow had Grace and while bishop in Europe, he had New Calendar parishes under his juristiction and allowed his clergy and laity to sometimes commune with the Paris Juristiction (the latter event much to the shagrin of Blessed Metropolitan Philaret, who is by the way, equally as great a saint in my opinion.).

Makes things a little multi-dimentional, doesn't it?

In Christ,

Nicholas

Sorry, one last comment of my own. Yes, I have also objected to the use of the terms "conservative" and "liberal" - strange that I now find myself saying this.

I for one am afraid to use examples of the extreme exceptions as if they were the rule. There are always some unique pastoral concerns, the circumstances of which we will never know, which cross the neat and tidy "lines" which have been drawn for us by the Holy Fathers.

But this does nothing to change the center of mass and direction the Church moves.

I'm sure there were countless exceptions with the Latins in all the years as they became heretics, and even after they were well known heretics. But this does nothing to discredit or change the mind and ideal practice expressed in all of the Councils of the Church.

Savva24 · Post by **Savva24** » Thu 17 July 2003 2:44 am

St. Maximos also said the if he was the only one who was confessing the Orthodox faith, then "HE WAS THE CHURCH". The GOC has not condemned anyone - we simply say, as ALL of the Holy Fathers, that there are no Mysteries of the Church among heretics and those who commune with them. Any condemnation is self inflicted and between them and God.

I would be interested in seeing this quote in full context, if you could bring it to my attension I would be greatful. I was just reading through some words of Mark of Ephesus and as they are beautifully harsh and truthful about never wanting any communion with the Latin unionist bishops (in life or death), he did point them out as graceless. It seemed to me awfully close to the spirit and method of St. Maximos.

As for those who think to the contrary, as corruptors of the truth, let us take them in and cure them, as far as we are able; but as for those who are incurably ill, let us repudiate them, lest we be infected by their sickness before we impart our own health to them.
Code: Select all
                                           St. Gregory the Theologian (at the time   of a Semi-Arian schism, 4th Century)[/quote]

Savva24 · Post by **Savva24** » Thu 17 July 2003 2:46 am

Sorry,

With my last post, the top part is the ''quote'' and the bottom is my response. So it is the opposite. I am still a retard at anything relating to computers.

In Christ,

Savva24