ARE ROCOR DISSENTERS "DONATISTS"?

Patristic theology, and traditional teachings of Orthodoxy from the Church fathers of apostolic times to the present. All forum Rules apply. No polemics. No heated discussions. No name-calling.


User avatar
joasia
Protoposter
Posts: 1858
Joined: Tue 29 June 2004 7:19 pm
Jurisdiction: RTOC
Location: Montreal

Post by joasia »

I have read writings of Russian Orthodox saints who predicted the revolution and some who commented before and after the fact, that plain and simply, God allowed this to happen because of the growing sins of the Russian people.

That's really what it comes down to, isn't it?

It happened to Constantinople and it happened to Russia. As Americans and Canadians, we are going through the same thing. It is happening to us and we are here bickering about who has the correct version of the history and who knows how much.

I think we are the biggest losers...because we try to make ourselves the biggest knowers...the critics of what went wrong then and so blind to see how wrong it is going on here...within our souls.

Does that make any sense to anyone else?

Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me. (Ps. 50)

User avatar
pjhatala
Member
Posts: 135
Joined: Wed 26 January 2005 11:07 pm
Location: New York

Post by pjhatala »

GOCTheophan wrote:
pjhatala wrote:
GOCTheophan wrote:

It was meant as a safeguard for the local church. Also, the wording only "anathematizes" those who preach the "branch theory"- not those like Fr. Georges Florovsky who sat on councils at the WCC as representative. Even Fr. Seraphim Rose thought the anti-ecumenists had gone too far stating that "our bishops refuse to 'define' this matter and make everything 'black and white'; and I am sure that, perhaps without exception, our bishops not only refuse to declare them without grace, but positively believe (at least by giving them the benefit of any doubt) that they do have grace."

.

Pjhatala an Anathema is not a safeguard for a local Church as such. An Anathema is either the cutting off of someone from the Church and presenting them to the direct Judgement of God or it is cursing of someone to eternal damnation. Either way it involves it is a "legal" sentence on heretics placing them outside of the Church of Christ. The Anathema of 1983 also ANATHEMIZES (removes from the Church) those who knowingly have Communion with the Ecumenist heretics.

You must know that many of Fr Seraphim Rose's works have tampered with. The Religion of the Future is a good example where references to the Old Calendarists in Greece and the Catacomb Church in Russia were removed.

The MP was pretty black and white when it came to ROCOR and the Catacomb Church. The EP is black and white when it comes to the True Orthodox in Greece.

Theophan.

Dear Theophan,

I am simply presenting the information the way ROCOR understood/understands it. If it doesn't suit you, I can't help that. It was a "de facto" decision to generally not share communion with a number of the local Orthodox Churches- not de jure. If it was "de jure" and all those outside of ROCOR or the Old Calendarist movement were condemned and graceless, then concelebrations with non-ROCOR/ OC groups would not have continued past 1983, nor would communion of lay people outside of those jurisdictions been granted. If that was the case, ROCOR would have gone the way of the Greek Old Calendarists and started re-baptizing or re-chrismating. You seem to accept what I'm saying about ROCOR's history, but reject it as un-Orthodox. That's fine- I didn't make these decisions and you're free to believe and interpret as you wish. I wasn't aware of Fr. Seraphim's books being altered (i'm guessing you mean that certain things were excluded that Platina does not find relevant to the current world situation), as I have mostly older copies of his books. Thank you for bringing that to my attention- I'll be sure to take a look. Even so, that doesn't change much for me.
I've had this debate more times than I can count. You have your belief, I have mine. Most likely there's not much else to discuss.

User avatar
GOCTheophan
Member
Posts: 367
Joined: Mon 11 September 2006 7:46 pm
Location: Ireland.
Contact:

Post by GOCTheophan »

You have not addressed the fact that the 1983 Anathema anathemizes those who knowingly have Communion with the Ecumenist heretics nor have you produced any Church Father or precedent in Church history of a purely "local" Anathema.

I suspect that you do not care much so in that you are right there is not much point in continuing on the discussion. However you have gone some way to proving Constantine's point about ROCOR being coldly indifferent to God and His Truth (and that is putting it mildy).

Theophan.

User avatar
pjhatala
Member
Posts: 135
Joined: Wed 26 January 2005 11:07 pm
Location: New York

Post by pjhatala »

GOCTheophan wrote:

You have not addressed the fact that the 1983 Anathema anathemizes those who knowingly have Communion with the Ecumenist heretics nor have you produced any Church Father or precedent in Church history of a purely "local" Anathema.

I suspect that you do not care much so in that you are right there is not much point in continuing on the discussion. However you have gone some way to proving Constantine's point about ROCOR being coldly indifferent to God and His Truth (and that is putting it mildy).

Theophan.

I can't summarize it any better than Fr. Alexander Lebedev:

An excellent analysis of why this is so was written by John Hudanish, starosta of Our Lady of Kursk Chapel in Woodburn, Oregon…. After restating the text of the 1983 Anathema, John Hudanish writes:

Code: Select all

"This is an eloquent condemnation of ecumenism and a clear statement of our Synod s rejection of it. What s not so clear, however, is the fact that this anathema is legislative in nature, rather than judicial, i.e., it is a codification of a theological principle into law, but not a verdict—much less a sentence. In other words, it identifies a specific phenomenon (ecumenism) as a heresy, and prescribes the penalty (Anathema!) for those who embrace and defend it, or "knowingly have communion" with those who do*, but it excommunicates no one! It is legislation. It is not judgment. And this is borne out by Metropolitan Vitaly in an article he wrote for "Orthodox Life" (No. 4, 1984, p. 32) while he was still Archbishop of Montreal and Canada. He wrote:

    "Time will tell whether or not the other local Churches will adopt our resolution on ecumenism as the acts of the Ten Local Councils were, in their time, entered into the Books of the Canons of the Holy Apostles, the Sacred Ecumenical Councils and the Holy Fathers of the Universal Church."

"It is important to understand that since the 1983 anathema was promulgated by our Synod of Bishops, we now have a canonical basis for dealing with ecumenism and its adherents within our midst. But as with all other laws, the penalty prescribed by the 1983 anathema cannot be meted out to anyone without due process. Stated otherwise, before anyone can be excommunicated, there must be a determination of guilt in a canonical trial or synodical investigation….

"Therefore, strictly speaking, neither the Patriarch of Constantinople nor the Patriarch of Jerusalem has been excommunicated by the anathema of 1983... Furthermore, the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad has not subsequently convened to investigate allegations against either patriarch, nor to anathematize them under the 1983 resolution.

"Why not?! Why hasn't the Synod excommunicated the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Jerusalem for their transgressions? Well, for one thing, it's a matter of jurisdiction. As Metropolitan Vitaly had written in the aforementioned article:

    "The anathema we have proclaimed is de jure a manifestation of a purely local character of the Russian Church Abroad…."

"No Orthodox body outside the Russian Church Abroad is bound by it, just as the anathema against the three-fingered sign of the cross proclaimed by the Council of the One Hundred Chapters (Moscow 1552) was not binding on the Greeks at that time. About all our Russian Church Abroad can do is to refrain from concelebrating with or admitting to the Holy Mysteries the clergy and laity of those Orthodox jurisdictions which appear to be involved in the ecumenist heresy. Our bishops have no authority to discipline any but their own." (pp. 8-9)

Metropolitan Vitaly confirmed this as the official view of the Church on the 1983 Anathema in his recent Nativity Epistle. In it he also clearly stated that those individual Synod clergymen who, in isolated incidents, have concelebrated with clergy of ecumenist or new calendar jurisdictions have done so by economy. In this Epistle, Metropolitan Vitaly wrote:

Code: Select all

"We proclaimed an anathema against ecumenism only for the children of our Church, but by this we very humbly but firmly, gently but decisively, as if invite the local churches to stop and think. This is the role of our most small, humble, half-persecuted, always alert, but true Church. We, de facto, do not serve with either new-calendarists or ecumenists, but if someone of our clergy, by economy, would presume to such a concelebration, this fact alone in no way influences our standing in the truth." (emphasis added)

…[T]he Anathema of 1983 did not excommunicate everyone in world Orthodoxy.

The Synod of Bishops is not an Ecumenical Council, whose decrees would be binding on all Orthodox Churches. Its decisions apply only to the members of the Synod itself.

It is impossible to determine exactly how many Orthodox Christians there are in the world today, because a majority of them are under Communist oppression, and no accurate figures are available. But assuming that reports in the Soviet press are correct, about half of the population of the Soviet Union is baptized. On this basis, one could assume that there are somewhere in the area of 200 million Orthodox Christians in the world today.

If one were to believe [certain extremists] one would get the impression that on one day in 1983, some 200 million Orthodox were excommunicated and declared heretics by the action of the Synod's proclamation of the anathema against ecumenism.

One moment they are Orthodox, then—poof!—heretics.

This is nonsense.

The Orthodox Church has always understood that heresy takes centuries to become entrenched in the minds of the faithful, and that in the meantime, the overwhelming majority of the individual believers in a Church do not even know about, much less understand, the questions that are being disputed.

In order to be proclaimed a heretic, a person must consciously accept the heresy and believe in it wholeheartedly, and he must reject all attempts to persuade him to return to the true faith.

The overwhelming majority of the faithful in any of these local churches has never even heard of Ecumenism. How can they be heretics?

I can guarantee that of the 200 million Orthodox in the world today, only several thousand, if that, have ever even heard of the Synod's anathema of 1983. Even more than that, I can guarantee that the overwhelming majority of the members of the Synod church itself have never heard of this Anathema. I am confident that we have many members of the Synod clergy who never heard of it.

How then can we even think of sentencing to excommunication say the entire Serbian Orthodox church with all its faithful, or any other local Orthodox Church, no matter how wrong their leaders are in tolerating ecumenical activity? …

The Synod recognizes the fact that even in the new-calendar jurisdictions there are only a handful of fervent ecumenists—the type who would advocate the "branch theory" or who would encourage receiving sacraments from the non-Orthodox.

Although the Synod deplores all ecumenical activity, and in its publications openly criticizes those who participate in such activities, at the same time the Synod is very cognizant of the fact that there are many among the clergy and laymen of the other jurisdictions (especially in the Serbian Church), who are openly opposed to ecumenism, and who are working to turn the direction of their Churches to be more consistently Orthodox.

User avatar
nyc_xenia
Jr Member
Posts: 61
Joined: Tue 1 January 2008 2:39 am
Jurisdiction: Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia
Location: Wilkes-Barre, PA
Contact:

Post by nyc_xenia »

pjhatala wrote:

The overwhelming majority of the faithful in any of these local churches has never even heard of Ecumenism. How can they be heretics?

It sounds like your saying a person can only be "guilty" of heresy if they have been personally informed of the heresy they may be unwittingly participating in .

Surely, that can't be what you meant...

User avatar
pjhatala
Member
Posts: 135
Joined: Wed 26 January 2005 11:07 pm
Location: New York

Post by pjhatala »

nyc_xenia wrote:
pjhatala wrote:

The overwhelming majority of the faithful in any of these local churches has never even heard of Ecumenism. How can they be heretics?

It sounds like your saying a person can only be "guilty" of heresy if they have been personally informed of the heresy they may be unwittingly participating in .

Surely, that can't be what you meant...

Dear Xenia,
I did not write the article. However, how can one be a heretic if he does not consciously hold a heretical belief? If he is a simple church goer who just wants to pray and receive the sacraments? I wouldn't label him a "heretic" because he has made no decision to reject a correct teaching. I guess you'll cite some kind of guilt by association, or "what about the Roman Catholic who doesn't know about his Church's heresy".

It's different- as councils have fully rejected many teachings of the RCC.

I'm done here. I'm sorry I got too involved. If there's one thing I've learned from discussion fora over the years- it's often more about hearing oneself talk than it is about the exchange of ideas or the swaying of another to a "better" position (which never happens).
I'm guilty of this too, of course.

Take care.

User avatar
nyc_xenia
Jr Member
Posts: 61
Joined: Tue 1 January 2008 2:39 am
Jurisdiction: Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia
Location: Wilkes-Barre, PA
Contact:

Post by nyc_xenia »

pjhatala wrote:

If there's one thing I've learned from discussion fora over the years- it's often more about hearing oneself talk than it is about the exchange of ideas or the swaying of another to a "better" position (which never happens).
I'm guilty of this too, of course.

Take care.

I guess we could just agree to disagree on the whole "what makes someone guilty of heresy" thing then...Like you said, topics like this are a lot like hearing oneself talk, it's a chase after the wind.

Post Reply