loss of grace

[jgress]

This is an interesting topic, I believe, because it helps us to think about just what the boundaries of the Church are, and what Church authorities are competent to pass judgment on heretics and expel them from the Church. From my reading, there are three heresies or schismatic acts that the renovationists of our times have adopted or committed:

• the Papal, or New Calendar
• Ecumenism
• Sergianism

All three have at one time or other been formally condemned by a competent Local Council of the Church; the first, moreover, both by Pan-Orthodox Councils in the 16th century, and again in the last century by councils of the True Orthodox Church. Ecumenism, seeing as it is a pan-heresy, incurs the anathemas against all the heresies that participate in the ecumenical movement together with the Orthodox, as well as the explicit anathema against ecumenism itself declared by the Russian Church Abroad. Finally, Sergianism incurs the anathema against Communism declared by the Russian Church in 1918, as well as the explicit anathemas enacted by the Catacomb Church against Sergius and his followers.

My understanding is that there is a twofold process by which a Local Church can be separated from the Universal Church. The first step is when it adopts a heresy condemned by a Council or the Fathers, and this is known when the bishops, through the primate of the synod or the synod as a whole, declare their heresy publicly. At that point, the Orthodox believer must separate, as soon as he gets knowledge of the heresy, since otherwise he will partake of the Mysteries to his condemnation. However, it is also my understanding that sacramental grace may continue to be bestowed on that Church, so that those who are still ignorant of the heresy may partake of the Mysteries to their salvation, but those who are aware of the heresy, to their condemnation.

The second stage of the process is when the Local Church is completely cut off. Her Mysteries then no longer receive sanctifying grace, and those who receive them receive neither salvation nor special condemnation. My understanding is that this stage is reached when no one any longer has the excuse of ignorance, and that this is usually confirmed when a Council of truly Orthodox bishops declares the heretical church anathema. After this point, those who remain in the heretical church, although not receiving the Mysteries to their particular condemnation, are nevertheless as a whole cut off from salvation, and liable to the eternal fire at the Last Day.

If we are to apply these principles to the heretical World Orthodox Churches of our day, I think it would be helpful to understand at what point the "candlestick was removed", that is, when was there no longer any doubt that the Local Church is question was completely cut off from the trunk. To do this, we need to be aware of the distinction between the time at which the Church adopts the heresy condemned by a Council or the Fathers, and when the Church in question is itself condemned. I believe this is what the Fifteenth Canon of the First-Second Council means by separating from the bishops in question before a conciliar verdict.

Regarding the Churches of Greece, Constantinople (together with Local Churches set up by the Phanar in the former territory of the Russian Church, namely Finland, the Baltic countries, and Poland), Alexandria, Cyprus, and Romania, I believe they were finally cut off in 1935, when the True Orthodox Church of Greece declared the State Church anathema for their adoption of the already anathematized Papal Calendar. However, true believers had the duty, according to the said canon, to separate from the innovators already from 1924 on (1928 for Alexandria), since that is when the church in question committed the schismatic act. Even after that, though, the State Church still awaited formal condemnation, and finally received it in 1935.

Although the 1935 anathema only mentioned the State Church of Greece explicitly, since the Council also identified the New Calendar itself as a schismatic act, I believe one may justly infer that the innovating Churches of Constantinople, Romania and elsewhere likewise fell under this anathema at that time. The only ones to resist the innovators of the Phanar, in any case, were the Zealot Fathers of the Holy Mountain, who had no bishops among themselves, and so no one who could formally pronounce anathema. Likewise, the True Church of Romania had no bishops at that time who could make such a declaration. Yet the well-documented refusal of either the Zealot Fathers or the TOC of Romania to concelebrate with innovators itself testifies to their acceptance of this anathema in spirit, if not in letter.

Note, however, that the decision of 1935 was in some important ways retroactive. So, anyone who was baptized before the innovation was to be received by confession only, but those who were baptized after were to be chrismated.

The other Local Churches, who had not adopted the new calendar, nevertheless remained in communion with the innovators, including the Russian Church Abroad. I think it is clear that this decision to remain in communion, while not commendable, was not in itself schismatic. Thus, I believe the other Local Churches remained in grace for as long as they did not themselves adopt the innovation. Even though they were in communion with churches that had already been cut off by the TOC of Greece, their actions are forgivable in that they had a right, as Local Churches, to withhold judgment until such time as they had opportunity to consider the matter for themselves. The 1935 Confession of Faith only identified the innovators themselves as under anathema, not all those in communion with the innovators.

So, Antioch fell into schism finally after World War II, when she adopted the innovation, having resisted until that point, though without breaking communion with the innovators, while Bulgaria fell later, in 1968. Other Churches, such as Russia, Serbia, and Jerusalem, never adopted the innovation, but we see that they lost grace at some point, too, for reasons of Sergianism and Ecumenism.

Thus, when Metropolitan Sergius signed the Declaration in 1927, he and his followers fell under the anathema against Soviet power that the Russian Church handed down in 1918. However, since he continued to commemorate Metropolitan Peter, the patriarchal locum tenens, and according to the private judgment of Metropolitan Cyril of Kazan, his churches still had grace, although those who communed with him knowing his heresy were under condemnation. When were the sergianists finally cut off? This is hard to gauge precisely, since various Catacomb Councils of the time are said to have convened and anathematized the sergianists, but the very existence of these Councils is sometimes in doubt. So, there is fairly good evidence for the Ust-Kut council of 1937, and we might say the sergianists were finally cut off then, but I believe the establishment of the Soviet Patriarchate in 1943 undoubtedly heralded the loss of grace of the Stalinist Church. This was compounded later by ecumenism, but I think loss of grace occurred already by 1943.

The same goes for the Church of Georgia, which throughout the Soviet period followed the same path of sergianism and then ecumenism as the Soviet MP. Although Georgia has now withdrawn from the WCC, I don't believe that has restored grace to her, since her Patriarch-Catholicos received his consecration from anathematized sergianists, and is himself an unrepentant sergianist.

As with the calendar innovation, the anathema against communism may reasonably be extended to those other local churches that fell under communist rule after the second world war, namely Poland (already under the EP), Romania, Serbia and Bulgaria. As we saw, Romania and the Phanariot churches were already cut off through their adoption of the calendar innovation, and Bulgaria in 1968, but sergianism sealed their situation, as did ecumenism later. Serbia and Bulgaria are trickier, since communist infiltration was even subtler here. In Serbia, communist rule already provoked a "Free Serbian Church" in America by the 1950s, but collaboration was unambiguous with the election of Patriarch German in 1965, when he also took his Church into the World Council of Churches. Whether they lost grace then even so not clear. I think one can argue for caution, and say the Serbian Patriarchate was not completely cut off until ecumenism itself was anathematized in 1983 by ROCA. Note that Fr Justin Popovich of blessed memory died in 1979, and I believe most True Orthodox consider that he died in the Church (according to one source, he actually broke communion with the patriarch before his death). But certainly even before then, zealots in the ROCA (Abp Averky, Met Philaret) were arguing for breaking communion with from 1965 onwards, because of the undisputed heresy of German.

As for Jerusalem, along with Sinai, one can argue for even more caution. She never adopted the calendar innovation. She did get involved in ecumenism, and was a member of the WCC for a time until 1989. This was already after the 1983 anathema of ecumenism by ROCA, so one can argue that according to strictness Jerusalem lost grace then. But Patriarch Diodorus had been elected before hand, in 1981, so he had apostolic succession (he was ordained priest and bishop in the Jerusalem church), and he repented of the involvement, withdrawing from the WCC, condemning ecumenism, and even concelebrating with the (Cyprianite) Old Calendarists. So I think one can make a rather tentative argument that Jerusalem retained grace through the reign of Diodoros and also Irineos, who likewise has apostolic succession through the Church of Jerusalem. Now that Patriarch Irineos has been unlawfully deposed, and the usurping Theophilos is taking Jerusalem back into the WCC by stealth, I think it is hard to argue Jerusalem has grace any longer, except for those who still commemorate Irineos and not the impostor.

Likewise, on Mt Athos, after the calendar innovation I think both the zealots and the commemorators can be said to have had grace, although only the zealots were acting rightly. But after Patriarch Athenagoras lifted the anathemas against the Pope, most Athonites joined the zealots, signaling that they understood now the depths of the Phanar's fall. Of those who were later persuaded or forced to abandon the true confession, I think if they were not cut off at once upon resuming commemoration, they were certainly cut off with ROCA's anathema against ecumenism. Since 1983, then, I believe the only grace-bearing churches on Athos belong to the Zealots.

A word might be said about the OCA. When it was known as the American Metropolia, the ROCA considered it schismatic. However, they did not adopt the innovating calendar. They did join the WCC in the 1950s, although they were not nearly as enthusiastic ecumenists as the Ecumenical Patriarch, and ecumenism was not yet a formally condemned heresy. That changed in the 1960s, when the Metropolia rapidly adopted a more pro-ecumenist, pro-Moscow stance. I think, since the MP was an already condemned body, the union of the Metropolia with the MP in 1968 could be reasonably argued to signal their fall from grace. Certainly, though, this occurred when the OCA adopted the new calendar in 1982. Up until 1968, however, I think the Metropolia had grace.

Finally, the ROCA or ROCOR. I believe they had grace until 2007, when they sealed their union with the already graceless MP. Certainly, before hand they committed acts which could be considered by some schismatic or even heretical, e.g. the union with the Cyprianites in 1994, or their official declaration of desire for union with the MP in 2000. But all these acts were only tending towards schism; I don't believe they resulted in true schism. Moreover, the confessing stance of ROCA in earlier days is attested by her severance of communion with innovators and ecumenists after 1968, as well as the anti-ecumenist council of 1983. Some say that she never made her break with World Orthodoxy official, but she can be judged by her practice. Apart from the single, sorry example of Abp Anthony of Geneva, her other bishops were very strict about avoiding communion with the innovating heretics, up until concelebration with the Serbs and then other heretics began apace around 2000.

This analysis has been long and rather messy, but I hope those who managed to finish will have things to say about it. Part of the difficulty has been understanding when grace is lost from the point of view of a True Orthodox of Greece, who have adopted a strict position for a long time, as opposed to someone from ROCA, who have been more relaxed. Nevertheless, it has helped me a great deal just to write it out; I would appreciate still more any feedback.

[Pravoslavnik]

Well, this is a very helpful commentary. It is a delineation of grace based upon canonical standards of the Church. As a "scientific" man, by education, I wonder if there are also corroborative signs of grace, or the lack thereof, within various churches. For example, when St. John of San Francisco visited Westminster Abbey in the 1950s, he famously muttered, "There is no grace here."

Code: Select all

   When I left the Antiochian Church for the ROCOR in 1997, I recall mentioning to a friend of mine from the Antiochian church that "the ROCOR has all of the saints."  I did not mean this flippantly, but as a matter of fact.  Is there evidence of grace within the modern OCA or other New Calendar churches?  I certainly experienced a subjective sense of grace in my old ROCOR parish, but I also noticed that I began to lose the light, euphoric sensation after communion in that parish around the time that Metropolitan Vitaly "disappeared" in 2001.  I assumed it was a result of my sins, and I even spoke to the rector about a feeling that something was missing during my efforts to pray and chant at the services there, certainly prior to the fateful events of 2007.

[jgress]

That's very interesting, Pravo. I don't think subjective perception of grace should ever be ruled out entirely. On the other hand, because it is subjective, I think it is also liable to deception. It really depends on the degree of sanctity, the degree to which you have purified yourself.

So, if someone like St John Maximovich went into a church and said "there's no grace", I would trust his judgment (although even a saint is not infallible). As for your feelings of grace when entering your old ROCA church, I don't think you should dismiss that, but be aware of what it is you might actually be feeling. Aside from the celebration of the Mysteries, there are other sources of divine grace: the building itself, the icons and so on. These are still holy objects, even if the priest serving there no longer has the power to perform Mysteries. The Cathedral of Our Lady in San Francisco still contains the blessed relics of St John, which continue to be sources of grace and healing, despite the fact that I believe the bishop and priests serving there are in schism.

Your perception of loss of grace when receiving communion after the 2001 schism is also interesting. As I already said, I don't think Met Laurus' synod went into schism at that point, so I believe the mysteries celebrated in the Laurite churches still were valid. That means that what you were feeling, in my view, was probably not the loss of grace in the communion itself, but perhaps a sign of God's displeasure over the schism, and grief over the direction that Met Laurus was taking with respect to the MP union. I can't say much for certain, since I don't know whether you were even aware of the nature of the schism at that point. Perhaps it was a sign of loss of grace, and we would have to conclude the Laurite ROCOR lost grace in 2001 when Met Vitaly was unlawfully retired, but I find it hard to accept, since I am not aware of Met Laurus himself being formally deposed over this. Or it may in the end be something entirely personal, as you thought at first, and timing was merely coincidental.

What you say about the canonical standards of the Church is spot on, and I thank you for putting it so clearly. I see now this is more or less what I've been feeling my way towards. We have to take the authority granted to bishops to depose and hand down anathemas seriously. This helps to balance our zeal, however commendable, to ensure our Church remains committed to the teachings of the Fathers. I think this is where some confusion arises, for instance when one Local Church hands down a deposition or anathema, like the TOC of Greece in 1935, or the ROCA in 1983. On the one hand, you can't say that the local decision has only local validity, since every local church is also part of the Catholic Church. Otherwise, you would end up arguing that ecumenism is only heretical if you're in ROCA, but not, say, if you're in Serbia, which is absurd! At the same time, however, the locality of such councils, for example the 1935 anathematization of the New Calendar Church, I think makes it inevitable that other Local Churches, if they are not themselves the target of the anathema, have a period of grace, so to speak, in which to consider the validity of the decision for themselves. The hesitation of the ROCA to condemn the new calendarists until 1968, when the new calendarists themselves conveniently broke communion with ROCA, is I suppose the textbook example.

[Suaidan]

Well, this is a very helpful commentary. It is a delineation of grace based upon canonical standards of the Church. As a "scientific" man, by education, I wonder if there are also corroborative signs of grace, or the lack thereof, within various churches. For example, when St. John of San Francisco visited Westminster Abbey in the 1950s, he famously muttered, "There is no grace here."

He also, however, made the sign of the cross when he passed RC Churches. Putting those things together, I believe this was a reference to the fact that when he looked in Westminster Abbey, there were no relics of saints, but tombs of famous national figures of England, irrespective of religion. I think it was more a reference to the fact that the Anglican churches had been scrapped of relics of saints.

When I left the Antiochian Church for the ROCOR in 1997, I recall mentioning to a friend of mine from the Antiochian church that "the ROCOR has all of the saints." I did not mean this flippantly, but as a matter of fact. Is there evidence of grace within the modern OCA or other New Calendar churches?

I find it interesting that (so far, to my knowledge) all the Saints glorified in North America in World Orthodoxy reposed around or before the communist revolution.

[jgress]

St John may have been making the sign of the cross as a spiritual weapon against the demons congregating in those dens of heresy. In other words, it may have nothing to do with acknowledging some kind of "leftover" grace in the RC Church, but something precisely the opposite! Who knows unless he said something himself about it.

Interesting point about the North American saints. Obviously, the revolution by itself doesn't mean anything; witness the New Martyrs of the Communist yoke. But as a result of the revolution, the Orthodox Church in America fell apart administratively, with many jurisdictions gradually sucked into heresy and schism, so I suppose that is one of the contributing factors to the dearth of contemporary Orthodox saints in this country.

[Suaidan]

St John may have been making the sign of the cross as a spiritual weapon against the demons congregating in those dens of heresy. In other words, it may have nothing to do with acknowledging some kind of "leftover" grace in the RC Church, but something precisely the opposite! Who knows unless he said something himself about it.

I think that's going too far. Many RC's still (and in the 60's this was more true) make the sign of the cross passing a church, which is a venerable and ancient Orthodox custom (we are supposed to cross ourselves passing a church; of course it is assumed all the churches in the area are Orthodox). He was probably affirming the traditional nature of the custom as well as the presence of genuine relics, of which there are still many.

Of course, maybe he was really "protecting himself from the demons". Beats me.

[jgress]

Well, I can understand signing yourself if you're walking by a church containing the relics of pre-schism, Orthodox saints, that just happens now to be a RC Church, certainly if the church itself pre-dates the schism. Signing yourself just before any church, though, seems odd to me. Perhaps you are acknowledging the image of the Cross that you find on most churches. Doing it just because it is the prevailing custom doesn't seem very Orthodox behavior, however, and I find it hard to believe that St John would do something like that just to conform to the heretical society he was living in.

Do you have any evidence concerning why St John did this, or are we just speculating pointlessly?