About the establishment of “MP ROCOR(A)”

[Priest Siluan]

Yes, Met. Agafangel was defending this position (creation of "MP ROCOR-A" jurisdiction) but he understood that it was not work and became a another "scandal" more (even among their own more fervent followers), then he did that explanation for getting to calm them.

[Mark Templet]

If the MP is in the true Church, and Sergius, Alexis I, Pimen, Alexis II, and Kirill were/are all ruling Patriarchs of Moscow and all Rus, then everyday that Metropolitan Agafangel is not in communion and under the authority of him, he is sinning.

If the MP has grace effectual to salvation of souls, then to be estranged from them is to sin. Any notion that some other arrangement is possible is utterly ridiculous and schismatic.

On the other hand, if the MP is a sham, then separation from it is just and canonical. It is just and canonical because the MP maintains communion with heretics and prays with them, not to mention how Sergius sold the Church to the god-hating Soviet government.

There is no "middle path;" Christ did not say, "He who is not against Me, might sort of be okay and maybe have grace, or might be for Me." Either the MP has grace or it doesn't-- period.

Why is this such a difficult concept to understand?

[jgress]

I recall the position of ROCOR was that it preferred to leave judgment of the MP and World Orthodoxy to an Ecumenical Council. Of course, the problem is the implication that local councils are unable to make those kinds of judgments, though it is only an implication; ROCOR saw no contradiction in later condemning ecumenism by a local council. My understanding is that local councils do have such competency, although they don't have the authority of Ecumenical Councils. If we rejected the authority of all local councils, as the Cyprianites do, then we would have to deny e.g. the heresy of Paul of Samosata, condemned at the local council of Antioch only. But at the same time, decisions have greater authority when enacted by ecumenical councils. This is why local councils in the past tended to be confirmed by later ecumenical or pan-orthodox councils, and it's why we don't have to be as dogmatic about the judgments of local councils as we do about ecumenical councils. We don't really have any authority now to overturn the judgments of the Fourth Ecumenical Council against Dioscorus, for example, which is why dialogue with the Monophysite churches is pointless so long as they refuse to accept the judgments of that council. But I wouldn't say someone who doesn't accept the authority of a local council in some matter is ipso facto a heretic. The Hundred Chapters council of Moscow in the 16th century condemned practices that were enjoined on the Russian Church by Pat Nikon in the next century, and the Russian Church later anathematized those very practices (like the two fingered sign of the cross) that the 16th century council upheld.

So, I am not dogmatic about grace in the MP or even the new calendar churches. I recognize that the Old Calendar church anathematized the NC Church, but it was a local decision only, and I don't support the Matthewite position that our church's decision is now dogma. It also means I don't support the Cyprianite position that our church had no authority to make that decision. For the MP question, I recognize that the Catacomb Church allegedly anathematized it back in the 1930s (though evidence for this decision is sketchy), and I also recognize that the MP, and other WO churches, have fallen under the 1983 anathema against ecumenism by virtue of their WCC membership and certain agreements signed by their official representatives. Again, though, I will not insist that their gracelessness is somehow a dogma of the Church. That is why I joined the jurisdiction I did.

[Mark Templet]

So, I am not dogmatic about grace in the MP or even the new calendar churches. I recognize that the Old Calendar church anathematized the NC Church, but it was a local decision only, and I don't support the Matthewite position that our church's decision is now dogma. It also means I don't support the Cyprianite position that our church had no authority to make that decision. For the MP question, I recognize that the Catacomb Church allegedly anathematized it back in the 1930s (though evidence for this decision is sketchy), and I also recognize that the MP, and other WO churches, have fallen under the 1983 anathema against ecumenism by virtue of their WCC membership and certain agreements signed by their official representatives. Again, though, I will not insist that their gracelessness is somehow a dogma of the Church. That is why I joined the jurisdiction I did.

Fair enough, but how could the rest of the Church understand the points to which the MP have fallen into error? If the catacomb people in Russia who live with and around the MP on a daily basis have said that the MP is indeed fully embracing error, then why would someone in the GOC or anywhere else not believe these people. Does the MP stealing churches in Russia from ROAC not sway you that they are not only accepting error but attacking those who want no part of it?

Praying with heretics is condemned by canons, and we all know there are countless photographic proof of the MP engaging in such. And this is but one infraction of which they are unrepentant. I could see some validity within your argument if they were moving in the direction of True Orthodoxy and showing signs of repenting of their sergianism and ecumenism, BUT they aren't. Why would God still participate in their Holy Mysteries and help them keep heaping judgments upon their heads? Why do we automatically think that this would be the merciful thing for God to do-- to keep His presence in the bread and wine of those in unrepentant error? Why isn't it more merciful of God to say, "I won't violate your freewill, you can go into error, but I will not help you make it worse for yourselves by being present in your sacraments."

I just don't understand the agnostic view of this situation. We don't need a new council to condemn any of this, its been done. But for some reason we have problems with doing what the canons say, "let them be anathematized." Why can't we just "let them be;" just let them go and do what they want? How many photos and reports and so forth do we need to see that tells us the MP is rotten at the core? Have all the local, ecumenical and whatever councils you want, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

[jgress]

Well, I certainly sympathize with your point of view concerning the gracelessness of the MP. I am not going to label you a schismatic for voicing those opinions, since many great figures in ROCOR held the same strict view (St Philaret of New York, Abp Anthony of Los Angeles). At the same time, if someone in our church said the MP still had grace, I wouldn't label that person a heretic, either. I would say my position arises from the many discussions I have with World Orthodox, in which I generally find it opportune not to insist dogmatically on their gracelessness. I prefer to focus on the inconsistency of their position, namely professing to be the True Church, while being members of an organization that denies the existence of one True Church, i.e. the WCC. I feel that whenever I bring up the position that they are without grace and outside the Church, I cut myself off from any productive discussion with them. If they insist on bringing up the issue of grace, I just say that local councils have always had a right to anathematize heresies, but that they do not have the dogmatic authority of Ecumenical Councils. I don't let them force me to adopt a position on their gracelessness, since the issue is really their own ecclesiological position, namely obedience to synods that have officially, in one way or another, espoused the ecumenist heresy. I only need to show them that my own bishops have valid Apostolic succession, profess Orthodoxy without alteration, and that our refusal to have communion with the ecumenists rests on sound precedent and is independent of whether they still have grace of sacraments. When St Maximos the Confessor announced his severance of communion with the Monothelete hierarchs, I don't recall him discussing whether or not they had sacramental grace, since that wasn't the point. The point is that they were heretics.

[Ephrem]

When St Maximos the Confessor announced his severance of communion with the Monothelete hierarchs, I don't recall him discussing whether or not they had sacramental grace, since that wasn't the point. The point is that they were heretics.

"They have repeatedly excommunicated themselves from the Church and are completely unstable in the faith. Additionally, they have been cut off and stripped of the priesthood by the local council held in Rome. What Mysteries, then, can they perform? Or what spirit descends on those whom they ordain?" (St. Maximos the Confessor, concerning the Monothelite heretics)

When the anathema against ecumenism was written, St. Philaret and other traditional bishops had already warned the Patriarchates about their ecumenism, and told them that it was a path away from the Church. They did the same regarding the Moscow Patriarchate, repeatedly making appeals to the Patriarchates demanding that they cease having ecclesiastical relations with them. The anathema against ecumenism was a desperate last resort, which heaped onto the conscience of those dividing the flock of Christ with shameless heresy and schism the dreadful threat of anathema if they should fail to repent.

It is important for World Orthodox to recognize that this has happened, otherwise they might fall into the trap of "fighting from within", thinking that their church is wrong, but at least there is grace there.

In the ROAC Sobor of 2008, there is recorded this little gem from Archbishop Hilarion of Smeli, concerning Grace acting in the World Orthodox Churches:
"In these church-like associations, just as among all of mankind in general, there is at work only the general grace of God which calls all men to salvation. This grace first calls them to return to a more sober and God-centered life, and then unavoidably forces them to critically re-evaluate the experience of their artificial church life outside of the Church and return from heresy and schism to the true faith. They are aided in this by those liturgical traditions of the Orthodox Church that they still manage to hold onto in ‘world Orthodoxy’ – the services, venerating icons and relics, and hearing the words of the Gospel."

[GOCPriestMark]

I just don't understand the agnostic view of this situation. We don't need a new council to condemn any of this, its been done. But for some reason we have problems with doing what the canons say, "let them be anathematized." Why can't we just "let them be;" just let them go and do what they want? How many photos and reports and so forth do we need to see that tells us the MP is rotten at the core? Have all the local, ecumenical and whatever councils you want, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

No, no, no, don't try to interject any sensible, logical reasoning here, if you do the Florinite/Cyprianite/ROCOR-A folks won't like you anymore.