Peter J. Hatala wrote:Daniel,
Every Orthodox jurisdiction in America is in violation of the canons as we speak by virtue of their being more than one bishop officiating per city. Doesn't mean we're all graceless...I hope.
No, it was just a little joke. I think maybe I was trying to say that by saying the MP violated certain canons that, depending on the canons, it implies no longer having valid Mysteries. That's just me speculating, I don't think I have read anything necessarily stating so.
My understanding is that generally, groups that are severed from the Body of Christ generally are not stated officially to be "graceless." Your request for such a declaration regarding the Soviet church can only be as fruitful as such a request for say, the non-Chalcedonians, Nestorians, or Roman Catholics.
...or can we entertain that these are genuine, Orthodox Churches as well, just erring ones? They certainly all claim to be "Orthodox."
btw. This is an anathema. That's not a little thing. The way it's being spoken of by some people makes me wonder if the gravity of such a thing is being appreciated. Ditto for the other anathemas (which certainly have gained pan-Orthodox recognition) which the ecumenists and new calendarists already fall under.
Seraphim
In issuing this anathema, let alone one touching directly upon doctrine, there cannot but be an import going beyond ROCOR's juristictional boarders. Why? Because it has to affect, at the very least, their activities with others.
Yet it seems that in effect, this canon is having neither an effect on discipline within ROCOR, nor it's relationship with those outside of her - in which case, it's a dead letter.
Seraphim
To begin, I'd like to say, for those who haven't read it yet, that it might be worth while to read Saint John Chrysostom's On Caution Regarding Anathematization, which has a lot of good points. I've been chewing over much of what has been said the past week, and here's some thoughts that are coming to mind...
As some have said, at one point in Russian history a certain form of the sign of the cross was mandatory, and those who didn't do this were anathematized. Does anyone have further information on this that they could suggest? This type of thing seems very relevant to this discussion.
Let's consider for a moment some canons from the Council of Gangra. The First-Second Council (which is an authoritative council for we Orthodox), in its second canon, accepted Gangra as valid: meaning that these canons are not something we can simply dismiss out of hand.
If any one shall teach a slave, under pretext of piety, to despise his master and to run away from his service, and not to serve his own master with good-will and all honour, let him be anathema. - Council of Gangra, Canon 3
So what are we to say? That teaching slaves to rebel was not ok? Perhaps we would not look at this in the same way today? Perhaps we would not look at other, similar, canons in the same way today? Perhaps we do not read Philemon with the same view as our Fathers did? I'm not arguing with the spirit of the canon, mind you. Yet, would we put so weighty a thing as an anathema on a person who committed such an act today?
If any woman from pretended asceticism shall cut off her hair, which God gave her as the reminder of her subjection, thus annulling as it were the ordinance of subjection, let her be anathema. - Council of Gangra, Canon 17
Again, not that I'm disagreeing with the spirit of the canon, but would we really anathematize someone for such a thing today? The point I'm trying to make here is that anathemas, which are admittedly weighty and important, are perhaps not as solid and unchanging as some seem to be making them. Try using some of the arguments being used for the 1983 anathema to defend these earlier anathemas (and there are plenty of other such anathemas, Gangra just happened to be the first council I went through, and I grabbed only a few possible canons I could have brought up).
So what's my point? I don't know, I just bring it up as something to think about, not something that I necessarily "wins points" as though we were in a debate. We are used to hearing about anathemas of arians and so forth... but there are many other canons and anathematizations out there that add a lot of depth and intricacy to the issue.
One last point to consider. Saint Vincent of Lerins, in his Commonitory (Chapters 8 and 9), discusses the concept of anathema as used by Paul and how he thinks it should be applied in Church Life. Using this interpretation of the Pauline passage, we might rightly condemn just about all of Christianity. However, no one seems to be jumping on a band wagon to anathematize most Christians today who are perverting the Gospel. Anathema does only say what already happened, and in that sense it's not a sentence to death but merely a recognition of spiritual suicide (so to speak). We all recognize such suicide in many groups today (e.g., those who rabidly, ignorantly, refuse to acknowledge the Virgin Mary as "Theotokos"), yet we do not condemn them. Does this mean that our teachings are falling, because we don't outright condemn them? Does this mean we are caving to Protestants? I don't think so. I don't think ROCOR is caving just because it hasn't "used" it's anathema to actually anathematize anyone, either. It's been used in other ways, and with good results.
Paradosis wrote:I guess the question is one of colors: do we see things in black and white, or in shades of grey?
How about this for a thought:
The shades of gray fall between the black and white.
As I understand it, there are two ways to apply canons and the like; either acrivia or economy. I would tend to think that acrivia would be the rule, while economy would be for exceptions were the circumstances warrent. A trend I have some what noticed is to make the exceptions the rule, and that those who would loving apply the rule are callous and un-loving.
I hope this have relevence to this discussion.