This is a very shrewd game you're playing.
Since when in the history of the Orthodox Church have any schismatic (or heretical for that matter) group been considered martyrs for the faith? Since the ROAC IS schismatic....unless you believe it is the sole holder of the Orthodox faith or the branch theory.
A game, because you very subtly put only TWO possibilities (which you both are unacceptable to your opponent) forward - with of course the implication that they are the only two that are possible. There are also incredible assumptions involved in both.
a) You take it for granted (or assume we at least should take it for granted) that ROAC in fact is a schism. You'll have to do better than making such flip statements. To start, I'll simply ask what else you expected them to do when ROCOR backtracked on it's own past? In particular, how is ROCOR not fallen under it's own anathema ('83)?
If ROCOR has not in fact "changed", is not in fact guilty in the face of the standard which she herself created, then I'd be inclined to agree with your assessment of the ROAC. But really, what could they do (accepting, as supposedly all in ROCOR still do, the '83 anathema), given ROCOR's new insistance (despite what happened in '65) that she'd "never" been out of communion with the ecumenist/in-communion-with-ecumenist Serbian and Jerusalem Patriarchates, or the official adoption of the Kyprianite heresy ("holy heretics")?
I know what the apologetical line of the new-ROCOR is - that the anathema is only of local authority (binding only upon the ROCOR itself.) Whether one totally agrees with this or not is immaterial - for it is it's relevence to the activities of ROCOR itself which is problematic (for the anathema condemns those who are or who maintain communion with ecumenists) - and on both counts, materially and explicitely (respectively), the "new ROCOR" stands guilty, and unrepentant.
Given these facts, what was to be done? Particularly when it became very apparent that there was no more good to be done by pleading for a change of heart?
These are the kind of substantial things you should be delving into, sine a flip statement does nothing good - it is, at best, preaching to the choir. Which is fine, but that's not your audience here (those who already agree with you on this subject.)
b) You pose that if the ROAC doesn't think this way (and by extension, could we lump the GOC's in here as well?), then it MUST believe itself to be the only Church of Christ left. She just has to - no other possibility. Such haughty insistance can have the appearance of being conclusive, but really it's just bluster that needs to be seen through.
You don't offer the possibility (which is closer to the truth) that the ROAC knows where She stands with a good conscience, and at this point in time maintains varying degrees of agnosticism about others, with the full hope that formal ties can be formed. Should that happen, it would signal either a recognition of a spiritual unity and grace that was already there, or it would be the result of another party repenting and being added to the Church. The former is definately a possibility, since the ROAC finds itself a remnant of a another (now fallen) ecclessial body - which in turn had gone out of it's way to alienate a lot of people before finally betraying the Truth. Thus, that it will take some time for all of these things to be worked out should be understandable. Orthodoxy is ultimatly dependent on actually being in the Church - which is a matter both of canonical foundation, and confession. Not included in such an assessment, is simply "being" because one has met up with and submitted to all of the right people. Thus, the key difference between papist and Orthodox ecclessiologies.
It is ironic how many hardliners in the traditionalist camp actually hodl the branch theory in some form believing that various synods which have anathamatized eachother all are gracefilled.
you speak as if the above is universally the situation (a bunch of mutually anathamatizing groups). Such is not the case, particularly from the ROAC's vantage point.
as an aside, save for the Matthewites (who truly are isolated), none of the GOC's or ROAC for that matter, believe that grace is lost immediately when a heirarch goes into heresy. It takes time for the error to be assimilated into the body itself, or for those who are not assimilated by it to at least realize what is going on (and thus have an obligation to abandon said error.)
BTW., it's my understanding you're GOA. I'm curious as to why you have space to say anything at all, at least without being profoundly hypocritical?
Seraphim
