loss of grace

[jgress]

Twice you have claimed to be sick of the discussion, but that doesn't seem to stop you from trying to have the last word. I'm looking forward to your next reply.

I just conceded that you were never trying to argue we should acknowledge heretical churches, so there's no call to go highlighting that part of my last post out of context. I was only saying you were being unclear. It doesn't matter whether you think you were being clear, because you were not being clear. I mean, does it even make sense to say we should cross ourselves because a heretical church might have holy relics, and yet refuse to enter it for fear of the heresy, as you also suggested? What if you want to venerate the relics? If, as you yourself acknowledge, certain saints warned their followers against even entering schismatic churches, aren't they being sectarian by your standards? When Abp Averky allowed Copts to serve in Jordanville, Met Philaret had the church cleansed with holy water before allowing any more services to proceed. Was he being a sectarian fanatic? Or perhaps his action was just a formal ritual, with no spiritual significance?

The situation is obviously very complicated, which is why we have on the one hand St John Maximovich, who not only crossed himself in front of heretical churches, but even entered them and served offices at the tombs of the saints, with the permission of the RC clergy, yet on the other hand, we have saints of the Old Calendar or Catacomb churches counseling their followers to avoid having anything to do with schismatics, to the point of even refusing to enter or look in the direction of the schismatic churches. Don't those schismatic churches contain relics and holy objects? The point is, you were trying to prescribe only one of the two options, namely to cross yourself before both heretical and Orthodox churches, but you didn't justify it simply by saying that these churches probably contain relics, which would be unobjectionable. You justified it also by this quasi-ecumenist reasoning that we have to look beyond the "ideological-religious" position of the faithful, as if all the "branches" of the Church still contained some grace. If you had no intention of making that an argument in support of your position, you should not have introduced it, and certainly you should not have continued to indulge in similar kinds of reasoning, by stirring up fears of sectarianism, warning us not to be like the Jehovah's Witnesses and so on.

I'm sorry if you think our holy struggle is just about "ideology". Most of us don't see it that way. We believe there is a direct connection between the confession of faith of the people and the holiness of the places where they worship. Therefore, it is not absurd to suggest that churches served by heretics, even if formerly Orthodox, have become defiled by heresies and possibly become the abode of demons. At the same time, I'm sure holiness remains in the relics of saints, in the holy icons and so forth. If you think sometimes it's best to give the place the benefit of the doubt, you have to recognize that there are also good reasons NOT to make the sign of the cross when passing a heretical place of worship. I'm not going to tell you which to do. As I said, it's really more about the reason WHY you make the sign of the cross or not, not just the action itself.

[Suaidan]

Twice you have claimed to be sick of the discussion, but that doesn't seem to stop you from trying to have the last word. I'm looking forward to your next reply.

Perhaps if you'd stop shooting off little barbs like "your justifying with this quasi-ecumenist reasoning" as you write below. You don't sound smarter, and you don't sound more Orthodox.

I just conceded that you were never trying to argue we should acknowledge heretical churches, so there's no call to go highlighting that part of my last post out of context. I was only saying you were being unclear. It doesn't matter whether you think you were being clear, because you were not being clear.

"Being clear" is subjective. Lucidity is subjective. For you to say "it doesn't matter whether you think you were being clear, because you were not being clear" is ridiculous. You are far from the standard of clarity.

I mean, does it even make sense to say we should cross ourselves because a heretical church might have holy relics, and yet refuse to enter it for fear of the heresy, as you also suggested? What if you want to venerate the relics?

Then you would be in violation of the canons, at least, depending on your intention (ap can 64). It has nothing to do with "fear of the heresy". I don't live in fear of demons and heretics.

If, as you yourself acknowledge, certain saints warned their followers against even entering schismatic churches, aren't they being sectarian by your standards?

No, since I never said it was ok to enter schismatic churches, as you can't see because you seem to be brainwashed into reading everything I say with a secret "ecumenist agenda". You can't even keep your own words straight, can you-- your original argument was that the Catacomb Fathers of Russia taught not even to look at schismatic churches (without a citation!) But then below:

When Abp Averky allowed Copts to serve in Jordanville, Met Philaret had the church cleansed with holy water before allowing any more services to proceed. Was he being a sectarian fanatic? Or perhaps his action was just a formal ritual, with no spiritual significance?

Well, I guess St Averky didn't know the catacomb Fathers of Russia as well as Jonathan Gress! And I would think St Philaret was being too much of an ecumenist by not calling for his deposition!

The situation is obviously very complicated, which is why we have on the one hand St John Maximovich, who not only crossed himself in front of heretical churches, but even entered them and served offices at the tombs of the saints, with the permission of the RC clergy, yet on the other hand, we have saints of the Old Calendar or Catacomb churches counseling their followers to avoid having anything to do with schismatics, to the point of even refusing to enter or look in the direction of the schismatic churches.

I still don't see the source of the alleged quote. Further, I don't know about St John officiating services in RC churches. Without doubt, your admission strengthens an argument you've already forgotten-- that St John was motivated by the existence of Orthodox relics in these temples. What I do know is that the canons prohibit entering into such temples.

Don't those schismatic churches contain relics and holy objects? The point is, you were trying to prescribe only one of the two options, namely to cross yourself before both heretical and Orthodox churches, but you didn't justify it simply by saying that these churches probably contain relics, which would be unobjectionable. You justified it also by this quasi-ecumenist reasoning that we have to look beyond the "ideological-religious" position of the faithful, as if all the "branches" of the Church still contained some grace. If you had no intention of making that an argument in support of your position, you should not have introduced it, and certainly you should not have continued to indulge in similar kinds of reasoning, by stirring up fears of sectarianism, warning us not to be like the Jehovah's Witnesses and so on.

That's a load of dung, Jonathan, and you know it. I said NOTHING of the sort. I said precisely this: "My point is that if you consistently put the ideological-religious position of the worshippers in the building where there are perfectly good relics, and use that as the criteria for determining when to make the sign of the cross we either become in practice (a) inconsistent or (b) forced only to make the cross before churches of our own tiny jurisdictions."

That is absolutely not what you are saying above.

It is dishonestly dealing with your interlocutor, Jonathan.

I'm sorry if you think our holy struggle is just about "ideology". Most of us don't see it that way. We believe there is a direct connection between the confession of faith of the people and the holiness of the places where they worship.

You can cover up the filth with more mush-mouthiness, but this is in fact what you believe, so I am skipping the rest, since this IS the central point of the argument in the paragraph. The simple reality is you don't care if there are holy relics in a heretical church or not. It would appear you believe the relics of the saints in those places have in fact lost efficacy. You can try to say "oh sure there are relics there" later (you did) but the reality is, if you believe this (thus qualifying the above), then you can only have one of two options: 1) Either pre-schism churches run by heretics now are somehow defiled totally by the heretics or 2) the heretics who worship within are somehow sanctified.

Either one is stupid.

And all I was talking about was making the sign of the cross when you walk by.

[jgress]

Forgive me, you are right that I was not clear about the issue of entering schismatic churches. I didn't mean to say that you didn't acknowledge this. What I meant to say was that, acknowledging that it is forbidden to enter a schismatic church, it might follow that it is legitimate not to cross oneself in front of a schismatic church for reasons of faith.

I think what continues to upset me is the insinuation that the True Orthodox faith is just some ideology. This is what strikes me as quasi-ecumenist reasoning. I think that instead the evidence is that the presence of heresy in a church is of enough spiritual significance that a member of the faithful might hesitate before crossing himself in front of it, as if it were an Orthodox church. But I don't think that the heresy somehow de-sanctifies the relics themselves. It is more that there is a reason to cross oneself, and a reason not to.

But you appear to be committed to the position that the presence of heresy in a given church does not give a legitimate reason to avoid crossing oneself, and that anyone who does not cross oneself in front of a heretical church for reasons of faith is therefore some kind of sectarian. I am saying this is hard to reconcile that attitude with the strict advice to not even enter a schismatic church, or as you note the fact that there are canons forbidding entering schismatic churches. It is hard to reconcile with the action of St Philaret, who clearly did believe that his church had been spiritually defiled by the heretical service that took place there.

I just don't think you have the right to pronounce on this matter, as if only your opinion was the correct opinion. In contrast, I have allowed that both crossing oneself and not crossing oneself may be the correct behavior. Unless you can prove that your opinion is the canonically correct one, I think you should allow both possibilities, too.

[jgress]

Finally, I found what I was looking for:

It is reported that he [Protopriest St Demetrius Nikolayevich Ivanov] declared the sergianist church to be graceless,
and her sacraments invalid, and even forbade people to pray when they pass
by sergianist churches. This strict opinion of his he based on the opinions with
regard to this question of Elder Nectarius of Optina.

I think this is what I had dimly remembered. I can't find a reference to someone forbidding looking at the church. On the other hand, this citation seems to address your concern directly.

Even allowing for this unshakable witness, I also grant that St John's action of signing himself before unambiguously heretical RC Churches is probably justified considering that he was doing it for the sake of the holy relics contained within. Here is another citation from a Catacomb life that bears on this:

The elder [St Nectarius of Optina] forbade his spiritual children from entering the churches taken
over by the renovationists. If there were wonderworking icons in such
churches, the Iveron Mother of God, for example, he would instruct them on
entering the church to go straight to the icon and neither by thought nor
movement to participate in the service. Candles placed before the icon were to
be brought from home or from an Orthodox church.

Here, the Elder is merely enforcing the canonical restriction. However, note that he also grants an exception to the restriction where there is some holy object worthy of veneration.

So, if you believe one, then you should not even pray when passing a heretical or schismatic church (and signing oneself is a kind of prayer). If you believe the other, you may even enter it for the sake of venerating a holy object, provided you don't participate in the heretical service. Both actions are legitimate if done for pious motives.

[Suaidan]

Finally, I found what I was looking for:

It is reported that he [Protopriest St Demetrius Nikolayevich Ivanov] declared the sergianist church to be graceless,
and her sacraments invalid, and even forbade people to pray when they pass
by sergianist churches. This strict opinion of his he based on the opinions with
regard to this question of Elder Nectarius of Optina.

I think this is what I had dimly remembered. I can't find a reference to someone forbidding looking at the church. On the other hand, this citation seems to address your concern directly.

Even allowing for this unshakable witness, I also grant that St John's action of signing himself before unambiguously heretical RC Churches is probably justified considering that he was doing it for the sake of the holy relics contained within. Here is another citation from a Catacomb life that bears on this:

The elder [St Nectarius of Optina] forbade his spiritual children from entering the churches taken
over by the renovationists. If there were wonderworking icons in such
churches, the Iveron Mother of God, for example, he would instruct them on
entering the church to go straight to the icon and neither by thought nor
movement to participate in the service. Candles placed before the icon were to
be brought from home or from an Orthodox church.

Here, the Elder is merely enforcing the canonical restriction. However, note that he also grants an exception to the restriction where there is some holy object worthy of veneration.

So, if you believe one, then you should not even pray when passing a heretical or schismatic church (and signing oneself is a kind of prayer). If you believe the other, you may even enter it for the sake of venerating a holy object, provided you don't participate in the heretical service. Both actions are legitimate if done for pious motives.

In other words, even the Russian fathers defend my position concerning the relics.

Thanks for your research!

[jgress]

Which position I never opposed, only your assertion that the other position was sectarian fanaticism. Here you find both positions defended, as I had been arguing all along.

You're welcome!

[Suaidan]

Which position I never opposed, only your assertion that the other position was sectarian fanaticism. Here you find both positions defended, as I had been arguing all along.

You're welcome!

Let us simply agree that either action, if not grounded in True Orthodox piety, can be rooted in something heretical.

Fair enough?