Discussion and criticism of GOC-K & SiR Union

[Jean-Serge]

NFTU has communicated unofficial documents http://nftu.net/documents-related-gock-sir-union/

[Jean-Serge]

In the document “Basic-Principles-for-Union-GOC-SiR-1-1” that seems to be a draft and communicated by NFTU, we read :

6. More specifically, with regard to the Mysteries celebrated in the so-called official Orthodox Churches, the True Orthodox Church, within the boundaries of Her pastoral solicitude, does not provide assurance concerning their validity or concerning their salvific efficacy, having in view the convocation of a Major Synod of True Orthodoxy, in particular for those who commune “knowingly” with syncretistic ecumenism and Sergianism, even though She does not in any instance repeat them for those entering into communion with Her in repentance.

How do you understand this sentence? I find it terribly ambiguous, not being a native English speaker. Even if I translate it to French, it would not be very clear. They do not say that world orthodoxy mysteries are efficient, but they do not say they are not. Is it so? If so, it is contradiction with the paragraphs before.

3. The application of œconomy in the reception of heretics and schismatics into communion with the Church in no way betokens that the Church acknowledges the validity and the reality of their mysteries, which are celebrated outside Her canonical and charismatic boundaries.

1. The Holy Orthodox Church has never recognized, either by exactitude or by œconomy, mysteries performed completely outside Her and in apostasy, since those who celebrate or who partake of these mysteries remain within the bosom of their heretical or schismatic community.

[Maria]

• 3. The application of œconomy in the reception of heretics and schismatics into communion with the Church in no way betokens that the Church acknowledges the validity and the reality of their mysteries, which are celebrated outside Her canonical and charismatic boundaries.

  [refers to reception of those in "Official Orthodoxy" or perhaps to other "jurisdictions" in True Orthodoxy?]

  1. The Holy Orthodox Church has never recognized, either by exactitude or by œconomy, mysteries performed completely outside Her and in apostasy, since those who celebrate or who partake of these mysteries remain within the bosom of their heretical or schismatic community.

  [refers to those who come from Protestantism or Roman Catholicism]

  1. More specifically, with regard to the Mysteries celebrated in the so-called official Orthodox Churches, the True Orthodox Church, within the boundaries of Her pastoral solicitude, does not provide assurance concerning their validity or concerning their salvific efficacy, having in view the convocation of a Major Synod of True Orthodoxy, in particular for those who commune “knowingly” with syncretistic ecumenism and Sergianism, even though She does not in any instance repeat them for those entering into communion with Her in repentance.

Please note that the above is only a draft that might have been revised. None of us will know how the final document reads until it is dated with signatures attached and officially released.

Note that this draft has abandoned the demeaning use of "World Orthodoxy" and now uses the term "Official Orthodoxy."
However, this use of "Official Orthodoxy" may be misleading to those outsiders (Roman Catholics, Protestants, and non-Christians) who may be looking into True Orthodoxy.

(#6) Instead of mentioning the Pan-Orthodox Council at Istanbul in 2016, which will not include the True Orthodox, but only the "Official Orthodox" jurisdictions, this sentence mentions "the convocation of a Major Synod of True Orthodoxy." Remember, many years earlier the SiR had mentioned that it would be up to an Ecumenical Council to define the heresy of Ecumenism, so this sentence clarifies that only a Major Synod of True Orthodoxy would be able to define precisely the heresies of Ecumenism and Sergianism. Apparently, the convocation of a Major Synod of True Orthodoxy has just occurred with the new GOC-K Synod not only unanimously creating a document, but also defining and condemning both Ecumenism and Sergianism.

However, the laity will need to wait for clarification as Paragraph 6 might have been revised or deleted.

The following is only my educated guess and opinion:

The Hierarchs in the True Orthodox Church cannot give any assurances that those outside of Her have any sacramental validity that would lead to salvation. The Church knows that our Mysteries give Grace, but does not know where else grace may be found as God's grace pours out like rain on the just and unjust leading those in error to salvation if they heed His Voice and repent.

Therefore (#3), those who come from "Official Orthodoxy" in repentance having been previously received by Baptism into "Official Orthodoxy" will not be baptized anew, but they will be Chrismated and be required to make a Confession of faith and life confession. However (#4), those Protestants and Roman Catholics who are converting to True Orthodoxy will be baptized anew as is the current practice of the GOC-K, and those Protestants and Roman Catholics who were previously received into "Official Orthodoxy" by chrismation and/or confession of faith, will also be baptized anew, as is also the current practice of the GOC-K.

[Jean-Serge]

The following is only my educated guess and opinion:

The Hierarchs in the True Orthodox Church cannot give any assurances that those outside of Her have any sacramental validity that would lead to salvation. The Church knows that our Mysteries give Grace, but does not know where else grace may be found as God's grace pours out like rain on the just and unjust leading those in error to salvation if they heed His Voice and repent.

The presence of mysterical grace outside the church is ruled out by canons in particular canon 1 of Saint Basil and Canon of the Apostles 46

46. We order any Bishop, or Presbyter, that has accepted any heretics’ Baptism, or sacrifice, to be deposed; for "what consonancy hath Christ with Beliart or what part hath the believer with an infidel?"

Interpretation.

It behooves Orthodox Christians to shun heretics and the ceremonies and rites of heretics. They, i.e., heretics, ought rather to be criticized and admonished by Bishops and Presbyters, in the hope of their apprehending and returning from their error. For this reason the present Canon prescribes if any Bishop or Presbyter shall accept a heretic's Baptism as correct and true, or any sacrifice offered by them, it is ordered that he be dropped. For what agreement hath Christ with the Devil? or what portion hath the believer with an unbeliever? Those who accept the doings of heretics either themselves entertain similar views to theirs or at any rate they lack an eagerness to free them from their misbelief. For how can those who acquiese in their religious ceremonies and rites criticize them with the view of persuading them to give up their cacodoxical and erroneous heresy?

Maintaining an ambiguity on the topic in the final declaration would be catastrophical, and a step back the traditional posture. Just compare with 2008 ROAC protocols that were very clear on this subject

Instead, our Sobor makes the case that at the present time, neither the Moscow Patriarchate nor ‘world Orthodoxy’ as a whole has any relationship to the Church of Christ. This means that there can be no genuine sacraments of the Church being performed there.
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.

http://www.roacusa.org/htdocs/SOBOR_2008_Protocols.pdf

[Maria]

I agree, Jean-Serge. That paragraph needs to be revised and clarified to remove all ambiguity.

"World Orthodoxy" vs. "Official Orthodoxy"

To reiterate: returning to the phrase "World Orthodoxy" is important even if that phrase offends those in "World Orthodoxy" because they have given into the world and have left True Orthodoxy. The phrase "Official Orthodoxy" will leave potential converts confused. If the venerable GOC-K Hierarchs really want to be very clear, then perhaps using the phrase "Politically-Correct World Orthodoxy" might send a better message.

[Jean-Serge]

And another document here:
http://hotca.org/documents/encyclicals/ ... -7-20-2014

and pay attention to this point:

Our hearts turn with love and forbearance towards those who in various ways have cooperated and continue to cooperate in the truly worldwide scandal of the division of the Orthodox in the name of unity with the heterodox, and have breached the ecclesiological and soteriological exclusivity of Orthodoxy, and we call them to repentance and return to the immovable borders of the True Faith and the authentic Orthodox Church of Christ, where the fullness of Grace and Truth are found exclusively.

Once again, there is a lack of clarity because it can be interpreted as that the fullness of Grace and Truth is in True Orthodoxy, but in world orthodoxy, there is a some mysterical grace, but not at 100%. I will not be satisfied until I read the full ecclesiological document and if this one leaves no room for ambiguity. By now, such document should be already public at least in Greek. Why does it take so long?

I am also surprised at the former SiR communiqué saying: "and by the prayers of our Father and Metropolitan of blessed memory." How can a schismatic and inventor of cyprianist heresy be of blessed memory?

Link: http://www.synodinresistance.org/pdfs/2 ... 3-2014.pdf

[Hieromonk Enoch]

Jean-Serge said:

"The presence of mysterical grace outside the church is ruled out by canons in particular canon 1 of Saint Basil and Canon of the Apostles 46.."

This is indeed to be remembered. Bp. Nikodim (Milas) (1845-1915) says:

"According to the teachings of the Church, every heretic is outside the Church and outside the Church there cannot be a true Christian Baptism, nor the true Eucharistic Sacrifice, as there are no true Sacraments. The present Apostolic Canon generally expresses this doctrine of the Church, referring to the Holy Scriptures, not admitting anything in common between those professing the Orthodox Faith and those that teach against it. However, this also can be found in the Apostolic Constitutions (IV, 15), and also is taught by Fathers and Teachers of the Church from the very beginning (1). Consequently, the heretics have no true Baptism, nor do they have true Priests, and the Orthodox bishop or presbytery who recognizes the baptism or any other priestly function committed by heretical priests as right, should be deposed by this rule of his priesthood, for it shows that either he does not know the nature of their beliefs, or he himself is inclined to heresy and protects is, so that in this and in the other case he is unworthy of the priesthood. This Apostolic Canon generally--taking into account the note made on it in the Russian Rule Book--applies only to the heretics who were in apostolic times and distored the major tenets of God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and the Incarnation of the Son of God. Relative to other kinds of heretics are the relevant regulations and other rules of the synods of the holy Fathers (2).

(1) Athanasl, "Orat. III Contra Arianos"; Euseb., Hist. eccl. 1. VII, c. 6; Cyrill. Hierosol. , "Procatechesis"; -Tertull., "De bapti." C. 15, "De pudic." C. 12, 19..."De praescript." C. 12; Clem. Alex., "Strom." 1.I; Cyprian. epist. 73, ad Jubajan, Ep. 71, ad Quint; Optat. Milev., C. Parmen. 1. II

(2) Who were these heretic see the interpretation of the 47th Apsostolic Canon.

Of course, this interpretation is more nuanced, and though the seemingly defining interpretation in the larger part of the Orthodox world for nearly 300 years, is itself a bit contradictory. Someone as well known in the True Orthodox world as Abp. Lazar Zhubenko taught something basically the same:

http://www.euphrosynoscafe.com/forum/vi ... ace#p60180

Before you interpret me as endorsing this view, or try to exculpate the false World "Orthodox", you should recognize that I am not, nor anyone I know. After all, speaking from a personal perspective, I've always been instructed to Baptize all Roman Catholics and Protestant that come to me, as my Metropolitan has always taught me that they are without mysteriological grace, and that they have no salvation; the same teaching being taught by the other bishops and priest of my Synod regarding heretics. We have also been taught to Chrismate all those coming to us from World 'Orthodox' who can show that they have had a triple immersion baptism; and, in cases, to Chrismate those coming to us from any other group but our own ('Old Calendarists or otherwise). Therefore, Jean-Serge, do not interpret my attempt to explain what I think is happening as indicative of me believing what I am explaining (indeed, I am sorry to even have to have prefaced my response with the above words, but, recently, I was referred to the words of one rather ignorant [or intentionally lying] cleric who tried to make the outlandish claim that my bishop and I believe that Papists had grace; whether he did this because of my past post mentioning the common, but erroneous scholastic view of 17th,18, 19th, and early 20th century Russian Orthodoxy, or he did it from pure maliciousness, I'll not know; but, I have to be exact, I suppose due to the pseudo-pontifications of others).

However, what I believe is being made as the claim by the GOC (K) in the documents mentioned, is that there is no salvation or benefit found in any sacramental actions outside the True Orthodox Church. It almost seems as if to say, "The question is irrelevant, because even if they had the Sacraments for some strange reason due to whatever, then, God would not allow any beneficial usage, but, only spiritual condemnation." This is itself roughly analogous to the older scholastic (and Optatian African view, etc, followed by St. Gregory Dialogus, St. Leo the Great, etc) of the Russian Church; however it is actually different, since these views necessitated it as a fact that certain types of heretics/schismatics had non-beneficial Grace; whereas the quote we are discussing from the document approaches to saying that the World 'Orthodox' probably don't, but if they did, etc. I believe it is possible to speculate that this view or statement was made in an attempt to reach some sort of argumentative nullifaction of the Cyprianite view that the World 'Orthodox' are part of the Church until such time as an Ecumenical Council can definitively cast them out of the Church. However, this Cyprianite view is wrong as it essentially nullifies the history of the monothelite heresy and how it was dealt with (see the 649 Lateran Synod held at Rome by St. Martin of Rome and St. Maximus the Confessor).

In Christ,

Fr. Enoch