Old Calendar Ecumenism?

[jgress]

No, I don't mean that. What I mean is that heresy of its own nature separates one from the church. But let's say a bishop is secretly a heretic. Although he himself can't still be in the Church, the mysteries he performs can still be saving for the faithful who receive them at his hands, because, as you rightly note, "ecclesia suplet". The grace of the mysteries is Christ's and the Church's, not the personal property of the heretical bishop. God condescends to the ignorance of the faithful and continues to provide them with sanctifying grace.

But if this bishop starts making his heresy public, then the people no longer have the excuse of ignorance. To the extent they are aware of the bishop's heresy, they will receive the mysteries from him to their condemnation. This implies, however, that the mysteries are still lawful, since as far as I know you can only receive to your condemnation when the mysteries are true mysteries, i.e. you are being condemned by your own sin, not by the gracelessness of what you are receiving. What I don't really know is what it moves beyond that, and the bishop is completely deprived of even the grace to perform lawful mysteries. I.e. when does the Eucharist he offers cease to be the Body and Blood of Christ. We know that mysteries can't be performed outside the Church, and we know that heretics are outside the Church, but we also believe God condescends to our weakness and ignorance and often supplies what is lacking. So you can say that the heretics, though outside the Church, and hence by right deprived of the grace to perform valid mysteries, may nevertheless continue to exercise this power so long as God sees fit for him to do so, for the sake of the people. But because this is a matter of condescension, not strictness, it is necessarily uncertain, up until the point that the Church declares with a clear voice that a heresy has arisen and that those who preach this heresy are cut off.

The Cyprianites believes that the only body that can claim to represent the "Church" is this so-called Unifying Council. If they were simply arguing that the council had to be Ecumenical or Pan-Orthodox, and not just local, I don't think their views would be heretical, just ahistorical. But the whole point of the Unifying Council is that both heretics and Orthodox participate. I.e. the voice of the Church must include heretics! Now, some councils did allow heretics to participate, but I don't think there is any suggestion that the presence of the heretics was in any way required or that they were considered still members of the Church. Rather, they were allowed to participate for the sake of economy, in order to facilitate the return of repentant heretics, and to remove any possible excuse for the unrepentant ones. But the Cyprianites interpret this to mean that the heretics before their condemnation were still in the Church. This at the very least violates Apostolic Canon 46, and may be understood as heresy itself, since it teaches that the Church can contain heretics, despite "One Church, One Faith, One Baptism".

The other thing is that they refuse to call the ecumenists heretics, even though they know ecumenism is a heresy and even though they refrain from communion with the ecumenists. It is hard not to interpret this behavior as confirming their heretical ecclesiology.

[Suaidan]

No, I don't mean that. What I mean is that heresy of its own nature separates one from the church. But let's say a bishop is secretly a heretic. Although he himself can't still be in the Church, the mysteries he performs can still be saving for the faithful who receive them at his hands, because, as you rightly note, "ecclesia suplet". The grace of the mysteries is Christ's and the Church's, not the personal property of the heretical bishop. God condescends to the ignorance of the faithful and continues to provide them with sanctifying grace.

Ok, we agree then.

But if this bishop starts making his heresy public, then the people no longer have the excuse of ignorance. To the extent they are aware of the bishop's heresy, they will receive the mysteries from him to their condemnation. This implies, however, that the mysteries are still lawful, since as far as I know you can only receive to your condemnation when the mysteries are true mysteries, i.e. you are being condemned by your own sin, not by the gracelessness of what you are receiving. What I don't really know is what it moves beyond that, and the bishop is completely deprived of even the grace to perform lawful mysteries. I.e. when does the Eucharist he offers cease to be the Body and Blood of Christ. We know that mysteries can't be performed outside the Church, and we know that heretics are outside the Church, but we also believe God condescends to our weakness and ignorance and often supplies what is lacking. So you can say that the heretics, though outside the Church, and hence by right deprived of the grace to perform valid mysteries, may nevertheless continue to exercise this power so long as God sees fit for him to do so, for the sake of the people. But because this is a matter of condescension, not strictness, it is necessarily uncertain, up until the point that the Church declares with a clear voice that a heresy has arisen and that those who preach this heresy are cut off.

Sts Cyprian and Augustine have differing views on the matter.

The Cyprianites believes that the only body that can claim to represent the "Church" is this so-called Unifying Council. If they were simply arguing that the council had to be Ecumenical or Pan-Orthodox, and not just local, I don't think their views would be heretical, just ahistorical. But the whole point of the Unifying Council is that both heretics and Orthodox participate. I.e. the voice of the Church must include heretics! Now, some councils did allow heretics to participate, but I don't think there is any suggestion that the presence of the heretics was in any way required or that they were considered still members of the Church. Rather, they were allowed to participate for the sake of economy, in order to facilitate the return of repentant heretics, and to remove any possible excuse for the unrepentant ones. But the Cyprianites interpret this to mean that the heretics before their condemnation were still in the Church. This at the very least violates Apostolic Canon 46, and may be understood as heresy itself, since it teaches that the Church can contain heretics, despite "One Church, One Faith, One Baptism".

I really need to find my copy of "Resistance or Exclusion". I was under the impression that they believed that without conciliar judgment the canons were not self-acting. Thus it was not a philosophical position but a practical one.

The other thing is that they refuse to call the ecumenists heretics, even though they know ecumenism is a heresy and even though they refrain from communion with the ecumenists. It is hard not to interpret this behavior as confirming their heretical ecclesiology.

I've seen them use the terms "ecumenist heretics" rather often. Maybe I am missing something?

[JHunt777]

I really need to find my copy of "Resistance or Exclusion". I was under the impression that they believed that without conciliar judgment the canons were not self-acting. Thus it was not a philosophical position but a practical one.

This is the teaching of St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain, which he expresses in a footnote of the Rudder:

"We must know that the penalties provided by the canons, such as deposition,
excommunication, and anathematization, are imposed in the third person according
to grammatical usage, there being no imperative available. In such cases in
order to express a command, the second person would be necessary. I will explain
the matter better. The canons command the council of living bishops to depose
the priests, or to excommunicate them, or to anathematize laymen who violate the
canons. Yet, if the council does not actually effect the deposition of the
priests, or the excommunication, or the anathematization of the laymen, they are
neither actually deposed, nor excommunicated, nor anathematized.

"They are, however, liable to stand judicial trial – here, with regard to
deposition, excommunication, and anathematization, but there with regard to
divine vengeance. Just as when a king commands his slave to whip another who did
something that offended him, if the slave in question fails to execute the
king's command, he will nevertheless be liable to trial for the whipping.

"So, those silly men make a great mistake who say that at the present time all
those in holy orders who have been ordained contrary to the canons are actually
deposed from office. It is an inquisitional tongue that foolishly twaddles thus
without understanding that the command of the canons, without the practical
activity of the second person, or, more plainly speaking, of the council,
remains unexecuted, since it does not act of itself and by itself immediately
and before judgment.

"The Apostles themselves explain themselves in their c. XLVI unmistakenly, since
they do not say that any bishop or presbyter who accepts a baptism performed by
heretics is already and at once deposed, but rather they command that he be
deposed, or, at any rate, that he stand trial, and if it be proven that he did
so, then we command that he be stripped of holy orders,' they say,by your
decision.'

What St. Nikodemos seems to indicate is that anathemas are not “self-acting.” One is not automatically deprived of grace-filled Mysteries by falling under an anathema, but rather anathemas and the other disciplinary measures (depositions, excommunications) give authority living Synods of bishops to apply to specific people and situations. Cyprianism aside, if a bishop or president of bishops (according to the 15th of the 1st-2nd) begins to each a heresy that has been condemned by a Council of Father, one is blessed to break communion with that bishop or president of bishops (Archbishop or Metropolitan) awaiting a council to judge him for heresy. As long as that preacher of heresies is recognized by the rest of the Church as a priest or bishop, that priest or bishop remains a minister of grace-filled mysteries, though he himself may be condemned for his heresy and be outside the Church in his teaching. One should separate from such a bishop or priest so they are not persuaded by their heresies, not because the bishop or priest no longer has grace-filled mysteries.

In the case of the calendar change, as Met Chrysostom of Florina came to believe by 1937, and what he believed until 1950 (and very likely afterwards despite what he signed in 1950), the New Calendar State Church of Greece became “potentially schismatic” after the adoption of the New Calendar. “Potentially,” because the other local churches could have demanded that they stand trial for violating the anathemas from the 16th century Pan-Orthodox councils and later. The New Calendar State Church did not “become schismatic” automatically by changing the calendar, but continued to be recognized as part of the Church by the other local churches that did not adopt the New Calendar. This is not to say that the New Calendar is okay, or that this was not a schismatic act. Rather, it was a potentially schismatic act that resulted in real schism, though it was not the State Church that went into schism since they continued to have the recognition of the rest of the Church. At least, this is what I think is made quite apparent by St. Nikodemos.

Any objections?

[Mark Templet]

Well done, now was a good point! That was easy to understand and makes logical sense.

However, let me offer a counter-point. The canons clearly state that the clergy of the WO who have entered into prayer with heretics (I would submit that membership in the WCC certainly constitutes evidence of this) then the clergy and laymen are to be deposed and excommunicated.

Now, the way you explain it makes it sound like an offender could potentially never be deposed or excommunicated, despite breaking the canons, provided that a conciliar decision is never made regarding such. Surely, you don't mean that the Church can just drag its feet on heretics indefinitely.

To me this speaks to the responsibility the True Orthodox Church has to bring these WO people to spiritual justice and depose them. Once they are deposed canonically, they surely have no grace in their mysteries. So why can't SiR find a way to do their due diligence and get the offenders deposed?

[Suaidan]

I really need to find my copy of "Resistance or Exclusion". I was under the impression that they believed that without conciliar judgment the canons were not self-acting. Thus it was not a philosophical position but a practical one.

This is the teaching of St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain, which he expresses in a footnote of the Rudder:

"We must know that the penalties provided by the canons, such as deposition,
excommunication, and anathematization, are imposed in the third person according
to grammatical usage, there being no imperative available. In such cases in
order to express a command, the second person would be necessary. I will explain
the matter better. The canons command the council of living bishops to depose
the priests, or to excommunicate them, or to anathematize laymen who violate the
canons. Yet, if the council does not actually effect the deposition of the
priests, or the excommunication, or the anathematization of the laymen, they are
neither actually deposed, nor excommunicated, nor anathematized.

"They are, however, liable to stand judicial trial – here, with regard to
deposition, excommunication, and anathematization, but there with regard to
divine vengeance. Just as when a king commands his slave to whip another who did
something that offended him, if the slave in question fails to execute the
king's command, he will nevertheless be liable to trial for the whipping.

"So, those silly men make a great mistake who say that at the present time all
those in holy orders who have been ordained contrary to the canons are actually
deposed from office. It is an inquisitional tongue that foolishly twaddles thus
without understanding that the command of the canons, without the practical
activity of the second person, or, more plainly speaking, of the council,
remains unexecuted, since it does not act of itself and by itself immediately
and before judgment.

"The Apostles themselves explain themselves in their c. XLVI unmistakenly, since
they do not say that any bishop or presbyter who accepts a baptism performed by
heretics is already and at once deposed, but rather they command that he be
deposed, or, at any rate, that he stand trial, and if it be proven that he did
so, then we command that he be stripped of holy orders,' they say,by your
decision.'

What St. Nikodemos seems to indicate is that anathemas are not “self-acting.” One is not automatically deprived of grace-filled Mysteries by falling under an anathema, but rather anathemas and the other disciplinary measures (depositions, excommunications) give authority living Synods of bishops to apply to specific people and situations. Cyprianism aside, if a bishop or president of bishops (according to the 15th of the 1st-2nd) begins to each a heresy that has been condemned by a Council of Father, one is blessed to break communion with that bishop or president of bishops (Archbishop or Metropolitan) awaiting a council to judge him for heresy. As long as that preacher of heresies is recognized by the rest of the Church as a priest or bishop, that priest or bishop remains a minister of grace-filled mysteries, though he himself may be condemned for his heresy and be outside the Church in his teaching. One should separate from such a bishop or priest so they are not persuaded by their heresies, not because the bishop or priest no longer has grace-filled mysteries.

In the case of the calendar change, as Met Chrysostom of Florina came to believe by 1937, and what he believed until 1950 (and very likely afterwards despite what he signed in 1950), the New Calendar State Church of Greece became “potentially schismatic” after the adoption of the New Calendar. “Potentially,” because the other local churches could have demanded that they stand trial for violating the anathemas from the 16th century Pan-Orthodox councils and later. The New Calendar State Church did not “become schismatic” automatically by changing the calendar, but continued to be recognized as part of the Church by the other local churches that did not adopt the New Calendar. This is not to say that the New Calendar is okay, or that this was not a schismatic act. Rather, it was a potentially schismatic act that resulted in real schism, though it was not the State Church that went into schism since they continued to have the recognition of the rest of the Church. At least, this is what I think is made quite apparent by St. Nikodemos.

Any objections?

No, because that was precisely the citation Metropolitan Chrysostom referred to.

[Suaidan]

Well done, now was a good point! That was easy to understand and makes logical sense.

However, let me offer a counter-point. The canons clearly state that the clergy of the WO who have entered into prayer with heretics (I would submit that membership in the WCC certainly constitutes evidence of this) then the clergy and laymen are to be deposed and excommunicated.

Now, the way you explain it makes it sound like an offender could potentially never be deposed or excommunicated, despite breaking the canons, provided that a conciliar decision is never made regarding such. Surely, you don't mean that the Church can just drag its feet on heretics indefinitely.

To me this speaks to the responsibility the True Orthodox Church has to bring these WO people to spiritual justice and depose them. Once they are deposed canonically, they surely have no grace in their mysteries. So why can't SiR find a way to do their due diligence and get the offenders deposed?

I believe that this can occur, once we can get all our houses in order and speak with unified voices. \I think actually the Romanians in communion with them hold a similar position, based on their recent epistle (within 2 days ago) but the Google translation is poor. I'd say TOC dialogue is moving much faster thanks to this internet thing.

[Mark Templet]

I believe that this can occur, once we can get all our houses in order and speak with unified voices. \I think actually the Romanians in communion with them hold a similar position, based on their recent epistle (within 2 days ago) but the Google translation is poor. I'd say TOC dialogue is moving much faster thanks to this internet thing.

Good, then theoretically, if SiR and ROCOR(A) got together with the rest of us and we all agreed on the deposition of the WO, then BOOM we're in business.