Fr. Michael Dahulich on Saint Silouan

[Priest Siluan]

I don't mean to split hairs here...but I guess I kind of do. I'll apply what seems to be ypical ROAC/GOC logic to this question again. St. Silouan was in communion with "heretics" according to the ROAC/GOC view. One of these heretical bodies was the "Moscow Patriarchate" started by Stalin(in your view)...the "Soviet Church" we hear so much about here which was partly responsible for the persecution of the True Orthodox Church. If St. Silouan was in communion with these "heretics", than he himself must have been outside the Church, by your usual logic. How can one in communion with heresy be given the gifts of the holy spirit and the grace required to become a saint?

What hath light to do with darkness.. (blah blah blah)
(Again, I don't believe this at all... it's just that his saintliness does not fit into ROAC "true orthodox" logic)

Maybe you have heard Gregory of Denverand do not to ROAC (he was deposed by similar thoughts to those that you have mentioned). And for your logic I see that then ROCOR was also in communion with the MP every year through its communion with JP and SP. It is ridiculous. The same logical ROAC is that of ROCOR, because we inherit St Silouan through them. This ROCOR that I mention here is not the one of now but the one of before. I don't know to where you want to arrive you with this discussion.

[Chrysostomos]

pjhatala,

If St. Silouan was in communion with these "heretics", than he himself must have been outside the Church, by your usual logic. How can one in communion with heresy be given the gifts of the holy spirit and the grace required to become a saint?

I seriously doubt you will get a response on this one. You've made a good point, but I think the best response is to plead ignorance or not to respond at all.

Your fellow struggler in Christ,

Rd. Chrysostomos

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

So we can be keenly aware of history I see; to bad we all don't look at it more closely and admit the obvious more often. But this point that was raised is far from obvious.

If St. Silouan was in communion with these "heretics", than he himself must have been outside the Church, by your usual logic. How can one in communion with heresy be given the gifts of the holy spirit and the grace required to become a saint?

This is not at all difficult to answer, especially if you are familiar with the period of time in question.

Before we talk about the Holy Mountain, I would like to point out that the GOC under Archbishop Chrysostomos left the door open somewhat to the new calendarists since it had been promised that there would be a pan-orthodox synod to resolve the calendar issue And all it had been up until that time in practice was the calendar; there were no “lifting of anathemas”, Balamand agreements, modernism, joining in prayer with heretics, and the now familiar avalanche of statements and meetings of recognition of heretic “mysteries”. To state things more clearly, the GOC did not recognize the new-calendarists as being in heresy at this time, that did not come until after World War II when the heretics made their agenda more clear. Before something turns from white to black, it goes through a period of gray – in that the heretics were not preaching their heresy definitely with "bared head", but had initiated uncanonical actions.

Regarding the Holy Mountain: Problems began to arise here (as everywhere else) in 1924 with the calendar issue. The Athonite Community, with the exception of the Monastery of Vatopaidi, collectively ceased commemorating the Ecumenical Patriarch.

Later a Patriarchal committee negotiated a “compromise” that assured the Athonites that the calendar reform was not final (as they promised the GOC in mainland Greece) in that it had not been accepted by all the Orthodox Churches. The issue, as previously mentioned, was to be reconsidered in an impending pan-orthodox council that would resolve the matter accordingly.

To the Athonite monks, this reassurance implied the reintroduction of the Old Calendar. Still not all of the monasteries began to commemorate the Patriarch again and a great number of monks and many of the smaller sketes did not as well. Of course later, in 1965, when Athenagoras “lifted” the anathemas, all of Mt. Athos again ceased commemorating the “Patriach”.

I believe that answers your point.

[Priest Siluan]

Thank you very much, OOD:

EXACT, EXACT, EXACT. It is what I treated of explaining previously. But this people take advantage of my poor English. I have already explained about the Mount Athos (look up in my posts), and on the circumstances in that the old ROCOR (not the current ROCOR, which is obvious to suspect) to grateful the Sanctity of Staretz Silouan and it seems that this people have hard their heads (maybe their hearts) that doesn't let them see the truth of the things. I believe that in fact they are the fanatics.

Thank you, again.

[Chrysostomos]

Fr. Siluan,

Bless Father.

But this people take advantage of my poor English.

Father, with all candor, I honestly don't believe that anyone does this to you. If your definition is trying to understand why someone believes what they do and their are some things that need further explaination, then all of us have been taken advantage of. Whether our english is poor or not.

and it seems that this people have hard their heads (maybe their hearts) that doesn't let them see the truth of the things.

To this, I will not disagree, but I believe no one on this board is purified, nor illumined to the point at which they can claim that they "themselves" are without error. Those who have been purified and especially illumined, would claim worse things about themselves. Just the opposite! That is why I bring up this point.

This is not a situation of this group versus that group. We are all one in Christ Jesus. I truly believe this. Those who are Eastern Orthodox Christians. We profess the same creed, do the same liturgies and other services. Pray the same prayers, and struggle. I believe that none of us here participates in any ecumenical ventures, nor do we desire to. I am talking about us, as individuals on this board. We wouldn't be here, just so we could be harrassed because we are in this or that jurisdiction. Instead of always trying to find ways to seperate ourselves, perhaps we can work towards unifying ourselves - just on this board. Forget our respective jurisdictions, just as members of this board.

Give it some thought, and especially prayer.

Kissing the hand of Christ,

Rd. Chrysostomos

[Priest Siluan]

To this, I will not disagree, but I believe no one on this board is purified, nor illumined to the point at which they can claim that they "themselves" are without error. Those who have been purified and especially illumined, would claim worse things about themselves. Just the opposite! That is why I bring up this point.

This is not a situation of this group versus that group. We are all one in Christ Jesus. I truly believe this. Those who are Eastern Orthodox Christians. We profess the same creed, do the same liturgies and other services. Pray the same prayers, and struggle. I believe that none of us here participates in any ecumenical ventures, nor do we desire to. I am talking about us, as individuals on this board. We wouldn't be here, just so we could be harrassed because we are in this or that jurisdiction. Instead of always trying to find ways to seperate ourselves, perhaps we can work towards unifying ourselves - just on this board. Forget our respective jurisdictions, just as members of this board.

Forgive me if I offended you. I agree on this point, but you will see this discussion always lapses in this same point. And this Topic is to talk about our saints (to who we should have more respect) and we finish speaking about if them (our saints) were ecumenist or they were not. it is ridiculous, and if ROAC accepts St Silouan like a saint, I explain why. But it seems that my explanation doesn't reach. OOD also explains the situation of the time of St Silouan lived and it seems neither to reach. Why Is question? I think that there are people that they try to do to fall to their brothers and they do to say things that they didn't say (I don't say it for you). And this is not Christian, but well this is pharisee.

[尼古拉前执事]

So we can be keenly aware of history I see; to bad we all don't look at it more closely and admit the obvious more often. But this point that was raised is far from obvious.

If St. Silouan was in communion with these "heretics", than he himself must have been outside the Church, by your usual logic. How can one in communion with heresy be given the gifts of the holy spirit and the grace required to become a saint?

This is not at all difficult to answer, especially if you are familiar with the period of time in question.

Before we talk about the Holy Mountain, I would like to point out that the GOC under Archbishop Chrysostomos left the door open somewhat to the new calendarists since it had been promised that there would be a pan-orthodox synod to resolve the calendar issue And all it had been up until that time in practice was the calendar; there were no “lifting of anathemas”, Balamand agreements, modernism, joining in prayer with heretics, and the now familiar avalanche of statements and meetings of recognition of heretic “mysteries”. To state things more clearly, the GOC did not recognize the new-calendarists as being in heresy at this time, that did not come until after World War II when the heretics made their agenda more clear. Before something turns from white to black, it goes through a period of gray – in that the heretics were not preaching their heresy definitely with "bared head", but had initiated uncanonical actions.

Regarding the Holy Mountain: Problems began to arise here (as everywhere else) in 1924 with the calendar issue. The Athonite Community, with the exception of the Monastery of Vatopaidi, collectively ceased commemorating the Ecumenical Patriarch.

Later a Patriarchal committee negotiated a “compromise” that assured the Athonites that the calendar reform was not final (as they promised the GOC in mainland Greece) in that it had not been accepted by all the Orthodox Churches. The issue, as previously mentioned, was to be reconsidered in an impending pan-orthodox council that would resolve the matter accordingly.

To the Athonite monks, this reassurance implied the reintroduction of the Old Calendar. Still not all of the monasteries began to commemorate the Patriarch again and a great number of monks and many of the smaller sketes did not as well. Of course later, in 1965, when Athenagoras “lifted” the anathemas, all of Mt. Athos again ceased commemorating the “Patriach”.

I believe that answers your point.

OOD answers it completely and correctly. People often try to attack the traditional Orthodox Churches with these arguments, when the facts clearly speak for themselves. I am going to break this argument off of the main thread ans the main thread is about patron saints, not how can we try to demean one another.