Genuine GOC of America: A Proclamation on Ecclesiology

[ioannis]

I would agree of course that the ecumenist churches have no Grace, I would just not rationalize it into a strict definition, even supplying a date. These defintions and absolutisms are great for people who need answers for everything, but I doubt the Lord is so legalistic and brutal towards people who were orthodox in their faith, did not know any better, and did the best they could.

I personally believe that the declaration that the new calendarists lost Grace in 1935 is good to protect the flock. And it is only as good if it is preached. Personally, I don't think everything was as black and white though.

[GOCTheophan]

I would agree of course that the ecumenist churches have no Grace, I would just not rationalize it into a strict definition, even supplying a date. These defintions and absolutisms are great for people who need answers for everything, but I doubt the Lord is so legalistic and brutal towards people who were orthodox in their faith, did not know any better, and did the best they could.

I personally believe that the declaration that the new calendarists lost Grace in 1935 is good to protect the flock. And it is only as good if it is preached. Personally, I don't think everything was as black and white though.

But if they had Grace at one stage and now they dont that means there was a point when it definitely departed? This idea of degrees of Grace comes extremely near the Latin idea that it is something created. How can we measure something Divine? The idea of a fading away Eucharist would only be possible if you accepted the protestant ideas of a "Spiritual presence" or "consubtanition" as the arch-heretic John Romanides does ( who by the way refers to the Old Calendarists as Augustinian heretics and believes that we are without the Grace of the Sacraments- all the while accepting the Anti-Chalcedonians!).

The date of their falling away varies from Church to Church, the Serbian Patriarchate only fell away in 1965 by commiting fornication with the WCC and so signing up to a protestant eccelsiogly. Others fell earlier. I believe there is a priest in ROCOR under met Vitaly who holds that the Jerusalem Patriarchate only fell away in the year 2000. So yes in the eyes of us- sinfull and passion ridden as we are- there are lots of grey areas where WE cant say anything for definite as in the case of ROCOR-L in the USA and Australia at the moment.

We dont know God's judgement about any individual souls with the expectations of those the Church has glorified as saints or a tiny handful of others such Judas and Julian the apostate- I wrote clearly before that God can still have mercy and save those who act in good faith but that doesnt mean that the miracle of the Eucharist is preformed on Altars belonging to schismatic or heretical organizations. God wills the salvation of ALL- there is no question of Him being "brutal".

How Ioannis can preaching a lie be good for Christ's rational flock? Do you believe that the Bishops made a mistake in making the 1935 declaration?

Theophan.

[George Australia]

I would agree of course that the ecumenist churches have no Grace,

OK, so now that's clear.

I would just not rationalize it into a strict definition, even supplying a date. These defintions and absolutisms are great for people who need answers for everything,

And now you are muddying the waters again. The date is immaterial. The fact is that you hold that what you call "ecumenist Churches" are now without Grace. I presume "ecumenist Churches" include the EP. So, to be clear, you hold that the EP and any Church in Communion with the EP is without Grace- correct? Whether you like it or not ioannis, that is a "definition" and "absolutism".

but I doubt the Lord is so legalistic and brutal towards people who were orthodox in their faith, did not know any better, and did the best they could.

Here we go again...
God's Mercy, infinite as it is, cannot make a Church simultaneously "Grace-filled" and "without Grace", - it has to be one or the other. The ignorance of the people has nothing to do with it. If, as you say, a Church is without Grace, then God's mercy towards the ignorant members of it will not make it "Grace-filled" for some and not for others.

I personally believe that the declaration that the new calendarists lost Grace in 1935 is good to protect the flock.

But do you believe it is true? By this I mean, not simply that it declared a schism (which everyone agrees it did) but that it declared correctly which side of the schism is the true Church. If you cannot agree with this, then you consider it to be a false and schismatic synod, and like Theophan asks, how could a false and schismatic Synod be good for the flock?

Personally, I don't think everything was as black and white though.

Ioannis, it was black and white. The 1935 Synod drew a line between "Church" and "Non-Church". It decreed that the Synod is the Church, and the Church of Greece is not. If you disagree with this assesment, then you must consider the 1935 Synod to be a false, robber-synod.

[ioannis]

George,

I am not legalistic and absolute when it comes to how, but that it did is what every Holy Father in the church teaches about heretics.

Theophan,

I don't know what you mean about "degree of Grace", I only believe that it is either there or it is not. And what I believe I think is very much along the lines of Vladimir Moss wrote in one of his articles. If you would like the link let me know.

[GOCTheophan]

I don't know what you mean about "degree of Grace", I only believe that it is either there or it is not. And what I believe I think is very much along the lines of Vladimir Moss wrote in one of his articles. If you would like the link let me know.

Yes please as regards the link, Im not sure if I understand your postition correctly and it might be helpful in letting me do just that. However I know for a fact that Reader Vladimir holds that the State Church of Greece lost Mysteriological Grace in the 1935.

If you say that Grace (and I presume here we mean Sacramental Grace) departs slowly that I cant see how you are not then talking about degrees of Grace.

Look the same Flesh and Blood of the Lord appears on the altar of my parish as appeared on the altars say of a parish in Kievian Rus- both us and the 12 th century Russians have been Communed with the same Eucharist- the Grace is the same but they were much better at "putting it to work" ( I cant think of a better analogy). However there came a point when the Holy Spirit ceased transforming the elements of the altars of the Ecumenical Patriarchate when before it did (and so the whole Grace was present despite the errors and/or sins of the celebrants).

The light was switched off if you will when before it had been on even if people didnt put it to good use.

There are people who attend World Orthodox Churches today who believe in an Orthodox fashion and geniunely seem to try live their lives according to the Gospel who are not National Bholesvik fascists or Elder Ephraimite pharisees, who maybe would much prefer to attend an Orthodox parish were they could hear the vioce of Christ but there isnt one around for miles or maybe such a parish doesnt even exist in their country- but does the existence of such people in the here and now stop you from saying that today as we speak the false Ecumenist Churches are without Grace?

Theophan.

[ioannis]

Theophan,

This is the pertinent quote, I cannot find the article online anymore....

I am also prepared to admit the possibility that even when a community has been anathematised by a true and valid anathema, God may still protect certain individuals within that community from the full force of the anathema for a longer or shorter period. I would only argue that if God, Who is the Sovereign and Maker of the law, makes exceptions to His law, that is no reason for us, who are not privy to His secret judgements, not to keep the law. And the law was stated by the Lord Himself as follows: “If he shall neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily, I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” (Matthew 18.17-1Cool. In other words, we should treat those anathematised by the Church as outside the Church and not deserving the honour of Christians (which is not to say, of course, that we should not pray for their eventual return). And Holy Tradition makes it crystal clear that those cast out in this way have no sacraments (Apostolic canons 46 and 47).

[1937 Miraculous Cross]

Dear George and Theophan,

We can blow smoke, so-to-speak, all we want. the truth is, is that it doesn't matter what you or me, or anyone else who wants to speculate on this 'Grace" issue thinks. what matters is what the Holy synods proclaim. So far all we have is that the 'reconstituted' GOC under the presidency of Abp. Germanos of Demetria in 1935 said the NC was a schism and WITHOUT Grace. End of story. No synod has given us any further clarification on whether it left like a "light switch" in 1924, or whether it was a gradual leaving, or whether it was a "light switch" phenonemna in 1935, or whether some other "mechanism" occured. One can only assume it left immediately in 1935 -- according to the "letter of the law".

I did post a direct quote from the GOC/"Matthewite" synod a while back before Lent, that gave leniency to that fact that the time between 1924 - 35 was a period of confusion and that many well intending pastors and faithful flock were scattered and didn't know which way to turn. The synod was in essence saying during this time God's Grace was still present. However, after 1935 one can only assume that with the proclamation the Grace left.

George, I'm sorry my previous post was so full of 'holes'. I apparently did not write clearly, as I was merely raising speculations in response to Ioannis' comments -- so that he could clarify his comments. I was not saying that modern Roman Catholics have Grace in their sacraments because they are in ignorance.

So, the truth of the matter is, in regards to the Grace issue and exactly when it left the NC, I don't really know. that is my personal position. If you want to push me further, it is my personal opinion that for the cunning pastors who promoted the NC, that the Holy spirit left their sacraments (post 1924) However, for those in ignorance of the situation, that perhaps God granted His Grace (pre-1935) Is this idiotic that the chalice for one is without Grace and for another the same chalice has Grace? Mechanistically, yes, I agree, it is idiotic, and you know what....it doesn't matter what I think. this is just my sinful speculation. It is not a 'matthewite' position or any synod's position. Who here has taken theology 101? who here is in theosis? Are you? What matters to me is whether the bishop I am under is proclaiming Orthodoxy. All these other discussions (99% of Orthodox chat rooms) really are like men smoking cigars and discussing politics. it is all personal speculation, and I certainly do not hold my personal opinions above anything else.

in Christ,
nectarios