Breaking away from World Orthodoxy over Heresies

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Reader Chrysostomos,

You cannot attain true holiness without Christ's Church. Therefore, you better become aware of such things and quickly.

"Reader Chrysostomos", you will be in my prayers for 40 days.

[Chrysostomos]

OOD,

Many thanks for your response and your prayers. May
God bless you for your endeavors on my behalf.

I simply wish to be a servant of God. I have no desire
to comment on such things for a variety of reasons.
First, I have fallen many times into what I would call
the "intelligencia trap". What is that you ask? Oh, where
we as "wise Orthodox Christians", gather around and
discuss such topics as those discussed here. The challenge
I faced, and still do, is that it appeared to be many times,
mere bantering, mere egotism, mere self-glorification in
what we knew...not in what we did. Its one thing to say it,
and puff up ones knowledge to impress those around you,
and it is another to apply those things we all discuss on
a consistent basis. Then comes the realization, that I cannot
even fulfill the simple requests of my Lord and Saviour
Jesus Christ, according to Mark 12:30-31. I am reminded
of the words - the mouths of all liars will be stopped. How
many times have I fulfilled those words by my actions. I
say one thing, yet do another. I am stopped, dead in my
tracks. Or again, when we ask the Theotokos for her prayers
on our behalf, to "enlighten my blinded soul". I realize my
blindness, and yet many times I think I "see" so much.
Reality comes quickly and I need the Lord Jesus to apply
mud to my "spiritual eyes" so that I might see. Truly
see...

With bow,

Reader Chrysostomos

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Chrysostomos,

It is very dangerous to discuss these things for the reasons you mention, the good which can come of them can easily be turned into something bad, personally and for others, without care and great attention.

Thank you for reminding us all of those same traps we all fall into to one degree or another.

[Justin Kissel]

Chrysostomos

I guess the problem is, even coming to a forum and posting at all (even to say that one should avoiding posting) could be considered wrong if we took things far enough. After all, wouldn't we say that a truly humble man would think his opinions as dirt? He wouldn't even share his opinion that we shouldn't share our opinions. Posting on message boards is, perhaps in some cases, a matter of pride. We assume that people will read what we write, and so we write. Perhaps a humble man would assume that he is not worthy of being listened to, even if people would in fact listen to him. In that way we might say that without any purposely prideful motives one can still be in some sense prideful for posting one's thoughts on a message board. Even posting on a message board nothing but relevant quotes from saints could be prideful, in it's own way.

I've learnt a great deal through online fora. Anything that was of use to me and that I've applied to my daily life? Yes, absolutely. Is there more bad stuff and needless talk than edifying, neeful stuff? Probably. But what is my alternative? I am too weak to meditate on the Lord day and night as Scripture counsels, I admit my sinfulness: I need something such as an online forum, a computer game, or something, at least for part of the day. So which is the lesser evil? Likewise, no matter how often I try to stop, I cannot bring myself to cease writing. It is not only something I enjoy, but it is how I work out things in my head, and come to understand how variables come together in one whole. Some may say that my writing and posting it here is an exercize in pride, and perhaps even spiritual delusion. I don't know. But someone tell me which is worse, writing and posting it here for comment, or writing on my own with no input from other Orthodox Christians whatsoever (many of which are more learned than me, and can point out my errors)?

I can understand where you are coming from, please don't misunderstand. We've had a very bright young fellow depart from the forum recently because it was (apparently) the best path for him. God bless him abundantly! As for me, I have tried to leave and found that it is not for me to leave off posting here--not right now anyway. So please, if you feel like posting, do so, you are very welcome here! If you do not, please do not think that we think negatively or that we think that you have judged us. We realise that you are trying to add your own word of advice for our edification, even if that word is counsel not to say as many words.

[Justin Kissel]

May I suggest people on both sides of this issue read this?

http://private.peterlink.ru/alektor/the15th.htm

A very interesting article. Provided a great deal of information on which to "chew". It's also motivated me to go back and re-read Met. Cyprian's ecclesiological texts. Though the article raised many questions in my mind, I'd like to ask just one of them right here; the article said in it's conclusion:

The point is that the heresy of ecumenism must not be compared with iconoclasm before the 7th Ecumenical Council. Even if you consider that this heresy is new and still not judged by the Church (although I myself do not think that), it is impossible not to recognise that it contains a multitude of old heresies, from which every one of the hierarch-ecumenists gave an undertaking to defend Orthodoxy.

Other than acceptance of the papal calendar and praying with heretics, what other serious violations ("old heresies") are considered a part of Ecumenism?

[Justin Kissel]

I'll note that one of the things I "got" from the article was the flexibility in Orthodoxy to meet each ecclesiological error or disruption or problem as it arises. In other words, the article was a good reminder that there is no "Book of Ecclesiology" to which we can go and find the proper steps that we must follow (as a Protestant might do). Rather, the whole of history is applied ecclesiological dogmatics, though one is not necessarily obligated to follow and affirm any particular formulation or position. In that way, I think the article made things muddier, not more clear (which is the way I think many traditionalists would see it...hoping to find in the article a system or process that can be applied today). The way that it muddied things is that, in its attempt to show from historical example how it thought we should handle the current ecclesiological problem, it ended up instead showing (and indeed explicitly affirming) that even within the time period being discussed saints disagreed with one another, and saints changed the approach they inherited from the Saint before them. In essence, the article reaffirmed what I had believed going in: that taking a position such as saying that world Orthodoxy had no grace was within the tenable range of Orthodox belief, but taking a more moderate view and saying that world Orthodoxy did have grace can also simultaneously be a tenable Orthodox belief (as contradictory as that sounds). As the article said, it is possible for two saints to have totally contradictory views on such a thing and still both be saints.

I'm still working my way back through the Cyprian ecclesiological stuff... (it's a bit drier and so is taking a bit longer than I had hoped)

[Julianna]

So you've believed both ROAC and GOC're right while saying ROCOR's right too? that neither's wrong?

since ROAC says it and GOC're the true positions and ROCOR's wrong then doesn't ROAC and GOC seem the safer position by it's exclusiveness? better safe than sorry they say!