Old Calendar Ecumenism?

[Cyprian]

Since the terms "sick" and "healthy" were clarified in a mutual dialogue to mean "uncondemned heretics" versus "Orthodox Christians", this is not relevant. My argument is not a theoretical one but one based on the words of both parties.

Sacred Scripture teaches us that heretics are not uncondemned, but SELF-condemned.

"A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself." (Titus 3:10-11)

St. Cyprian of Carthage:

For the faith of the sacred Scripture sets forth that the Church is not without, nor can be separated nor divided against itself, but maintains the unity of an inseparable and undivided house; since it is written of the sacrament of the passover, and of the lamb, which Lamb designated Christ: "In one house shall it be eaten: ye shall not carry forth the flesh abroad out of the house." Which also we see expressed concerning Rahab, who herself also bore a type of the Church, who received the command which said, "Thou shalt bring thy father, and thy mother, and thy brethren, and all thy father's household unto thee into thine house; and whosoever shall go out of the doors of thine house into the street, his blood shall be upon him." In which mystery is declared, that they who will live, and escape from the destruction of the world, must be gathered together into one house alone, that is, into the Church; but whosoever of those thus collected together shall go out abroad, that is, if any one, although he may have obtained grace in the Church, shall depart and go out of the Church, that his blood shall be upon him; that is, that he himself must charge it upon himself that he perishes; which the Apostle Paul explains, teaching and enjoining that a heretic must be avoided, as perverse, and a sinner, and as condemned of himself. For that man will be guilty of his own ruin, who, not being cast out by the bishop, but of his own accord deserting from the Church is by heretical presumption condemned of himself.

[Suaidan]

Since the terms "sick" and "healthy" were clarified in a mutual dialogue to mean "uncondemned heretics" versus "Orthodox Christians", this is not relevant. My argument is not a theoretical one but one based on the words of both parties.

Sacred Scripture teaches us that heretics are not uncondemned, but SELF-condemned.

"A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself." (Titus 3:10-11)

The canons have commentary to understand them, which is what Metropolitan Chrysostom deferred to. Your personal reading of the Bible will never trump the commentaries of St Nikodemos on how to understand a canon.

[Cyprian]

Ugh! I despise this kind of arrogance. "If Agafangel truly had proper discernment"? Give me a break.

What you call arrogance, I call plainly speaking the truth. You have been complaining to Jonathan that his sister synod in Greece is simply dancing around the issue and won't come out and call a spade a spade--meaning label the Cyprianites as the heretics they truly are. It is apparent that your arguments are self-serving and you will do whatever is necessary to justify your own ambition. I hope Jonathan can see now why I am not prepared to spend much time beating the air engaging with you.

The man arguably pastors the largest Russian TOC body outside the Russian state

He is a Kyprianite; hence an ecumenist, and has no business being considered a member or leader of any "TOC". The fact that you sought to establish some sort of correlation with regards to the size of his para-synagogue as having some bearing regarding his possession of the truth, only serves to reveal your folly.

but some anonymous guy who is busy complaining about Harry Potter books on the E-cafe knows better (doesn't say what church he's part of) and we are supposed to trust your discernment?

The veracity of my statements stands on its own. It makes no difference who I am, and whether or not I am anonymous or famous. That you have chosen to divert your focus in the direction my personage and away from the relevant matter at hand, reveals the lack of a foundation to your arguments.

We don't even know who you are.

What difference does that make? Your mentioning this serves to show that you're swayed by trivialities and trifles like titles of importance, more than the truth. If you want to defend the Harry Potter books, there is already a thread established for discussing it. I will gladly engage on you on that topic there, if you so desire.

[Cyprian]

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[/size].

Dear Fr. Mark,

Who exactly do you mean by "the rest of us"? There is more to confessing Orthodoxy than just a condemnation of new-calendarist ecumenists. Orthodox Christians must anathematize all heresies, not only a single one, and accept the whole of tradition, not only a part. The Kyprianites and certain other old-calendar groups need to abandon all their heresies before the genuine Orthodox Christians should enter into communion with them.

[Cyprian]

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?

True to their heresy, the Cyprianites are full of contradictions. They frequently use terms designed to subvert the simpler sorts among us, such as the term "Orthodox ecumenists". This is an oxymoron. You can't call the ecumenists heretics and orthodox at the same time. Surely you are familiar with their oft-repeated phrase,

"Whither go ye, O Orthodox ecumenists?"

[Cyprian]

The fathers of the Church teach that it is not necessary to continually condemn each new heretic that comes along, since many heresies are simply off-shoots of previously condemned heresies.

St. John Cassian

Seven Books on the Incarnation of the Lord, Against Nestorius

Book II

AS we began by setting down in the first book some things by which we showed that our new heretic is but an offshoot from ancient stocks of heresy, the due condemnation of the earlier heretics ought to be enough to secure a sentence of due condemnation for him. For as he has the same roots and grows up out of the same fallow he has already been amply condemned in the persons of his predecessors, especially as those who went wrong immediately before these men very properly condemned the very thing which these men are now asserting, so that the examples of their own party ought to be amply sufficient for them in both directions; viz., that of those who were restored and that of those who were condemned.

[Suaidan]

What you call arrogance, I call plainly speaking the truth. You have been complaining to Jonathan that his sister synod in Greece is simply dancing around the issue and won't come out and call a spade a spade--meaning label the Cyprianites as the heretics they truly are.

Perhaps "the truth" as in "we Jehovah's Witnesses believe we have the truth". You, sir, are not the arbiter of truth or discernment. Are you a Bishop? A Synod? Not as far as I can tell.

He is a Kyprianite; hence an ecumenist, and has no business being considered a member or leader of any "TOC". The fact that you sought to establish some sort of correlation with regards to the size of his para-synagogue as having some bearing regarding his possession of the truth, only serves to reveal your folly.

And why should we assume your judgment is correct? We don't even know who you are. Is Metr Agafangel an "ecumenist" and a "Cyprianite" by your fiat? Lord, have mercy!

The veracity of my statements stands on its own. It makes no difference who I am, and whether or not I am anonymous or famous. That you have chosen to divert your focus in the direction my personage and away from the relevant matter at hand, reveals the lack of a foundation to your arguments.

I don't think your statements are true, but often subjective under the guise of objective. You cannot demonstrate that you know Metr Agafangel has no discernment, for example, without some circular argument, as is so common and idiotic and holds back True Orthodox from working together. So I believe you hide behind your anonymous posture like a wolf in sheep's clothing to mislead faithful people who may not understand the nuances of these issues.

I believe such behavior is satanic, far more satanic than any of your "perceived heresies" or those stupid Harry Potter books. Because your behavior in practice appears to be designed to sway the faith of Christians.

What difference does that make?

[/quote]

If we cannot ascertain that you are a part of the Church, or even a friend of the Church, yet you sow dissension and argument between those trying to stand for Orthodox tradition each demonizing the other, then I have no reason to believe you are anything but an enemy of the Church and of Christ. For all we know, you could just be some Papist, laughing with your Papist friends, saying "look, I can make the schismatics fight".

So it makes a difference.