"Old Calendar Ecumenism" or Responsible Orthodoxy?

[Lukianos]

I do not need to prove anything. That schism is out of the Church has been always a given in the Orthodox Church. But, because you insist, here is (again) proof (and I can look for more, as there is plenty) :

St. Jerome , Commentary on Titus 3:10-11 (A.D. 386) “Heretics bring sentence upon themselves since they by their own choice withdraw from the Church, a withdrawal which, since they are aware of it, constitutes damnation. Between heresy and schism there is this difference: that heresy involves perverse doctrine, while schism separates one from the Church on account of disagreement with the bishop. Nevertheless, there is no schism which does not trump up a heresy to justify its departure from the Church.”

St. Cyprian (250 A.D.) “Schismatics are outside of Christ's Church.”

St. Ignatius (108 A.D.) “Schism invalidates the sacraments of the Church.”

St. Ignatius, Epistle to the Philadelphians, Chap. 3, Para . 1 “If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”

Lactantius (303 - 311 A.D.) “Schismatic groups don't have true worship of God.”

But my argument has never been that schismatics are part of the Church, but that we have heretofore lacked competent canonical authority to declare schism. Otherwise, that can be used to condemn both parties in any schism, including yours, others, the Old Calendar Church, the New Calendarists, and Orthodoxy altogether.

WITHOUT A COMPETENT AUTHORITY YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE A DETERMINATION OF SCHISM FROM THE CHURCH OF GOD. And a local schism is meaningless if the competency of the Primate is impugned.

But again, this is all private, so you can choose to ignore my words, keep misrepresenting them, and continue turn even those who felt brotherly love towards your Synod into contempt.

I got that. What I keep saying is that to you there are no schismatics, but “true orthodox jurisdictions”, and this is genuine ecumenism.

There has been always a competent canonical authority. THAT’S THE CHURCH OF CHRIST THAT YOU JUST DENIED AGAIN EXISTING IN A VISIBLE FORM.

(My previous answer was for Jonathan who asked for proof that schism is out of the Church.)

(Jonathan, I don't know what kind of proof you expect me to bring. Just read what Suaiden writes. His every other post is heresy.)

[Lukianos]

Symeon, I love and respect you, converts, and I also understand that your journey to the Faith is not an easy one and that it takes time to get rid of the un-orthodox mentality you bring with you. That being said, please allow me to disagree with you in a brotherly way.

I don’t know for how long have you known His Eminence Pavlos, but I can tell you that in 1998, on National TV, he accused a Roman – Catholic priest of Nestorianism, and told the audience that some of them couldn’t even be called Christians. What he did was exactly what I would expect from any father of the Church: be firm and true to the teaching of Christ and His saints:

1 Timothy 5:20 “Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.”

Proverbs 9:8 “Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee.”

Proverbs 13:24 “He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.”

Proverbs 27:5 “Open rebuke is better than secret love.”

Also,

Lord Jesus called the Pharisees hypocrites and murderers in Matt 23.

St. Peter called the people murderers in Acts 2.

St. Stephen called the Pharisees hard-hearted murderers in Acts 7.

Let's not pretend we know and do better than them.

Dear Brother Lukianos, I agree with you on general principal in your response to what I said. Yes, I think it is possible for one to grievously err on the side of gentleness, and we have the example of Eli the priest who did not exercise sufficient strictness in disciplining his sons and they ended up getting killed as a result since he never sufficiently opposed them. That fatherly love was a poisoned well, and he didn't know that his soft love would actually result in killing his sons. So your point is well taken. What you said is the balance to what I said. I think that the question is really how to know how strongly to state something in a given situation or with a given person. That takes discernment and great wisdom and personal advancement in character, which I am lacking. So my feeling has always been this: if one is too gentle, the upside is that you can always be more strict with a followup statement if need be, and no one is going to be grieved and offended with you for having been too respectful and cautious in your previous use of language. On the other hand, if one realizes after the fact that one has been excessively harsh to a fault, then one is faced with the much more difficult task of healing a scar and wound of which we are guilty that is likely not going to respond any time soon. It is easier to increase the severity of one's words incrementally through caution until it is clear they are either going to respond (at which point there is no need to correct further) or that they are beyond correction even when either the gentlest or the sharpest scalpel has been used. In which case you can move on in peace knowing that you did not leave any stone unturned and had done all that anyone could have done regardless of their level of discernment in the situation. That is one big reason I have always felt that a gentle approach was by far to be preferred. I have been surprised on occasion at how great a change can be effected in some seemingly implacable people by the gentlest word of correction. I can tell you a specific example from my experience if you would like. But that said, you are quite right in what you have said in general terms. It is the specific application I am not entirely comfortable with agreeing with you on.

With thanks,
Symeon

Hey Symeon,

I see what your position is, but I think you’re wrong about me (or “the specific application”). I’ve never called anyone a heretic on this Forum, but Suaiden, who is neither a catechumen, nor a delicate layman, but a very seasoned heretic bragging to be an “Orthodox” for more than a decade.

[Lukianos]

It seems clear to me that Deacon Joseph really has a heart to help us all come together in the Truth of Orthodoxy. His website does demonstrate the desire to build bridges of mutual understanding, it seems to me. One may not agree with his approach, or suggestions, but we can at least appreciate his heart. Personally, I am pretty ignorant about these kinds of matters. So, as a solution-oriented follow up to the disagreement that is fueling this thread, I would like to ask both sides (or if there is a third side, too) to recommend detailed sources that we could all look up online and study to appreciate better the basis that each position is working from. What resources clearly show the canonicity and faithfulness to Tradition and ecclesiology in particular of the Synod that Deacon Joseph is a minister of? And on the other side, what sources or studies clearly outline the main concerns of those who question the Orthodoxy of his Synod and their position on relationships between different jurisdictions and confessions within the True Orthodox Churches? I think that if this thread and the forum in general are going to serve a higher purpose than "Just letting people have a piece of my mind," with zero gains in genuine and canonical paths to greater unity, then we have to as calmly and dispassionately as possible set out the real reasons we believe what we do and how Tradition really does or does not support the different positions or allows for there to be some latitude in some points or issues -- if that is possibly the case sometimes.

I do not believe that Deacon Joseph or Lukianos are here just to give their opinions with no interest in positively touching the lives of the forum members they are here to interact with. I think we really are here to help each other, and that is what we really want. I would like us to encourage each other to search for real solid practical means for achieving that.

One more thing, I totally agree with Jonathan that this site needs a private members forum for just such discussions. So I totally support his handling of this thread and others like it. I pray that our dear brother, Deacon Joseph, will not be grieved that things are kept private. Admittedly no system or set of policies for governing the complexities of so many different people and their varied views and needs or personalities can ever be perfectly satisfying to all of us all of the time. If something really needs to be adjusted I believe will be done if it is within the realm of human ability and if we maintain a patient, cooperative and understanding approach. We all need to depend on each other to keep us encouraged that despite our differences we really want what's best for each other and hold each other dearly and in respect. Then we will always be able to accept words of correction and be able to let our guard down and give each others arguments an honest and open listen. Most of all, of course, it is I who depend on all of you in just such matters.

Symeon

Although I do know what’s wrong with Suaiden’s religious organisation, it’s really not for me to prove anything.

If Suaiden has a great heart, that I can’t tell, I don’t know him personally, and just from what he writes, to be honest, I don’t see any difference to what one can find on any ecumenist website. All of those ooze love, all kind of love, but that for the Church of Christ .

Regarding the question of this thread staying private or not, I believe it’s for those who own the website to decide. But if you were to ask me if I like it the way it is, then that’s a different kettle of fish, and my answer would be no. First of all, I don’t like the name, nothing that I say is polemical, and definitively my discussion with Suaiden is in no way intra-TOC. Secondly, I think it’s better to go public to expose him for what it is, because he does a lot of soul damage by encouraging people to stay in schism, or by misleading them into joining para-synagogues.

[jgress]

....

I don’t know for how long have you known His Eminence Pavlos, but I can tell you that in 1998, on National TV, he accused a Roman – Catholic priest of Nestorianism, and told the audience that some of them couldn’t even be called Christians. What he did was exactly what I would expect from any father of the Church: be firm and true to the teaching of Christ and His saints... Let's not pretend we know and do better than them.

Oh, come on. In 1994, His Eminence while still an Archimandrite, was claiming that he was still a son of Bartholomew:

1. “Bartholomew, of course,...is the presiding hierarch of Orthodoxy”!

1. “At Saint Markella’s [Paul’s church] thousands of our Greek people attend services. But I have a problem of conscience because they are the spiritual children of Bartholomew, all of them. They belong to the Church of Bartholomew. I belong to the Church of Chrysostom who has specifically stated that we are not to provide the mysteries to those who follow the new calendar. Yet I provide the mysteries to the followers of the new calendar.”

2. “We need humility, repentance, and to return to the Mother Church.”

3. “In my conscience I belong to the Ecumenical Patriarchate and to the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew.... I identify myself totally with his course, and I am aware that these words shall cost me. But it doesn’t concern me, because I believe in the truth.”[/i]

(These quotations are taken from an interview given to Theodore Kalmoukas of the National Herald, which was printed in that paper’s issue of Tuesday, May 24, 1994.)

Further, communing New Calendarists was allowed in his diocese until the communion statement of 2002, I believe (or was it 2004)...

And New Calendarists commune Nestorians and have for years.

So let's not make pretend. You have used the sins of the past of others to impugn the correctness of their confession in these days. But no one is perfect. Such a rhetorical blade can-- easily-- be turned upon you.

Of course, what does this matter? It's all private, so as to ensure that the party lines are protected, I assume.

I think I was very specific saying 1998, and not 1994! And I didn’t talk about what His Eminence used to think, but of how he expressed himself on Faith issues.

Lukianos, are you talking about this?

That was in 1988, not 1998.

[jgress]

I do not need to prove anything. That schism is out of the Church has been always a given in the Orthodox Church. But, because you insist, here is (again) proof (and I can look for more, as there is plenty) :

St. Jerome , Commentary on Titus 3:10-11 (A.D. 386) “Heretics bring sentence upon themselves since they by their own choice withdraw from the Church, a withdrawal which, since they are aware of it, constitutes damnation. Between heresy and schism there is this difference: that heresy involves perverse doctrine, while schism separates one from the Church on account of disagreement with the bishop. Nevertheless, there is no schism which does not trump up a heresy to justify its departure from the Church.”

St. Cyprian (250 A.D.) “Schismatics are outside of Christ's Church.”

St. Ignatius (108 A.D.) “Schism invalidates the sacraments of the Church.”

St. Ignatius, Epistle to the Philadelphians, Chap. 3, Para . 1 “If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”

Lactantius (303 - 311 A.D.) “Schismatic groups don't have true worship of God.”

But my argument has never been that schismatics are part of the Church, but that we have heretofore lacked competent canonical authority to declare schism. Otherwise, that can be used to condemn both parties in any schism, including yours, others, the Old Calendar Church, the New Calendarists, and Orthodoxy altogether.

WITHOUT A COMPETENT AUTHORITY YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE A DETERMINATION OF SCHISM FROM THE CHURCH OF GOD. And a local schism is meaningless if the competency of the Primate is impugned.

But again, this is all private, so you can choose to ignore my words, keep misrepresenting them, and continue turn even those who felt brotherly love towards your Synod into contempt.

I got that. What I keep saying is that to you there are no schismatics, but “true orthodox jurisdictions”, and this is genuine ecumenism.

There has been always a competent canonical authority. THAT’S THE CHURCH OF CHRIST THAT YOU JUST DENIED AGAIN EXISTING IN A VISIBLE FORM.

(My previous answer was for Jonathan who asked for proof that schism is out of the Church.)

(Jonathan, I don't know what kind of proof you expect me to bring. Just read what Suaiden writes. His every other post is heresy.)

Lukianos, are you saying that it is a heresy to say there can be no competent authority? If so, could you elaborate with proofs from the Fathers?

[Lukianos]

I think I was very specific saying 1998, and not 1994! And I didn’t talk about what His Eminence used to think, but of how he expressed himself on Faith issues.

Lukianos, are you talking about this?

That was in 1988, not 1998.

You're right, sorry about that, but it doesn't change anything. His Eminence's stance was 100% Orthodox.

[Lukianos]

I got that. What I keep saying is that to you there are no schismatics, but “true orthodox jurisdictions”, and this is genuine ecumenism.

There has been always a competent canonical authority. THAT’S THE CHURCH OF CHRIST THAT YOU JUST DENIED AGAIN EXISTING IN A VISIBLE FORM.

(My previous answer was for Jonathan who asked for proof that schism is out of the Church.)

(Jonathan, I don't know what kind of proof you expect me to bring. Just read what Suaiden writes. His every other post is heresy.)

Lukianos, are you saying that it is a heresy to say there can be no competent authority? If so, could you elaborate with proofs from the Fathers?

Yes. The only authority has been the Church of Christ. Saying there's no competent authority any more equals saying the Church ceased to exist in a visible form (so it can't be appealed any longer), and that's the very heresy of ecumenism.