Rdr.Vladimir Moss on "Cyprian" Ecclessiology

[Gregory]

But you of course are above all this. Sorry: hubris.

Charles --

No I am not above this. How can I be? I am part of the OCA!

Gregory

[CGW]

But you of course are above all this. Sorry: hubris.

Charles --

No I am not above this. How can I be? I am part of the OCA!

Gregory

Hey, my jurisdiction is far more reprehensible than anyone else's here. :shock:

I apologize for being testy. I guess my point is that, for the most part, we are playing at theology rather than doing the real thing. Or at least, we look upon it from a "safe" distance. But the very fact of our discussion pulls us out of what you call "the masses". I'm not even sure that the term means anything at this late date in the USA, especially not in our polyreligious society. But I hesitate to even suggest that we really act in a state of some awareness; it is of course evident to me that there are many little blindnesses I see here and I suspect there are plenty of people lined up to point out my own.

[Austin Doc]

Dear Orthodoxy Or Death,

You wrote: I have no comments other than to qoute him on something...

"...as Bishop Ephraim of Boston points out, the new calendarists and the Moscow Patriarchate have adopted a distinctly “Matthewite” position in relation to the True Orthodox, declaring that they have no grace of sacraments – while at the same time declaring that the Western heretics do have grace!"

I know this thread is about Cyprianite theology, but I really don't understand the above comment from Bp. Ephraim and how that relates to the topic. At any rate, being in the Matthewite jurisdiction of the TOC of Greece, I know they have not declared who has Grace or not except for the original 1935 Declaration of Faith as stated by the 3 returning bishops, that the "New" Calendar was a schism without Grace and that ecumenism is a heresy. the Matthewites have not proclaimed any specific jurisdiction as without Grace.

in Christ,
nectarios

BTW, can anyone tell me on a private post how to make a copy and paste highlight to set it off from the rest of the text.

[Seraphim Reeves]

OOD,

One problem is that different people have different appraisals of the extent of the doctrinal and canonical problems in the Orthodox world. Before being flip about people who believe it is not AS serious as some more "extreme" persons may think, it's worth realizing that the Florinites themselves had this problem; it was not until his death approached that Metropolitan Chrysostmos appears to have basically adopted the Matthewite position on the New Calendarists (I say "appears", because I have not read the first hand evidence for this, but only have been told of it by others.) For the better part of two decades, he had been saying something much less than this about the New Calendar Church of Greece.

Now apparently this (in the eyes of say, the GOC of Greece currently under Archbishop Chrysostmos II ("Kiousis" Synod)) different appreciation of the New Calendarists does not make the Florinites themselves believe they were "crypto-ecumenists" or an errant, graceless Church during that time - or somehow in need of "correction" by those who supposedly held the more correct view (which would only be the Matthewites I guess, with their un-canonical Episcopate).

Yet, doubly odd - both the Matthewites and the Florinites, went to ROCOR to receive Bishops (though later on the Matthewites would deny that they had their situation corrected by ROCOR), and the Florinites even stuck around with ROCOR. Yet, for years after 1935, the ROCOR had concelebrated with and undoubtedly recognized the EP, the Church of Greece, etc. - with the sole exception being the MP, which they regarded as an enslaved Church with duplicitous heirarchs.

My point? None of this is as cut and dry as we would probably all like it to be. Schisms and the spread of heresy, particularly when the latter is more something implicit than anything that has been articulated in a symbolic/creedal form, are a matter of assimilation - and how we view those in and coming from groups we perceive as being "comprimised" or "erring", has to take that into consideration. I perceive a grave danger in letting a theoretically correct ecclessiology trump the reality we are now witnesses to.

Indeed, "super correctness" as the blessed Fr.Seraphim of Platina recognized, creates a noose which not only hangs the new calendarists and the better part of so called "world Orthodoxy", but will unfailingly hang the traditionalist, Church Calendar zealots as well.

The situation in Colorado, imho, is in part only the latest manifestation of this error. It is also manifested in other ways - including retroactive condemnations of the status quo of the Holy Orthodox Church in ages past; examples being the implicit writing off of pre-revolutionary Russian Orthodoxy, the veneration of Bl. Augustine of Hippo as a Saint and Church Father, or going so far as to explain the Church's canonically mandated practice of receiving converts in their previous baptisms as if it were something unseemly, only explained as a reflection of political/secular duress (with the implication being, the Church was actually doing something it ought not to.) And let us not even begin to discuss long standing Russian agnosticism about the real state of the Latins, at least prior to the 20th century - as articulated by the likes of the blessed Metropolitan of Moscow, St.Philaret; this is simply too much to bear it would seem for people who have a hard time recognizing other Orthodox as being in fact "Orthodox".

When reality becomes a slave to theory or even law, I believe we fall into the trap of the Pharisees who ultimatly did not understand the spirituality and purpose of the Torah...

24 And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?
25 And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?
26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?
27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath. (St.Mark 2:24-28 )

If our Lord could say this of the Law which was received at Sinai and committed to scrolls by the God-seer Moses and the elders of Israel of old, then what of the use of the Holy Canons, which are supposed to heal and act as a rudder for the Ark of Salvation, not as a noose simply looking for the first opportunity to find men in the wrong?

This has nothing to do with being impressed with beautifully guilded domes, nice vestments or such tertiary externals - it's a matter of discernment, and not being blind to the obvious - the obvious being that the new calendarists and those local Churches involved in the ecumenical movement, while growing in lawlessness and confusion, do not worship an alien god, nor have they officially imposed a new dogma of salvation upon their citizens. It is also quite obvious, that Orthodoxy and genuine piety, or the signs of grace, are not absent amongst them either - whether it be the existance of living saints in their midst, the renewing of Icons, the fulfillment of prophecies made of old, or the Holy Fire in the sepulchre of our blessed Lord which if we were to hold to the "strict ecclessiology" of many groups is now being given to the hands of a heretic (or one who ought to be regarded as one, since he is "in communion with heretics") something which in times past we know to have definately NOT happened (such as in cases where the Patriarch of Jerusalem was forced out of the yearly service by the Turks due to the connivance of heretics.)

The fruits of ecumenism are poisonous - however what of the fruits of "super correctness"? Are they good? I think we only need to look at the latest tragedy which been occupying much of the discussion here at the Cafe to answer that question.

Seraphim

[Austin Doc]

Symeon,

Code: Select all

   YOu are correct in pointing out that Bp. Chrysostom of Florina had waved from his original declaration of faith.  When he and the other two bishops from the State Church of Greece returned to the Old Calnedar church in 1935, they wrote an epistle declaring the New Calendar a schism and as per St. Basil's canon, without Grace.  (Historically it was clear the New Calendar had been considered to be anathematized by the 3 Pan Orthodox Councils of the 1500's, as well as numberous local councils in the late 1800's and early 20th century.  Additionally, ecumenism was already present in the Ecum. Patriarchate with concelebrations with the Anglicans  and the famous 1921 Epistle "..to the Churches everywhere".)
  The idea of a schimatic group having grace was proposed by a certain monk, "Danilou" (spelling?) in an article he wrote.  the Athonite League of Monks condemned this.  Included in this group were the well know Athonites, Archimandrite Matthew (later Bp. Matthew) and Fr.Acacius (later the 1st bishop of the 'Florinites).   
    The idea of the New Calendar being in schism and without Grace did not originate with the returning 3 bishops, they were simply functioning as the True Orthodox Church of Greece reaffirming what other councils proclaimed.   In 1937, bp. Chrysostom and Germanos (2 of the original bishops) began to  accept to communion, people from the State Chruch who were not chrismated...in essece, accepting that "Grace" was present in the baptisms of the New Calendar.   Private letters were written by them confirming this as well.   In essense, Bp. Chrysostom went so far as to state publically that the Old Cal. Church was just a "movement" within the State Church!  How could this be if in 1935 he declared the New Cal. was without Grace for having falling under the anathemas?   
     This left the new bishops, Bps. Matthew and Germanos of Cyclades as the only bishops who were firm to the original 1935 Declaration.   Bp. Chrysostom of Florina had reversed his position from his 1935 confession and it was not until 1950, a year after the death of bp. Matthew that he repented and reaffirmed what he signed in 1935 -- which was the position Bp. Matthew always confessed.  However, after that he again reversed his position and even stated that he could not consecrate any  more bishops for the Old Calendar church, in order to please the State Church.
    In 1948, bp. Matthew was elderly and quite ill, and bp. Germanos was in prison for being an Old Calendarist.  Finding no one else to be a co-consecrator, the Church canonists felt that Bp. Matthew had no choice but to do a single handed consecration of monk Sypridon.  the two, then co-consecrated more bishops.   Was this uncanonical?  They were not intentionally, or unlawfully, breaking a canon, but found themselves unable to fulfill the canon.  The Apostolic Injunctions allow for single handed ordinations when the Church is under persecution, to allow for it's continuity.  there was also historical precedence in Greece and elsewhere.    At that time, Bp. Chrysostom of Florina was around, but his confession of Faith was not Orthodox -- because he was not following the anathemas against the Calendar innovation, but instead saying that the New Cal. still had Grace.   
    (Later, the defrocked Matthewite priests, Acacius and Auxentios, become "Florinite" bishops, though they really had their episcopal lineage thru ROCOR, not from Chrysostom of Florina, nor did they espouse the belief of Chrysostom of Florina, but rather the "Matthewite" ecclessiology.  Hence the modern "Florinites": Kiousite, Lamians, HOCNA, and so on...all believe in the same Matthewite adherence to the original 1935 Declaration.  These ROCOR consecrations broke several canons, more than the one canon that the Matthewites could not fulfill.)
      so, Seraphim, your post contains several topics within it.  Were the consecrations by Bp. matthew really uncanonical?  did the Matthewites really "renounce" and thereby 'undo" their corrections from ROCOR?   All Archbishop Andreas simple stated in 1982 (?) -- and this was a personal opinion, not a synodal decree -- that the ROCOR corrections did not change the Apostolicity they had received from bp. Matthew.  He did not "renounce" the ROCOR corrections.   (Fr. Gregroy Grabbe -- later Bp. Gregory -- then secretary of ROCOR, even wrote that the ROCOR cheirothesia was not a consecration, but a correction of the form.)    Further, is the Cyprianite ecclessiology really new, or is it really just a continuation of the position taken by Bp. Chrysostom of Florina?
        There is a lot of misinformation about the Matthewites, so pardon me for spending some time writing about that aspect.   
        Back to the topic:   I really see the Cyprianite position as an evolution from what Chrysostom of Florina espoused most of his life.  One said, schismatics have Grace, the other says heretics have Grace.
       All that being said,  I really wish the bishops from each faction could find agreement somewhere and bring about a healing of the Church.   In the long run, it is us, the "little" people that get hurt.  

BTW, there is documentation regarding these matters. Most is in Greek, but much has been translated.

In Christ,
Nectarios

[Justin Kissel]

Seraphim

The question arises, then: What is the purpose of the Councils? Is it they, and they alone, which bind heretics and cast them out of the Church? Or do they simply discern that binding has already taken place, "knowing," as the apostle says, "that he that is such [a heretic] is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself" (Titus 3.11)?

I thought about this all weekend, and came to the conclusion that a passage dealing with an actual excommunication found in the New Testament might be of some help (though perhaps I will be shown where my exegesis--or entire approach--is flawed?) I am thinking of the situation described in 1 Cor. 5:1-13 and 2 Cor. 2:1-11. It is true that these passages deals with a moral, and not dogmatic, issue, but I do not believe that this difference changes the principles being used; in Gal. 5:19-21, for instance, St. Paul lists both moral and dogmatic issues as "works of the flesh" which keeps people from entering the Kingdom of God (also consider that some saints called moral lapses heresy, such as St. Theodore the Studite).

Regarding the passage in question: a man in the Church which is at Corinth had sinned greatly, having sexual relations with his Father's wife (1 Cor. 5:1). The Corinthians, unfortunately, were not dealing with the issue in a very timely fashion; in fact, they seemed to be trying to ignore the issue, and they are rebuked for this (1 Cor. 5:1-2, 6). This lapse was especially troubling because it was being "reported commonly," and was therefore a sin that was plain to see and was scandalising others (1 Cor. 5:1; cf 1 Tim. 5:24).

Paul's response was to order the man to be excommunicated, saying that even though he wasn't present, he had already passed judgment (1 Cor. 5:4-13). Paul also tells them that if they do not excommunicate the man, they will also become infected with spiritual illness (1 Cor. 5:6-8 ). Paul ends by reminding the Corinthians that they have the power and duty to judge those who call themselves Christians--whether they are live and believe as a Christian should (1 Cor. 5:12-13).

In Paul's second (extant) letter to the Corinthians, the man mentioned in the above passage has apparently changed his life and repented (this seems the logical conclusion based on Paul's past instuctions; e.g., 1 Cor. 5:4-5, 9-11). St. Paul tells the Corinthian Church that it would be beneficial to readmit the man back into the Church, so that love and forgiveness might be shown to him, that he might be comforted and not fall into despair (2 Cor. 2:7-8 )

In this letter Paul alludes to his authority in the Church (2 Cor. 2:9), but St. Paul does not simply lord over the Corinthian Church, but in fact wants them to act on their own, either when they excommunicate someone, or forgive them and accept them back into the Church (1 Cor. 5:2; 2 Cor. 2:10). To do either--excommunication or forgiveness--outside of the proper timeframe is to give a foothold to Satan (2 Cor. 2:11).

So, what can we gather from these passages, relevant to the current situation(s)? First, I would note that the timing for the excommunication was suppose to be quickly: the sin was obvious, and St. Paul found it difficult to understand why the Corinthians had not acted yet. While St. Paul had some authority over the Church, he wanted them to react as sin (whether moral or dogmatic) sprung up, and not simply wait for Paul or Peter to arrive, or a counsel to convene. It is both implicitly and explicitly stated in these passages that, had the Corinthians judged the man, and excommunicated him, and also later forgiven him, St. Paul would have accepted these judgments.

The man who had sinned was already effected by his sin: his own soul was in chaos because of his lapse. However, this did not mean that the entire Corinthian Church collapsed and became graceless because of the negligence in this regard. In fact, the Church which was in Pergamos had not only allowed fornication, but affirmed heresy, and even they were given time to repent (Rev. 2:12-16). However, as all the divinely-inspired exegetes of Scripture--the Fathers--say together: there is no (sacramental) grace or salvation outside the Church.

I think, then, that we must look at a couple factors to know what is going on in each situation. First, is the lapse, whether moral or doctrinal, explicit and publically affirmed (or publically known)? Or, is their only a rumor of a lapse, or is it hard to tell exactly what is going on? Second, how long has it been since the lapse first began? Love causes us to hold out hope that the person who has fallen will repent and return to God of his own accord. If these are indeed valid criteria, I think we will be forced to come to some rather frightening conclusions concerning the calendar innovation, ecumenism, etc.

[Seraphim Reeves]

Justin,

Thank you for citing this scriptural example - it illustrates many of the issues we are discussing.

Let me try and dissect the details of this incident recorded in St.Paul's epistles to the Corinthians...

1) A man was sinning in such a way which was worthy of excommunication - nay, it cried out for it, so long as he did not repent.

2) The Church of Corinth was basically ignoring the problem, though it was obvious to everyone involved what was going on, including the pastors of said Church.

3) As you highlighted, while St.Paul was indicating his amazement that this man had not been excommunicated already, the warning St.Paul gave to the Church of Corinth was that there would be bad spiritual consequences for not dealing with this man. The import of this would be, that his deviancy, his lawlessness, would spread in various ways throughout the Church of Corinth. Thus, expelling him would not simply be for his own good, but would be a protective measure against the Church of Corinth as a whole.

4) However, as bad as what this man was doing, and as irresponsible as the Church of Corinth was being in regard to this man, there is no indication that neglecting to deal with him would somehow, overnight, cause the Church of Corinth to fall away and become nothing more than a gathering of graceless assemblies, removed from the Body of Christ in total.

The one big difference between this incident, and what we are discussing, is that there is no indication that the man in this example was a member of the clergy (that it's not mentioned makes it safe to assume he wasn't), and the situation involved a sin of impurity, not heresy. However, I think some of the basic lessons from this example do apply to our topic of discussion.

According to Rdr.Vladimir's article, there is a time period before an heretical bishop or clergyman is deposed, where it can be said that while he celebrates unworthily (being in sin) his ministrations are "valid" - there would be no question of recognizing those he baptized as being in fact genuinely baptized, or viewing the Eucharist he celebrated as being void and the adoration of simple bread and wine. The reasoning here seems agreeable, as far as I can tell - since otherwise you'd have a situation of spiritual anarchy; people having to remain forever agnostic about the identity of the Church, or able to make whatever accusations they'd want about this or that group of people, without first some kind of investigation and ecclessiastical sentence be rendered (and by competent authorities.)

Now, let us look at the situation of the New Calendarists, and those in their communion (who still follow the Church Calendar, and who in fact remain the vast majority) with these same considerations.

There are two grounds for making accusation against the New Calendarists - first, their imposition of the "new calendar" in the first place. This accusation generally has at it's root the Sigillion of 1583 and it's later re-confirmations, against the Papal Gregorian Calendar and any who would adopt it. The second would be the accusation that a heretical ecumenism lies behind the imposition of this "revised Julian calendar", and/or simply that the "new calendar communion" is involved in heretical ecumenism. Thus, the accusation would be, in total, that the new calendarists created a schism by adopting the new calendar in the first place, and are heretics because of the "ecumenist" beliefs common in their midst (in particular, in their heirarchy.)

More specifically, at least the Greek Old Calendarists would point to the 1935 declaration against the Greek Church, calling it a schism and hence graceless - for Rdr.Vladimir, this satisfies the requirement that a sentence be leveled against against those who err, and that they be expelled from the Church, before they can be viewed as aliens, and the grace of the mysteries can be said to have absented themselves.

The problems I perceive with this scenario are manifold.

1) It would seem there is no consensus even amongst those who reject heretical ecumenism, that the calendar issue itself resulted in a schism. While this may seem obvious to those who hold or have moved towards the "Matthewite position", the fact of the matter is that ROCOR never viewed the matter in this light, but broke ties with the new calendarists purely because of heretical ecumenism. While the "new calendar" was understood as being a bad thing and that it introduced disorder into the Church, it wasn't until the "lifting of anathemas" in 1965 that ROCOR stepped back from the "new calendar" communion. While all this might indicate is that ROCOR itself was a "fallen Church", the fact that all of the Greek Old Calendarists (including the Matthewites themselves) at some point recognized the ROCOR, and indeed received their episcopate from Her (or in the case of the Matthewites, at least admit they had the canonicity of their episcopal consecrations corrected, if not their validity), this conclusion is impossible - unless we are now to believe that the Church as a whole has evaporated, and we are to now go the way of the Priestless Old Believers. Hence, to me it seems there is something not quite right with Florinite groups like the GOC (Kiousis) pointing to the 1935 statement as demonstrating something when the Greek State Church fell, let alone those who remained with them abroad.

2) While the then unified GOC of Greece's act of 1935 may have satisified those with Her that the heirarchy and clergy of the Greek Church had fallen and now were (in effect) expelled/deposed, can such an act be understood automatically as speaking not only the mind of the universal Church, but also acting on Her behalf? It obviously did not speak for the ROCOR, nor did anyone else recognize it as doing such. While the condemnation of the GOC of Greece in 1935 was certainly a rebuke, addressing the conscience of the State Church and indeed that of the entire world, do a few Bishops (even if correct in their understanding of the Holy Canons) have the authority to do anything but accuse and further refuse to have any part in lawlessness (in effect, "walling themselves off")?

3) The very early division of the Greek Old Calendarists into "Florinites" and "Matthewites" hinged directly upon the issue of whether or not the New Calendarists (and it would seem by extension, those who remained with them as sister Churches, even if on the Old/Church Calendar) were in fact "graceless" - the Florinites for years unambiguously characterizing their position as one of being "walled off" while those who followed Bishop Matthew understood the New Calendarists to be lay pretenders to the Priesthood, and by consequence incapable of celebrating genuine Holy Mysteries. It would seem that in later years the major part of the Florinites have come over to the Matthewite position on a Synodal level. That being so, where is the submission of repentence on the part of these Florinites to the Matthewites, a repentence which would have the consequence of them (Florinites) in effect being brought back into the "true" Orthodox Church?

The point of my response is not to debate that there is a very serious problem (actually, problems) in the "new calendarist communion". I'm not even going to get into the sticky problem of Sergianism at the present moment, the issues I'm currently addressing (new calendar, ecumenism) being quite a plate full in and of themselves!

Rather, my point is that it is not sufficiently clear just what the extent of these problems is - to the point that those who recognize that there is a problem, save for their Orthodox beliefs, are heavily divided in their judgements on this. Those parties being...

i) Those who remain in the "new calendar communion", but understand the situation to be a reprehensible lack of diligence on the part of Orthodox pastors, up to and including some pastors harbouring heretical ideas themselves. They also lament the anti-canonical actions of certain heirarchs and clergy (typically in ecumenical congresses) as being sinful and calling for deposition according to the Canons, but do not understand themselves as personally having the authority to put such in effect - hence they grit their teeth and whince, but recognize such erring persons as Priests nonetheless.

ii) Those who separate from "new calendar/communion Bishops" for fear for their own souls and those of their families, because the lawlessness is unbearable and given the current course, they see the new calendarists as a sinking ship. These people go over to ROCOR, or one of the "Cyprianite" Resistor bodies, like the folks in Etna (California.) They recognize the "new calendar communion" as having a Priesthood, but infected by a laxity and lack of courage/interest so as to punish and remove erring Bishops and clergy. Of these, in practice (and increasingly, in theory) the "Cyprians" are stricter in their separatism than are the ROCOR. In essence these groups are making a distinction between those who ought to be deposed and who are lawless, from those who can be said to be alien from the Church. Generally this party will not recognize anything save another Ecumenical Council (or a Pan-Orthodox Synod of similar stature) as being a definitive cleaving of ecumenists from the visible unity of the Church (which is important, since the Catholic Church is visible, and that visibility is of consequence - Orthodoxy does not subscribe to the "invisible church of the elect" or similar Protestant ecclessiastical models.)

iii) Those who hold to some variant of the "Matthewite" position. These hold that the "new calendar communion" is graceless - being without a genuine Priesthood, and as a consequence incapable of celebrating genuine Holy Mysteries. However, this is about all of the various groups representing this type of thinking can be said to absolutely have in common, aside from their Orthodox faith. Different parties in this mix will sometimes have different beliefs about when the new calendarists and those with them fell - or as is very common, they will view many/most/all parties but themselves as being (if not heretical) at least anti-canonical and very often, outright schisms (hence, graceless for another reason.)

However, everything I've said so far is not sufficient, since there is a glaring situation from the Church's history which serves as something of a "fly in the ointment" as far as pat-answers are concerned - the Roman Catholic Church aka. "the Latins".

The specific errors of the Latins have been condemned in a concilliar manner on many occassions, though none of these councils has ever been unambiguously recognized as being "ecumenical" or at least on the same footing as the great Seven Councils which everyone recognizes. Of course, the rulings of those "lesser" councils have been accepted with time as being of universal significance.

Yet there is no mistaking that the Roman Catholic Church, for centuries, has been a separate body from the Orthodox Church on questions of both doctrine and ecclesiastical matters (heresy and schism).

So, joined to the fact that the errors of the Latins have been condemned by the Church, and that the Church has historically recognized the reality that the Roman Catholic Church has gone it's own way, there is this recognition of the obvious. Yet, if we were to demand that it be pinned at anyone point (even 1054 is unsatisfactory, as the communication of individual heirarchys, clergy, and flocks certainly did not end at this time), we would be left at a loss to give a specific answer.

In this light, it could be argued that while one may not agree that a satisfactory, singular, authoratative sentence against the "new calendar communion" exists - one could put forward that the reality is that the new calendarists (like the Latins) are now characterized by heresy and are a separate entity from the Church.

In the case of the Roman Catholics, this could be said for obvious reasons - they are possessed by a mindset, way of belief, and praxis which is alien to the Church, and it is quite clear where their allegiences in fact lie. While one can probably point here or there at someone who is an exception to this, even those exceptions are only "a little better", and generally do not come close to actually being a case of "Orthodoxy in Rome."

Keeping this appraisal in mind, can the same really be said of the "world Orthodox"? Some would say "yes", others "no". It would appear that, like the Latins, ultimatly only time will be able to tell, as God Himself separates the wheat from the chaff.

While the bitterness and political dimension of the Latin-Orthodox schism was more keenly experienced by the Greeks, it seems the same cannot be said of the Slavic Churches. As Archmandrite Ambrosius' essay on sacramental economy makes evident, in the first centuries following the break of the See of Rome from the Eastern Patriarchates, many Latins who came to be regarded as Saints by the Orthodox Church were received by the Russian Orthodox Church with no indication they were viewed as alien to the House of God. Even in the Greek Orthodox Church of Jerusalem, it's known that Latin pilgrims for some time (up to the Crusades) were received at the Holy Sepulcre and other pilgrimage sites by the Orthodox Church there with little real distinction.

It would seem that in times past, ultimatly considerations in such situations were made after an appraisal of reality, and not the subjection of all circumstances to a theory of how things are/ought to be.

Seraphim