Reflections

[Kollyvas]

Christ is in our midst!

I think by your erection of a straw man, you miss the point. First and foremost, I don't believe in clasticism but in the CANONICAL ORDER of the Church, and I RECOGNIZE that the heresies are to be condemned by a Council, but the Fr. Komarovsky approach, and yours, is to deny that there is any problem, any contagion. The relics of the Confessors of Orthodoxy and the Holy New Martyrs seem to unravel the deception of an official "church consciousness." Sadly, neither you nor Fr. Komarovsky even want to take that witness, which God has sanctified to confirm Truth, seriously. You hint at sectarianism--physician, heal thyself.

Orthodoxia I Thanatos!
R M Malleev-Pokrovsky

[pjhatala]

The relics of the Confessors of Orthodoxy and the Holy New Martyrs seem to unravel the deception of an official "church consciousness."

The relics of those Holy New Martyrs who stayed with the Moscow Patriarchate also exist.

The relics of the "martyrs" of Nikon's reforms exist as well- yet no one venerates them. In my opinion, many in these "true" groups are becoming these types of martyrs for "truth".

Yes, Mr. Pokrovsky(you share my godfather's surname ) you're right- there is a problem. I don't deny that. Where though, does the answer lie? Can the Church be reformed by attacks from the outside? Is it outsiders in the "true" groups who are attempting to "save the Church", much like Sergius?

I think my main point is- it's a fine line. Don't be so quick to condemn the CHURCH, and believe in Christ's promise. Despite the problems of the Moscow Patriarchate, for example, look at the good. Look at the fact that they are glorifying the New and Royal Martyrs, the fact that religious life there is on the upswing, the fact that more and more churches are being built all the time, the fact that the Patriarch has publically repented for the sin of regicide! Can this have been imagined 15 years ago? Christ works...and I'm guessing there's more to come.

[Kollyvas]

Christ is in our midst!

You begin to become "outside the Church" when betray the Church. Groups who go off in resistance are not necessarily "schimatics, " as the followers of St. Mark Evgenikos attest for instance. Moreover, what I put forward IS THE COUNCILIAR MODEL OF THE CHURCH, which you and Fr. Komarovsky have little use for, save to perhaps convene robber councils and condemn those who expose you. I think that your quiet discounting of the Holy Relics of Holy +Metropolitan Philaret and by extension St. John of San Francisco simply reinforces my point that the sergian mindset is not definitive Orthodoxy, but rather a legalistic decadence. I have said it before, and will repeat it: The Fathers show us that ONE MAN AND THE TRUTH constitute A MAJORITY OF ONE, that the Church continues unblemished under the pastorship of the resistance while the other parties come to resolution of the disputes. A Council is called, for the PHRONEMA held by the CONFESSING CHURCH demands and the Holy Spirit is heard. Such was the case with arius and his cohorts, nestorios, the monothelites, etc. The Church is alive and enlivening in the Holy Spirit. The model you put forward is perhaps juridicially proper, but spiritually dead. And I seem to remember the Scripture about observing the letter of the Law but BETRAYING THE SPIRIT. Lastly, SOBORNOST' seems like the last thing you have a conception of.

Orthodoxia I Thanatos!
R M Malleev-Pokrovsky

PS The whole Old Believer vilefication gets really old when the Lewis Carol reality you would have us accept as Orthodoxy constitutes a new unia with Rome or reformation led from Geneva.

[Edward]

Your citing of Saint Mark of Ephesus brings up another point, although he stood up against the union of Florence, he did not remain alone in the end. The union fell apart immediately. Do you think all the Orthodox bishops who capitulated to the union and then rejected went to Saint Mark to be received back into the Church? The Church functions in Synodaly. When we look at the great heresies that the Church struggled against during the times of the Ecumenical Councils, we see a general pattern. A heretical doctrine or dogma is taught and it spreads among the faithful. Individual hierarchs come out against it and seek to correct it, writing letters to the original teacher. Then a Hierarchal Synod meets to deal with the heresy, but they always give the heretic the opportunity to make his argument. Arias was at the First Ecumenical Council and even got smacked in the face by Saint Nicholas when he defended his heretical views. We see that the Church first tries to point out error and bring people to the truth peacefully. The heretics were always given the chance to repent and recant their errors. When the Fathers saw that the heretics were not and that by not anathematizing the heresy and excommunicating the heretic(s), Christian souls would be led astray, then the anathema would be pronounced and the heretic condemned (defrocked if the heretic was clergy, which was usually the case) and excommunicated. It is at that point that the heretic is fully outside the Church and if they continue celebrating the Mysteries, those Mysteries are graceless.

So, we see in recent times that individuals have condemned the actions and teachings of Patriarchs Meletius Maktaksakies, Sergius, and Athanagoras. However, the Church as a whole, has not come to fully anathematize them and cut them and their flock off from the life of the Church. Even if you believe that the Greek Old Calendarists are the True Orthodox Church, they have not come together in a Church Council to do this, nor did the Catacomb Churches in the Soviet Union. In fact, this is still a huge debate among these groups is whether or not "World Orthodoxy" is completely graceless. The Russian Church Abroad struggled with this question and even individuals there believed it to be so, but they never convened a Church Council with the Old Calendarists with whom they were once in communion with at various times in their history to do this.

I think we are all agreed on this forum that the Orthodox Church is Body of Christ, the Ark of Salvation, the Fountain of Divine Grace, the bearer of the Fullness of Truth, etc. and that other Christian bodies as well as other religious or philosophical groups are not. Some are closer to us than others.

We agree that the introduction of the Revised Julian Calendar in 1927 was uncanonical and that it deprives those using it of the fullness of Church life, however it was (or is) not completely graceless. Even the first Greek Old Calendarist bishops were on the New Calendar until 1935.

We agree that the Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius manifested an incorrect relationship between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Soviet government, which persecuted believers and actively and agressively taught atheism.

We agree that Orthodox involvement in Ecumenism has been highly flawed because modern day ecumenism is most often linked to Religious Syncretism, Moral Relativity, and the Branch-theory.

We agree that Patriarch Athenagoras' "lifting" of the 1054 Anathemas against the Latins was uncanonical and that his statements concerning the unity of the Church clearly contradict the Orthodox understanding of the Church and thus is heretical. Furthermore, we also clearly see teachings of religious syncretism is his writings and statements, which is also heretical.

The case for an anathema against these things is obvious to us all. However, the Church has not as of yet called a Synod to do so. Whether or not such is Synod is necessary or will occur, I do not know, I leave that in God's hands.

Edward
geh8988@gmail.com

[Nikodemus]

Edward, I agree with everything you say, except that you miss one point and that is that an orthodox must break communion with those who preach or shows indiffernece to a heresy that IS ALREADY CONDEMNED BY THE SYNODS. We here have many heresies that have been condemned by the Holy Synods: Monophysitism, Filioque etc...and then you could understand what indifferentisn that today is presched publicly from orthodox hierarchs concerning union with those who believes in this fals doctrines.

Canon XV of the 1st & 2nd
".... But as for those persons, on the other hand, who, on account of some heresy condemned by holy Synods, or Fathers, withdrawing themselves from communion with their president, who, that is to say, is preaching the heresy publicly, and teaching it bareheaded in church, such persons not only are not subject to any canonical penalty on account of their having walled themselves off from any and all communion with the one called a Bishop before any conciliar or synodical verdict has been rendered, but, on the contrary, they shall be deemed worthy to enjoy the honor which befits them among Orthodox Christians. For they have defied, not Bishops, but pseudo-bishops and pseudo-teachers; and they have not sundered the union of the Church with any schism, but, on the contrary, have been sedulous to rescue the Church from schisms and divisions."

Comments on the First-Second Synod found in the Life of St. Photios the Great by the eminent Serbian scholar and Saint, Hieromonk Justin (Popovich) of Chelije (From Saint Photios, On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit, trans. by Holy Transfiguration Monastery (Studion Publishers, 1983):

Maintaining his meekness, his love for order, and the canons of the Church, St. Photios called a second Council to convene in the Church of the Holy Apostles in the spring of 861* with the approval of Emperor Michael. This assembly later came to be known as the First-Second Council. Many bishops, including the representatives of Pope Nicholas, were in attendance. All confirmed the determinations of the holy Seventh Ecumenical Council, once more condemning the iconoclast heresy, and accepted Photios as the lawful and canonical patriarch. At this Council, seventeen holy canons were promulgated with the purpose of bringing disobedient monks and bishops into harmony with ecclesiastical order and tradition. The disobedient monks were expressly forbidden to desert their lawful bishop under the excuse of the bishop's supposed sinfulness, for such brings disorder and schism to the Church. The holy Council added that only by a conciliar decision could the clergy reject a bishop whom they thought to be sinful. This rule was adopted in direct response to those unreasonably strict monks who had separated themselves from their new Patriarch and his bishops. The holy Council, however, did distinguish between unreasonable rebellion and laudable resistance for the defense of the faith, which it encouraged. In regard to this matter it decreed that should a bishop publicly confess some heresy already condemned by the Holy Fathers and previous councils, one who ceases to commemorate such a bishop even before conciliar condemnation not only is not to be censured, but should be praised as condemning a false bishop. In so doing, moreover, he is not dividing the Church, but struggling for the unity of the Faith (Canon Fifteen).

[Nikodemus]

Phjatala

I will try not to repeat myself even if this is difficult since I believe we sometimes talk over our heads and do not meet on the relevant points.
First I want to discuss Roman Catholicism, a system I have studied from many academic papers. Roman Catholicism today is more like an umbrella organisation that include a spectrum of different beliefs. You have pro pope traditionalists on the one hand: The Society of St Peter, Una Voce (who serve the old flasely called Tridentine Mass according toi the liturgical books of 1962) and pro pope organisation Opus Dei who interprets the Second Vatican COuncil in the most conservative manner possible and are ashamed of other parts in the same council. Then, on the other side of the spectrum you have (I avoid to mention open heretics here ie heretics according to Roman Catholic belief) The Neo Cathecumenate movement that wants to celebrate the resurection on Saturdays and not Sundays...celebrate sunday mass on Saturdays and have a strange view of the cathecumenate as such. In between we have so many orders and movements that you could imagine of different organisations. You have essentially many different ecclesiologies, many different views on the question on when you should obey the pope, many different ways to celebrate mass, many different ways of interpretations of scripture etc.

It seems that the only common denomintor in Roman Catholicism today are jurisdiction...to be under the pope. The Church is also defined as such and is a historical fruit of Roman Law.

Orthodoxy, on the other hand, have a different definition of the Church. The Holy Fathers put Faith first and looks on jurisdiction with some, but in relation to Papism, little interest. Salvation is even defined as a jurisdictional question in Papism...it is necessary for a christian to be under the pope to be saved. Now, in orthodoxy, it is necessary to belong to a bishop with the right faith, not jurisdiction. The faith belongs to the Hole Body of Christ...Sobornost. And many confessors of this faith were not even priests.

We then move foreward to the main problem:

A bishop is not allowed to be in communion with heretical bishops (no orthodox is, but I put emphasis on a bishop here).

My argument here is very clear:

The belief in the Church as we say in the creed...I believe in One, Holy and Apostolic

have today different interpretations among the bishops. Some clings to the teaching that the church is divided since 1054 and must be united again, others believe that the church always was united, put not in practice, others believe in the branch theroy, saying that the church includes catholics and protestants, others believe that the church never was divided because it is always one. Tha last position is the traditional orthodox position.

Then we have those who in practice allow monophysits to receve communion in their "orthodox churches" and those patriarchates who are in communion with these bishops.

These are two clear examples on what the church fathers would call heresies: A choice to depart, to divide from what was preiously believed.Canon I of the Second Ecumenical Synod
"Let not the Symbol of Faith be set aside…but let it remain unchanged: and let every heresy be given over to anathema…"

Now, since the Church is one, and that oneness consists primarily and universally of perfect agreement in Orthodox doctrines, it necessarily follows that all those who do not conform to those Orthodox doctrines, whether by addition or omission, or by any innovation of their own, thus changing the truth, are outside this one Holy Church, as one may also ascertain from a review of the sixth and seventh canons of the Second Ecumenical Council, and the first canon of St. Basil the Great.

Faith, not jurisdiction is the orthodox guide when he sees this one million churches world wide.

[Nikodemus]

Pijatala

So there is no problem for you that MP under Sergej and Patriark Alexis talked about Stalin with these words:

“the new Constantine”, the “wise, God-established”, “God-given Supreme Leader”.

Even when Stalin died in March, 1953, the patriarchate could not restrain its devotion. Thus “Patriarch” Alexis called him “the great builder of the people’s happiness… His death has been taken with deep grief by the whole of the Russian Orthodox Church, which will never forget his benevolent attitude towards the needs of the Church. His radiant memory will never be erased from our hearts. Our Church intones ‘eternal memory’ to him with a special feeling of unceasing love.”

No, this is NOT important...there is a clear line from Tikhon to Patriark Aleksej II today and nothing important happened in between!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!