Moderator: Mark Templet
I dont know whether to be relieved or confused... 
Perhaps I am missing your point, or am agreeing with it whole-heartedly. I fail to see how any of what you said does not correspond entirely with the spirit of Cyprian Ecclesiology. If it does, your eloquence in this matter would be most appreciated.
Thanks,
Noah
Noah,
I thought you were answered very throoughly. 
A council, ecumenical or not, recieves all of its authority from the Church. If it is not in agreement with the Church, such as that of 754, it is not an Orthodox council. If a bishop teaches heresy and is not in agreeement with the Church, he is not an Orthodox bishop; this heretic bishop at the same time may agree with a council such as the 350 heretic bishops who agreed in council in 754 and called it ecumenical, but if they disagree with the Chruch, it has no weight.
When the Church affirms something in council, it is not saying anything new or developing new doctrines. It is merely stating that which has always been believed.
Heresy is a refusal to accept the illuminating grace of God; it is a willful blindness, that is, a condition that is irreconcilable with the presence of the All-holy Spirit. There are neither grace, nor Mysteries with those in heresy, because for one to come to be in heresy means that one has driven God's uncreated energies far from oneself. If God's uncreated energies were with him, he would not be in heresy. That one is in heresy, is proof that one does not have the Holy Spirit, and without the Holy Spirit how can we speak of Mysteries?
Cyprianism says it is not God but a Council which withdraws grace. As the canon I mentioned previously would have it, however, a heretical bishop falls from grace the moment he begins publicly preaching his heresy. He is a false bishop even before a council says so. This is what the canons say. This is what the Holy Fathers say.
Acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Council
Grace and truth came by Jesus. They have forsaken the truth, in which the author of Proverbs boasts, saying, "My throat shall meditate truth"; having embraced falsehood to themselves, it is clear that they have fallen away from grace.
A Letter of Pope Celestine I of Rome to the heretical Patriarch Nestorius of Constantinople, written in the name of the Local Council of Rome, which condemned Nestorius before the convocation of the Third Ecumenical Council: "Let this, our decision, be plain: that if you do not preach the same doctrine concerning Christ our God as that embraced by the Church of the Romans, and of the Alexandrians, and of all the Catholic Church, which also the great Church of the Constantinopolitans so excellently embraced until you, and if within ten days counting from the day of this notice you do not openly and by a written confession reject this infidel innovation, which seeks to separate that which the Holy Scripture has united, you shall be cast out from the entire Catholic Church."
Saint Cyril of Alexandria to Nestorius, in the name of theCouncil of Alexandria, which condemned Nestorius before the convocation of the Third Ecumenical Council
We make our protest to you in this third letter, and counsel you to refrain from such wicked and perverse doctrines, which you believe and teach, and that you choose the right Faith…Otherwise, unless Your Reverence does so by the time set in the letters sent to you by our concelebrant, the most righteous and God-fearing bishop of Rome, Celestine, know that you will have no portion with us, nor place or speech among the priests and bishops of God.
As we see, Nestorius had been cast out of the Church before the Third Ecumenical Council had been convoked. But perhaps you will still say: “Very well, he was cast out before the Third Ecumenical Council, but it was a Council that did it.” However, since he had been cast out of the Church and had “no place or speech among the priests and bishops of God,” why was the Third Ecumenical Council called and why did it condemn him again? Did the Fathers believe that their previous synodal decision had not “taken effect”? If it is the decision of a Council, and not the fact that one is consciously preaching heresy, that removes divine grace from a person, then which Council removed the grace of thepriesthood from Nestorius? The Council of Alexandria? The Council of Rome? The Third Ecumenical Council? When, in the final analysis, was Nestorius cut off from the Church? However, it is not a Council that removes grace. God does not take orders from men. The Council simply confirms that grace has departed, and it proclaims this fact through its decree. Let us not forget that when Saint Cyril wrote to the clergy and people of Constantinople, as we read above, he referred to Nestorius as “a wolf” even before the Council; and again, as we saw above, long before the decree of any Council, long before Cyril or Celestine of Rome had even learned or become concerned over this matter, Saint Hypatius, a priest under Constantinople’s jurisdiction, stopped commemorating his patriarch, Nestorius. And when his timid superior, the Bishop Eulalius, remonstrated with him, that most holy minister answered, “From the time that I learned that he said unrighteous things, that is, heretical teachings about my Lord, he is no longer a bishop, and I am no longer in communion with him, nor do I commemorate his name in the Liturgy.”
I hope that was a little less ambiguous.
Thank you, indeed this was less ambiguous. I think that what is going on here is a very unfortunate misunderstanding of Metropolitan Cyprian's Ecclesiology has taken place. I would challenge you to show me where he says that it is not God but a council that removes grace. There is no question in Cyprianism (in fact he states this... I will try to find the quote and post it) that a heretic, and those who preach the false unity at the WCC etc are not Orthodox. However, the Church always had, has now, and always will have rogue bishops. What Cyprianism objects to is the notion that the rest of the bishops in world Orthodoxy and their faithful are not Orthodox as well. Indeed as you know there are probably many more World Orthodox faithfull who have never heard of the word ecumenism than there are those that have. The scriptures say 'whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven' and the point that the Metropolitan is holding to is that the church as of yet has bound nothing in regards to the World Orthodox churches, and that it only makes responsible sense to enact such a binding before we condemn the masses of faithful, of which most of us were converted into to begin with. The legalism about this all must stop or your quest for true Orthodoxy will bear no fruit. The spirit of Cyprianism (and the words I believe as well), violate none of the councils and condemnations that you have quoted, and you statement that Cyprian states that it is not God who takes away grace is laughable on its face. How stupid do you think he is, or how enlightened do you think you are?
Noah
Noah,
I understood your first question to be an argument for Nestorius as a true Bishop of the Church until the Third Ecumenical Synod condemned him. No matter.
But I do think it would be accurate to say Cyprianism DOES believe in "Holy Heretics" - that is, the likes are Bartholomew are Orthodox Bishops and the Grace of God flows from them and they have the Mysteries. Clearly a man "baptized" by Bartholomew would not, because he could not, be Baptized upon entry into the Cyprian group. And he would not because they admit the hertic Bartholomew is a Bishop and has the Grace of God flows from him.
I would like to reach some sort of clarity with regard to the actual heretics before we discuss the status of all their promoters.
Noah,
I've held off posting on this thread for quite some time, because I have a feeling that I'm going to really put my foot in my mouth here. But maybe posting here will make me see the logical ends to some ideas that have been floating around in my head. Maybe I'll even get something right! Maybe not. Here it is, for what it's worth.
I know that one of the differences between ROCOR/Synod in Resistance/Old Calanderist Bulgarian/Old Calander Romanion and the rest of the "uncanonical" anti-ecumenists is the recognition of grace and validity in the ecumenical Orthodox churches.
I'm unsure in what way you are using the word "uncanonical"? What makes the groups that you are speaking of here "uncanonical"?
But is this where his "error" ends? Aside from slanders, I never hear from (and admittedly have not knocked myself out searching for) ROAC reps just what IS the problem with Metropolitan Cyprian. Could you elaborate, or point me to a thread where these things are elaborated?
Met. Cyprian's main error is one that ROCOR has never openly ("bare-headedly") held to, so far as I can tell (in spite of their claims--at one point--that they have the same ecclesiology). Met. Cyprian's group says that a local Orthodox Church ("jurisdiction") can simultaneously 1) have grace in their sacraments, and 2) be heretics. According to this thinking, ecumenists are heretics, but nonetheless have grace-filled sacraments. Most people see Met. Cyprian's seemingly "moderate" stance on the calendar issue, and assume that he is moderate on all other issues. But one need only read Met. Cyprian's words (as translated by his Archbishop in America) to see that he calls ecumenists heretics, and nonetheless maintains that they have grace. There is a ton of info on this at Orthodoxinfo. (the idea of "potential heretics" or "potential schismatics" is no more tenable, though the idea did admittedly have a venerable hierarch as it's first supporter)
Another error is that Met. Cyprian believes that heretics cannot be formally condemned until a Council is called for such a purpose. Until that time, Met. Cyprian believes that it is improper to break totally from the heretics and schismatics, and therefore "walls himself off" supposedly within the same Church. Orthodox Tradition, on the other hand, says that one is to break with heretics and schismatics, regardless of whether their is a synodal decision. But in this we can see a paradox that is similar to the ecumenical councils paradox you seem to be having trouble with. For while we must break communion with heretics and schismatics, in actuality, when heretics and schismatics fall into such serious error they are automatically cut off from the Church.
Anyway, back to Met. Cyprian, his position openly contradicts Orthodox Tradition, in that he says that he is simply "walled off" from "ill members" (ie. heretics), while the Fathers teach that heretics are outside the Church, and therefore cannot be simply behind a wall but still in the Church. These are the two main errors that come to mind. If you'll read the other threads on Cyprianism, you'll see these points elaborated on. I'm not sure what slanders you have heard about Met. Cyprian, I've not heard any myself. I've heard misrepresentations, but that happens with every group, and sometimes the misrepresentations are unwittingly committed.
If having your hierarchs ebrace a heresy is enough to revoke grace from all of their sacraments given to their faithful, and they are all to be considered immediately outside of the church, what was the point of any of the ecumenical councils?
The Ecumenical Councils were called to defend the faith against heresies, and to articulate together as a Church what right believing bishops and priests had already individually been affirming and defending. The only idea of some type of "lingering grace" in Tradition is not anywhere close to the idea of heretics having grace. In St. Basil's 1st Canon, St. Basil says that it might be possible for some type of non-sacramental grace to linger, for a time, so as to help in bringing schismatics back to the Church. This spoke only of schismatics who (according to the context) had committed non-dogmatic errors and broken from the Church, but were still able to be reconciled.
In other words, while St. Basil says that a non-sacramental grace might linger among schismatics, Met. Cyprian says that sacramental grace does linger among heretics. And while there seemed to be some question in the mind of St. Basil whether the grace would always even linger, Met. Cyprian on the other hand, condemns anyone who says that grace has not lingered. In other words, not only is Met. Cyprian applying a concept of lingering grace in a totally different way than St. Basil did (and btw contradicting what the fathers says about grace among heretics), but he is also applying this concept more strictly than St. Basil did. That is to say, he does not see any room for disagreement. If you do not acknowledge that the ecumenists have grace, you get called a crazy extremist sectarian (as many groups have been); and if you do not acknowledge that the ecumenists are in error and if you refuse to break communion with them, then you are inconsistent (as ROCOR has been called). So who is really the ones here who think that they have all the answers and that everyone else is wrong?
Why would the church fathers expell those already expelled?
Because not everyone recognized them as expelled. When Arius was condemned by St. Alexander in Egypt, he fled to Bp. Eusebius for protection. And if Eusebius found him to be in error, he might have just fled to Gaul or Britain. The point is that the heresy had grown to such an extent, and was of such a danger, that a church-wide council was needed so as to articulate the voice of the Church for the Church. This does not make any of the former condemnations (e.g., by a local synod in Alexandria) of lesser or no worth: as a matter of fact, the Ecumenical Synods confirmed what the local councils said, and many times accepted the canons and theological wording of these councils for Church-wide use.
Also, there are two types of expelling. First, a person is expelled from the Church by God when they fall into heresy. Period. However, heresy is not always immediately detected in people, and sometimes the heresy is subtle, or there are other problems that complicate matters. Therefore, even though a heretic is placed outside the Church by God because of his heresy, it can still be some time before the Church (either on a local level, or an Ecumenical level) recognizes that God has indeed expelled the individual(s), and that the Church must follow along with God's will and recognize the heretic(s) deprived of things like sacramental grace.
However, as I said before, one need not wait (and in fact should not wait) for an Ecumenical Council to condemn a heretic before breaking ties. Both the canons and Church history make this clear. St. Mark of Ephesus is a good example for us to follow in this regard. His words were those of a bishop, and therefore we should be careful about emulating him too closely on the details: yet the principles of what he did and said are totally relevant and valid.
And why on earth would they have a council (synod) with those outside of the church? It sounds to me that they were all "rabid ecumenists"!
As I said above, sometimes heresy was subtle, and so some were in doubt. Allowing the heretics to come to the council allowed them to say what they believed, and then the Fathers could judge themselves (in person) whether it was heresy or not. There was also the hope that, hearing the Orthodox truth, and perhaps hearing the Orthodox truth articulated in a way that "got through" to them, the heretics might leave their error and return to the Church. Indeed, one of the most wonderful parts of the Ecumenical Councils is that heretics were brought back into the Church at them.
However, it is not proper to say that the Orthodox have a Council with those outside of the Church. It is more correct to say that the Orthodox call a council, and invite heretics or schismatics for one reason or another: always with the intention not of a dialogue or debate, but with the intention of speaking the truth, hoping that those in error will correct themselves and return to the Church. This is very different from the Ecumenical movement, in which hundreds of groups, affirming hundreds of heresies, include Orthodox representative in dialogues and discussions. This would be like the Arians, Marcionites, Sabellians, Pelagians, Montanists, and a host of other heretics getting together and inviting the Orthodox "to discuss the differences". What actually happened is the opposite: the Orthodox might or might not summon various heretics, and would articulate the Orthodox faith and call the heretics to repent and return to the Church.
That still does not address why such councils would INCLUDE the excommunicated in their synods.
I hope I've covered that above (as best as I can, which I admit isn't very well), but speaking on a more down-to-earth, Christian level, the answer is love and hope. At some point one realises that certain people are not going to repent and come to the truth; however, as long as their is hope, love dictates that we give them the opportunities to return to God's Church. What is hateful is either allowing a false unity and ignoring error, or rejecting a real, potential unity because of one's aversion to heresy. The Fathers teach that we must hate the sin (heresy), but love the sinner (heretic). This is not to say that the Fathers did not sometimes use hyperbole and various rhetorical methods common in their times in an attempt to wake up the heretics from their death-bringing spiritual slumber, and bring them back into the Church. But wherever there is harsh language or actions in the Fathers, it is always simply a method for producing the desired results (e.g., true unity), these results springing from a deep and hopeful love.
However, it should be said that love can seem harsh to us when applied even by spiritually mature Christian hierarchs. We are mistaken if we think that love will always be manifest in kind, conciliatory words. For example, we find the following passage a couple different places in the patristic record:
"Polycarp was not only instructed by the apostles and conversant with many who had seen the Lord, but was also appointed by apostles to serve in Asia as Bishop of Smyrna... And there are people who heard him describe how John, the Lord's disciple, when at Ephesus went to take a bath, but seeing Cerinthus inside rushed out of the building without taking a bath, crying: 'Let us get out of here, for fear the place falls in, now that Cerinthus, the enemy of truth, is inside!' Polycarp himself on one occasion came face to face with Marcion, and when Marcion said 'Don't you recognize me?' he replied: 'I do indeed: I recognize the firstborn of Satin!' So careful were the apostles and their disciples to avoid even exchanging words with any falsifier of the truth, in obedience to the Pauline injunction: 'If a man remains heretical after more than one warning, have no more to do with him, recognizing that person of that type is a perverted sinner, self-condemned.' (Tit. 3:10)" - Ireneaeus, Against Heresies, 3, 3, 4 (quoted in: Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 4, 14)
One can only imagine what type of reaction such words and actions would receive today! How hateful we would call them, being ourselves spiritually blind and not understanding the depths of their love and piety. But they did not say these things because they could not control themselves (=passions), but rather, they were in complete control of themselves and realised that they had to go to a certain extent to shock the heretics out of their error. Gregory the Theologian goes over this in a bit more detail in his 2nd Oration (which is available online, for free), where he describes how priests and bishops must sometimes appear angry or distraught, even when they are in reality (hopefully) no such thing. To get through to some people, he says, you just have to yell and bang your first. That's love--but that's not a love that we sinners understand, and so I doubt we'd succeed if we tried imitating it.
If removing yourself from and refusing to have contact with heretical bishops who were by their heresy automatically removed from the church was necessary, and to do otherwise would deprive you of grace and remove yourself from the church, then you can count such saints as St. Cyril of Alexandria as not Orthodox, as he had the audacity to let an already excommunicated graceless heretic be a member of one of the Ecumenical Councils, and even addressed him with all the honors fitting of an Orthodox heirarch!
We cannot make too much of this last part. St. Nicholas struck Arius, and that created a hubbub (until God let his will be known). Arius was certainly a known heretic, and yet when a Bishop struck him it was cause for alarm. As St. Gregory said in the quote I gave the other day, "all have the dignity, but not all have the grace". Regarding the first part, obviously inviting a heretic to an Ecumenical Council does not mean that you are a heretic yourself--unless you invite him because you affirm what the heretic believes. There's nothing that says that one cannot have contact with a heretical bishop: it's just acknowledged that trying to discuss or debate someone back into the Church is the wrong path to take.
Communication with heretics should be a monologue: a bishop (or a council) speaks the truth, and then invites a person to return to the Church. If the heretic is invited to speak, it is not so that people can decide who is most persuasive, but it is simply to make his heresy manifest to all. It is also possible, psychologically speaking, that God might use such an opportunity to finally get through to the heretic; ie., standing before pious and right-believing bishops, while he is speaking his error and defending his madness, a heretic might realise how very wrong he is. It's easy to hold to a belief when you can construct it as you like: it's much harder to hold on to error when you must defend it before others (especially when those others have the truth and are pious).
It doesnt matter. [What I said about Met. Cyprian]
Forgive me, you said you had never seen the problems of Met. Cyprian elaborated on, and I tried to direct you to places that they were discussed. I've read most of the Cyprianite documents published in English a number of times now, some of them a half-dozen times or more. And we've had all these conversations before--and we've been somewhat detailed. Therefore, when you asked about information, I thought I would direct you to some information. I'm not sure why you asked for the information if you think that it doesn't matter what I say or have said? But perhaps I misunderstand: what doesn't matter?
This obsessive legalism about church canons and Tradition that leads one to believe whole churches can be automatically excommunicated without a synod actualizing such a condemnation is not of the Orthodox mindset, but the Roman Catholic one.
Well, you'd have a very hard time proving that, and I have no interest in such a discussion anyway. I'm not going to start compiling quotes about heresy and grace and whatnot: there already lots of collections of quotes like that out there (and I'll give some links at the end). Perhaps you have never heard of self-excommunication. I suggest you check it out, since even laymen can (self-)excommunicate themselves by breaking certain canons or holding to heresy.
I stand by my previous point that under current conditions, saints like Cyril of Alexandria would be considered heretics.
Your point seemed to be based on a misunderstanding. As a matter of fact, contemporary history disproves your point, for even the most rigid (or "extreme" if you prefer) Orthodox traditionalists considered Met. Chrysostom of Florina to be an honorable hierarch, if not a saint. And Met. Chrysostom had much that could have been considered worrisome if people want to "pick" and attack. When a hierarch is divinely-guided, like St. Cyril and Met. Chrysostom, some room is given for their actions and words. St. Cyril was placed in his see by heretics, after all, but the Fathers did not consider this a reason not to accept his right-believing words (the same thing happened with Meletios of Antioch). Because St. Cyril was following an Orthodox path, the Fathers of the Church permitted him to do what he did and say what he said, waiting to see the outcome.
Trying to base one's entire view of grace and heresy on a historical example is very dangerous. There is always the chance that even Saints are wrong, and that the Fathers in question simply did not say anything because it would have caused more harm than good. Or perhaps we have an inadequate understanding of what went on at that time, and why--I say this especially of we sinners who are lacking in spiritual discernment (and most likely education). To ignore the many very explicit words of Tradition on these subjects, and instead to base your whole viewpoint on an historical example or two and your own reasoning/feelings (the idea apparently just doesn't sit right with you), is IMO very dangerous.
And someone like Blessed Augustine who actually DID say some questionable things, well I would imagine that he would most definately be considered not Orthodox as well.
Speaking personally, I've defended his orthodoxy on this forum
How many other doctrinal disagreements are there in the Fathers? And there are wrong parties in most of them, so do we re-examine the Holy Fathers and expell the ones who goofed from time to time?
Actually, we do do that. Ecumenical Councils sometimes post-humously anathematize heretics (e.g., Honorius I). In most cases though (e.g., St. Gregory and universalism, or St. Ireneaus and Chiliasm) the Fathers forgive the error(s) and ignore those particular misguided words of the Fathers. I certainly don't plan on condemning the Fathers, even if I think they are wrong (based on what the Church teaches).
Metropolitan Cyprian is not at the heart of the issue, the legalism and the absolute exactitude most of the Traditionalists in their judgements of everyone else is. Metropolitan Cyprian is just a clear example of this (in my opinion).
There are lots of examples of traditionalists not be exacting in every matter, if you search around for them. But in matters of salvific importance, in these troubled and chaotic times, surely all Orthodox should be as exacting as they can be. If anything, I think that it is people like Met. Cyprian who are over-exacting. He is the one who is calling inconsistent even those he is in communion with, and calling heretics or schismatics (albeit grace-filled ones) those he is not in communion with. Compare this with the healthy agnosticism seen in a number of traditionalist groups like the GOC and ROAC (excluding perhaps Bp. Gregory, who seems to give less place to such agnosticism).
This foolishness has forced the legalists into a mindset wherein various Traditionalist faithful will one day get mailings from another synod telling them that because of an error on the part of one of their heirarchs, they have all been expelled from the church and need to repent
Noah! What is wrong with what you said might happen? Do you not know that it is not only the originators of heresies that are condemned, but those who follow the heresies? Tradition makes clear that that is the reason that we must cut off ties with heretics, whether we be a simple layman or monk (like St. Maximos the Confessor), or the Bishop of a "Patriarchate". Please do read The Commonitory of St. Vincent of Lerins, which can be found here. But be prepared, St. Vincent has some very hard words. Do you not realise that the Fathers considered heresies the "gates of hades" spoken of by our Lord in Matt. 16:18, and that these gates of hades attack each and every one of us in more ways than one, and that we must allow Christ to help us each defeat them?
That ecumenism is a heresy is not questioned by traditionalists...
Then according to Tradition and the canons, this should be enough to break communion, and believe that ecumenists are without grace. We call ecumenism a pan-heresy. Pan-heresy! All heresies at all times before us placed people outside the Church, yet now that the heresy of all heresies has come along, somehow the heretics have sacramental and virtuous grace? You say you've never run across the term ecumenist in the canons. Have you ever read the ROCOR anathema of 1983? But more importantly (since the 1983 anathema can get bogged down in all sorts of discussions), have you never read in the canons where the Orthodox were not even to pray with heretics or attend their churches or religious festivals? Have you never read St. Paul say to not even eat with someone who calls himself a Christian but isn't (he says something like this in more than one place)? Would you call St. Paul legalistic?
The fact is that the principle of ecumenism has been dealt with many times before, by canons and in other places within our Holy Tradition. That the word "ecumenist" has never appeared in any canon is no more relevant than the fact that "Trinity" is not in the Bible. Your point is that it has not been condemned, but then you go on to say that it does violate certain canons. And what, I might ask, is to be done with someone who violates these canons which you think have been violated? What do the canons being violated themselves call for?
Ecumenism needs to be formally condemned in an Ecumenical Council.
Indeed it does. But it never will be if things continue going the way they are. Satan has created enough apathy among us Orthodox Christians that we just don't feel the sting of ecumenism. Ecumenism has become the heresy of heresies that only "extremists" and "fringe elements" care about. It was fine for the early fathers to write invectives and the like against heretics, but nowadays any harsh words are automatically labeled "extreme," and anyone who uses such words are automatically considered to be "fringe" or "uncanonical" or "sectarian".
This is astounding! Has there ever been another time in Church history like this one? A great number of people consider ecumensim to be the greatest heresy that has sprung up, and yet many of those same people fight as aggressively as they can against takings steps to eliminate it. Everyone just wants to sit around waiting for an ecumenical council. Is that the method that the canons and Tradition give us for dealing with heresy in the Church: to just wait for a Council? This is the most deadly heresy we could possibly imagine, otherwise we would not give it the names that we do. And what do we do? We attack those who flee from it, because they are "legalistic" and "sectarian" for trying to follow what the Scriptures and Tradition tell us to do?
Is it not true that Nestorios was given a chance as an Orthodox heirarch to repent of his sin and deny his heresy BEFORE he was excommunicated?
I could be wrong--I haven't studied this particular issue in depth--but I would answer no. Perhaps Nestorios was given a chance to clarify what his beliefs were and affirm an Orthodox faith. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, people are sometimes given the opportunity to demonstrate that they aren't the heretics they are thought to be. This may indeed seem inconsistent, but sometimes love leads one to do inconsistent things. It'd be like catching your wife out on a date with another man. You've had suspicians before, and now you've caught them red-handed: but you love them and want to give them the benefit of the doubt. So you give them a chance to explain themselves. You hope, somehow, someway, that there was a mistake.
Or maybe not. I guess the heresy of Nestorius was so blatant that it was obvious to all. Nonetheless, as I said before, perhaps there was the hope that, being in front of so many right-believing fathers, and hearing the truth, he would come to realise his error and repent. And at the very least, the Fathers could hear the heresy "straight from the horse's mouth," so to speak.
Now, as relates to heretics at a council, God already knows the truth, and as far as salvation and grace go, the decision has already been made (by the heretics--who chose to follow darkness rather than light). On the other hand, short of a vision from God, we humans must allow for the possibility at times that we are mistaken. We must sometimes take things more slowly and investigate, to make sure everything adds up. After all, an anathema is a horribly serious thing!
And addressing him honorably means little. Again, I would point out St. Gregory's quote, where he says explicitly that all have the dignity, but that not all have the grace. Met. Philaret also (in his sorrowful epistles) spoke at first of the other Orthodox hierarchs honorably. But we know from the content of the sorrowful epistles, and from other documents, that Met. Philaret hardly considered the hierarchs he was writing to to be the right-believing Orthodox his opening greetings might have led one to believe.
Also, the fact that ROCOR anathematized Ecumenism is not the issue. ROCOR at the time was not acting as the whole church, nor did it claim to (Unless you want to make a case that at that time ROCOR was in fact the only Orthodox church in existance, which would seem to fit the trend around here!).
It's ironic that the same way you are speaking of us mirros how others speak of ROCOR. For example, one priest said of ROCOR: "This group came to be the most conservative, regarding themselves the sole spokesmen not only for the Russian Orthodox but for Orthodoxy in general." (Fr. George Nicozisin, The Orthodox Church: A Well-Kept Secret, [Light And Life Publishing, 1997], p. 165) The way you view many "around here" is the same way that not a few in world Orthodoxy view ROCOR.
But more to your point, ROCOR was indeed speaking for the whole Church, in a way. That is to say, God already knew that ecumenism was a heresy long before 1983: ROCOR merely articulated the divine will. And that is a central purpose of the human aspect of the Church, after all: to manifest the divine part in piety and truth. The body of Christ, the Church, is divine-human, with Christ as the head: and even a single member (even a simple monk) can articulate the divinely-revealed truth. I've never read in the Fathers where it is written that a Saint thought someone was a heretic but refused to declare him graceless until a council (much less an Ecumenical Council) was called.
There have been many errors that were never condemned formally at an ecumenical council: that doesn't mean that they are somehow ok or won't exclude you from grace if you are involved in them. Read some of the early works on the faith, like Against All Heresies by Ireneaus. Not all of those heresies described were specifically condemned at a Council, but who is going to say that this means that we can participate in or affirm these heresies without danger? But do you not see, Noah, this is exactly what you are saying! You are saying that something can be a heresy, but as long as it hasn't been formally condemned at a Council (seemingly an Ecumenical Council), that it doesn't deprive one of grace. One could conceivably, according to such logic, hold to a form of early pseudo-Christian gnosticism, with the defense being that it was never formally condemned by a council. Where is this type of logic found in the Fathers or in the Scripture?
The three documents I would most strongly urge you to read are: 1) this letter from Met. Philaret, 2) the explanation of Vladimir Moss on whether Anathemas can be locally applied, and 3) Can Heretics Have the Grace of Sacraments by Vladimir Moss. Between these three documents, I believe that all of your questions and points are answered--and they are answered in far more detail than I have been able to use here. In fact, in the third document, almost all of your questions are answered point blank, as Mr. Moss is discussing Cyprian's theology.
I will post short responses point by point to avoid confusion on all parts.
Justin Kissel wrote:I'm unsure in what way you are using the word "uncanonical"? What makes the groups that you are speaking of here "uncanonical"?
I meant this as a sarcastic reference to World Orthodox objections to traditionalists not based on doctrine or truth, but a new concept of legal validity they call 'canonicity'.
[/quote]
OrthodoxyOrDeath wrote:... And he would not because they admit the hertic Bartholomew is a Bishop and has the Grace of God flows from him.
I would like to reach some sort of clarity with regard to the actual heretics before we discuss the status of all their promoters.
Why does that make a difference? If I were a ROAC bishop and secretly held heretical beliefs, thus losing the grace of God and making all my sacraments invalid, then would the ignorant ROAC faithful all be inadvertently stripped of their sacraments and their place in the Church? Isnt this the implication of the non-Cyprianite ecclesiology?
Noah