19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. (Galatians 5:19-21, emphasis mine)
This isn't meant to be an exhaustive treatment by any means, just some of my own thoughts - thoughts which I hope to have corrected if need be.
The way things have been portrayed to me in times past, is that if a large part of the Church cuts itself off due to the adherance of it's chief heirarchs to some peculiar doctrine (heresy) or for some similar reason, it's affect on those under them is not immediate. The reason for this is that there has to be either a personal assimilation of falsehood on their part (which can take varying amounts of time - depends entirely on how they're desposed I suppose), OR the knowing adherance to the schismatic/heretical leader of this rift (IOW, culpably adhering to a heresairch, heresy, or schism, without perhaps even believing in it.)
The model I had pointed to what that of a tree limb that was hacked off of a living tree. For a time, that limb will show signs of life. If you put it under a microscope you may even still see some cell division. But given some time, the cells will die, the limb will dry up, and eventually begin to decompose and lose it's basic form.
From what I've been told, the schism of a significant part of the Church can be seen in the same light. It would seem the process of "decomposition" would be the type of things I mentioned above - awareness on the part of the clergy and laity in general, and/or the assimilation of falsehood.
The principle remains however, that heresies and schisms place one outside of the Church - the Church which is the Ark of Salvation, and the Holy Mysteries are part of this Church; they're not magical rituals which can be separated from Her unity with the expectation that they will bring salvation, as if the priests of baal can expect to call down fire from Heaven as the Prophet Elijah did.
There is also the reality that once persons or things are removed from the visible unity of the Church (which the canons safeguard, giving "fence posts" as it were), that realistically human judgements in favour of the heterodox or schismatics becomes impossible. While one can privately speculate and hope on the basis of what I've said previously, to claim that it offers some sort of operative knowledge is impossible. This is why, in the case of those "baptized" outside of the visible unity of the Church (even in the best of cases where the schism is not very old, or one really doubts that the persons in question were knowledgable partisans in falsehood - and where their liturgics/praxis are "Orthodox" in form), have to be received as strangers. While in such circumstances it seems very likely they'll be received by "economy" (with repentence and Holy Communion at the least, or repentence, Chrism, and Communion), nonetheless they're being received as those coming in from the outside.
Obviously, if a long time has passed by, and/or the heresy has become particularly popular/malicious, "severity" will be the more prudent path for pastors to take.
One big reason I'm bringing this subject up is because it seems to be one which causes a lot of grief for what I would call "traditionally inclined" persons, but who find themselves unwilling to break with ecumenist/new-calendarist heirarchs. If you ask (clearly defining what you mean) "is ecumenism a heresy?" they will answer "yes". However, if you point to the well known fact that this heresy has become an integral part of their church (or of the churches they are in communion with), inform them about the implications of the new calendar (both doctrinally and canonically), etc. they become a little more reserved. They will either simply shrug and say "well, I don't like it and wish it would change", implying that the Church is a purely private reality, and that one can choose to live in a vacuum of personal correctness if they so choose while everyone else goes to hell in a handbasket. OR as is often the case, they will point to things they perceive to be "signs of life" and grace in their church or in "world Orthodoxy" and be scandalized by this asking "how can these be false churches?" or something to this effect.
Both approaches (or some combination of them) demonstrate varying levels of presumption, and involve judgements which even many saints felt incapable of making (or simply would not make). Yes, St.John Maximovitch (at least it is written) would visit ancient pre-schism western churches, in the hope finding the grace of God; but besides such examples not even being entirely relevent to the issue at hand, there is of course the even more obvious truth that few of us have this type of "vision" and ability to perceive the workings of grace.
OTOH, both the Fathers and the Canons make a clear distinction between Orthodoxy and heterodoxy; one gives blessings, the other curses (even when it takes the posture of offering blessings.)
While not every circumstance requires it to be shouted, the affirmation that ecumenist heretics are graceless, that schisms are graceless, is in principle a sound one. Such an affirmation does not prevent one from privately hoping that the ignorant sucked into such bodies are being cared for in some special way (perhaps along the lines of what I was saying earlier) - but knowledge of such things is beyond us, and while we will be judged for flattering heresy, we will not be judged for things we have no ability to perceive or know with any certitude.
This is the basic problem I have with the "unique" position of the TOC/Cyprian synod in resistance; it is not the idea that it is possible that there are those labouring innocently under the authority of fallen heirarchs who somehow are not "sapless" or without life. My problem is with the following two ideas:
"None of the heresies of the ecumenists have been condemned on an ecumenical level, and we must await for such before they really become 'heretics' - for now they are simply ailing parts of the Church." Though it is true that the synthesis of heresies, "ecumenism" has not been so condemned, it's parts (Papism, Protestantism, Gnosticism, etc.) certainly have been. Also, the idea that falsehood does not become soul destroying heresy until such concilliar denunciations is not true either - otherwise the anti-Arian, Orthodox resistance prior to Nicea would have made no sense. What concilliar denunciations of heresy DO do, is make plain the appearance of such errors and their "bare headed" preaching. Truth does not become truth, nor falsehood become falsehood, by the fiat of "authorized persons" - this smacks of Papism and it's "doctrinal development."
Presumably their presumption regarding the grace of the new-calendar/ecumenist/sergian heretics, would apply not simply to some hypothetical lower clergy or innocent laity, but also to heresairchs like the late Athenagoras or people who sign documents like the "Agreed Statement on Baptism". Such can only be maintained, if one really believes this is not a real heresy as of yet; which of course has to make one question why they (Cyprians) have separated from "world Orthodoxy" to begin with.
Seraphim
