There is a great verbal and visual documentary of the great apostasy from orthodoxy of our times & a presentations of the teachings of the holy apostles, father, and Ecumenical Councils on the deadliness of heresy, communion with it, and schism here.
I think that all of us can agree that this is important and I invite you to read the pages from the link I provide and discuss it with me.
Some interesting comments concerning Fr. Seraphim Rose:
"Fr. Seraphim was a very strict isolationist about other jurisdictions in the first several years (roughly 1966-75) I had contact with him.
I believe that at this time his own experience of other Orthodox groups was somewhat limited and academic, and so his strict views were formed on an almost purely ideological basis. That changed rather abruptly, however, as he began to see 1) the effects of isolationism on the Synod Abroad, and 2) the increasingly shrill fanaticism of the [super-correct] 'party' in the Synod. He was at first uncomfortable, and then openly appalled at the utter lack of charity on the part of the so-called 'zealots'. He was himself a 'zealot,' but not to the exclusion of charity. near the end of his life on once said to me: 'I regret many of the "pro-zealot" articles we published in The Orthodox Word in the earlier years: we helped to create a monster, and for that I repent!' He was quite emphatic about that....
In the last year or two of his life Fr. Seraphim often told me that he had begun to commune lay men and women from other jurisdictions that came to him. He said: 'I know this would be frowned upon, but these people come and they are hungry for spiritual guidance and nourishment and... what can we do? Turn them away?' When I asked if he wasn't afraid of being 'denounced' by the ultra-zealots in the Synod he replied: 'You don't know me very well if you think I'd be worried about that. Whether I get in trouble or not, I KNOW that this is the right thing to do.'" - Fr. Alexey Young (In: Monk Damascene Christensen, Not of This World, (Father Seraphim Rose Foundation, 1999), pp. 924-925)
I think this quote is interesting on a number of levels. First, decades before a supposed "lapse" takes place (according to ROAC literature), we find Fr. Seraphim communing members of "world Orthodoxy". Second, Fr. Seraphim, at one point, was himself in favor of isolationism, but this does not necessarily imply that he ever denied that the other jurisdictions had valid sacraments--he only wished to stay "walled off". Third, Fr. Seraphim and Fr. Alexey feared that a super-correct group within ROCOR would denounce them: this means that one (e.g., ROAC) could indeed find support for a "graceless world Orthodoxy" position within the ROCOR literature of that period. However, there was a second position which didn't deny that there was grace in "world Orthodoxy," or deny that they were Orthodox. (if I can make a private comment openly to someone, this is again what I was talking about when I said that if you look further into an issue, you'll see that the quotes being given to you are not nearly as persuasive as they might first appear).
"In this dilemma of love vs. jurisdiction politics, Fr. Seraphim wrote to his spiritual son: 'I think he [the priest] is being overly dramatic about the whole matter. The question of 'jurisdictions' (in the case of the OCA and our Church Abroad) is not such a crucial one that it would prevent marriage, even if partners were to belong to different jurisdictions; to be sure, oneness of mind on this question is preferable, but in practice this is worked out by the couples themselves." - Monk Damascene Christensen, Not of This World, (Father Seraphim Rose Foundation, 1999), pp. 925-926
This tends to mirror what I've seen in some other traditionalists of the time. My own patron saint Justin Popovich, for example, defended the OCA and ROCOR right next to each other, over and against the EP. Saint Justin might have had problems with the OCA, but they weren't large enough that he considered them unorthodox: and he therefore defended the right of the OCA to participate in a pan-Orthodox (or supposedly Ecumenical) Council. Fr. Seraphim seems to be taking roughly the same position. I've seen some rather harsh criticisms against "world Orthodoxy" from Fr. Seraphim, but when it came down to issues like this, these issues that he had with certain jurisdictions weren't so vital that he believe them graceless.
I also remember reading about Fr. Seraphim getting attacked for 1) complimenting a priest that was serving in the Moscow Patriarchate and considering him a legit priest with legit sacraments; and 2) approving of a concelebration between ROCOR and Serbian bishops in California.
Greetings,
While I am quite aware of the Church's canonical prohibitions against recognizing the mysteries of heretics (I have quoted the Apostolic Canons myself on many occassions), I have a question I'd like cleared up. But first, some points to establish the question...
1) It is quite clear that it is our responsibility as Christians to break from anyone preaching heresy. This makes understandable, for example, why certain Fathers did not let the "officialdom" of their day prevent them from ceasing the commemoration of their local Bishop or Patriarch.
2) The canons are a rule; they are a guide for us, however their actual implimentation is at the discretion of our Bishop - he ultimatly decides how strictly they are to be enforced (or whether an exception on the basis of economy is going to be made.)
With those two points in mind, my query is this...
While it is perfectly understandable why some Bishops stay isolated from their quote "mother Churches" do to the canonical infractions of their leadership (new calendar, repeated comprimises and outright perversions of the faith, such as false ecumenism and some of the more questionable doctrinal positions articulated by popular theologians and heirarchs in these "mother churches"), is it actually possible for these separated Bishops and their Synods in resistance to judge and utterly expel from the Church the heirarchs, clergy, and laity of their "mother Churches", and by extension judge their mysteries to be "graceless"?
I may be accused of sounding "papalist" for saying this, but this seems to be a very clear example of overstepping one's authority. Such a judgement would seem (to me) to require some kind of pan-Orthodox/Oecumenical recognition to be binding; particularly when not everyone is agreed just to what the errors are (or more importantly) how complete their penetration of a given Synod in fact is. Case in point - while one could argue that the EP is guilty of much, the Church in Greece still has many heirarchs and clergy (not to mention monastics) who are obviously not clear on what the extent of it's guilt is, and themselves are Orthodox in every way (save the irregularity of their church calendar.) A situation like this will not be remedied by anything short of some kind of Oecumenical condemnation of a well defined list of errors.
This is why I fully support the position of ROCOR (and the so called "moderate" Old Calendarists they are in communion with), but cannot support the position of other Old Calendarists (so called "Matthewites", and similar groups.) The path the latter have chosen oversteps lawful authority, and imho this error explains why they have so little stability - they are always splintering, always infighting, and always pray to the whims of their leaders (who whenever a personal grievence arises, can always seem to find some infraction by their foes to justify their dividing up their particular Synod yet again.)
The Church will always have the wheat alongside the tares - more "extreme" varieties of Old Calendarism seem to neglect this; their activities make me wonder if they believe actualy ecclessiastical condemnations have any meaning (since the way they judge entire Orthodox Churches seems to indicate they feel they have no need of them.)
Seraphim