Discussion and criticism of GOC-K & SiR Union

[Maria]

Fr. Enoch has just published an article concerning the GOC-K & SiR Union.

It may answer a few questions that have concerned some of the members here.

http://orthodox-standard.blogspot.com/2 ... anons.html

[Jean-Serge]

But the synod has published no clarification and no translation... No comment... Meanwhile, I am having translated the correspondence of the Kinotita who broke communion with the synod. It is not finished but already some interesting elements...

[Jean-Serge]

Following a phone talk with some Romanian friends, it seems that people in Romania are facing the same difficulties to have clear information on which base the union was made. To give an example, it seems that the Romanian delegation signed the document in Greek after reading the translation in Romanian, but with the promise from the Greeks, that were eager to concelebrate quickly, that some things would be changed in the Greek text because Romanians did not agree. It seems the Romanians are still waiting for this famous change. The situation is getting more and more curious and...stinking . To summarize:

• a text published on the eve on the concelebration whereas it was ready for several days
• translations in all other languages being withdrawn, including Russian and Romanian that are supposed to have been the basis of discussion with the other synods. The official is that they are not accurate, so how could they discuss and agree on inaccurate texts?
• promise of new translations that never come
• promise of clarification that never come
• absolute silent to the request for clarifications from Kinotita,myself and others
• absence of public signed document with the visible signatures
• ambiguity about the ecclesiological position of ROCOR-A

The accusation that is clearly appearing now and gaining strength is that this union is a purely political one, aiming at gaining strength through size. But such things is only possible if anybody can keep his view in different topics. In order to reach this, they first produced an ambiguous document, that could be interpreted in may opposite ways; due to the protests, they withdrew the document excepted in its least understandable version, and are not willing to provide a clarification because any clarification will oblige to take a clear posture, whereas they do not even share themselves this clear posture since the tool of this union was ambiguity. The more they are slow in making the clarification, the more this suspicion will gain strength.

[jgress]

Well it's certainly odd for the Romanians to be upset, since they were already in communion with the SiR back when they were fully Cyprianite in their ecclesiology, i.e. when they taught that the ecumenists were still in the Church. Now the SiR dissolved itself and their bishops accepted the GOC position that the ecumenists are outside the Church, so why are the Romanians suddenly making a fuss?

The only ambiguity I see is over the question of grace, i.e. if the ecumenists are outside the Church, does that necessarily mean they are also without Grace, or is it possible that they might still have Grace despite being outside the Church? As I said earlier, what I read in some earlier statements by HOTCA, and what I was told personally, was that the GOC did not make it a matter of faith to believe that the ecumenists were without grace, but only that they were in heresy and outside the Church and thus we cannot have communion with them. Since the ecumenists were outside the Church, the GOC could not guarantee that they had Grace, but at the same time we did not insist that they did not have Grace. This was different from the Cyprianite position, which was that the ecumenists were definitely in the Church, and since they were in the Church they definitely had Grace.

There was an article about the history of the GOC on the old HOTCA website that explained the GOC position, but I can't find it now. It said something along the following lines: "the GOC has issued local condemnations of the ecumenists and new calendarists that say they do not have Grace, but actual opinion in the GOC is not unanimous on this matter. We don't refrain from communion with them because they do not have Grace, but because they have abandoned the Truth". So at the very least, I got the impression from the GOC that the Grace question was not nearly as important or central to our ecclesiology as it seems to be to the Matthewites and Cyprianites.

On the current HOTCA website, there is a proclamation on ecclesiology, and it does not mention Grace at all.

http://hotca.org/orthodoxy/29-a-proclam ... clesiology

[Dcn.Ephrem]

I think the question is not whether this unia is consistent with the GOC's previous documents, but of whether it is consistent with a correct Orthodox position. If the GOC has been ambiguous about these issues in the past, that does not mean that they are somehow unimportant or that they can be safely left to the opinion of each individual.

In addition to Jean-Serge's list of grievance, I would add the following:

• Absence of a direct and public renunciation of Cyprianism

The document that was already signed does not accomplish this, even if it is edited to exclude the questionable language. What disturbs many of us is that the Cyprianites were not apparently received as heretics repenting of their errors. This is a problem, because even if these hierarchs have changed their minds, their flocks (and now the flock of the GOC) are left to believe that Cyprianism is an acceptable position. Many of the Agafangelites, for instance, consider the unia to be a victory for Cyprianism, and they do not even suspect that they will be asked to hold a different position. If the Cyprianites had publicly renounced their heresy, this would not be a problem.

[jgress]

I think the question is not whether this unia is consistent with the GOC's previous documents, but of whether it is consistent with a correct Orthodox position. If the GOC has been ambiguous about these issues in the past, that does not mean that they are somehow unimportant or that they can be safely left to the opinion of each individual.

In addition to Jean-Serge's list of grievance, I would add the following:

• Absence of a direct and public renunciation of Cyprianism

The document that was already signed does not accomplish this, even if it is edited to exclude the questionable language. What disturbs many of us is that the Cyprianites were not apparently received as heretics repenting of their errors. This is a problem, because even if these hierarchs have changed their minds, their flocks (and now the flock of the GOC) are left to believe that Cyprianism is an acceptable position. Many of the Agafangelites, for instance, consider the unia to be a victory for Cyprianism, and they do not even suspect that they will be asked to hold a different position. If the Cyprianites had publicly renounced their heresy, this would not be a problem.

Given that the Cyprianites had to accept that the ecumenists are outside the Church, I'm not sure how one can argue that they have not renounced their former position that the ecumenists were still in the Church. And as I said, it was already allowed to have different opinions on Grace in the GOC well before this union. Finally, the idea that Cyprianism was an outright heresy is not at all universally held, and certainly never within the GOC.

[Benjaminw1]

I think the question is not whether this unia is consistent with the GOC's previous documents, but of whether it is consistent with a correct Orthodox position. If the GOC has been ambiguous about these issues in the past, that does not mean that they are somehow unimportant or that they can be safely left to the opinion of each individual.

In addition to Jean-Serge's list of grievance, I would add the following:

• Absence of a direct and public renunciation of Cyprianism

The document that was already signed does not accomplish this, even if it is edited to exclude the questionable language. What disturbs many of us is that the Cyprianites were not apparently received as heretics repenting of their errors. This is a problem, because even if these hierarchs have changed their minds, their flocks (and now the flock of the GOC) are left to believe that Cyprianism is an acceptable position. Many of the Agafangelites, for instance, consider the unia to be a victory for Cyprianism, and they do not even suspect that they will be asked to hold a different position. If the Cyprianites had publicly renounced their heresy, this would not be a problem.

I don't.