The question of Grace: Matthewites vs. Kallinikites

[Cyprian]

St. Photios the Great

(To Pope Nicholas I of Rome Ep. 2, PG 102, cols. 604-605D)

Everybody must preserve what was defined by common ecumenical decisions, but a particular opinion of a church father or a definition issued by a local council can be followed by some and ignored by others. Thus, some people customarily shave their beards; others reject this practice by local conciliar decrees. Thus, as far as we are concerned, we consider it reprehensible to fast on Saturdays, except once a year (on Holy Saturday), while others fast on other Saturdays as well. Thus, tradition avoids disputes by making practice prevail over the rule.
In Rome, there are no priests legitimately married, while our tradition permits men, once married, to be elevated to the priesthood. When the faith remains inviolate, common and catholic decisions are also safe; a sensible man respects the practices and laws of others; he considers it neither wrong to observe them nor illegal to violate them.

[Lydia]

St. Photios the Great

(To Pope Nicholas I of Rome Ep. 2, PG 102, cols. 604-605D)

Everybody must preserve what was defined by common ecumenical decisions, but a particular opinion of a church father or a definition issued by a local council can be followed by some and ignored by others. Thus, some people customarily shave their beards; others reject this practice by local conciliar decrees. Thus, as far as we are concerned, we consider it reprehensible to fast on Saturdays, except once a year (on Holy Saturday), while others fast on other Saturdays as well. Thus, tradition avoids disputes by making practice prevail over the rule.
In Rome, there are no priests legitimately married, while our tradition permits men, once married, to be elevated to the priesthood. When the faith remains inviolate, common and catholic decisions are also safe; a sensible man respects the practices and laws of others; he considers it neither wrong to observe them nor illegal to violate them.

Thank you for posting this, Cyprian. I will copy it down and read it often.

[Dcn.Ephrem]

St. Photios the Great

(To Pope Nicholas I of Rome Ep. 2, PG 102, cols. 604-605D)

Everybody must preserve what was defined by common ecumenical decisions, but a particular opinion of a church father or a definition issued by a local council can be followed by some and ignored by others. Thus, some people customarily shave their beards; others reject this practice by local conciliar decrees. Thus, as far as we are concerned, we consider it reprehensible to fast on Saturdays, except once a year (on Holy Saturday), while others fast on other Saturdays as well. Thus, tradition avoids disputes by making practice prevail over the rule.
In Rome, there are no priests legitimately married, while our tradition permits men, once married, to be elevated to the priesthood. When the faith remains inviolate, common and catholic decisions are also safe; a sensible man respects the practices and laws of others; he considers it neither wrong to observe them nor illegal to violate them.

Forgive me, this has puzzled me since Cyprian first posted it. Since it was posted without comment, I have been unsure exactly what point it was meant to make. Allow me simply to point out that this comment applies very well to the observance of local traditions and to issues of Church governance, but not to the question of heresy. St. Photios himself seems to be making this point when he says, "When the faith remains inviolate, common and catholic decisions are also safe," and further when he clarifies his comment by saying that "a sensible man respects the practices and laws of others," indicating that he is referring here not to dogmatic teachings but to customs of piety or governance.

Perhaps this is clear to everyone. I only point it out because it seems out of place in the conversation, which originally concerned the power of Local councils to condemn heresies, and not with the authority of the "practices and laws of others." It would be a mistake to see St. Photios's comment as referring to the issue of heresy.

[Maria]

St. Photios the Great

(To Pope Nicholas I of Rome Ep. 2, PG 102, cols. 604-605D)

Everybody must preserve what was defined by common ecumenical decisions, but a particular opinion of a church father or a definition issued by a local council can be followed by some and ignored by others. Thus, some people customarily shave their beards; others reject this practice by local conciliar decrees. Thus, as far as we are concerned, we consider it reprehensible to fast on Saturdays, except once a year (on Holy Saturday), while others fast on other Saturdays as well. Thus, tradition avoids disputes by making practice prevail over the rule.
In Rome, there are no priests legitimately married, while our tradition permits men, once married, to be elevated to the priesthood. When the faith remains inviolate, common and catholic decisions are also safe; a sensible man respects the practices and laws of others; he considers it neither wrong to observe them nor illegal to violate them.

Forgive me, this has puzzled me since Cyprian first posted it. Since it was posted without comment, I have been unsure exactly what point it was meant to make. Allow me simply to point out that this comment applies very well to the observance of local traditions and to issues of Church governance, but not to the question of heresy. St. Photios himself seems to be making this point when he says, "When the faith remains inviolate, common and catholic decisions are also safe," and further when he clarifies his comment by saying that "a sensible man respects the practices and laws of others," indicating that he is referring here not to dogmatic teachings but to customs of piety or governance.

Perhaps this is clear to everyone. I only point it out because it seems out of place in the conversation, which originally concerned the power of Local councils to condemn heresies, and not with the authority of the "practices and laws of others." It would be a mistake to see St. Photios's comment as referring to the issue of heresy.

Thank you for this clarification.

Indeed, for example, if local councils could not condemn the New Calendar as an innovation and a heresy that divides the church, then True Orthodox Christians would not have a leg to stand on.

While today's modernists would claim that the NC is a "little tradition" that can be changed, True Orthodox view the Calendar issue as a Holy Tradition which is very important to the life and unity of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

[Lydia]

I don't see it as pertaining to heresy. I think it refers to small points of custom that can cause conflicts.
But I see your point, Father Ephrem, that it is somewhat off topic.

[Isaakos]

It is very simple why the GOC vs Florinites make the issue one about grace, though to be fair it was first RAISED as an issue in 1937 by Chrysostoms of Florina:

But let's simplify the argument and lets explode it a bit:

1. It is absolutely NOT justifiable to separate from an hierarch unless he is a public heretic/schismatic.

2. But heretics and schismatics are graceless in the sense of having lost the grace of the priesthood and are no more than laymen, and cannot therefore have valid mysteries.

3. Therefore, he who would say "This synod has grace-filled mysteries" says they have a true priesthood. But heretics and schismatics do NOT have a true priesthood. They have precisely ABANDONED their priesthood. It is therefore an absurdity to say "This synod has grace" and at the same time, "We will not commune with them."

If they have grace, they are the Church. If they are the Church, you have no business being separated from them. If they are the Church, and they have taken measures AGAINST you those measures are legitimate and stand.

It was for exactly THIS REASON that Bishop Matthew called Met Chrysostom of Florina a mere monk. It was not because HE deposed him, but the Synod of the Church of Greece had. Well, Met Chrysostom said the Synod of the Church of Greece in 1937 had grace, was therefore the Church, and was therefore in disobedience to a canonical and valid deposition to which he had one option: submission. Otherwise, what is the significance of his cessation of commemoration? It would be purely schismatic, because it would be fighting against the true church!

Oh, but here's the genius part:

This means, Met Chrysostom literally signed his own canonical death warrant and could not but BE schismatic. For either:

1. The State Church of Greece had grace, was therefore the Church, and had the right to depose Chrysostom of Florina and merely make him a monk, meaning his separation from them would make him a schismatic and himself graceless.

OR

1. The GOC was the Continuation of the Church of Greece, from which Met Chrysostom separated and fought against by calling the STATE Church of Greece a true Church and the GOC a mere "Movement" that ought to occur within that state Church. Because this would be false, and because he would not correct his bad opinion, this made him essentially a schismatic and a parasynagogue.

SO AFTER 1937, no matter WHICH option is true, Met Chrysostom officially painted himself as Schismatic, for there can be no legitimate separation from a grace-filled, and thus TRUE Church. It is only from FALSE and pseudo bishops who call upon themselves anathema by their own will and in public from whom one can separate, but THESE are precisely NOT Bishops, and therefore do NOT have the grace of the priesthood!

That's why the issue is about the grace of Mysteries. It is the shorthand way of acknowledging that the kind of resistance you are making is LEGITIMATE and not SCHISMATIC.

AND Fr Maximos Maretta is spinning his wheels. The canons in the Pedalion clearly indicate when grace of the priesthood is lost: Read part of Canon1 of St. Basil in the Pedalion:

"As for the Cathari, they too are to be classed as schismatics. Nevertheless, it seemed best to the ancient authorities — those, I mean, who form the party*of Cyprian and our own Firmilian — to class them all under one head, including Cathari and Encratites and Aquarians and Apotactites; because the beginning, true enough, of the separation resulted through a schism, but those who seceded from the Church had not the grace of the Holy Spirit upon them; for the impartation thereof ceased with the interruption of the service. For although the ones who were the first to depart had been ordained by the Fathers and with the imposition of their hands they had obtained the gracious gift of the Spirit, yet after breaking away they became laymen, and had no authority either to baptize or to ordain anyone, nor could they impart the grace of the Spirit to others, after they themselves had forfeited it."

The instant that a man who is either a heretic or schismatic ruptures his communion with the church his priesthood ceases. And I am not speaking of a good-willed misunderstanding, but of a willful shattering in the face of correction and of repeated warning.

THAT'S when the priesthood ceases.