The question of Grace: Matthewites vs. Kallinikites

[jgress]

My impression is that the Matthewites have always wanted to make the discussion about grace, but that was not the basis of discussion between the GOC-K and the SiR. The issue of faith was whether heretics were inside or outside the Church, and whether the GOC had authority to anathematize heresy, and on both points the SiR conceded and agreed to join with us. The question of grace was outside the scope of the discussion.

Of course the ecumenists would be highly unlikely to join us even if we did convene a Major Synod to condemn ecumenism, sergianism and the new calendar. But the point is not to convince dedicated ecumenists, but those who are currently in the ecumenist churches and who are uncomfortable with developments but still hesitant to make the leap to the GOC. If all GOCs speak with a united voice on this issue, we can hope to convince many more to come.

If the united GOCs of Greece, Romania, Russia and Bulgaria came together and made a clear statement on the grace issue, would that satisfy the GOC-S?

[Dcn.Ephrem]

My impression is that the Matthewites have always wanted to make the discussion about grace, but that was not the basis of discussion between the GOC-K and the SiR. The issue of faith was whether heretics were inside or outside the Church, and whether the GOC had authority to anathematize heresy, and on both points the SiR conceded and agreed to join with us. The question of grace was outside the scope of the discussion.

Would you be willing to clarify this thought a little more? I seem to remember you writing something similar when the GOC/SiR union first took place, but I don't remember it very well. But I am interested in what you mean. For me it is difficult to separate the "grace question" from any discussion on ecclesiology. Perhaps this deserves its own thread.

If the united GOCs of Greece, Romania, Russia and Bulgaria came together and made a clear statement on the grace issue, would that satisfy the GOC-S?

Forgive me, what is "the GOC-S?"

[Maria]

Those under the leadership of Archbishop Stephanos of Athens, Greece are in the original GOC, which started under the leadership of St. Matthew, an Athonite hieromonk who had charge of parishes holding onto the Old Calendar starting back in the 1920s. It was he who held the GOC together until they could form an official Synod in 1935. In that year also, he was consecrated a Metropolitan.

We do not call our church the "GOC-S," never have. Nor do we call ourselves Matthewites as both terms are pejoratives.

There are other threads that use the terms "Kallinikites" or "Chrysosomites" -- I would rather avoid these terms too as it makes me think of the seven year itch commonly called scabies or the STD mite attack.

[Barbara]

That last sentence made me chuckle !

So why don't we establish - if hasn't been delineated already here on E. Cafe - proper terms for each of these jurisdictions ? I note that Maria uses simply "GOC" for her Synod under Archbishop Stephanos. But the GOC-K members will take exception to that, I assume. How can the Synods named above be described in a respectful way that we can all utilize ?

[jgress]

They can't. As far as I'm concerned, "GOC" refers properly to my jurisdiction alone, headed by Abp Kallinikos. Maria and other members of her church are just going to have to get used to being called GOC-S, just as I accept being called GOC-K when discussing with people outside my church. For the same reason I accept also the term Florinite, though originally it was pejorative, just like Matthewite.

[Dcn.Ephrem]

Ah, I see. So the GOC-S refers to the Synod formerly under Archbishop Nicholas? I am familiar.

Jonathan, I hope you will also respond to my question. I only mention it in case you overlooked it.

[jgress]

Would you be willing to clarify this thought a little more? I seem to remember you writing something similar when the GOC/SiR union first took place, but I don't remember it very well. But I am interested in what you mean. For me it is difficult to separate the "grace question" from any discussion on ecclesiology. Perhaps this deserves its own thread.

I got this from a conversation with Anastasios, and also some things Fr Maximos Marretta told me have given me some context with which to think of these issues. Anastasios told me that the question of whether or not ecumenists have grace was not the issue which divided the Cyprianites and ourselves, but that the Cyprianites taught that heretics remained in the Church until condemned by a "unifying" Pan-Orthodox synod, and that local synods, like that of the GOC, did not have authority to anathematize heresy. Our church, on the contrary, teaches that heretics are outside the Church and that local synods may anathematize heresy.

Fr Maximos told me that our church has never adopted a formal position on when heretics lose grace, this being a separate question from whether a local synod may anathematize heresy. While we believe heretics eventually are completely deprived of grace, there is disagreement on when this precisely occurs. Vladimir Moss, for example, believes that heretics do not have grace at the time they are condemned by a valid local council, but the opinion that only the decision of a Pan-Orthodox (or "Major") council can definitely mark the cut-off also has had many adherents in our church.

Forgive me, what is "the GOC-S?"

The GOC under Archbishop Stephanos. It seems easiest to refer to all the different jurisdictions calling themselves "GOC" by adding the initial of their presiding bishop.