Ecumenism, Modernism, Etc. "Black and White" Issue

[Justin Kissel]

Does the issue of ecumenism have any "gray area" to it? How about modernism? What about intercommunion with heretics and/or schismatics? Many of the more conservative Orthodox take a somewhat severe stance on these issues, my patron saint (Justin Popovich) being one of them. Many of the more moderate Orthodox don't understand what the big deal is and continually repeat the cliche'd lament "Can't we all just get along?" What I'd like to hear about is: where exactly is the line to be drawn? Is intercommunion with Copts reason enough to sever communion with a Church? What if a Local Orthodox Church seems to have pushed the limits of modernisation?

Let me add another dimension to this, now: let me ask you this: can someone be semi-Orthodox? I've been re-reading Gregory the Theologian's works (that are in the public domain) this month, and I've been running across some interesting passages. For example:

...we shall hold our own against the semi-orthodox--among whom I may not count you. For since you deny the Titles of the Son, which are so many and so clear, it is quite evident that even if you learnt a great many more and clearer ones you would not be moved to reverence. - Gregory the Theologian, Oration 32, 24

The "semi-orthodox" that Saint Gregory here speaks of were those who were uncertain about the Deity of the Holy Spirit, or at least who were too "cowardly" to take a decisive stand on the issue. Gregory seems to say that those who hadn't taken a firm stand concerning the divine attributes of the Holy Spirit were more orthodox--and to be treated differently--than those who denied the divine attributes of the Son and the Holy Spirit altogether. Saint Gregory elsewhere uses very harsh language regarding the issue of the Holy Spirit:

They who reduce the Holy Spirit to the rank of a creature are blasphemers and wicked servants, and worst of the wicked. For it is the part of wicked servants to despise Lordship, and to rebel against dominion, and to make That which is free their fellow-servant.

...But then Saint Gregory goes on, a moment later in his Oration, to take a much more moderate tone regarding those who aren't completely orthodox, but are much closer to the truth:

If, my friends, you will not acknowledge the Holy Spirit to be uncreated, nor yet eternal; clearly such a state of mind is due to the contrary spirit-forgive me, if in my zeal I speak somewhat over boldly. If, however, you are sound enough to escape this evident impiety, and to place outside of slavery Him Who gives freedom to yourselves, then see for yourselves with the help of the Holy Ghost and of us what follows. For I am persuaded that you are to some extent partakers of Him, so that I will go into the question with you as kindred souls... Confess, my friends, the Trinity to be of One Godhead; or if you will, of One Nature; and we will pray the Spirit to give you this word God. He will give it to you, I well know, inasmuch as He has already granted you the first portion and the second; and especially if that about which we are contending is some spiritual cowardice, and not the devil's objection. Yet more clearly and concisely, let me say, do not you call us to account for our loftier word (for envy has nothing to do with this ascent), and we will not find fault with what you have been able to attain, until by another road you are brought up to the same resting place. For we are not seeking victory, but to gain brethren, by whose separation from us we are torn. This we concede to you in whom we do find something of vital truth, who are sound as to the Son. We admire your life, but we do not altogether approve your doctrine. - Gregory the Theologian, Oration 41, 7-8

If even some latitude was allowed for something as central as the Holy Spirit, how should we go about our position on ecumenism, intercommunion, etc.? Of course we are all taught to be non-judgmental, but sometimes controversial issues like these can make us feel like we need to take a "hard stand". I think it's good that some take a hard stand, but then maybe we need a few Gregory the Theologian's around too, eh? I wonder what some of us, in our zeal to "protect the faith," would have thought about Gregory as he delivered these Orations.

Saint Gregory, pray for us!

Justin

[Justin Kissel]

Forgive me, I made a mistake in the title of the thread. It should have read: "Ecumenism, Modernism, Etc. "Black and White" Issues?" I meant the title to be a question, not a statement.

[尼古拉前执事]

While not hitting on all your points, as much of it requires generous contemplation, I wanted to add a thought on the balck and white part of ecumenism.

I think that when one is inquiring or studying about Orthodoxy the ecumenical Orthodox that show the closeness of faiths seems atractive and may even get one to decide to 'Dox. But as one makes that decision, and in zeal, continues to study, he finds that that same ecumenical stand to be in error.

I think this is why many converts, especially from Catholicism, are initially OCA or Antiochian and then over the time of continuing studies of the Fathers and Councils leave for ROCOR.

At least, that's how I see it. Your mileage may vary.

[Nektarios14]

I think that when one is inquiring or studying about Orthodoxy the ecumenical Orthodox that show the closeness of faiths seems atractive and may even get one to decide to 'Dox. But as one makes that decision, and in zeal, continues to study, he finds that that same ecumenical stand to be in error.

When I first started looking into Orthodoxy (I was RC) ecumenism and modernist issues didn't really attract my attention. Now that I am Orthodox I see the grave errors and problems of ecumenism. On the one hand I am not sure breaking communion is the way to go (the reason why I am not ROCOR) or if remaining in communion but in disagreement (like the Holy Mountain and most monastics of all jurisdictions). For the sake of interesting discussion what are the reasons for breaking formal communion with ecumenist jurisdictions opposed to remaining in them AND remaining anti-ecumenist? Or is the ROCOR really the middle road since it is still (even if indirectly) in communion with "World Orthodoxy" yet remains a staunch defender against modernism?

Nektarios

[Justin Kissel]

Nicholas

I think that when one is inquiring or studying about Orthodoxy the ecumenical Orthodox that show the closeness of faiths seems atractive and may even get one to decide to 'Dox. But as one makes that decision, and in zeal, continues to study, he finds that that same ecumenical stand to be in error. I think this is why many converts, especially from Catholicism, are initially OCA or Antiochian and then over the time of continuing studies of the Fathers and Councils leave for ROCOR. At least, that's how I see it. Your mileage may vary.

I think some people perhaps see the anti-ecumenism stuff, but are wary of it. Even the ones that kinda-sorta agree are careful and sort of avoid it at first. There is always that fear that, in wanting to be zealous for your faith, you might go overboard and be led astray. With that in mind, they sort of avoid the anti-ecumenism stuff, figuring that they can come back to it later when they are a little more mature in the faith and have experienced Orthodoxy more. I have to admit that the course I took was not too far from this.

Nektarios

For the sake of interesting discussion what are the reasons for breaking formal communion with ecumenist jurisdictions opposed to remaining in them AND remaining anti-ecumenist? Or is the ROCOR really the middle road since it is still (even if indirectly) in communion with "World Orthodoxy" yet remains a staunch defender against modernism?

I tend to see ROCOR, the main Greek Old Calendarist Church in Greece, and so forth, to be a middle road, the "royal road" as it were, in Orthodoxy. They haven't altogether severed ties with the more ecumenist-minded Orthodox groups as some zealots (I don't use that term derogatorily) have done, nor do they have full communion with the ecumenist-minded Orthodox. There are examples in Church history, and in the Scriptures, I believe, to support all three positions. In different contexts different solutions were used; and sometimes things that seem to be wrong or unthinkable happen. I think the safest course, then, is to stay on the middle road, avoiding the extremes on both sides.

[Nektarios14]

I tend to see ROCOR, the main Greek Old Calendarist Church in Greece, and so forth, to be a middle road, the "royal road" as it were, in Orthodoxy. They haven't altogether severed ties with the more ecumenist-minded Orthodox groups as some zealots (I don't use that term derogatorily) have done, nor do they have full communion with the ecumenist-minded Orthodox. There are examples in Church history, and in the Scriptures, I believe, to support all three positions. In different contexts different solutions were used; and sometimes things that seem to be wrong or unthinkable happen. I think the safest course, then, is to stay on the middle road, avoiding the extremes on both sides.

Very interesting observation, and I agree with you for the most part. I see my corner of "world Orthodoxy" to be that middle road as well, perhaps a little leaning though. As long as such saintly men as Geronda Ephraim and majority of the Holy Mountain remain firm in their traditional Orthodox stance and in communion with the EP I see no reason I can't be for now. Also the Serbians are a good jurisdiction within "world Orthodoxy." Monday I spent the day doing work for a Serbian women's monastery in Safford, Arizona. I learned a great deal from conversing with hieromonk that lives there, to just live Orthodoxy and forget about the politics. Yes there will be modernists who aren't really Orthodox everywhere, but in the end they will lose the battle.

[Justin Kissel]

I think you make some good points, Nektarios.