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

[Methodius]

Well the Serbs are stilling communion with Antioch. Moscow and the EP. Plus there was that link that I think you posted where the Serbian patriarch called ROCOR schismatic and befitting every condemnation?

[Justin Kissel]

Indeed, Pat. Paul did say that. But the Ecumenical Patriarch said some nasty things in his time as well, but that didn't make Saint Justin deny the entire Ecumenical Patriarchate altogether. You do bring up a good point, though, relations with certain others in world Orthodoxy are another sticking point--I had forgotten about that for a moment.

[Justin Kissel]

And I guess that is part of the problem I'm having fully accepting our relationship with the JP. They are trying to say that this is the proper path, to be both "traditionalist" (e.g., using the old calendar) and still maintain communion with the new calendarists. I can understand the appeal of such a position... but the appeal or attractiveness (or even persuasiveness) of a position is not a barometer as to it's legitimacy...

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Justin,

And what is the appeal of such a position?

[Justin Kissel]

It's always hard to break away from the majority, especially when you're convinced--or at least at one point were convinced--that the majority are right. There's safety in numbers (psychologically speaking), and it's hard to break away from that. It's appealing to think that you can be some sort of "Orthodox link" that will bridge the lapsing "liberal" Churches and the over-zealous "right wing" Churches. You can have the best of both worlds, you can tell yourself that you are still helping your brothers and a part of the world-wide Orthodox body (ie. the majority that call themselves Orthodox), and you can at the same time tell yourself that you have kept the faith purely and unpolluted since you are "traditionalist". I don't think it's a good or productive kind of appealing, but psychologically speaking (and even theologically, to some extent) I can understanding the appeal of it to people. Truthfully, I probably am one of those people to some extent. I just haven't examined myself closely enough or long enough yet to recognize to what extent.

[Seraphim Reeves]

It's appealing to think that you can be some sort of "Orthodox link" that will bridge the lapsing "liberal" Churches and the over-zealous "right wing" Churches. You can have the best of both worlds

Forgive me for saying this, but this reminds me of what Anglicans say all the time (they have the best of all worlds.) The only problem is, some of those "worlds" are undesirable.

I think what has changed most in recent times, is that the divisions are increasingly becoming lived, ontological realities, and not simply theoretical, written disputes. I'm not saying they were totally that in the past (theoretical), but as time goes on, the drift of "world Orthodoxy" is going on, and they are going further and further away from Orthodoxy. As time goes on, the OCA is increasingly looking like a Popeless variant of Papism (the meeting ground being Byzantine Catholicism and the OCA being close at hand), the Greeks...well, they've been out to lunch for a while, and the Antiochians are formally wed to heresy. More than ever the EP seems convinced of it's "Byzantine Papal" status, a road it had began marching on decades ago in earnest. Moscow has continued to go about the business of crucifying true believers, and otherwise acting like the Soviet church it in fact is. And, more or less everywhere, those who are more or less your religious/ideological compatriots, are persecuted by the "churches" you seem to be holding out for. It shouldn't be forgotten that there are already martyrs for this cause - and their slayers were new calendarists.

It is perhaps easy for us here to hold out like this...but what about those traditionalists who have actually had to endure the oppression of "world Orthodoxy"? Who is to say who has the more objective vision here - we who can sit here and have lovely, civil conversation with our equally civil (or indifferent?) "world Orthodoxy" friends - or the Greek Old Calendarists with living memories of state thugs (at the behest of the state "church") dragging priests out of Divine Services and beating/killing them, or Russian Traditionalists whose priests are regularly beaten by "former Soviet" bosses at the encouragment of MP clerics, and have their Churches burned to the ground?

Seraphim

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

I appreciate the honesty Justin.

And that's just it. The attraction to "world Orthodoxy" is "worldly orthodoxy", and rationalism is never far behind. Lot's wife had this same attraction for power and earthly things.

And the Uniates have the same love of earthly power and size, and though they will rarely admit it, this is why they love being in communion with the pope, or some other "ancient Patriarchate".

Even those who reject Catholicism sometimes never reject the system which is so charaterized by it. They grew up in it, and it had taught them how to think and measure all things by it. Power, the majority, the masses. That is why they all speak the same language, the language of rationalism, and this is why, in spite of all their variances, they understand each other so intuitively.

But in order for one to walk the road layed by Christ, it is not sufficient to say and believe that one is a Christian. "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord', shall enter the Kingdom of Heaven". Something else is necessary: the lifelong struggle of a real Christian, and that is purity of heart, which renders man worthy to receive the illumination of the Holy Spirit. All the moral and ascetical struggles of Christianity are aimed at this purity of the heart, with the purpose of the indwelling of the Holy Trinity in man. "Whoever loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come unto him and make Our abode with him".

...over-zealous "right wing" Churches...

To me, that description fits very few "Old Calendarist" Churches, most of the splits are for personal reasons portrayed by schismatics as theological reasons; in other words, a pretend zeal. Like many others, these schismatics take advantage of proportions and size to forward their ambitions.

Before you make such classifications in your mind, I feel you should become acquainted with the Church first. In my own local church, when I first began attending, I carried the same stereotype as perhaps you do - that "old Calendarists" were more concerned with what the new-calendarists were doing than their own salvation. When I first began attending my church, I was seriously waiting for the sermons about fire and brimstone, I was waiting for all the people to tell me how bad the new-calendarists were. Well after a few months, I went from waiting to wanting them to say it. Then, after a few more months, I started wondering if anyone knew why they were there. I wondered if most of them came because it was just closer, or they had family there, or whatever - it seemed that none of them knew about what was going on - these poor "ignorant" Greeks.

After about a year, I did finally realize the truth, just about every single one of them knew exactly why they were there, but in fact, they were just to busy working for their own salvation than to pay inordinate amount of attention to the Ecumenist church. And this is how I learned a thing or too about how to work for my salvation as well - these poor "ignorant" Greeks could teach a thing or two to Hopko as well.

Zealous? Absolutely, for there souls.

But as long as the labels are flying around , might I characterize "traditionalist" new-calendarists as have the same zeal for Orthodoxy as the "Orthodox in communion with Rome". Truly, what is the difference between being a Uniate or being a new-calendarist, since either way you commune with heretics.