This forum is for polite discussions among the various True Orthodox Christians. Only confirmed members of TOC jurisdictions are permitted. However, TOC inquirers and catechumen may be admitted at the administrator's discretion. Private discussions should take place in DM's or via email. Formerly "Intra-TOC Private Discussions."
You said:
" but a false teaching that REFUSES to be corrected. In other words, there are no accidental heretics."
But is this always the case? For example, as far as I understand, Theodore of Mopsuestia died in the 'peace of the Church'; but, his heretical writings and person were condemned by the 5th Ecumenical Council? And that was over an hundred years after his death.
In Christ,
Fr. Enoch
That is actually the point, that unless a heresy has been SYNODICALLY condemned as such, we don't leave hierarchs. Remember the wording of the 15th canon of the first-second council, it say if a bishop is preaching an ALREADY condemned heresy we are justified to leave his communion. Nobody condemned Theodores teaching at the time when he taught it, and many made excuses for him and he was friends with many saints. Now if the Church LATER wants to synodically review a teaching, it can do that, and if it chooses to anathematize a person after their death, It can do that too, but such post mitten Anathematization is symbolic and not actual. If Theodore died in peace and repentance having received the mysteries, then he is in paradise. His anathematization would merely be a way to demonstrate that people who think like him are to be excluded from the midst of the church.
Yes, those are the correct texts. Thank you for uploading these, as they have been offline for some time. I suggest that you read the Forward and Introduction in the Dogma of Redemption book and ignore the forwards in the other. Archbishop Lev Puhalo is a deeply problematic writer, and in any case his forwards are not particularly helpful. In fact, the Moral Ideas of the Main Dogmas book is in general poorly edited, and you'll find many mistakes in it. But it is still worth reading. It was these writings St. John Maximovitch had in mind when he said that Metropolitan Anthony revitalized Orthodox theology.
Fr. Deacon Ephrem Cummings Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church (ROAC)
I recently reread Orthodox Dogmatic Theology originally written by Father Michael Pomazansky +1989 (may his memory be eternal) and translated by Father Seraphim Rose +1982 (may his memory be eternal). This text of theology was originally published in 1983. I have the Second Edition, Third Printing off 1997.
Incidentally, this book is written in a spirit of prayer which pervades the book. It is excellent reading.
In Appendix IV on pages 397-410, Father Seraphim Rose discusses the Dogma of Redemption. Note that Father Seraphim died before Orthodox Dogmatic Theology was published. This appendix comes from a 1973 "Draft of Hieromonk Seraphim Rose to Bishop Nektary of Seattle on the Danger of the Resurgence among Orthodox Christians of the new 'Dogma' - Stravroclastic Heresy."
Here is what he states in his conclusion on page 410:
III. Conclusion
A. A hopeless abyss, "Dogma of Redemption" cannot be defended, it can only be excused because of the theological "expressionism"
which came from a loving pastoral heart. To defend "Dogma of Redemption" is to abandon the cause of the "return to the Fathers" in exchange for "creative theology" which Metropolitan Anthony [Khrapovitsky] defended. This is nothing else than rationalism, sentimentalism.
B. Consequences
1. His enemies may use "Dogma of Redemption" to break the authority of Metropolitan Anthony, and through him of the Russian Church Abroad.
They will have a point, since only the most sympathetic possible reading can excuse Metropolitan Anthony from the charge of error, or even heresy. For the sake of the :little ones," the prestige of the Russian Church Abroad should not be risked by bringing this error into the open. This would not be fair to Metropolitan Anthony either--he shouldn't be held liable for his inaccuracies.
"Dogma of Redemption" opens the door ot only to "creative theology" but to many reforms--to revisiting the services, etc.
If the Holy Fathers didn't realize the importance of Gethsemane when they were writing the Church services, then the services can be revised to compensate for this lack of emphasis.
The only way out of calling Metropolitan Anthony a heretic is to state that he was imprecise in his theology and to refrain from disseminating his false teaching. To defend this "dogma" means to go against the Holy Fathers of the Church.
