Since I do not want to discuss these very polemic issues in public at NFTU, I have chosen to start this thread here in the Private Forums of E. Cafe.
Today, September 25, 2012, I read this quote by NFTU MOD (username for Deacon Joseph Suaiden)
NFTU MOD • 6 days ago • parent −
John: The only problem I have with your argument is that the HOCNA people-- in regards to the ROCOR-- were, on the matter of ecumenism, actually right. One could argue that had they stayed the union wouldn't have happened. However, in too many cases ROCOR managed to get rid of the very people who were trying to keep it alive.
Which is why it's only part of the MP now, and we have HOCNA, ROAC, ROCIE, RTOC, and the ROCOR-A, and their respective divisions. That's a reconcilation we should consider.
If Fr P is guilty-- and I have no formal confirmation on these things-- yes, these things need to be acted upon immediately. But from my perspective, HOCNA has way more theological problems than just Imyaslavie or "Awake Sleeper". You have the Romanidean-Kailomirite positions that lead to removing icons of God the Father, denying the traditional teachings on the atonement and toll-houses, and striking pre-schism Western saints out of the calendar centuries after the fact. From my perspective, it leads to a slippery slope.
I remember years ago a father at HTM told me (it may have been one of the Bishops, I forget) that "schism always leads to heresy". So it doesn't surprise me that-- and my personal position is that the real "schism", or cleavage, in HOCNA, regardless of what happened with other bishops of the Auxentios Synod, began in 2001-- that this has become a schism over actual doctrine.
In this, Fr P's sins are now a secondary issue, and using it as a rallying cry is wrong as far as I can see it.
Although I agree with Deacon Joseph that focusing on anyone's sins is wrong since we should not be looking at the speck in our brother's eye, but at the log in our own, I believe that this sort of polemics as found in Paragraph 3 above harms the True Orthodox:
You have the Romanidean-Kailomirite positions that lead to removing icons of God the Father, denying the traditional teachings on the atonement and toll-houses, and striking pre-schism Western saints out of the calendar centuries after the fact. From my perspective, it leads to a slippery slope.
Since when were Toll-Houses defined at an Ecumenical Council as a dogma?
Did Christ teach these "traditional teachings?"
From what I have studied about this subject on Toll Houses, it is largely a Russian teaching that has been concocted from dreams and visions, which we are not to trust.
I am not debating the need for repentance and humility, and the need to run the race to achieve the Crown of Victory.
We simply do not know about the Mystery of the After-Life, but to state that Toll House teachings are a matter of faith, and are "traditional teachings" that must be believed, is not based on facts, as few saints or Holy Fathers have made references to Toll Houses.
Yes, we will be judged after we die. Thus, we should be sober and watchful at all times, but Toll House teachings are not universally held, and if anything, these teachings can cause a rise in passions, and could even endanger our very salvation if we pridefully continue to preach it. Furthermore, I have known quite a few Catholics and Protestants, who when exposed to Toll House teachings, left Orthodoxy and considered it to be a weird cult. Do we really want to be responsible for their souls before God? Think about it.
It is time to acknowledge that Toll Houses can be believed as a theologumenon, but should not be forced upon everyone as a dogma.
