The heart vs. sentimentality

[Seraphim Reeves]

Like a lot of people I find myself perplexed by the myriad of problems which to one degree or another bother all who "hunger and thirst for righteousness" in these troubled times.

One thing which I have a hard time with is discerning the line between genuine love and an aversion toward slavish legalism (which if taken too far, would leave everyone without hope), and "waivering" or sentimental "reasoning" (if it can even be called "reason" as such.)

I think most here would agree that extreme legalism is a dead end, in so far as it presumes too much. Yet I think there is at least as much of a danger (and I've had to struggle with this a lot) in indulging sentimentality to the point that one ends up with a fundamentally a-doctrinal Orthodoxy (which is of course a contradiction in terms, since "correct opinion" exists in doctrine, and it is impossible to love and given "correct glory" to God without the mind.)

While it certainly is not a given everywhere, I think for most people here there would be agreement that there is certainly a heretical ecumenism which goes beyond attempts to bring the heterodox back into the fold of the Orthodox Church; and that such misguided thoughts are heresy, and heresy is spiritual poison. As hard as I often find it to say, the reality is that this heretical ecumenism has found it's way into much of the organic, grass roots of many parts of the Orthodox world.

Such words should not be spoken lightly obviously, as they have a grave consequence - for it is the wisdom of the catholic teachers of the Church (the Fathers of all ages) that heresies lead people out of the Church, and knowing communion with heretics (even if one does not personally agree with the error itself) has a similar consequence. Indeed, even an "unknowing", careless (lacking vigilance) communion with heresy poses a grave danger - since if not censored and separated from, it will over time be assimilated into the thoughts and lives of those following such blind guides.

It's for appearances to deceive. For example, there are some Byzantine Catholic parishes, monastic establishments, etc. which are very strict in their observance of Orthodox liturgical norms to degree which in some cases can exceed the observance of many officially Orthodox Churches, and even rivals the level of observance one would find amongst decidedly "traditional" Orthodox Churches. Indeed, many of these Byzantine Catholics are quite keen on following not only Orthodox liturgics, but even "Orthodox spirituality", etc., decidedly distancing themselves from much of the content and manner of expression found amongst their Latin brethren.

But the reality is, as much as some of them may nod and wink at their Latin brethren's teachings (some only paying the barest lip service to them), they at least accept the propriety of those teachings "as an opinion." And at least officially, they hold to those views. And of course, undoubtedly they maintain communion with those who undoubtedly hold them and propagate them.

However minimal/nominal their acceptance of the heresies of the RCC are, the reality is that the Orthodox Church has never hesitated to state plainly, that the Uniates are not Orthodox, they are not members of the Orthodox Church...and up until relatively recently, there was universally the affirmation that "Orthodox Church" was synonymous with the "one Church" (numerically one, according to the Greek) of Christ spoken of in the Symbol of Faith.

The Uniates have put claims on smells and bells, and "good liturgics" in many cases - they've even claimed "miracles" and "saints" of their own. Yet, even if the Orthodox have often (out of tact) passed over such claims with little comment, this has not altered the affirmation that the Uniates are cleaved from the Church of Christ.

Looking at another situation - ecumenism, modernism, neo-renovationism, sergianism...while each has it's own nuance and arguable credentials for being bad in varying degrees, they are all in some measure common parts of the life of what is typically known as "canonical Orthodoxy." Do all in said "canonical Orthodoxy" hold such views. Certainly not - there are people on this forum who are excellent examples of this, and often seem quite distressed by such things taking place amongst their brethren. Yet these heresies are common to the point of being normal, both in a theoretical/doctrinal form (typically in academia), and in their practical form (the perverse opinions of completely misinformed laymen, and far more blameworthy, the anti-canonical activities of heirarchs/clergy which are the undoubted hallmark of the "ecumenical movement", many of which violate canons which call for the defrocking of their violaters.)

Obviously the Church will always have wheat and tares; and that includes people who are careless in how they discuss the Orthodox faith, or speak without knowledge or under foreign influences. Such ignorance (even amongst clergy) while lamentable, has always existed in some degree, and is not itself evidence that "such and such Church" has fallen.

However, the current heresies, have reached a level of commonality and official expression that is truly disconcerting. The "new calendar" was implimented on the basis of bringing unity to different confessions on the basis that they participate in the same ecclessial reality; one need only read the Patriarchal Encyclical of the EP from 1920, announcing the planned calendar change and the beginings of the "Orthodox Ecumenical Movement" is quite clear about this. In 1965, the unhappy moral/spiritual successor in this line of thinking, then Patriarch Athenagoras, pretended to lift the Church's anathemas against Catholicism. Previous to this, much of said "canonical Orthodoxy" turned a blind eye to the comprimised Russian heirarchy and it's subservience to the Soviet State, opting by in large in favour of it rather than those who either fled Russia or who remained in the Soviet Union in the form of the "Catacombniks". As far as I know, all of the local Churches at one point or another have been involved with the WCC which has in it's charter an assumed ecclessiology which is totally at odds with that of the Orthodox Church - even if many (most?) of the parties involved personally except themselves from this, why involve one's self in an organization that assumes such falsehood on behalf of it's member churches? And perhaps most tragically, in violation of the fourth Ecumenical Council and all that followed afterwards, re-affirming it's sentence, the Patriarchate of Antioch has unilaterally all but established communion with the Monophysites (despite the fact that they refuse to normalize their status, and unambiguously accept all of the Ecumenical Councils of the Church.) Indeed, it's hard to say just how they have not established communion - there is a mutual recognition of sacraments, the turning over of flocks one to the other in certain circumstances, and even "canonical transfers" of clergy from one to the other.

There is more than this, unfortunately. But perhaps the most unfortunate thing is this - even though there are those who do not agree with such things (including a Patriarch of a venerable local church - Jerusalem), the reality is, in the end, all such protests are for naught; for they ultimatly "wink" at such activities and tacitly legitimize them by maintaining communion with those who commit them.

I guess my question in the end is, what separates those who maintain communion with heretics of the "ecumenist Orthodox" persuassion, from those "Orthodox in communion with Rome", aka. Uniates who maintain communion with the Pope's brand of heresy? And more importantly, for those who know better...what are we doing?

Please forgive this rambling post. In many ways, it's yet another manifestation of me thinking out loud, as I am wont to do (both to my benefit and detriment.)

Seraphim

[Gregory]

I think most here would agree that extreme legalism is a dead end, in so far as it presumes too much.

Seraphim --

Can you please give an example of a church that "engages" in extreme legalism? I am curious about your opinion on this.

I guess my question in the end is, what separates those who maintain communion with heretics of the "ecumenist Orthodox" persuassion, from those "Orthodox in communion with Rome", aka. Uniates who maintain communion with the Pope's brand of heresy?

Your post started off well and it looked as if you were going to outline the dangers of the opposite extremes. Yet, your concluding question only applies to one side. Furthermore, why do you care?

I think you already answered your own question: in your mind there really isn't anything separating Uniates and "ecumenist Orthodox". They are two wings on the same bird of prey, to borrow a phrase.

Greg

[Seraphim Reeves]

Recently I authored a post on the issue of heresy, "world Orthodoxy" etc. Now, in the name of fairness, I'm going to write a response/rebuttal to the train of thought in that post, since the basic conclusion of that post did not get much of a response (save for a single response which basically said "I disagree".)

Here are some thoughts I'd like others to consider here, and hopefully chime in on, or even refute.

The Malice of Heresy

1) While heresy is contrary to the "correct opinion" which is an essential characteristic of Christ's Church (for He Himself is truth), strictly speaking does not such adherance to heresy have to be held to in an antagnostic, "knowing" fashion, resisting all admonishment? For example, I'm sure there was always a large segment of the laity in "better times" which only had the most basic knowledge of the dogmatic content of the Orthodox faith, and a number of these who may even have had "incorrect opinions" on doctrinal questions. I would not doubt this even included many members of the clergy, at least on "finer" but by no means unimportant points. While such is unfortunate, such ignorance is not a new thing. Can such common ignorance be viewed as cleaving one from the Body of Christ?

2) What about situations where, there has been an admonishment, but because it comes from so marginalized a party (or parties), and other circumstances, it is not at all clear that such has occured, or even that it comes from a party that is speaking truthfully?

3) This is not to say that there are not those in the communion of the "official"/new calendar communion who do know better but persist in novelty anyway (real heretics) - and that the canons of the Church forbid holding communion with heretics, lest they be regarded as being of the same cloth by association. At the same time though, is there not required a certain level of awareness amongst the people, clergy, and even heirarchs, before they can be held to the consequences of such canons? It does not seem to sit well with justice and equity to condemn people of that which they remain unaware of, or at least do not realize the extent of the problem.

4) Do not such situations then, while justifying the separation of those who do "know better" from those who err for their own spiritual protection and as an attempt to bring their brethren to an awareness of the heresies of the present day (when a heresy becomes endemic), require circumstances to play themselves out before totally discounting those in (or associated with those who commit to) error as being members of Christ? Historically the vehicle for such an awareness would be an Ecumenical Council, or at least pan-Orthodox symbols which through time gain "ecumenical status"?

5) Given this, when such an awareness comes either to individuals or (God willing) entire local Churches, should they not be embraced with simply a clear profession of the truth and a rejection of error, and not as aliens to the Church?

6) As for those who clearly confess the truth and clearly reject falsehood, would not the circumstances of the present period at least call for a healthy agnosticism about the moral culpability of the "official" Orthodox, and refraining from firm statements that such persons (indeed, entire local Churches) are severed from Christ to the extent that their sacraments are viewed as void, and the mysteriological grace of the Church is absent from them?

The Clarity of the Ecumenist Heresy

1) Using ROCOR's 1983 Anathema Against Ecumenism as a guide, the fundamental error of heretical ecumenism is the acceptance of heretical bodies (Protestantism, Catholicism, etc.) as being parts/extensions of the Orthodox Church - the ultimate manifestation of which would be the acceptance of their sacraments as Orthodox Mysteries, able to communicate the grace of salvation. Such is rejected by many of the Fathers, and clearly in the Apostolic Canons.

2) With this said, what happens if sincere people (even if sincerely wrong) either do not recognize the authority of such an admittedly local condemnation, particularly in the details?

3) There are those who would argue that the Apostolic Canons refer to an ancient jurisprudence, relating to sects that worshipped an "alien god" and had erred (in the mind of the Church) in the most basic way. Such sects typically didn't use a baptismal formula in line with that of the Orthodox Church - they either used single immersion, or changed the baptismal prayer in such a way as to void the ritual. In support of this view, Orthodox of such an opinion would point to the fact that later, "more subtle" heresies were generally not treated like this - Ecumenical Councils themselves dictating that persons come over from such heresies were to be received by means other than Baptism.

4) While St.Cyprian is typically cited as an authority on the "invalidity" of all heretical and schismatical sacraments, it has been argued that the conclusion of the local African Council he oversaw on this matter was not received in an unqualified manner by the pan-Orthodox consciousness. Also, St.Cyprian does not argue simply that all sacraments celebrated by those distanced from the canonical Church are "void", but that converts from such groups must be received by Baptism - theories of "economy" do not appear to occur to him at all.
In addition, it appears that St.Cyprian was not regarded as an authority on this subject at all in western Christendom, centuries before the schism. Pope Stephen (regarded as a Saint in the west, even prior to the "great schism") was personally at loggerheads with St.Cyprian on this topic, and generally the west held to the opinion articulated by St.Augustine of Hippo - which regarded the sacraments of heretics and schismatics as possibly "valid" in an operative sense, but because of the malice of such persons they could not be received "fruitfully" and in fact heaped condemnation upon their recipients.

5) It seems doubtful that the view put forward by Augustine was uniquely his own, but appears to have been quite common, at least in western Christendom (and some would argue, in the Eastern Christendom as well, though it would certainly appear not as much so.) In St.Cyprian's argument with Pope St.Stephen, he implicitly acknowledges that the practice of receiving many types of heretics (and schismatics) with chrism and repentence had existed for some time - but he argues that tradition/custom is not an argument against truth, and that he was putting forward the view which lined up with reality and truth.

6) Given all of this, some would argue even if the ROCOR's Anathema is accepted, it does not have the significance that many would attach to it. Here is the Anathema...

Those who attack the Church of Christ by teaching that Christ's Church is divided into so-called "branches" which differ in doctrine and way of life, or that the Church does not exist visibly, but will be formed in the future when all "branches" or sects or denominations, and even religions will be united into one body; and who do not distinguish the priesthood and mysteries of the Church from those of the heretics, but say that the baptism and eucharist of heretics is effectual for salvation; therefore, to those who knowingly have communion with these aforementioned heretics or who advocate, disseminate, or defend their new heresy of Ecumenism under the pretext of brotherly love or the supposed unification of separated Christians, Anathema!

The key phrase is "distinguish between" (the sacraments of the Church and those of heretics) and "effectual for salvation." Either of those terms could be accepted in a pre-schism western/Augustinian sense (for while certain heretics could have "valid" sacraments, they cannot be received with benefit for their celebration is outside of the unity of the Church and the profession of the true faith; much like the situation of someone who is dead in sins going to the Chalice...the Eucharist has really occured, the Body and Blood of Christ are given to him, but he not only receives no benefit, but in fact brings condemnation upon himself.)

7) Since the Great Schism, there have been many different practices regarding the reception of Roman Catholics (and later, Protestants) into the Orthodox Church. While some would argue (who hold to St.Nicodemus the Hagiorite's interpretation of "economy") this was due to the "hostile" climate of differing periods (thus changing how western converts were received), it could be argued that this wasn't the case at all. In the period immediately following the great schism, arguments over Latin baptisms did not appear to hinge upon their basic "gracelessness" in the sense of being absolutely invalid to begin with, but rather over their form. Many Greeks believed that the practice of "single immersion" had become universal in the west, where as the truth was (as many came to realize) it was an abbheration local only to certain places in the west; for quite some time after the schism, the Latins continued to baptize with three immersions. Others argued that certain minor differences in the Latin baptismal practice (particularly the use of salt) "invalidated" the ritual, a line of reasoning that ulitmatly was not considered persuasive. The debate raged again, when the Latins began to baptize by affusion, pouring water three times over the head of their neophytes. This is a line of argument which appears to have never been completely setteled everywhere (particularly amongst the Greeks; the Slavs eventually saw it as acceptable). In both Orthodox practice, and ancient documents on sacramental order like the Didache, "baptism by pouring" while considered something which should only be used when necessary, is regarded as "valid" - thus prompting most Orthodox to agree that it is acceptable in the reception of converts.

8 ) In short, it could be argued that prior to the 20th century, the argument over the recognition of "heterodox baptisms" centered primarily upon their form, and not a dwelling on whether or not they were in any sense "valid".

9) Thus it could be argued that one could recognize the basic, operative "validity" of Roman Catholic, Monophysite, etc. sacramental rites, without crossing the line into the "ecumenist heresy" which views the Church of Christ as a collection of heresies and schisms. Persons holding this view would also argue that, strictly speaking, one needs to receive Baptism before any other sacraments can be received. If the economically accepted baptism of a Latin (for example) were nothing more than an exterior washing, then it would be impossible to Chrismate him, give him Holy Communion, etc. OTOH, they would argue the truth is that it was "valid", but like the Orthodox Baptism of someone who is only converting for show (and has no contrition for their sins, does not really accept the faith of the Church, and may even be contemptuous of the Church) is "valid" but fruitless (and even becomes sacreligious.)

10) While many do accept what we may call the "St.Nicodemus the Hagiorite understanding of baptismal economy", this doesn't appear to fit well with the history of Orthodoxy in recent centuries, particularly in the Slavic Churches. Russian practice definately has the character of receiving those who, while having received (previously) sacraments of initiation, as if they were those who had departed from the Church and are now being returned to Her. This particularly appears to be the case, given that the Russian Church received Roman Catholic (often Uniate) priests in this fashion - no re-ordination, simply repentence, confession, re-vesting and Holy Communion.

(hopefully, this will get more responses)

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

4) Do not such situations then, while justifying the separation of those who do "know better" from those who err for their own spiritual protection and as an attempt to bring their brethren to an awareness of the heresies of the present day (when a heresy becomes endemic), require circumstances to play themselves out before totally discounting those in (or associated with those who commit to) error as being members of Christ? Historically the vehicle for such an awareness would be an Ecumenical Council, or at least pan-Orthodox symbols which through time gain "ecumenical status"?

No! Historically councils, Ecumenical or not, have ALL only served to confirm the already known and declared status of the heretics and those with them.

Those who error out of ignorance are in a very grave situation. These are the people who Christ warned "not to be deceived" by the many false sheperds. We certainly pray for such people and may have hope that Christ in all his mercy will somehow protect such people, but we must say the Mysteries are absent as we know the Episcopacy is. Without the pristhood, we cannot speak of any Mysteries.

The Royal Priesthood of Christ by itself is a Mystery of the Church in which the participant is united with Christ and through him partakes of Christ's priestly function and his Holy Passion. The Mysteries of the Church therefore are empowered to and flow through His Royal Priesthood, which started with the Apostles and by the "laying of hands" has been passed down. You will note that all of the Mysteries are Mysteries which were given to the Apostles, the first priests: The priest acts in Christ's stead and in his name offering His Body and Blood, which he himself blessed at his Last Supper; the Mystery of Holy Unction the priest offers the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and thus a person partakes of the event of Pentecost.

The Church and the Mysteries are therefore present through the Royal Priesthood. If we cannot speak of the priesthood, we cannot speak of any Mysteries.

6) As for those who clearly confess the truth and clearly reject falsehood, would not the circumstances of the present period at least call for a healthy agnosticism about the moral culpability of the "official" Orthodox, and refraining from firm statements that such persons (indeed, entire local Churches) are severed from Christ to the extent that their sacraments are viewed as void, and the mysteriological grace of the Church is absent from them?

Someone who “clearly reject(s) falsehood“ is not in communion with someone who does not. I could not say I clearly reject Nazism while I at the same time attend their rallies, wear a Nazi arm band, and commemorate Hitler. Oh, I just want to tell a few friends to get out, but exactly what does that have to do with being a member?

Again, we recgonize the presence of the Church by the existance of the priesthood, not by the presence of individuals, however well-meaning. One might have hoped in the second world war that there were well-meaning Germans, but because they were ruled by a few henchman and mostly people just coopoerating with the henchman, we could not speak of anything but "Nazi Germany".

Using ROCOR's 1983 Anathema Against Ecumenism as a guide, the fundamental error of heretical ecumenism is the acceptance of heretical bodies (Protestantism, Catholicism, etc.) as being parts/extensions of the Orthodox Church - the ultimate manifestation of which would be the acceptance of their sacraments as Orthodox Mysteries, able to communicate the grace of salvation. Such is rejected by many of the Fathers, and clearly in the Apostolic Canons.

I would adjust this statement to some degree and say the fundamental error lay more in the failure to recognize the Word of God, which is manifested through the correct teachings found only in the Orthodox Church. Recognition of other so-called “truths” is a direct denial of the Logos, which separates one from Him. And by this admission, anything is possible, such as unity with Protestanism.

3) There are those who would argue that the Apostolic Canons refer to an ancient jurisprudence, relating to sects that worshipped an "alien god" and had erred (in the mind of the Church) in the most basic way. Such sects typically didn't use a baptismal formula in line with that of the Orthodox Church - they either used single immersion, or changed the baptismal prayer in such a way as to void the ritual. In support of this view, Orthodox of such an opinion would point to the fact that later, "more subtle" heresies were generally not treated like this - Ecumenical Councils themselves dictating that persons come over from such heresies were to be received by means other than Baptism.

IMHO, this is completley backwards. The more subtle heresies where those of old. The Novatians, the Montanists, the Monopphysites. These were Orthodox in every way, form, appearance, except perhaps one or two elements of faith. Today, we not only have the complete dismissal of Orthodox pratice, and life, we also have a complete denial of the Mystery of the Church (this is Protestantism).

4) While St.Cyprian is typically cited as an authority on the "invalidity" of all heretical and schismatical sacraments, it has been argued that the conclusion of the local African Council he oversaw on this matter was not received in an unqualified manner by the pan-Orthodox consciousness. Also, St.Cyprian does not argue simply that all sacraments celebrated by those distanced from the canonical Church are "void", but that converts from such groups must be received by Baptism - theories of "economy" do not appear to occur to him at all.
In addition, it appears that St.Cyprian was not regarded as an authority on this subject at all in western Christendom, centuries before the schism. Pope Stephen (regarded as a Saint in the west, even prior to the "great schism") was personally at loggerheads with St.Cyprian on this topic, and generally the west held to the opinion articulated by St.Augustine of Hippo - which regarded the sacraments of heretics and schismatics as possibly "valid" in an operative sense, but because of the malice of such persons they could not be received "fruitfully" and in fact heaped condemnation upon their recipients.

As far as I have ever read, the council of Carthage under St. Cyprian was accepted by the Sixth Ecumenical Council. Furthermore, the West by then was already steering away from Orthodox and was in heresy only a few centuries later. More and more, they fell under the influence of St. Augustine and his views on Baptism.

That is all I have time for. Perhaps someone can pick up here.