Yeah, I was speaking of charity, but what about that anyway? Saint Gregory seems to apply different standards to different people as far as whether to use a loving approach or a firm stance. How do we know which to use in each case? How do we determine which season calls for which stance? Some of the earlier quotes seem to be much kinder than some of the other passages we read in Saint Gregory where he seems to take a hard stance against heretics, such as:
Now, if they who hold such views have authority to meet, your Wisdom approved in Christ must see that, inasmuch as we do not approve their views, any permission of assembly granted to them is nothing less than a declaration that their view is thought more true than ours. For if they are permitted to teach their view as godly men, and with all confidence to preach their doctrine, it is manifest that the doctrine of the Church has been condemned, as though the truth were on their side. For nature does not admit of two contrary doctrines on the same subject being both true. How then could your noble and lofty mind submit to suspend your usual courage in regard to the correction of so great an evil? But even though there is no precedent for such a course, let your inimitable perfection in virtue stand up at a crisis like the present, and teach our most pious Emperor, that no gain will come from his zeal for the Church on other points if he allows such an evil to gain strength from freedom of speech for the subversion of sound faith. - Gregory the Theologian, Letter 202
This sort of confuses me, because I think when Gregory wrote this, the suppression of those identified as heretics was the Imperial policy (perhaps, however, it was before Emperor Theodosius issued his edict which basically said that everyone had to affirm the faith of the Orthodox (homoousion/nicene/etc. party). Leastwise, it seems strange seeing a person like Gregory taking the same stance. I don't judge him, or say that what he did was wrong, it's just seems odd to me, and muddies the waters, IMO. But then, of course, there are times when Saint Gregory takes a very irenic path; some of these were mentioned before, and here's another example:
And we are taught in the Gospel of a third earthquake, namely, from this Earth to that which cannot be shaken or moved.36 Now the two Testaments are alike in this respect, that the change was not made on a sudden, nor at the first movement of the endeavour. Why not (for this is a point on which we must have information)? That no violence might be done to us, but that we might be moved by persuasion. For nothing that is involuntary is durable; like streams or trees which are kept back by force. But that which is voluntary is more durable and safe. The former is due to one who uses force, the latter is ours; the one is due to the gentleness of God, the other to a tyrannical authority. Wherefore God did not think it behoved Him to benefit the unwilling, but to do good to the willing. And therefore like a Tutor or Physician He partly removes and partly condones ancestral habits, conceding some little of what tended to pleasure, just as medical men do with their patients, that their medicine may be taken, being artfully blended with what is nice. For it is no very easy matter to change from those habits which custom and use have made honourable. - Saint Gregory the Theologian, Oration 32, 25
Which path is ROCOR to take, for instance, regarding ecumenism as defined (and anathematized) at the 1983 synod? The text reads:
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!
How then does ROCOR relate to those who are very close to falling under this condemnation, but haven't taken that final, decisive step into the heresy of embracing Ecumenism? It's not, of course, for me (or probably most other people on this forum) to make such judgments and decisions, and pronounce our views. But, so that we can understand what is going on in Orthodoxy, and so we'll understand when things happen down the road, I think it perhaps beneficial to discuss. When the future time comes to make a decision, I hope we can let our leaders take the stances, and that we as layman can follow the monastic saying: "Judge no one and you will be saved".
: