Seraphim,
My feelings on ROAC are up in the air at this point. The GOC seems to be much more conservative than ROCOR, but still to be more moderate (in its zeal) than ROAC. Writing on ROAC at this point is difficult, but I'm not sure what exactly to say about them. Like you, I think they get unfairly criticized at times. It's become too easy to just condemn people according to a quick first glance you give a website of theirs. As though you can scan a website for an hour and then understand the complexities (or lack therof) of a group. Ironically, however, it seems to me that ROAC's biggest fault is that she herself does this consistently. I do not know that she is sectarian, but she certainly leans further that way than I would seem acceptable to me.
Sometimes things are hard to define, but you know them when you see them "or feel them". Love, for instance, can be described to an extent: it's origin, it's manifestations (kindness, selflessnes, etc.), etc. Yet a "definition of love" alludes us. Someone who is very bitter might ask "Prove to me that there is love! Everyone talks about this love, but tell me what it is then? Define it for me!" Of course, no matter how hard we try, we wouldn't be able to come up with a clear, precise definition that would satisfy him. The same goes for ROAC, I'm afraid. I cannot say exactly what errors they have fallen into as I might say of the Latins of Wesleyans. Rather, their errors are ones of spirit and tendency, and are manifested not in doctrinal statements but in their words and actions towards their brothers and those outside the Church.
Obviously this makes for a very difficult discussion. Julianna and Fr. Dionysi will undoubtedly see all that I have to say as false. This is understandable: they think I am outside the Church, an apostate, so how could I understand the truths of Orthodoxy? But even those who in the same Church, such as Nicholas, will undoubtedly disagree with some (if not most) of my points. This, too, is understandable, for I merely discuss here observations: subjective opinions. I have little spiritual discernment. I do not claim to have some special insight into things theological. My words carry no weight, excepting that they have some portion of truthfulness in them.
But I affirm that God gives all good things... including knowledge. And if God gives knowledge to those who ask for it (james 1), then perhaps he has tried to tell me something (whether my sinfulness has prevented me from understanding, I don't know). You too have been seeking his knowledge on this. So please Seraphim, if you agree or disagree, let me know. Have I, in my youth and inexperience, misunderstood what God has tried to show me? You started this thread, but haven't said much yourself since then; please let us know what you are thinking.
But back to ROAC, what can I say about them? what is my subjective opinion? My view is this: ROAC lacks moderation (in zeal). Zeal is fine when driven by God, and I believe that it is patially driven by God in ROAC--but not totally by God. I also believe that we traditionalists all carry around loaded guns. Saint Paul used swords in his analogy (Eph. 6:17; Heb. 4:12), but I think guns would work better at this moment. These guns can protect the innocent, or they can harm the innocent. The gun is not evil in itself, but it can have both good and bad uses, depending on who wields it. The gun need not even be used with the intention of harming someone--someone could still be harmed. Here's the important part: we don't want people with hasty trigger fingers holding their guns up. ROAC, in my subjective opinion, has a hasty trigger finger; ROCOR, in my subjective opinion, has a steady, cautious trigger finger.
We are in a war, there is no doubt about that. Unfortunately, we traditionalist soldiers aren't all fighting according to the same strategy and plan. I look at the ROAC soldier and see someone whom I do not really want to be "covering me". I fear that, in his unnecessary haste, he will shoot me so as to protect himself, thinking that I am an enemy soilder. No, I'll take the ROCOR soldier, who is willing to shoot if he must, but is going to take every precaution to make sure he's shooting the right man. (I'll get more into detail as to the relevance of this analogy later).
No traditionalist denies that we are in a war, on that we can all agree. It is a war against apostasy, against heresy, and as always this means against Satan. "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood," but against Satan and his wicked deeds and thoughts (cf Eph. 6:12). The first fault in the tendency of ROAC, and I admit that I could be totally wrong here, is that they are focusing far too much on earthly things. Certainly they say that the heresies are "satanic," or that this or that group is "evil," yet this often seems to me reactionary, harsh epithets, rather than a phrase that summarizes (in a nutshell) much thinking and praying. ROAC seems so focused on identifying and condemning the instruments of Satan, however, that they have left other parts of their front exposed.
ROAC seems to be in disagreement with Paul's belief that "there must be also heresies among you" (1 Cor. 11:19). They take our Lord's words in Matt. 16:18-19, and other passages, and start drawing false conclusions from them. It's not that their statements are wrong in themselves (and this is what makes it hard to point out their errors), they simply lean one way too far to the side, and so leave the royal path. They are right to say that we must not be in communion with heresy. They are right to say that those in communion with heretics are condemned themselves. Many of the things that they say are totally agreeable. The problem is, they never stop saying these things. They seem to want a Church free from error, and they have made themselves the judges who will determine who can stay and who must leave. Our Lord said that the tares must stay in the Church, lest the wheat also be pulled up with them. (cf Matt. 13:24-30).
The Church, of course, can never be overrun by heresy or error. Christ is her head (Eph. 1:22; 4:15; 5:23), and she is a threanthropic organism, and mysically unable to be wholly corrupted. Yet, we know that sin exists in the Church, we know there are tares in the Church, and heresies among us. Not that these things are actually part of the Church, but it is sometimes difficult to see when they are and when they aren't. In other words, caution is needed. And we cannot understand the phrase "the gates of hades shall not prevail against it" so narrowly that it only includes heresy. It is true that the Fathers, for the most part, interpreted the "gates of hell" as heresies, [1] but they also saw this phrase of our Lord as speaking of vice and sin [2], and also wordly persecutions (e.g., from wordly governments) [3]. Certainly no one could say that persecutions and sins do not have an effect on us. They do not conquer those in the Church, but neither can we be so arrogant as to think that we are free of them simply because we are in the Church.
Ironically, then, those who constantly look to guard the front door against heresies so that "the gates of hades shall not prevail" might let them in through the unguarded back door. A moderation is needed: zeal, yes, but caution and patience have their place as well, as do a level-headedness that teaches one when to stop. Humility, too, is essential. I remember Saint Ignatius Brianchaninov, in his book The Arena, talking about people who were judgmental and were harsh with their brothers. He said that these people didn't know what they were doing, that the saints only condemned people when it was absolutely necessary, and when they were led by the spirit to do so. These words are indeed very relevant today, in our age of judgmentalism, super-correctness, and rampant spiritual apathy and hard-heartedness (Unfortuately, I include myself in all of these).
What I see in the sorrowful epistles of Met. Philaret, and what I see in other similar documents, seems different to me in spirit than what I see from members in ROAC. I honestly believe that Met. Philaret, in writing his First Sorrowful Epistle to "Their Holinesses and Their Beatitudes the Primates of the Holy Orthodox Churches," could have made these words of Paul his own: "out of much affliction and anguish of heart I wrote unto you with many tears" (2 Cor. 2:4). And Met. Philarent could also have probably understood very well Paul words in Acts: "and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears." (Acts 20:31) Or how many, not out of false humility, but in genuine sincerity, can repeat with Saint Justin Popovich: "I humbly ask forgiveness because I, a worthless sinner, truly a worthless sinner, dared to stammer these few words regarding the Second Vatican Council. It was done in obedience. It was requested of me, the insignificant and worthless sinner. I carried out my task in obedience, honestly, conscientiously, with a heavy heart, with many sighs... if any reader of these reflections feels injured, I beg forgiveness." (Reflections On the Infallibility of European Man, 12)?
This is not the spirit of humility that I perceive in ROAC documents. I am not calling them unorthodox, please don't misunderstand! Neither am I saying that they are less pious or humble than I. I only point out these few passages from varied sources to illustrate that judgment and condemnation should be done by sober-minded, humble, pious men, and that the documents I have seen from ROAC do not seem to have this spirit, but seem to be reactionary and unnecessarily harsh. Rather than showing the stone being offered by world Orthodoxy, they are thrusting it into people's mouths and yelling "see! we told you so!" This causes more harm than good. I do not say that the actual members of ROAC (and certainly I do not judge her priests or hierarchs!) are lacking in humility, and judgmental. I only know that what I have read was this way--perhaps it was momentary lapses? Perhaps zeal "got the best of them"? Perhaps they are suppose to be this rigoristic, and I misunderstand the methods which would be best in combatting the modern heresies. Time will tell, I firmly believe.
Another bad tendency I've seen in ROAC is what I guess could be called an inverse neo-papal-patriarchalism. Neo-papal-patriarchalism, as you know, is the attributing to one Church (e.g., Constnatinople), or one group of Churches (e.g,. SCOBA) more authority than they actually have according to Orthodox ecclesiology. As John Romanides said in his work The Ecclesiology of St. Ignatius of Antioch, "One local manifestation of the body of Christ could not be more body of Christ or less than another. Likewise the living image of Christ (the bishop) could not be more image or less image than another image because Christ, whose image the bishops are, is identically One and Equal with Himself." I know you already know all this Seraphim, but for those who aren't as familiar with Orthodox ecclesiology who are reading this, I'll quote a bit more on the subject, this time from Saint Justin Popovich:
"...the Orthodox Church, in its nature and its dogmatically unchanging constitution is episcopal and centered in the bishops. For the bishop and the faithful gathered around him are the expression and manifestation of the Church as the Body of Christ, especially in the Holy Liturgy: The Church is Apostolic and Catholic only by virtue of its bishops, insofar as they are the heads of true ecclesiastical units, the dioceses [...] At the same time, the other, historically later and variable forms of church organization of the Orthodox Church: the metropolias, archdioceses, patriarchates, pentarchies, autocephalies, autonomies, etc., however many there may be or shall be, cannot have and do not have a decisive signifigance in the conciliar principle if they obstruct and reject the episcopal character and structure of the Church and of the Churches. Here, undoubtedly, is to be found the primary difference between Orthodox and papal ecclesiology [...] The fate of the Church, neither is, nor can be, any longer in the hands of... the 'Pentarchy' or of the 'autocephalies' (understood in the narrow sense)... And new local Churches appear to be rising on the horizon, such as the Japanese, the African and the American, and their freedom in the Lord must not be removed by any 'super-Church' of the papal type (cf Canon 8, 3rd Ecumenical Council), for this would signify an attack on the very essence of the Church." (On Summoning of the Great Council of the Orthodox Church, 4-5)
Neo-papal-patriarchalism wants to violate this Orthodox ecclesiology, and make certain bishops or sees "bestowers of validity" or a "guarantee of Orthodoxy". Such a concept is not unheard of in Orthodoxy (Saint Theodosius did it after the 2nd Ecumenical Council), but in the extremely rare cirumstances that it is used, it is an exception that must be instituted for a short time by dire necessity. To make it the rule is totally unacceptable. ROAC, at least from what I've seen, follows along the same principle, only applies it in a different way. Instead of using the neo-papal-patriarchalism to decide who is Orthodox and "canonical," she uses it to decide who is unorthodox and without grace. Therefore, it doesn't matter what Bishop Nobody From the See of Nowherespecial thinks or believe, or how he acts; all that matters is how "his Church" (taken together) acts and speaks.
The heart of neo-papal-patriarchalism is reducing Orthodoxy to a papal-like system, making a few individuals the speakers and course setters of all of Orthodoxy. Agreement with these few people makes one orthodox and Orthodox. The inverse version of this belief, which ROAC seems to operate on, makes these few individuals men on trials, so that if they are found guilty, their whole church will be hung. It doesn't matter, for instance, that some Serbian bishops are fighting tooth and nail for reforms (to get the Serbs out of the WCC, etc.); all that matters is that Pat. Paul is an ecumenist, and therfore "the serbs have fallen". Apparently St. Justin did not think that things had to be so black and white, since he remained in the Serbain Church his entire life, even when he broke communion with his Patriarch for his unOrthodox activities.
As far as I know, the Serb Church (or at the very least, many Serbian bishops) do not commune Catholics, they do not accept Anglican sacraments as valid, they do not accept Sergianism (well, some bishops might), and they do not commune monophysites. So what is left but the pan-heresy of ecumenism? But there is a battle waging in the Serbian Church over this issue right now, this is not the time to abandon them and throw the baby out with the bathwater, condeming their entire Church! Met. Philaret saw that Ecumenism had penetrated into most of the Churches, and therefore raised his voice in protest. But we might also say that each bishop, and each local Church, deals with the heresy in a different way.
And so I think his words "If a temptation appears in the fold of only one Orthodox Church, the remedy for it may be found in the same fold." might be applicable insofar as the Serb situation is unique, and they may yet resolve the problem, and so we shouldn't be so hasty to condemn them. The temptation the Serb Church is facing is different, because they had two beacons of light in the 20th century--Saints Justin and Nikolai--and because many spiritual children from these two saints still live and work within the Serbian Church (some of them bishops!). We must give them some time to work things out. Yes, yes, they are in communion with other heretical members of world Orthodoxy, and so we perhaps should not be in communion with them. Still, this does not mean we should abandon them totally.
When Athansius refused to accept Meletios of Antioch because he believed that he was still an Arian, and Saints Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory the Theologian did accept Meletios, did this cause Athanasius to suddenly condemn the cappadocians as being graceless? Perhaps some saw them as schismatics, but the relations with them were not totally dropped because of their accepting the questionably Orthodox Meletios into communion. Time was needed to resolve the situation, for it was chaotic at that point. It is similarly chaotic today. Some men's sins (ie. heresies) are visible to all, with some we must wait until we are sure. We must warn our brother, and not cast him aside. Even a wife who has adultery may be forgiven. Even a wife who is living now in adultery may still be reached, out of love we should try to reach her while there is a legit chance of "getting her back." Is the love among us in the Church less than the love between a husband and wife?
So I am not misunderstood: yes, obviously some bishops affirm heresy, and therefore are heretics. And yes, generally speaking anyone who communes with heretics is in danger of condemnation themselves. However, we must be careful to not beat people over the head with proof-texts, no matter how clear the proof-texts may seem to us. When we refuse to allow for the possibility that some new situation might arise that will require new measures and methodologies, then we cease to be Orthodox. We are only book readers trying to follow along what we think people long ago did. We are then no longer in contact with the living tradition, or with the thrice-brilliant Lord. Church history shows amazing flexibility in meeting new situations head on, and not insisting that "they solved in this way at this place, and so we must now do it the same," or "canon x says this, therefore we cannot do it any other way than how canon x says". This is not Orthodoxy, this is protestantism.
It is fully admitted that having communion with a heretic is not permissable, and will lead to condemnation and death. However, I get from ROAC a slightly different feeling. It's not only this canonically sound principle regarding heretics that they hold to, but they also hold to a sort of guilty by association. One wonders how they would have treated some of the Fathers who quoted Plato time after time. Or Saint Ambrose, who loved to read Philo. My guess is that, had many fathers been around today, they would see them as being "corrupted by foreign influences". Just the fact that they would quote Plato or Philo makes them guilty. Of course, when we talk about ROAC, we aren't talking about them condemning others for quoting Plato or Philo, but this does, nonetheless, seem to be a general feeling that I get from them. Unless you are beyond repraoch (e.g., "Saint Philaret"), or quoting them to condemn them, to quote someone outside the Church is a no no. Maybe I have them wrong on this, but that's just the feeling I get from reading their literature.
On another issue... must we wait for a council to know who is a heretic? No, certainly we are able to cease communion when someon openly spreads a significant error. But what then do we say after we have broke communion? What did the fathers say? Normally they pointed out a few particular teachers of error, and then gave a general condemnation after that: "whoever holds to the error, let them be anathema". We rarely find statments such as "Pat. X is a heretic, therefore everyone who remains in Church Y is a heretic". It's not that this can't be supported from the canons and tradition, it's just too black and white. Was Constantine a Saint or a Persecutor of the Orthodox? And Justinian? There are lots of examples that should make us cautious to be quick in condemning people because of apparent lapses or errors. Those whom we condemn hastily now might be tomorrow glorified as Saints. A break in communion is one thing, but a condemnation and anathema is a totally different thing. I very much doubt that those who make condemnations today realise the position they are putting themselves in. If they are wrong, on judgmenet day things will not[/I] be looking good for them. (on the other hand, those who were too easy on heresy will have a rough time too... again, we must find the royal path, not being negligent to defend the Church, but not being over-zealous and "shooting at will" at anyone that pops up who might be an enemy solider)
We must follow along the royal path to stay within Orthodoxy. It is a narrow path, and easy to stray from, so we must be ever vigilant to stay on it. Still, if someone starts going off, we need not necessary assume that they have joined the heretics on the wide road and are beyond help. Can we not at least approach them as "semi-Orthodox" (Gregory the Theologian, Oration 32, 24), and say to them: "I am persuaded that you are to some extent partakers of Him, so that I will go into the question with you" as a brother (Gregory the Theologian, Oration 41, 7). Gregory said this to those who were unsure of the divinity and equality of the Holy Spirit! Can we not say something similar to those who are struggling against the modern heresies? Is it not telling that, a few months ago, when I used the phrase "royal path" (and included patristic references for my usage of it), a ROACite asked me "Isn't the so-called 'royal' path you spoke of elsewhere the crooked path?" Moderation, for some, is a four letter word.
If there are brothers hanging on by a thread, we have the obligation to pull them back up. "Others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire, hating even the garment spotted by the flesh" (Jude 23) Perhaps, like me, they have mistakenly fallen off the cliff? Then let us help them back up, if they have awoken and realised that they are in danger. We need not give those who are runnin towards the cliff a shove with our condemnation, they will either jump off themselves, or will at the last moment understand their error and fight to keep from going over the cliff. Should we not wait to see if they understand there error, though? some have already ran off the cliff, I am not disputing that; but others--a few others at least--seem to still be holding on and struggling to come up. Cannot we give them a hand?
And what of forgiveness and love which suffers all things (short of corruption of the Church)? Did not Saints Justin and Irenaeus hold to eschatological beliefs that were afterwards (in a somewhat different form) condemned? Did not Gregory of Nyssa follow Origen to some extent into universalism? (even mark of Ephesus pointed this error in Gregory of Nyssa out). Didn't Saint Augustine make mistakes? (to the point that some don't even consider him a saint) Didn't Saint John Chrysostom have a belief concerning the Theotokos different than that of the Church? Someone might judgmentally ask: "couldn't they see the truth? wasn't the faith of the apostles handed to them? how could they stray when the truth was obvious?" Such judgment would not be pleasing to God, however. Yet it is such a judgmental attitude that I see from ROAC documents today. Fr. Seraphim noticed this of certain groups before I was even born, and I think it's true of ROAC themselves: it's not that they are wrong in their points, it's the way that they make their points, and the spirit behind their points. They are right, they are correct, but they are cold and unloving and somewhat self-righteous or at least self-assured (ie. lacking in humility) in their texts. I do not say that I am any more humble, of course.
But what do I say? Let us wait and see what happens. For those who have fallen into heresy and error, let us seperate ourselves and warn our flocks. Yet, for those who are struggling, let us help them, if only at a distance, to climb back up from the cliff they have fallen into. We need not say that this Church or that Jurisdiction has grace; but on the other hand, I don't think we need to necessarily condemn anyone and everyone that even appears to associate with those whom we are sure have fallen into the abyss. I guess the problem I have with ROAC is that they seem to be somewhat to quick to pull the trigger. When I get to judgment day, I don't want God to say to me "Why didn't you do more? Why didn't you go further?" But I also don't want him to say "Why did you push so hard? Who appointed you their judge? If you would have kept your mouth shut more often, and would have let me work, you would have done much better."
I have no problem with the idea that "the Church of God" could be confined to a very small flock, a "little flock" or a "faithful remnant" (especially if these are indeed the last times). I also have no problem with having no ties with world Orthodoxy; I don't see communion with Serbian or JP bishops a necessity for being in the Church (neither did Fr. Georges Florovsky, who was hardly someone that world Orthodoxy could label a sectarian). I am not cautious because I worry about "maintaining ROCOR's Orthodoxy or canonicity" (or some other such worry), but I am cautious because 1) following the tradition of many fathers, I cannot simply condemn entire churches as entirely graceless when I don't know this to be fact (e.g., I won't condemn the east as entirely monothelite and without grace when there very well may be a Maximos the Confessor there); and 2) I won't be the one to make such a decision when the time comes, anyway.
Those who have fallen into heresy will fall off the cliff themselves, they do not need to be shoved off by me. It is enough that I keep back in safety and point out to them, with tears and prayers if I can soften my heart for a second, that they are going towards their (spiritual) death. Is it time for further statements from ROCORs hierarchs? In my fallible, personal opinion: yes, I think it is high time that they, as a synod, speak again (it is apparent--especially in the introduction to the second sorrowful epistle--that Met. Philaret was not speaking for himself, but was speaking for the whole synod, having been "authorized" to write another epistle by them).As for me, I am but a lowly, unlearned, sinful laymen, a new convert. What's more, Seraphim, if you were to become ROAC, you'd have to say that I'm not even in the Orthodox Church yet! So take my opinions cautiously, I'm sure you will find many flaws in this text. But I have shared my views, and I'd be interested in hearing yours.
Justin
[1] cf John Cassian, The Seven Books of John Cassian, 3, 12-14; John of Damascus, Homily on the Transfiguration; Epiphanius of Salamis, Against Pneumatomachi, 3, 74; Council of Chalcedon (4th Ecumenical Council), The Sentence of the Synod; etc.
[2] cf Jerome; cited by Thomas Aquinas, Catena Aurea, Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 16; Gildas, Works, 68 and 109; Triodion, Fifth Week of Lent, Sunday Matins, Canticle Three, Second Canon; Typika Service, The troparion of the Resurrection, Fourth Tone
[3] cf John Chrysostom, Homily 5 Against the Jews, 2, 8; Homilies 21 on Hebrews
