About the establishment of “MP ROCOR(A)”

[Suaidan]

Did ROCOR-A actually make MP parishes under the ROCOR-A? The clarification states clearly "The priests that we accepted and will accept henceforth from that church entity, which continues to contain that heresy, sever all relations with their former church superiors and recognize the ROCA Synod of Bishops to be the sole canonical administrative entity in the Russian Church. Any other legitimate Church Administration can be established only by a higher church entity. In this case, it is a Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, which has not been convened since 1918. We do not intend to nor are we capable of establishing administrative entities either for the Catacomb Church or the Moscow Patriarchia, as we do not have the authority of a Local Council of the Russian Church. Similarly, we cannot recognize as canonical any other administrative entities that arose of their own accord within the Russian Church."

Maybe this is an attempt to keep the buildings?

[jgress]

When St Maximos the Confessor announced his severance of communion with the Monothelete hierarchs, I don't recall him discussing whether or not they had sacramental grace, since that wasn't the point. The point is that they were heretics.

"They have repeatedly excommunicated themselves from the Church and are completely unstable in the faith. Additionally, they have been cut off and stripped of the priesthood by the local council held in Rome. What Mysteries, then, can they perform? Or what spirit descends on those whom they ordain?" (St. Maximos the Confessor, concerning the Monothelite heretics)

When the anathema against ecumenism was written, St. Philaret and other traditional bishops had already warned the Patriarchates about their ecumenism, and told them that it was a path away from the Church. They did the same regarding the Moscow Patriarchate, repeatedly making appeals to the Patriarchates demanding that they cease having ecclesiastical relations with them. The anathema against ecumenism was a desperate last resort, which heaped onto the conscience of those dividing the flock of Christ with shameless heresy and schism the dreadful threat of anathema if they should fail to repent.

It is important for World Orthodox to recognize that this has happened, otherwise they might fall into the trap of "fighting from within", thinking that their church is wrong, but at least there is grace there.

In the ROAC Sobor of 2008, there is recorded this little gem from Archbishop Hilarion of Smeli, concerning Grace acting in the World Orthodox Churches:
"In these church-like associations, just as among all of mankind in general, there is at work only the general grace of God which calls all men to salvation. This grace first calls them to return to a more sober and God-centered life, and then unavoidably forces them to critically re-evaluate the experience of their artificial church life outside of the Church and return from heresy and schism to the true faith. They are aided in this by those liturgical traditions of the Orthodox Church that they still manage to hold onto in ‘world Orthodoxy’ – the services, venerating icons and relics, and hearing the words of the Gospel."

Thanks. I guess I was wrong about St Maximos!

[Mark Templet]

I do want to be clear, I don't lead off my conversations with these folks by calling them graceless heretics either. I too promote speaking the truth in love.

I think it beneficial to bring up Saint Maximos. He stood firm against heretics. His leniency and non-judgmental stance was taken toward the Orthodox who were trying to find a way to quell the struggle. He cut himself off from communion with the Orthodox who were trying to find some means of compromise with the heretics. He would not condemn the Orthodox, yet he would not participate in their moves to reunite with heretics even tacitly. However, he outright, black and white, called a spade a spade.

We are talking about an MP pseudo-church that prays with Roman Catholic heretics (even attending their ordinations), participates in the WCC, and has never confessed the sin of sergianism. Instead it is a tool of the Russian government to stir nationalism and obedience to the state. The genesis of these things is not to advance the Light of Christ, but the exploits of men gaining power and money. The fact that they intentionally maintain an outward appearance of the Orthodox Church should only add to their shame. The canons are crystal clear on these matters: those who maintain communion with those who are anathematized fall under the same. There is no need to re-anathematize anything.

Indeed, those who maintain the Cyprianite stance (or any variation thereof) are correct to cut themselves off from communion with the World Orthodox. What I cannot understand is how they can do so without some conviction that the WO are no longer the grace-filled Church. If the WO have fallen under the anathema of those in the WCC and RC whom the would rather pray with than listen to us, then why is there still head-scratching about whether they have grace or not? THEY HAVE ANATHEMATIZED THEMSELVES!

[jgress]

I know the MP used to pray with the RC, but I thought they had stopped doing that. Are there any instances of this still going on?

[Priest Siluan]

I know the MP used to pray with the RC, but I thought they had stopped doing that. Are there any instances of this still going on?

They are in "official intercommunion" since 1960, and they never revoked such a position. In many place of Western Europa concelebration still go on...

[Cyprian]

So, I am not dogmatic about grace in the MP or even the new calendar churches. I recognize that the Old Calendar church anathematized the NC Church, but it was a local decision only, and I don't support the Matthewite position that our church's decision is now dogma. It also means I don't support the Cyprianite position that our church had no authority to make that decision. For the MP question, I recognize that the Catacomb Church allegedly anathematized it back in the 1930s (though evidence for this decision is sketchy), and I also recognize that the MP, and other WO churches, have fallen under the 1983 anathema against ecumenism by virtue of their WCC membership and certain agreements signed by their official representatives. Again, though, I will not insist that their gracelessness is somehow a dogma of the Church. That is why I joined the jurisdiction I did.

Greetings Jonathan,

A letter by your metropolitan to hieromonk Akakios of Serbia was posted in another thread on this site just recently. Met. Pavlos states in his letter:

Our God is a God of order and this inspired prescription aims at the orderly and peaceful restoration of a local episcopate, avoiding the blameworthy extremes of disorder, strife, and schism. It was in this spirit that our Church, looking forward to the eventual restoration of the Serbian episcopate, took up the provisional administration of the Church of Serbia after its hierarchy abandoned its calling and joined itself to the apostasy of the panheresy of ecumenism.

Your metropolitan makes it clear that he believes the entire Serbian episcopate has fallen, and is in need of restoration! He states unequivocally that the hierarchy of the Church of Serbia "abandoned its calling and joined itself to the apostasy of the panheresy of ecumenism."

How patently absurd it would be one the one hand, to accept the judgments of your metropolitan regarding the state of the Church of Serbia, and on the other hand to claim that it is in the least bit acceptable to believe in the possibility that they still are grace-bearing hierarchs of the Church of Christ.

If you agree with the assessment made by your own metropolitan regarding the state of the Church of Serbia, there exists no possibility of grace. Not according to ORTHODOX ecclesiology.

Why does your church refer to itself as the "Genuine" Greek Orthodox Church of America, unless of course, your hierarchs believe there exists a "pseudo"-Greek church of America?

If your church is the "Genuine" Greek Orthodox Church in America, which church by implication is the false one? How can a "false" or "pseudo" church be the body of Christ? Is it possible?

Cyprian

[jgress]

In our own statement on ecclesiology that can be found on our website, we state that we uphold the original decision against the New Calendarists, but at the same time we do not throw the label heretic at anyone who privately believes the decision may have been mistaken. If we did that we would tear ourselves apart. Those in our church who believe the NC still have grace do not use that as a pretext to break from the rest, like the Cyprianites, and those who believe they don't have grace do not use that as a pretext to break from those who do, like the Matthewites.