Consistant position?

[Savva24]

[Justin Kissel]

Seraphim? I don't expect an essay, but something... anything... would be nice

[Seraphim Reeves]

I think we are (all of us here) so heavily conditioned by the (false) liberality of our culture, that it is very difficult for us to evaluate whether anyone is being too severe or not, even when we recognize our infirmity in this regard (being so heavily conditioned.)

You yourself have voiced your belief that the Antiochians have severed themselves from the Truth. That being such, what do you make of the JP and Serbia being in communion with a graceless, un-Orthodox body? In fact, what's worse, is they're probably far more open and straightforward about their relationship with Antioch than they are with ROCOR (ROCOR being, it seems, their dirty, unofficial little secret.)

Things have changed.

Seraphim

[Justin Kissel]

seraphim

I don't know what to make of it I think there's a difference between cutting off communion yourself because of your own beliefs, and insisting that everyone do the same as you. Again, I hate to bring up the same example, but Athanasius and Rome rejected Meletios of Antioch--partly for theological reasons (they didn't trust his orthodoxy and still believed him to be Arian), and partly for canonical reasons (they didn't believe he was the legit Patriarch, having been put in place by Arians)--yet the Cappadocians and most of the East accepted Meletios, and thought him an important contributor to the Nicene cause (which was quite weak at that time, as far as visible representation goes). So, were the Cappadocians schismatics or heretics in the eyes of Rome and Athanasius for maintaining communion with Meletios? Are the Cappadocians schismatics or heretics in our eyes? It's not all so black and white as we like to make it sometimes.

Certainly I can't any longer look at the Serbian Church in the same way--and definately not the JP. Yet, I'm not sure that now is the time to let go of them (as they try to pull away from us and move towards world Orthodoxy, even if saying that they are trying to keep a balance). I, personally, am willing to wait a little while longer to see what happens. Or, at the very least, I am not willing at this particular moment to go against what my bishops and what my spiritual father believes and tell them that they are wrong, that they must cut ties with this group or that group. That is not my place--at this point, it's not even really my place to offer my opinion as though it has some merit. If I enter into these types of discussions at all, it should be to get information, not to present a view and defend it's legitimacy.

[Justin Kissel]

After further reflection, I withdraw my use of the Meletios/Athanasius/Cappadocian example.

[Seraphim Reeves]

Certainly I can't any longer look at the Serbian Church in the same way--and definately not the JP. Yet, I'm not sure that now is the time to let go of them (as they try to pull away from us and move towards world Orthodoxy, even if saying that they are trying to keep a balance). I, personally, am willing to wait a little while longer to see what happens.

I think the biggest hurdle, can be the whole "grace" issue. Upon further reflection, however, I'm no longer as troubled by this as I once was.

Only the Church can bestow Life upon souls (with the understanding that it is God Who acts in the Church - the Church in Her humanity can do nothing on it's own.) Thus, when a person (or entire region) lapses and falls into heresy, they cleave themselves from the Church (and eventually, will be named as exiles by those heirarchs confessing the Truth.)

I know one sticking point for you has been the question of those unfortunate, sincere, and obstensibly quite Orthodox monks, priests, laymen, etc., say within the juristiction of Patriarch Pavle, who do not accept ecumenism, and are fighting against the Serbian Patriarch's involvement in the ecumenical movement. It is a harsh thing to say these people have become "graceless."

However, the truth is that the Church Herself has established guidelines (canons) on what Orthodox confessors should do in regard to erring heirarchs and those who follow them, or by extension, those who may not personally hold to their errors, but who refuse to cut off communion with these heretics. They are to be avoided, communion with them is to cease, and if that happens, then there is at least the formal acknowledgement that one no longer regards them as being co-religionists. Unless one believes they themselves are in error, then the only conclusion is to say that those who have placed themselves on the other side of the ideological fence are outside of the Church.

These are pragmatic, canonical considerations - if it looks like a duck, sounds and walks like a duck, the canons basically state (from what I've been able to gather) that they are to be regarded as a duck.

NOW, this is a different question then, perhaps, whether there is some possibility that they may have "real mysteries." Who knows what God may do. But such speculation is in most respects not relevent, since you already have a set course of action being dictated to you; seperation from erring heirarchs, and other perverters of truth, and (rather bitterly) seperation from those who maintain relations with them.

There is a very, very real danger in trying to create a "mushy middle ground" on this issue. I'll give perhaps a more radical (and more libertine) example - the issue of undoubtedly non-Orthodox (or even non-Christian) people.

Many people, out of a sense of pity and love for say, Roman Catholics, Protestants, or even further off groups like Jews, Muslims, etc., want to create a "back door" for them. The ecumenists do this with RC's and Protestants (though some of the more out to lunch ones do this even with infidels and pagans) quite a bit, essentially refering to them as sister Churches which, at worst, are "semi-grace filled." The result of such a position? No zeal to shake them from their errors, no zeal to bring all men into the bosom of the Church. Why? Because an unjustified presumption has occured - a presumptuous generalization about the state of a non-Orthodox religion which we had no business involving ourselves in.

Is this to say that hypothetically there are those not formally in the Church who will somehow find their way to salvation in ways we are not aware of? Perhaps. Perhaps not. That is not for us to know - if it does happen, God certainly has given us zero knowledge of it. Thus, the only licit course of action is to make the safe, and most likely assumption (the one laid out by the canons and by the Fathers, and demanded by the Church's ecclessiological doctrine) - outside of the visible boundaries of the Orthodox Church, there is no Grace. If all we know is that the Church is the Ark of Salvation and that the world has been labouring under demoic oppression since Adam, then any other assumption is simply presumption.

This truth, which I'm sure you wouldn't dispute in regard to say, Roman Catholics or Protestants, is essentially the same in regard to New Calendarists and "world Orthodoxy" in general. The New Calendar falls under all sorts of anathemas which are very strongly worded. Ditto for the ecclessiological heresies, and canonical violations being committed in the name of "ecumenism". If those anathemas have any force at all, then it has to be recognized that these people have fallen under the condemnation of their forefathers, and are cut off from the Church. Since the Church Herself is the Temple of God, then one cannot attribute His Presence to these schismatic temples without assuming what is totally beyond your knowledge.

I will agree with you, that there is a "sifting out" process at work here - it does take time for people to clearly size up who is who, who is saying what, etc., and only then (once these facts have been assimilated) can anyone do anything reasonably. However, pointing to historical precedents in this regard, I think, can be a little misleading. While it's true that the drift between the Latin-westerners and the Church did involve this kind of sifting, it's a big mistake to equate that situation (which took decades, if not centuries of on and off quarrels) with our own. Why?

Simply put, because we don't live in the age of people receiving hand written scrolls carried by horses over hundreds of miles. We live in an age where communication across continents is effortless, where one can physically place themselves at the other side of the earth in a matter of days (or potentially even less if they are so privileged), and where official ecclessiastical documents are available for everyone to read and digest. Thus, to equate the two situations too much, creates false hope.

Seraphim