Discussion and criticism of GOC-K & SiR Union

[προσκυνητής]

The 1935 encyclical stated that the grace of the All-Holy Spirit had departed from the schismatics (i.e. the New Calendarist church). The 1950 encyclical stated that the mysteries of the New Calendarists were without sanctifying grace. The 1974 encyclical reiterates that their mysteries are without sanctifying grace.

[Jean-Serge]

Yet more smearing and weasel words from ecclesiastical rivals.

When you produce a document a document in a not very known language, with a translation that is later withdrawn, promising clarification and translation that is not yet there (an independent certified translator that knows this type of Greek could make the job, I am thinking about this option but still need to assess the cost) after one month, when you let a former Cyprianist tell nothing changed, so that up to now nobody knows clearly what is your position, don't expect to be treated with indulgence.

From my Greek informal talks with people who are still in with the synod, the presence of Grace outside the church, world orthodoxy included, is excluded.They conclude this from the talks they had with the bishops, still informal talks. Some that left the synod think that the union is more a political union aimed at growing in size without addressing the proper questions; to do this, the document is long and uses a confusing language that allows anyone to make his own interpretation.

Anyway, the more GOC-K takes time in providing a translation and a clarification, the more it loses in credibility, the more it worries people. We need to know exactly what they believe in and have the right not to be left in confusion. The strategy of silence so that things are forgotten will not work and will backfire; it will be soon asked to GOC when this translation and clarification are expected...

[Jean-Serge]

If I recall, the original 1935 confession of faith said nothing about grace, but only that the new calendarists had fallen under anathema and had separated from the Church; the statement that the State Church had lost grace was apparently (according to V Moss' history, at any rate) only elucidated in an encyclical circulated by the GOC (or one of the GOC bishops) later that year, but I don't believe that holds the same authority. I'm not aware that later ecclesiological statements by the GOC, such as in 1974 or 1986 (date?), said anything about grace, but it would be interesting to know if they did say anything explicit.

Your memory played you a trick... 1935 encyclical does say there is no Grace among the new calendarist schismatics.
http://www.omologitis.org/?page_id=513

[jgress]

If I recall, the original 1935 confession of faith said nothing about grace, but only that the new calendarists had fallen under anathema and had separated from the Church; the statement that the State Church had lost grace was apparently (according to V Moss' history, at any rate) only elucidated in an encyclical circulated by the GOC (or one of the GOC bishops) later that year, but I don't believe that holds the same authority. I'm not aware that later ecclesiological statements by the GOC, such as in 1974 or 1986 (date?), said anything about grace, but it would be interesting to know if they did say anything explicit.

Your memory played you a trick... 1935 encyclical does say there is no Grace among the new calendarist schismatics.
http://www.omologitis.org/?page_id=513

Please read what I wrote more carefully. There were two documents: a confession of faith, which does not mention grace, and then a later encyclical that does. On the old GOC website we had the original 1935 confession in English, but I can only find a Greek version now on this website:

http://www.ekklisiastikos.gr/search/lab ... %B1%201935

I'm not saying you have no right to criticize, but that you should be honest and truthful in your criticism. The problems with the ecclesiological statement are not Cyprianite, since we don't affirm that the World Orthodox are in the Church and possess Grace. Rather, the version that went out says that the World Orthodox are outside the Church and consequently we cannot affirm that they possess Grace. This is completely incompatible with Cyprianism, since they affirmed that the World Orthodox definitely had Grace. Now you and others are saying this is still heretical, since it is heresy to express any uncertainty about the absence of Grace outside the Church, but I am not sure that's true. Is it really a heresy to say there might be Grace outside the Church? Note that might be and is are not the same: the former is simply expressing reservation, the latter is expressing a firm belief that there is Grace outside the Church, which is what the Cyprianites and the Ecumenists believe.

As Fr Enoch pointed out, the Russian Church formally affirmed in several statements in the 19th and early 20th centuries that there was Grace in the Papist church, even while at the same time they affirmed that the Papists were outside the Church. Now I don't believe their position was correct, but if it was heretical, then you have to then, by your own reasoning, say that the entire Russian Church was in heresy, outside the Church and deprived of Grace for all that period. Can you do that? If not, we need to admit that the question of how and when Grace is lost after being separated from the Church is still an open question.

[jgress]

The 1935 encyclical stated that the grace of the All-Holy Spirit had departed from the schismatics (i.e. the New Calendarist church). The 1950 encyclical stated that the mysteries of the New Calendarists were without sanctifying grace. The 1974 encyclical reiterates that their mysteries are without sanctifying grace.

It would be helpful to have the relevant links and quotations. As I said above, I was told that the SiR-GOC dialogue was not concerned with Grace, but only with whether heretics are inside or outside the Church. If heretics are outside the Church, we therefore cannot affirm that they have Grace, but we also don't need to affirm that they do not have Grace, since it is not known how long after expulsion from the Church that mysteriological Grace is lost. I.e. from what I've been taught, it is not a dogma that the boundaries of the Church determine where mysteriological Grace is absent, but only that the visible boundaries of the Church determine where Grace is certainly present, that is, within the Church. But if the GOC has changed its position on this it is important to have the relevant quotations that show this.

[jgress]

Sorry, I think I was wrong about the Cyprianites saying there is definitely Grace outside the Church, since they had always affirmed that the Papists, for example, were outside the Church and without Grace. Their position was rather that the ecumenist Orthodox were still inside the Church and therefore still definitely had Grace, but they agreed with us even then that one could not affirm the presence of Grace outside the true Church.

But now they have adopted our position that heresy automatically expels one from the Church and from that point on one cannot affirm the presence of Grace. But also we both agree, as far as I know, that one cannot necessarily affirm that Grace is definitely lost immediately after expulsion from the Church, only that this is an eventual consequence.

I don't actually know what the criterion is for determining when Grace is lost. For example, every GOC priest or bishop I've talked to about this agrees that the Papists no longer have Grace, but it's not clear when precisely they lost it. My impression, which may be wrong, is that we can tell they do not have Grace by various effects that loss of Grace has, e.g. the Papists have fallen into new heresies, they've abandoned asceticism and become very relaxed in their praxis, they've introduced many innovations in their divine services, etc. That is obviously a consequence of loss of Grace, and loss of Grace is obviously a consequence of separation from the Church, but we don't believe you can put your finger on when loss of Grace occurred.

There seem to be different traditional views in the Russian and Greek churches about Grace and those outside the Church. My impression is the Russians traditionally were more willing to allow that some heterodox groups still had Grace, e.g. the Papists, the Monophysites and some Protestants, even while they affirmed that those groups were outside the Church. The Greeks were stricter and believed separation from the Church automatically and instantly led to loss of Grace. Though even there they weren't totally strict, e.g. all the bishops in Greece adopted the new calendar and so formally fell under anathema, and yet when the three bishops returned to the GOC in 1935, they were received as bishops, i.e. they had apparently not lost Grace even after leaving the Church.

Anyway, it seems this is still an open question, and I think we shouldn't throw around the label of "heretic" at those with whom we disagree on this.

[Jean-Serge]

There seem to be different traditional views in the Russian and Greek churches about Grace and those outside the Church.

This point of making a difference between Russian and Greek views is not very valid because we have the canons of the Apostles and of Saint Basil (Canon 1), both validated by ecumenical councils. At the best, the church of Russia did forget this canons at some time. But Metropolitan Anthony never forgot them because he quotes Saint Basil in his answer to the Anglican Gardiner.

If the new union admits that world orthodoxy is out of the church, and that it has grace, then using the canon of the Apostles, within this same church, those thinking this could be deposed if clergy and excommunicated if laymen... Which does not make sense then.

The reception of the 3 bishops in 1935 does not mean that they had Grace, absolutely not since themselves wrote that New calendar was graceless. It was simply the application of the principle that the church (at the time it was the faithful and priests having kept the new calendar) can receive bishops having a mechanic apostolical succession in their ranks simply with a confession of faith.

Anyway, it is obvious that anyone can understand the document in any way. So my big question is when is clarification going to be made? What is the opinion of the bishops and synod on the topic? Why is there no translation? What is the Aganthangelite official ecclesiological position? Did all Russian bishops signed the document? How could they discuss the paper in Romanian, in Russian since those translations were withdrawn and it seems, not entirely correct? For the moment, these are questions, but time and silence only adds to suspicion. So they had better hurry up...because the silence strengthens the critics, increases the questioning and suspicions and in fact weakens the church. If they have real concerns for the souls, they should provide a quick clarification of these matters.