"Orthodox Christians Facing the 1980s"
Excerpts from a lecture given by Fr. Seraphim Rose
at the St. Herman Summer Pilgrimage, Platina, CA, August 9, 1979.
Looking at Orthodoxy, at its present state and its prospects in the period before us, we may see two opposed aspects. First of all, there is the spirit of worldliness which is so present in the Orthodox Churches today, leading to a watering-down of Orthodoxy, a loss of the difference between Orthodoxy and heterodoxy. This worldliness has produced the Ecumenical movement, which is leading to the approaching Unia with Rome and the Western confessions—something that may well occur in the 1980s. In itself, this will probably not be a spectacular event: most Orthodox people have become so unaware of their faith, and so indifferent to it, that they will only welcome the opportunity to receive communion in a Roman or Anglican church. This spirit of worldliness is what is in the air and seems natural today; it is the religious equivalent of the atheist-agnostic atmosphere that prevails in the world.
What should be our response to this worldly ecumenical movement? Fortunately, our bishops of the Russian Church Outside of Russia have given us a sound policy to follow: we do not participate in the Ecumenical Movement, and our Metropolitan [Philaret] has warned other Orthodox Christians of the disastrous results of their ecumenical course if they continue; but at the same time our bishops have refused to cut off all contact and communion with Orthodox Churches involved in the Ecumenical Movement, recognizing that it is still a tendency that has not yet come to its conclusion (the Unia with Rome) and that (at least in the case of the Moscow Patriarchate and other churches behind the Iron Curtain) it is a political policy forced upon the Church by secular authorities. But because of this policy, our Church suffers attacks both from the left side (from ecumenists who accuse us of being uncharitable, behind the times,and the like) and from the right side (by groups in Greece that demand that we break communion with all Orthodox Churches and declare them to be without grace).
Indeed, if one looks at the state of the Orthodox Church in Greece, we can see that the Ecumenical Movement has produced a reaction that has often become excessive, and sometimes is almost as bad as the disease it seeks to cure. The more moderate of the Old Calendarist groups in Greece has a position similar to that of our Russian Church Abroad; but schism after schism has occurred among the Old Calendarists over the question of strictness. A few years ago one of these groups cut off communion with our Russian Church Abroad because our bishops refused to declare that all other Orthodox Churches are without grace; this group now declares that it alone has grace, only it is Orthodox. Recently this group has attracted some converts from our Russian Church Abroad, and we should be aware that this attitude is a danger to some of our American and European converts: with our calculating, rationalistic minds it is very easy to think we are being zealous and strict, when actually we are chiefly indulging our passion for self-righteousness.
One Old Calendarist bishop in Greece has written to us that incalculable harm has been done to the Orthodox Church in Greece by what he calls the correctness disease, when people quote canons, Fathers, the typicon in order to prove they are correct and everyone else is wrong. Correctness can truly become a disease when it is administered without love and tolerance and awareness of ones own imperfect understanding. Such a correctness only produces continual schisms, and in the end only helps the Ecumenical Movement by reducing the witness of sound Orthodoxy.
Conspicuous among Orthodox today—certain to be with us into the 1980s—is the worldly spirit by which Orthodoxy is losing its savor, expressed in the Ecumenical Movement, together with the reaction against it, which is often excessive precisely because the same worldly spirit is present in it.
There will undoubtedly be an increasing number of Orthodox converts in America and Europe in the coming decade, and we must strive that our missionary witness to them will help to produce, not cold, calculating, correct experts in the letter of the law, but warm, loving, simple Christians—at least as far as our haughty Western temperament will allow.
Once Fr. Dimitri [Dudko] was asked about how much better off religion was in the free world than in Russia, and he answered: Yes, they have freedom and many churches, but theirs is a spirituality with comfort. We in Russia have a different path, a path of suffering that can produce real fruit.
We should remember this phrase when we look at our own feeble Orthodoxy in the free world: are we content to have beautiful churches and chanting; do we perhaps boast that we keep the fasts and the church calendar, have good icons and congregational singing, that we give to the poor and perhaps tithe to the Church? Do we delight in exalted patristic teachings and theological conferences without having the simplicity of Christ in our hearts? Then ours is a spirituality with comfort, and we will not have the spiritual fruits that will be exhibited by those without all these comforts, who deeply suffer and struggle for Christ. In this sense we should take our tone from the suffering Church in Russia and place the externals of the Churchs worship in their proper place.
Our most important task, perhaps, is the Christian enlightenment of ourselves and others. We must go deeper into our faith—not by studying the canons of Ecumenical Councils or the typicon (although they also have their place), but by knowing how God acts in our lives; by reading the lives of God-pleasers in the Old and New Testaments (we read the Old Testament far too little; it is very instructive); by reading the lives of Saints and the writings of the Holy Fathers on practical spiritual life; by reading about the suffering of Christians today and in recent years. In all of this learning our eyes must be on heaven above, the goal we strive for, not on the problems and disasters of earth below.
Our Christian life and learning must be such that it will enable us to know the true Christ and to recognize the false Christ (Antichrist) when he comes. It is not theoretical knowledge or correctness that will give this knowledge to us. Vladimir Soloviev in his parable of Antichrist has a valuable insight when he notes that Antichrist will build a museum of all possible Byzantine antiquities for the Orthodox, if only they accept him. So, too, mere correctness in Orthodoxy without a loving Christian heart will not be able to resist Antichrist; one will recognize him and be firm to stand against him chiefly by the heart and not the head. We must develop in ourselves the right Christian feelings and instincts, and put off all fascination with the spiritual comforts of the Orthodox way of life, or else we will be—as one discerning observer of present-day converts has observed—Orthodox but not Christian.
Concerning Super-Correctness
Concerning Super Correctness
A Word of Warning to the Orthodox Christians of the West
By Bishop [now Metropolitan] Cyprian of Oropos and Fili
For over fifty years [as of 1976] the Orthodox Old Calendarists of Greece have fought a courageous battle, in the face of sometimes fierce persecution, for the preservation of genuine Orthodoxy against modernism and ecumenism. Unfortunately, their witness has to some extent been undermined by the presence among them of extreme views which have caused unnecessary schisms. In the end, this extremism has only aided the cause of modernism, which rejoices at every division among those of traditional views. This "temptation from the right side" is now making itself felt in America and the Western world in the form of new schisms, over hasty accusations of "heresy" and "betrayal", and the spread of the spirit of suspicion towards everyone not of one's own "party". The present warning, in the form of a letter to Saint Herman Brotherhood from one of the most respected leaders of the Old-Calendarist movement in Greece, is a most timely one. Bishop Cyprian is also Abbot of the Monastery of Sts. Cyprian and Justina in Fili, near Athens.
YOU HAVE WRITTEN asking me to put together a few words describing the dangers of the temptation of a "super-correctness" in questions of Orthodox faith and practice, and the damage it has caused to the Greek Church in our days. This you would like as a warning to those in America who are troubled by this same temptation, and you would like them to benefit from our experience here. Very gladly, therefore, we will attempt to do this, emphasizing from the beginning that we have no wish to criticize persons, but rather the mentality of extremism, the danger of temptation "from the right."
We must begin with a few words on our confession of faith: the Orthodox Church is deeply wounded by the heresy of ecumenism, the betrayal of the hierarchy in some communist lands, the abandonment of every vestige of Orthodox piety in some parts of the Diaspora. We have no doubt that the leaders of the ecumenical movement, in fully equating Orthodoxy with heresy, have fallen away from the Church. With such, and those who commune with them, we can have no communion at all, nor can we regard them any longer as Orthodox, but wolves, all too often in the sheep's clothing of Patriarch's and bishops. Every witness of the Fathers confirms that economy in matters of heresy constitutes betrayal. We regard the new calendar as the first step in the ecumenical movement, and thus can have no communion with new calendarists.
From the above, two questions arise: firstly, have all those with whom we have severed communion fallen into heresy, and placed themselves outside the Church? Secondly, if they have not, what justification do we have in cutting off prayerful relations with them? Both these questions require much thought. Insofar as the ecumenists are concerned, one can discern three categories:
(1) Those who wholly equate Orthodoxy with heresy, and thus voluntarily place themselves outside the Church in some sort of vague "superchurch."
(2) Those who, while they in no way negate their Orthodoxy, nonetheless take part in joint prayer with heretics in transgression of the canons. We may perhaps call them anti-canonical rather than openly heretical.
(3) Those who, while they disagree to a greater or lesser extent with ecumenism, commune with the ecumenists, perhaps considering that they do so using economy.
We, pursuing the purity of the faith, can have no communion of prayer with the clergy who belong to these categories. But the vexed questions are: how are we to treat their flock? What degree of economy is permissible in our dealings with them? Which of the above clergy have definitely lost the grace of the priesthood through their apostasy? It is much the same questions, so far as we know, which wracked the Catacomb Church in Russia in its early years (and perhaps now), and it is disputes over these questions which have caused the greatest troubles amongst the Old-Calendarists of Greece.
These troubles we will summarize very briefly: in 1935, three bishops of the new calendar Church of Greece returned to the observance of the old calendar, and immediately consecrated four new bishops. The subsequent history of these does not concern us here, except for one; he, Bishop Matthew, a man of great personal virtues but extremist temperament, in 1937 separated himself from the other hierarchs, forming a schism which exists to the present day. The reason for his action was that the senior bishop, Metropolitan Chrysostomos, was asked in an interview if he considered that the State Church had lost the Grace of the Sacraments in accepting the calendar innovation. He replied no, only a future council could condemn the new-calendarists as definitely outside the Church; what we know is that they are seriously guilty before the Church, its canons and traditions, and therefore we can have no communion with them until such time as they return to the traditions and discipline of the Church. This truly Orthodox ecclesiology, which can be paralleled particularly in St. Theodore the Studite, met with incomprehension on both sides. Both the new-calendarists and a section of the old-calendarists condemned him as illogical: if they have grace, what justification exists for separation from them? As noted above, one of the newly-consecrated bishops departed and formed a schism which exists to the present day. We can only see this as a fruit of the mentality of over-correctness,"of a neglect of the economy which the Church requires to use for the salvation of souls. The damage caused to the Greek Church is immeasurable, for had this division not occurred, the State Church of Greece would long have been obliged to return to the old calendar.
We can cite other examples of this "overcorrectness" from our own experience. A fearful example is the following: A few years ago a woman, unfortunately a nun, reading through the works of St. Nectarios, the great wonderworker of our times, came across a few passages which she considered as not in accord with Orthodox teaching. A discerning mind would see in these passages the influence primarily of the westernized theological training which the Saint received, and of the historian Paparigopoulos (from whose book the passages are taken almost directly), and certainly no intentional contradiction of Orthodox teaching. The unfortunate nun, however, proceeded to write three books denouncing St. Nectarios as a "heretic, iconoclast, ecumenist, and Latin." Simple people were influenced, many souls were wounded and scandalized. This fanatical mentality, as so often, had seized a detail while ignoring the whole—the exemplary and holy life of St. Nectarios and his innumerable miracles.
Another example is provided for us by a group of persons who have severed all communion with all the Orthodox in Greece because the hierarchs will not officially condemn as heretical the western-style icon of the Holy Trinity (with God the Father represented as an old man, and the Holy Spirit as a dove). Neglecting everything else, they have seized on this detail, and have been led into schism. Their struggle for the removal of this iconic type has become an obsession, a prelest.
We should, however, in fairness point out that these disputes have often been made much worse by the opponents taking an equally fanatical position. Discretion is needed on both sides. It is also true that extremism amongst the old-calendarists has been fostered by the savage persecutions which the State Church has launched from time to time.
One of the most disastrous examples of the phenomenon of which we are speaking is the disputes between the zealots of the Holy Mountain. Many, to be sure, are clearminded and sure of their purpose, but others waste so much time in useless disputes. In one and the same skete, one can find in each house a different ecclesiology, a different mentality, and not one in communion with their neighbors. They have seized on details, and all too often, in their lack of theological education, have seized on them quite incorrectly. Often their opinions are rational, but taken to extremes; others, however, become very strange; one group believes that the name of Jesus shares in His Divinity, and that all who do not so believe are heretics; another, that those who practice frequent Holy Communion are heretics and excommunicate; another has reached the old-believer position that the grace of the priesthood has vanished from the Church; and so forth. We must emphasize again that we have no wish to criticize persons; many have a holiness which we never dare hope to attain. We only criticize that mentality which leads to division and schism.
Now, to return to the questions mentioned at the beginning, we would like to relate something which we observed recently. A few months ago I visited Romania, and in one of the celebrated historical monasteries (belonging, naturally, to the official Church of Romania), was very kindly received by the Abbot, a man of evident spiritual qualities and considerable education. He began to speak enthusiastically about the ecumenical movement and the reunion of the "churches." To this I replied with such words as God enlightened me with, and I observed from his reaction that he had never before heard a point of view opposed to ecumenism. After the meeting, he told the Romanian bishop who was accompanying us that he had been much edified by the conversation. This gave me occasion for thought: it would be easy to condemn him immediately as an ecumenist and a heretic. But this was not the case; despite his education, he had never given the matter deep thought (though certainly he should have done so), he had never heard any criticism of ecumenism, it had never occurred to him that it was a denial of Orthodoxy. To place him in the same category as, let us say, Meliton of Chalcedon, would be quite unjust. Perhaps it would be fair to use the same criteria to judge the faithful in the Soviet Union, who, with few exceptions, are obliged to have recourse to the Moscow Patriarchate, or the many faithful in outlying parts of Greece who have no conception of the calendar question. For every category we must use discretion; it is impossible in all cases to apply the same strictness, while on the other hand, we must remember that economy used as a measure in itself becomes an abuse, and that in matters of real heresy there can be no use of economy.
In conclusion, we would say that the error of "over-correctness" is a form of prelest, and like the other forms, this means a blindness, an obsession. The Fathers say that prelest begins with self-reliance, and so it is: whilst pursuing some probably very laudable particular end, the general picture becomes forgotten, there sets in a hardening of mind and heart which results in dispute and fanaticism. The history of the Church provides us with many examples, and most obviously, the old believers of Russia.
We hope that these few words may help your American readers in the understanding of the mature Orthodoxy which your publications always seek to put forth.
From The Orthodox Word, July-August 1980 (93), 164ff.
source: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/rose_tours.aspx
A Word of Warning to the Orthodox Christians of the West
By Bishop [now Metropolitan] Cyprian of Oropos and Fili
For over fifty years [as of 1976] the Orthodox Old Calendarists of Greece have fought a courageous battle, in the face of sometimes fierce persecution, for the preservation of genuine Orthodoxy against modernism and ecumenism. Unfortunately, their witness has to some extent been undermined by the presence among them of extreme views which have caused unnecessary schisms. In the end, this extremism has only aided the cause of modernism, which rejoices at every division among those of traditional views. This "temptation from the right side" is now making itself felt in America and the Western world in the form of new schisms, over hasty accusations of "heresy" and "betrayal", and the spread of the spirit of suspicion towards everyone not of one's own "party". The present warning, in the form of a letter to Saint Herman Brotherhood from one of the most respected leaders of the Old-Calendarist movement in Greece, is a most timely one. Bishop Cyprian is also Abbot of the Monastery of Sts. Cyprian and Justina in Fili, near Athens.
YOU HAVE WRITTEN asking me to put together a few words describing the dangers of the temptation of a "super-correctness" in questions of Orthodox faith and practice, and the damage it has caused to the Greek Church in our days. This you would like as a warning to those in America who are troubled by this same temptation, and you would like them to benefit from our experience here. Very gladly, therefore, we will attempt to do this, emphasizing from the beginning that we have no wish to criticize persons, but rather the mentality of extremism, the danger of temptation "from the right."
We must begin with a few words on our confession of faith: the Orthodox Church is deeply wounded by the heresy of ecumenism, the betrayal of the hierarchy in some communist lands, the abandonment of every vestige of Orthodox piety in some parts of the Diaspora. We have no doubt that the leaders of the ecumenical movement, in fully equating Orthodoxy with heresy, have fallen away from the Church. With such, and those who commune with them, we can have no communion at all, nor can we regard them any longer as Orthodox, but wolves, all too often in the sheep's clothing of Patriarch's and bishops. Every witness of the Fathers confirms that economy in matters of heresy constitutes betrayal. We regard the new calendar as the first step in the ecumenical movement, and thus can have no communion with new calendarists.
From the above, two questions arise: firstly, have all those with whom we have severed communion fallen into heresy, and placed themselves outside the Church? Secondly, if they have not, what justification do we have in cutting off prayerful relations with them? Both these questions require much thought. Insofar as the ecumenists are concerned, one can discern three categories:
(1) Those who wholly equate Orthodoxy with heresy, and thus voluntarily place themselves outside the Church in some sort of vague "superchurch."
(2) Those who, while they in no way negate their Orthodoxy, nonetheless take part in joint prayer with heretics in transgression of the canons. We may perhaps call them anti-canonical rather than openly heretical.
(3) Those who, while they disagree to a greater or lesser extent with ecumenism, commune with the ecumenists, perhaps considering that they do so using economy.
We, pursuing the purity of the faith, can have no communion of prayer with the clergy who belong to these categories. But the vexed questions are: how are we to treat their flock? What degree of economy is permissible in our dealings with them? Which of the above clergy have definitely lost the grace of the priesthood through their apostasy? It is much the same questions, so far as we know, which wracked the Catacomb Church in Russia in its early years (and perhaps now), and it is disputes over these questions which have caused the greatest troubles amongst the Old-Calendarists of Greece.
These troubles we will summarize very briefly: in 1935, three bishops of the new calendar Church of Greece returned to the observance of the old calendar, and immediately consecrated four new bishops. The subsequent history of these does not concern us here, except for one; he, Bishop Matthew, a man of great personal virtues but extremist temperament, in 1937 separated himself from the other hierarchs, forming a schism which exists to the present day. The reason for his action was that the senior bishop, Metropolitan Chrysostomos, was asked in an interview if he considered that the State Church had lost the Grace of the Sacraments in accepting the calendar innovation. He replied no, only a future council could condemn the new-calendarists as definitely outside the Church; what we know is that they are seriously guilty before the Church, its canons and traditions, and therefore we can have no communion with them until such time as they return to the traditions and discipline of the Church. This truly Orthodox ecclesiology, which can be paralleled particularly in St. Theodore the Studite, met with incomprehension on both sides. Both the new-calendarists and a section of the old-calendarists condemned him as illogical: if they have grace, what justification exists for separation from them? As noted above, one of the newly-consecrated bishops departed and formed a schism which exists to the present day. We can only see this as a fruit of the mentality of over-correctness,"of a neglect of the economy which the Church requires to use for the salvation of souls. The damage caused to the Greek Church is immeasurable, for had this division not occurred, the State Church of Greece would long have been obliged to return to the old calendar.
We can cite other examples of this "overcorrectness" from our own experience. A fearful example is the following: A few years ago a woman, unfortunately a nun, reading through the works of St. Nectarios, the great wonderworker of our times, came across a few passages which she considered as not in accord with Orthodox teaching. A discerning mind would see in these passages the influence primarily of the westernized theological training which the Saint received, and of the historian Paparigopoulos (from whose book the passages are taken almost directly), and certainly no intentional contradiction of Orthodox teaching. The unfortunate nun, however, proceeded to write three books denouncing St. Nectarios as a "heretic, iconoclast, ecumenist, and Latin." Simple people were influenced, many souls were wounded and scandalized. This fanatical mentality, as so often, had seized a detail while ignoring the whole—the exemplary and holy life of St. Nectarios and his innumerable miracles.
Another example is provided for us by a group of persons who have severed all communion with all the Orthodox in Greece because the hierarchs will not officially condemn as heretical the western-style icon of the Holy Trinity (with God the Father represented as an old man, and the Holy Spirit as a dove). Neglecting everything else, they have seized on this detail, and have been led into schism. Their struggle for the removal of this iconic type has become an obsession, a prelest.
We should, however, in fairness point out that these disputes have often been made much worse by the opponents taking an equally fanatical position. Discretion is needed on both sides. It is also true that extremism amongst the old-calendarists has been fostered by the savage persecutions which the State Church has launched from time to time.
One of the most disastrous examples of the phenomenon of which we are speaking is the disputes between the zealots of the Holy Mountain. Many, to be sure, are clearminded and sure of their purpose, but others waste so much time in useless disputes. In one and the same skete, one can find in each house a different ecclesiology, a different mentality, and not one in communion with their neighbors. They have seized on details, and all too often, in their lack of theological education, have seized on them quite incorrectly. Often their opinions are rational, but taken to extremes; others, however, become very strange; one group believes that the name of Jesus shares in His Divinity, and that all who do not so believe are heretics; another, that those who practice frequent Holy Communion are heretics and excommunicate; another has reached the old-believer position that the grace of the priesthood has vanished from the Church; and so forth. We must emphasize again that we have no wish to criticize persons; many have a holiness which we never dare hope to attain. We only criticize that mentality which leads to division and schism.
Now, to return to the questions mentioned at the beginning, we would like to relate something which we observed recently. A few months ago I visited Romania, and in one of the celebrated historical monasteries (belonging, naturally, to the official Church of Romania), was very kindly received by the Abbot, a man of evident spiritual qualities and considerable education. He began to speak enthusiastically about the ecumenical movement and the reunion of the "churches." To this I replied with such words as God enlightened me with, and I observed from his reaction that he had never before heard a point of view opposed to ecumenism. After the meeting, he told the Romanian bishop who was accompanying us that he had been much edified by the conversation. This gave me occasion for thought: it would be easy to condemn him immediately as an ecumenist and a heretic. But this was not the case; despite his education, he had never given the matter deep thought (though certainly he should have done so), he had never heard any criticism of ecumenism, it had never occurred to him that it was a denial of Orthodoxy. To place him in the same category as, let us say, Meliton of Chalcedon, would be quite unjust. Perhaps it would be fair to use the same criteria to judge the faithful in the Soviet Union, who, with few exceptions, are obliged to have recourse to the Moscow Patriarchate, or the many faithful in outlying parts of Greece who have no conception of the calendar question. For every category we must use discretion; it is impossible in all cases to apply the same strictness, while on the other hand, we must remember that economy used as a measure in itself becomes an abuse, and that in matters of real heresy there can be no use of economy.
In conclusion, we would say that the error of "over-correctness" is a form of prelest, and like the other forms, this means a blindness, an obsession. The Fathers say that prelest begins with self-reliance, and so it is: whilst pursuing some probably very laudable particular end, the general picture becomes forgotten, there sets in a hardening of mind and heart which results in dispute and fanaticism. The history of the Church provides us with many examples, and most obviously, the old believers of Russia.
We hope that these few words may help your American readers in the understanding of the mature Orthodoxy which your publications always seek to put forth.
From The Orthodox Word, July-August 1980 (93), 164ff.
source: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/rose_tours.aspx
Is MP Sick Or Graceless?
ABOUT THE SPIRITUAL AND MORAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH OUTSIDE OF RUSSIA
by Saint John of Shanghai and San Francisco
All the parts of the universal Church have one common goal -- the preaching of the word of God, the preparation of people that they might become capable of being members of the Body of Christ and having become such, more and more, more sincerely and strongly would become one with the divine salvific life of the Body of Christ, for in that is the salvation of people.
In the achievement of this common goal every local Church has its significance.
To every people, through God's providence, unique gifts are given.
Every Church fulfills its mission, in keeping with these gifts. For this reason every people, or combination of related peoples, has its own Church, and such a division of ecclesiastical authority furthers the activity of preaching.
For this reason the Orthodox Church allows the establishment of new local Churches and so, new centers of preaching. In this manner arose both the Russian and Slavic Churches.
Thus, every people has its own unique characteristics of the spirit, and this is the basis for the formation of local national Churches.
All of them together comprise One Universal Church and they all bring into it these unique characteristics and gifts, just as good servants bring the fruits of those talents that God has given them. In this manner is formed the pleasing to God amalgamation of spiritual sounds and colors with which the Church that unites all peoples to the glory of God, is decorated.
This beauty the earth brings to heaven as a sweet-smelling censer.
Into this beauty the Russian Church, as well, brings its colors and its sounds: let us compare the severe at times strictness of the righteous ones of the East with the compunctionate spirit of Russian saints.
Being scattered around the whole world, we preserve the expressions of our spirit, which are given to us by God. This calls us to preserve unity with the Church, to which God appointed activity among us, our spiritual nourishment and development, the support of our spiritual zeal, the development of our talents. For this reason, scattered across the entire world, we established our Russian churches and all together we comprise one Russian Church Outside of Russia.
The spiritual manifestations of the Church are the same in all people, but their appearances -- colors and sounds -- are different. The differentiation of ways to serve and spiritual gifts was pleasing to the Creator of all -- God the Savior. We know and sense spiritual benefits and feel joy when we see how different people of different characters and gifts give glory to the one God. For this reason, for example, being led by true ecclesiastical understanding and feeling, the Serbian Church with joy took in the Russian Church, thus giving witness to the spiritual benefits of its existence in its midst.
Our Russian Church Outside of Russia is the free part of the Russian Church. Its unity is witnessed also in the fact that the mercy of God, which was shown in our Homeland in the self-renovation of icons, did not limit this manifestation to the borders of Russia but has manifested itself also in diasporan Russia, in Russian churches among Russian Orthodox people of the diaspora.
Spiritually the Russian Church is indivisible: it is always one and the same Russian Church, wherever we might be.
Being a part of the Russian Church, we cannot be in communion with the ecclesiastical authorities which are in submission and subjugation to a power which is inimical to the Church. To be in a position of such subjugation and dependence -- is a situation that would be spiritually sick: because for Church authority it is against its nature to be in dependence to an authority that sets as its goal the destruction of the Church and of faith in God itself. And those who are found in such subjugation cannot not feel, cannot recognize the sickness of such a condition: some, in whom their consciences are alive, are suffering; others, with burnt-out consciences, accept this situation.
Ecclesiastical authority in Russia is found in such a position that we cannot separate and understand what is done by it freely and what is done under duress. The ecclesiastical authority in Russia is an image of captivity and spiritual powerlessness: there is neither freedom of will nor freedom of action.
We have no one to be in communion with: there is no free ecclesiastical authority!
The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia for this reason is not administratively tied to such an authority. But we are united spiritually with the holy Russian Church, because we are a part of the Russian Church.
We should not think that on our homeland everyone is spiritually downtrodden by the authority that exists there. We believe in the opposite. We do not interrogate hearts, which are known to God alone, but we know that there, there is no freedom of conscience and will; that there, closed-in-ness has taken root. There is no social inter-communication. There, people cannot choose the path of their lives, following their hearts. There, one finds the situation about which the Prophet Micah prophesied: There an individual "does not trust in his friends, does not put confidence in his guides," "and the members of his household are his enemies" (Micah 7:5-6), The atheistic power influences people in a destructive way. It subjugates to itself not only the body, but it also captures the soul. It depersonalizes people, and their sincere and open Russian souls become distorted.
We, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, preserve our unity, while being in communion with all Churches with which it is possible to being communion with.
Being scattered around the entire world we do not submit to the local Churches -- not because we are inimically disposed to them, but because we cherish our holy Russian Church and the characteristics of the Russian soul. Our ecclesiastical unity is expressed in our submission to a single ecclesiastical authority for the entire diaspora, and this unity preserves the Russian people in the diaspora in faithfulness to the podvig that has been placed upon them by God.
1960
source: http://www.stjohnthebaptist.org.au/articles/roca-significance.html
by Saint John of Shanghai and San Francisco
All the parts of the universal Church have one common goal -- the preaching of the word of God, the preparation of people that they might become capable of being members of the Body of Christ and having become such, more and more, more sincerely and strongly would become one with the divine salvific life of the Body of Christ, for in that is the salvation of people.
In the achievement of this common goal every local Church has its significance.
To every people, through God's providence, unique gifts are given.
Every Church fulfills its mission, in keeping with these gifts. For this reason every people, or combination of related peoples, has its own Church, and such a division of ecclesiastical authority furthers the activity of preaching.
For this reason the Orthodox Church allows the establishment of new local Churches and so, new centers of preaching. In this manner arose both the Russian and Slavic Churches.
Thus, every people has its own unique characteristics of the spirit, and this is the basis for the formation of local national Churches.
All of them together comprise One Universal Church and they all bring into it these unique characteristics and gifts, just as good servants bring the fruits of those talents that God has given them. In this manner is formed the pleasing to God amalgamation of spiritual sounds and colors with which the Church that unites all peoples to the glory of God, is decorated.
This beauty the earth brings to heaven as a sweet-smelling censer.
Into this beauty the Russian Church, as well, brings its colors and its sounds: let us compare the severe at times strictness of the righteous ones of the East with the compunctionate spirit of Russian saints.
Being scattered around the whole world, we preserve the expressions of our spirit, which are given to us by God. This calls us to preserve unity with the Church, to which God appointed activity among us, our spiritual nourishment and development, the support of our spiritual zeal, the development of our talents. For this reason, scattered across the entire world, we established our Russian churches and all together we comprise one Russian Church Outside of Russia.
The spiritual manifestations of the Church are the same in all people, but their appearances -- colors and sounds -- are different. The differentiation of ways to serve and spiritual gifts was pleasing to the Creator of all -- God the Savior. We know and sense spiritual benefits and feel joy when we see how different people of different characters and gifts give glory to the one God. For this reason, for example, being led by true ecclesiastical understanding and feeling, the Serbian Church with joy took in the Russian Church, thus giving witness to the spiritual benefits of its existence in its midst.
Our Russian Church Outside of Russia is the free part of the Russian Church. Its unity is witnessed also in the fact that the mercy of God, which was shown in our Homeland in the self-renovation of icons, did not limit this manifestation to the borders of Russia but has manifested itself also in diasporan Russia, in Russian churches among Russian Orthodox people of the diaspora.
Spiritually the Russian Church is indivisible: it is always one and the same Russian Church, wherever we might be.
Being a part of the Russian Church, we cannot be in communion with the ecclesiastical authorities which are in submission and subjugation to a power which is inimical to the Church. To be in a position of such subjugation and dependence -- is a situation that would be spiritually sick: because for Church authority it is against its nature to be in dependence to an authority that sets as its goal the destruction of the Church and of faith in God itself. And those who are found in such subjugation cannot not feel, cannot recognize the sickness of such a condition: some, in whom their consciences are alive, are suffering; others, with burnt-out consciences, accept this situation.
Ecclesiastical authority in Russia is found in such a position that we cannot separate and understand what is done by it freely and what is done under duress. The ecclesiastical authority in Russia is an image of captivity and spiritual powerlessness: there is neither freedom of will nor freedom of action.
We have no one to be in communion with: there is no free ecclesiastical authority!
The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia for this reason is not administratively tied to such an authority. But we are united spiritually with the holy Russian Church, because we are a part of the Russian Church.
We should not think that on our homeland everyone is spiritually downtrodden by the authority that exists there. We believe in the opposite. We do not interrogate hearts, which are known to God alone, but we know that there, there is no freedom of conscience and will; that there, closed-in-ness has taken root. There is no social inter-communication. There, people cannot choose the path of their lives, following their hearts. There, one finds the situation about which the Prophet Micah prophesied: There an individual "does not trust in his friends, does not put confidence in his guides," "and the members of his household are his enemies" (Micah 7:5-6), The atheistic power influences people in a destructive way. It subjugates to itself not only the body, but it also captures the soul. It depersonalizes people, and their sincere and open Russian souls become distorted.
We, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, preserve our unity, while being in communion with all Churches with which it is possible to being communion with.
Being scattered around the entire world we do not submit to the local Churches -- not because we are inimically disposed to them, but because we cherish our holy Russian Church and the characteristics of the Russian soul. Our ecclesiastical unity is expressed in our submission to a single ecclesiastical authority for the entire diaspora, and this unity preserves the Russian people in the diaspora in faithfulness to the podvig that has been placed upon them by God.
1960
source: http://www.stjohnthebaptist.org.au/articles/roca-significance.html
Super-Correct Misunderstand Royal Path
Dear Reader,
Few of us can receive the news about the Finland Orthodox homos without reacting to the absurdity of the idea of an Orthodox being a homo. Here is one reaction to this news taken from a super-correct blog, which inadvertently reveals the great misunderstanding the Super-Correct have of the Royal Path. -jh
http://stmarkofephesus.blogspot.com/2008/12/orthodox-church-in-finland-is-in.html
Few of us can receive the news about the Finland Orthodox homos without reacting to the absurdity of the idea of an Orthodox being a homo. Here is one reaction to this news taken from a super-correct blog, which inadvertently reveals the great misunderstanding the Super-Correct have of the Royal Path. -jh
http://stmarkofephesus.blogspot.com/2008/12/orthodox-church-in-finland-is-in.html
"Monday, December 1, 2008
The Orthodox Church in Finland is in the control of Homosexuals
The Orthodox Church in Finland, long known for celebrating Pascha on the same date as the Western heretics, has now passed into the hands of homosexuals and their sympathizers with the acquiescense of Archbishop Leo.
"The registration of parishioners as same-sex couples does not constitute a problem, according to Archbishop Leo."
I don't wish to say anything more on the subject except to condemn this blasphemy.
For more information see: http://theoprovlitos.blogspot.com/2008/11/orthodox-church-of-finland-in-hands-of.html http://jn1034.blogspot.com/
I'm sure all the Orthodox Patriarchs of the world will immediately break communion with the heretic Leo of Finland - not. I'm sure Metropolitan Cyprian of Fili will now immediately wake up out of his coma and pronounce Leo graceless - not. Instead, the homophobic old calendarist Cyprianites will sit around the metaphorical campfire singing "Kum ba ya" with the ailing-yet-still-grace-filled gay-loving new calendarists. The Cyprianite chapter of the Orthodox Rainbow Society will announce that homosexuality was never condemned as a heresy by the Seven Ecumenical Councils, and therefore the holy homosexuals are only potential heretics, not actual heretics, and must be accepted at the chalice with hopes that they will repent of their potential heresy.
Posted by Nathan Vanderhoofven at 9:37 PM"
Dr. Vladimir Moss LiveJournal
Dr. Vladimir's LiveJournal has some scholarly analyses that are of interest to us.
The CYPRIANITE-AGATHANGELITE UNION http://vladmoss.livejournal.com/1954.html
This is very critical of us and most unfair in much of the criticism. However, it is valuable to us.
The UNITY OF THE TRUE ORTHODOX CHURCH, PART 1 http://vladmoss.livejournal.com/1467.html
The UNITY OF THE TRUE ORTHODOX CHURCH, PART 2 http://vladmoss.livejournal.com/1594.html
These articles help to answer the question, "Why don't the R-splits just all unite?"
But the best explanation for the fragmentation of the R-splits is within St. John's (Maximovitch) report on The Spiritual Condition of Russians Abroad.
The CYPRIANITE-AGATHANGELITE UNION http://vladmoss.livejournal.com/1954.html
This is very critical of us and most unfair in much of the criticism. However, it is valuable to us.
The UNITY OF THE TRUE ORTHODOX CHURCH, PART 1 http://vladmoss.livejournal.com/1467.html
The UNITY OF THE TRUE ORTHODOX CHURCH, PART 2 http://vladmoss.livejournal.com/1594.html
These articles help to answer the question, "Why don't the R-splits just all unite?"
But the best explanation for the fragmentation of the R-splits is within St. John's (Maximovitch) report on The Spiritual Condition of Russians Abroad.
Dr. Moss Criticizes/Abp. Chrysostomos Responds
Feast of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker
To: Exarchate Clergy, Faithful, and Friends
From: Archbishop Chrysostomos
Boetheia mas o Agios Nikolaos.
May St. Nicholas come to our aid.
The following is the latest of Dr. Vladimir's Moss's statements, one sadly marked by contumely, personal enmity, and a truculent tone. It calls for a response only because it has been circulated among some sincere but undiscerning individuals who do not easily recognize the delusive arguments used in these now notorious attacks against almost anyone who disagrees with Dr. Moss's arguments. Thus, I have made some brief comments within the text.
Abp. Chrysostomos
This "revealing" information is nothing more than the latest report on union discussions that have been regularly referenced on our website and in our synodal publications.
Abp. Chrysostomos
Our Synod has not been "striving for unity with the G.O.C (sic)," but has for over a year been pleased to engage in informal and friendly discussions about a possible opening of communion with the Church of True Orthodox Christians of Greece (G.O.Ch.), following friendly overtures by Archbishop Chrysostomos (Kiousis) on the heels of Metropolitan Cyprian's collapse into a coma, following a massive stroke almost exactly a year ago.
Our Bishops reacted to this opening of personal contacts with much relief and great enthusiasm, given the animosity and conflict that were in the past displayed by various persons in both groups, leading to the kind of invective and misunderstanding that Dr. Moss's comments simply serve to perpetuate. Efforts towards union began, indeed, with love and requests for forgiveness on both sides -- a truly exemplary Christian thing!
Abp. Chrysostomos
Since I translated the words which Dr. Moss quotes here, and know their tone and, of course, their provenance, I can affirm that what I translated was written with complete sincerity and transparency. It simply states that "nonnegotiable" terms presented by the other party in the dialogue were of the kind that violated what we considered the basic principles of theological discourse on the matters being discussed.
Had this been a "complete" rejection of the points of the G.O.Ch., this is precisely what we would have said. Dr. Moss's conclusions are speculative, and especially since he has presumably never read the points that led to our statement.
It is also in the nature of dialogue that nothing is accepted unconditionally, until unanimity or agreement by two parties is achieved.
Dr. Moss fails, as well, to speak of the fraternal affection and good intentions that prevailed throughout these and other exchanges in the union dialogues, which are, at least at this time. ongoing.
Abp. Chrysostomos
One would hope that Dr. Moss is wrong in this assumption. Does he wish for a cessation of dialogue?
Abp. Chrysostomos
I should clarify a point: by this depersonalizing and derogatory epithet, Dr. Moss means the "Holy Synod in Resistance" and its Bishops and faithful. It is especially shameful, given the condition of Metropolitan Cyprian and the tremendous sadness that overcame those of us who love him.
Abp. Chrysostomos
We have never shown any desperation in agreeing to informal dialogue with the Church of G.O.Ch. In fact, our brothers in that Church have been even more enthusiastic in their desire for unity, which is something that commends them and which has inspired those of us, such as myself, who were more cautious and slow in seeking rapprochement at the moment -- even though I surely consider eventual unity, in synergy with God's Will and in love, wonderful and sacred.
Needless to say, were we working in a spirit of compromise, it would seem rather curious to accuse us of sabotaging unity, as Dr. Moss suggests above.
Abp. Chrysostomos
Dr. Moss's "analysis" here is bizarre: a contrived mental construct. Metropolitan Cyprian, when received into the Old Calendar movement from the New Calendar State Church of Greece, made it clear that he would not accept re-Ordination and did not believe that the State Church of Greece was without Grace. His statements to that effect were published many decades ago even in such American source as "The Orthodox Word," as we have repeatedly shown.
Dr. Moss's "reminiscences" aside, Metropolitan Cyprian's ecclesiology has always been the same; we have always realized that many with whom we have entered into communion did not hold exactly to our ecclesiology; and have, with them, maintained, in agreeing to disagree on minor points, that the final adjudication of such matters belongs to a future Oecumenical or General Synod.
Dr. Moss can violate, restate, and re-create these facts as he likes. but they remain facts. Our present position is that if we can enter into communion with Archbishop Chrysostomos (Kiousis) and his Bishops without violating our principles by the imposition of their views on us, we can work together in the pursuit of resisting ecumenism, which binds all of the Greek Old Calendarists together in a single family. Otherwise, our Synod will gain NOTHING, from a merely human standpoint, by union. We need no such union, since we are in communion with the Romanian and Bulgarian Old Calendarists and with the ROCA under Metropolitan Agafangel: the vast majority of anti-ecumenist Orthodox.
While we advocate, as we always have and always will, the Patristic tradition which Dr. Moss so rudely calls "Cyprianitism" and a heresy, it speaks for itself that we have never condemned the extremist Old Calendarists (who also officially call New Calendarists and ecumenists heretics and without Grace) as "heretics," even though we believe their views to be incorrect in this respect. We have always acknowledged that many extremists are simply that in public, whereas in private they agree with us. In fact that was the case when all of us Old Calendarists were in communion.
Dr. Moss would do well to remember Archbishop Peter of Astoria, who was my own guide for a time when I was at university and whose brother Baptized my assistant Bishop. He joined with Archbishop Chrysostomos (Kiousis), even though he did not personally believe that the New Calendarists and ecumenists were without Grace. He taught us what we now believe (which Metropolitan Cyprian also believes) and, just before his death, when he visited our monastery (as he did Phyle, I should note), confessed to us that our ecclesiology was correct but that, to quote him, "his hands were tied" by personal issues and Church politics.
Was he (a man whom we loved and admired, even when he disappointed us with the human weaknesses that we all have) a hypocrite, insincere, and wrong? Or is it only the "Cyprianites" who are evil when, without tied hands, they seek to find some way to effect unity among the Old Calendarists? Is a broader way open only to others, but not to us?
Lock-step dogmatic advocacy based on personal views and interpretations that take on the character of "unquestionable authority" may be appropriate to Papism; however, Orthodox theology does not confess of an inability to accept differences of action and interpretation, until they are resolved by a General Church Synod.
Abp. Chrysostomos
A man who has accused us of hypocrisy, heresy, lying, and insincerity over the years is hardly being consistent in calling US elitists. To call us quasi-Anglican and compare our confession of Orthodoxy to Tolstoy's teaching of non-resistance to evil is likewise quite over the line and lamentable.
Dr. Moss deserves our prayers and our pity, since his enmity and hatred for us, most of whom he has never even meant, speak to a spiritual hurt in him that can only prompt in me, along with my shock at his sometimes vicious, unfair, and caustic accusations, a sincere love for him as an injured soul. The more he attacks the more I feel compelled to respond with logical guidance to others, yet with love for him.
Abp. Chrysostomos
This is, of course, not a true statement of the historical facts. Metropolitan Kallistos, in returning to a Matthewite viewpoint under the influence of certain individuals and in senescence, actually retired from the Synod. At the time, Metropolitan Cyprian remained in the Synod. Dr. Moss may call me a liar for saying this, but that does not change historical fact.
Moreover, to accuse Metropolitan Cyprian of "diplomacy" in avoiding the word "heretic" in speaking of Metropolitan Kallistos is something worthy of tears. Our love for Metropolitan Kallistos was such that a word like this would have caused all of us incredible pain, and in particular because, though in error in his return to extremism, he was not a heretic.
Metropolitan Kallistos himself, when he was the First Hierarch of our Synod, advised me NEVER to say that I would not bury the New Calendarists in the Greek side of my family. He chastised me severely when I presented him with a view that I had once, in youthful impetuosity, wrongly accepted with regard to the New Calendarists. My "Cyprianitism" was reinforced by none other than Metropolitan Kallistos when he was at our monastery in Ohio.
Dr. Moss I have never met and do not know one another. Metropolitan Kallistos I knew. Dr. Moss is simply off the mark.
Dr. Moss should hang his head in eternal shame for suggesting that Metropolitan Cyprian considered Metropolitan Kallistos a heretic. Rather, he considered him a holy man and lamented his fall, once more, to a Matthewite mentality in senility.
Abp. Chysostomos
This is just silliness and a kind of sad projection on Dr. Moss's part.
Abp. Chrysostomos
We began by being accused of preventing union with the Church of G.O.Ch. because of our tenacious adherence to our principles, whereas now we are chided for setting our principles aside, llike cheap opportunists, by seeking to join with G.O.Ch. Apparently, we are damned if we do and damned if we do not. Once again, if communion with the Church of G.O.Ch. can occur without our violating our ecclesiological principles, we have no difficulty with this, if it is God's Will. This entails no compromise.
It speaks volumes that it is Dr. Moss who is calling us heretics, not we who are calling him and his Bishops heretics.
Abp. Chrysostomos
What a sad misunderstanding. We are tied to our spiritual Father by love, which never traps one. It is hatred which traps one. Dr. Moss's personal hatred for us is so strong that, while he admits that Hierarchs can be wrong and can ask forgiveness for their errors and still be Orthodox, he calls us heretics for saying the same thing. He is trapped by his hatred for us (or the hatred for us that the Evil One has inspired in him). We believe what he does and apply it to those who have adopted an extremist attitude toward New Calendarists and ecumenists. Yet, we are heretics, since this does not agree with Dr. Moss or fulfill his expectations of hypocrisy, insincerity, and hypocrisy from us. Truly sad.
As for Archbishop Tikhon's group, one can contrast its condemnation of us to the communion that we maintain with Metropolitan Agafangel, who, unlike Archbishop Tikhon, was in fact a member of the ROCA right up to the time that it united with Moscow. He was the sole survivor of the union. Metropolitan Agafangel has not said that the ROCA/MP was wrong (for ten years!) in maintaining communion with us. And he still maintains communion with us. We hope and pray that Archbishop Tikhon and his group will seek unity in Russia, but it will not do so by condemning our Synod and others. Condemnation is not the way to unity.
Again, one can only pity such a thing and lovingly but firmly point out to Dr. Moss that it is HE who is providing the spirit of divisiveness and nastiness that impedes hope for unity.
Abp. Chrysostomos
Again, it curious that a man whose hatred has caused me to find love for him in my soul and whom I do NOT consider a heretic, even if I believe him to be very wrong, should condemn me and those with me as elitists. His truculence, which leads him to claim that we advocate things that we do not and never have, is a true sign of arrogance and elitism: the kind that marks those who refuse to love others, who degrade them, who mock them, and thus who fail to understand that those whom they perceive to be heretics and "terrible enemies" are actually friends.
Abp. Chrysostomos
Let us not slap one another, but kiss one another with the kiss of peace. Let us not emulate the act of a Saint and man of love whose feet we are unworthy to kiss, but the humble spirit of the prostitute and sinner and, rather than call upon the covenant of the Old Testament, "speak," like those of the New Covenant, "the truth in love," imploring God to join what is separated. What sinner among us dares to raise his hand against a brother or to take solace in disagreement and walking apart from his brother?
All of you who have read Dr. Moss's words: I exhort you to pray for him and to offer him, as do I, a kiss of Christian love. Ask God to show him that we make enemies of people only when we fail to see the good in them and to love them. Our supposed enemies become our friends when we sense, see, and admit that they, too, have the same good that we seek in ourselves; and, indeed, sometimes those whom we hold in enmity, but hold us in love, can move our minds to higher things and join what is at odds. We should all hold Dr. Moss in love, for there is surely much good in him, much tortured affection in him, and even virtuous but misguided zeal, if we see him through the eyes of the Theotokos' love.
To: Exarchate Clergy, Faithful, and Friends
From: Archbishop Chrysostomos
Boetheia mas o Agios Nikolaos.
May St. Nicholas come to our aid.
The following is the latest of Dr. Vladimir's Moss's statements, one sadly marked by contumely, personal enmity, and a truculent tone. It calls for a response only because it has been circulated among some sincere but undiscerning individuals who do not easily recognize the delusive arguments used in these now notorious attacks against almost anyone who disagrees with Dr. Moss's arguments. Thus, I have made some brief comments within the text.
Dr. Vladimir Moss
Subject: THE HERESY OF ECCLESIASTICAL ELITISM
The Cyprianites have published on their website an account of their Hierarchical Council of October 4/17, 2008. It contains interesting and revealing information on their "efforts at union with the Church of the True Orthodox Christians of Greece" - that is, the GOC headed by Archbishop Chrysostom (Kiousis) of Athens. It reveals that since February five meetings have taken place between the two sides (three Bishops from both sides), which have "now reached a historical turning-point".
Abp. Chrysostomos
This "revealing" information is nothing more than the latest report on union discussions that have been regularly referenced on our website and in our synodal publications.
Dr. Vladimir Moss
Although still striving for unity with the GOC, the Cyprianites reveal that they cannot accept the ten "non-negotiable points" laid down by the GOC on September 9/22. Since the Cyprianites regard these points as "inappropriate for publication", and since the GOC have also not published them, we can only guess at what they might be. Nevertheless, from what the Cyprianites write, and from other sources, it is clear what the main stumbling-blocks are the GOC's insistence that Metropolitan Cyprian created a schism in the 1980s, and that the new calendarists must be anathematized.
Abp. Chrysostomos
Our Synod has not been "striving for unity with the G.O.C (sic)," but has for over a year been pleased to engage in informal and friendly discussions about a possible opening of communion with the Church of True Orthodox Christians of Greece (G.O.Ch.), following friendly overtures by Archbishop Chrysostomos (Kiousis) on the heels of Metropolitan Cyprian's collapse into a coma, following a massive stroke almost exactly a year ago.
Our Bishops reacted to this opening of personal contacts with much relief and great enthusiasm, given the animosity and conflict that were in the past displayed by various persons in both groups, leading to the kind of invective and misunderstanding that Dr. Moss's comments simply serve to perpetuate. Efforts towards union began, indeed, with love and requests for forgiveness on both sides -- a truly exemplary Christian thing!
Dr. Vladimir Moss
Regarding these ten points, the Cyprianite Synod came to the following conclusions "after a very protracted discussion":
"In principle, it would be possible for us to agree with several of these points, once various improvements and modifications have been made to the wording thereof.
"However, any final 'convergence' of both sides on these points would be rather artificial and superficial, as long as there remain crucial 'points' on which there is no possibility of concession on our part - that is, on points non-negotiable in terms of a theology of Orthodox resistance.
"These crucial 'points' (the repetition of Chrismation and Baptism - even when simply improperly performed - and the nominal anathematization of New Calendarists), if adopted and explicitly proclaimed by us, would lead to a different interpretation of the other 'points' as well, and to an outright denial of our ecclesiological principles."
Put in less diplomatic terms, this amounts to a more or less complete rejection of the GOC's points. Some points relating to their ecclesiological principles are rejected outright; others require "various improvements". Nothing is accepted unconditionally.
Abp. Chrysostomos
Since I translated the words which Dr. Moss quotes here, and know their tone and, of course, their provenance, I can affirm that what I translated was written with complete sincerity and transparency. It simply states that "nonnegotiable" terms presented by the other party in the dialogue were of the kind that violated what we considered the basic principles of theological discourse on the matters being discussed.
Had this been a "complete" rejection of the points of the G.O.Ch., this is precisely what we would have said. Dr. Moss's conclusions are speculative, and especially since he has presumably never read the points that led to our statement.
It is also in the nature of dialogue that nothing is accepted unconditionally, until unanimity or agreement by two parties is achieved.
Dr. Moss fails, as well, to speak of the fraternal affection and good intentions that prevailed throughout these and other exchanges in the union dialogues, which are, at least at this time. ongoing.
Dr. Vladimir Moss
Since the GOC's points were laid down as "non-negotiable", this looks like the end of the road for the unity talks.
Abp. Chrysostomos
One would hope that Dr. Moss is wrong in this assumption. Does he wish for a cessation of dialogue?
Dr. Vladimir Moss
However, the Cyprianites,
Abp. Chrysostomos
I should clarify a point: by this depersonalizing and derogatory epithet, Dr. Moss means the "Holy Synod in Resistance" and its Bishops and faithful. It is especially shameful, given the condition of Metropolitan Cyprian and the tremendous sadness that overcame those of us who love him.
Dr. Vladimir Moss
still desperately cling on to the hope of unity through a vague kind of doctrinal compromise:
Abp. Chrysostomos
We have never shown any desperation in agreeing to informal dialogue with the Church of G.O.Ch. In fact, our brothers in that Church have been even more enthusiastic in their desire for unity, which is something that commends them and which has inspired those of us, such as myself, who were more cautious and slow in seeking rapprochement at the moment -- even though I surely consider eventual unity, in synergy with God's Will and in love, wonderful and sacred.
Needless to say, were we working in a spirit of compromise, it would seem rather curious to accuse us of sabotaging unity, as Dr. Moss suggests above.
Dr.Vladimir Moss
"There arises the question of the extent to which, for the sake of the supreme good of unity, we can without absolute ecclesiological uniformity on both sides - as was the case at least up until 1984 - achieve oneness with the Church of the True Orthodox Christians of Greece on the basis of fundamental points of agreement, leading to a General, Pan-Orthodox, or Oecumenical Synod for decisive adjudication and resolution of those points still in dispute." In other words: let's agree to disagree on certain things, and just get together on the basis of what we do agree on - a truly Anglican solution!
In fact, the Cyprianite ecclesiology is reminiscent of the Anglican Church's "High", "Middle" and "Low" structure. As is well-known, the Cyprianites believe that the Church is composed of "healthy" members (the Orthodox) and "sick" members (the heretics) until and unless a "Unifying Ecumenical" Council decides to expel the heretics. We might call this the division of the Church into "High" and "Low". But now, through their suggestion of a compromise union with the GOC, they are also adding a "Middle" layer - the GOC itself. So the Greek Church, in their understanding, is composed of three levels: a "High", or supremely healthy level, composed of the Cyprianites, who alone hold the true ecclesiology; a "Middle" level, composed of Old Calendarists who reject ecumenism but are unfortunately tainted with the illness of an over-zealous ecclesiology; and a "Low" level, composed of the new calendarists, who are sick with the still worse illness of the pan-heresy of ecumenism.
Abp. Chrysostomos
Dr. Moss's "analysis" here is bizarre: a contrived mental construct. Metropolitan Cyprian, when received into the Old Calendar movement from the New Calendar State Church of Greece, made it clear that he would not accept re-Ordination and did not believe that the State Church of Greece was without Grace. His statements to that effect were published many decades ago even in such American source as "The Orthodox Word," as we have repeatedly shown.
Dr. Moss's "reminiscences" aside, Metropolitan Cyprian's ecclesiology has always been the same; we have always realized that many with whom we have entered into communion did not hold exactly to our ecclesiology; and have, with them, maintained, in agreeing to disagree on minor points, that the final adjudication of such matters belongs to a future Oecumenical or General Synod.
Dr. Moss can violate, restate, and re-create these facts as he likes. but they remain facts. Our present position is that if we can enter into communion with Archbishop Chrysostomos (Kiousis) and his Bishops without violating our principles by the imposition of their views on us, we can work together in the pursuit of resisting ecumenism, which binds all of the Greek Old Calendarists together in a single family. Otherwise, our Synod will gain NOTHING, from a merely human standpoint, by union. We need no such union, since we are in communion with the Romanian and Bulgarian Old Calendarists and with the ROCA under Metropolitan Agafangel: the vast majority of anti-ecumenist Orthodox.
While we advocate, as we always have and always will, the Patristic tradition which Dr. Moss so rudely calls "Cyprianitism" and a heresy, it speaks for itself that we have never condemned the extremist Old Calendarists (who also officially call New Calendarists and ecumenists heretics and without Grace) as "heretics," even though we believe their views to be incorrect in this respect. We have always acknowledged that many extremists are simply that in public, whereas in private they agree with us. In fact that was the case when all of us Old Calendarists were in communion.
Dr. Moss would do well to remember Archbishop Peter of Astoria, who was my own guide for a time when I was at university and whose brother Baptized my assistant Bishop. He joined with Archbishop Chrysostomos (Kiousis), even though he did not personally believe that the New Calendarists and ecumenists were without Grace. He taught us what we now believe (which Metropolitan Cyprian also believes) and, just before his death, when he visited our monastery (as he did Phyle, I should note), confessed to us that our ecclesiology was correct but that, to quote him, "his hands were tied" by personal issues and Church politics.
Was he (a man whom we loved and admired, even when he disappointed us with the human weaknesses that we all have) a hypocrite, insincere, and wrong? Or is it only the "Cyprianites" who are evil when, without tied hands, they seek to find some way to effect unity among the Old Calendarists? Is a broader way open only to others, but not to us?
Lock-step dogmatic advocacy based on personal views and interpretations that take on the character of "unquestionable authority" may be appropriate to Papism; however, Orthodox theology does not confess of an inability to accept differences of action and interpretation, until they are resolved by a General Church Synod.
Dr. Vladimir Moss
But this is the broad way of the Broad Church which, as the Lord says, leads so many to destruction! Of course, it is true that differences of opinion have always existed in the One True Church, and there have probably always been hidden heretics within the Church's single organizational structure. But the Church can never be reconciled with differences on dogmatic questions; it must always seek to eradicate them and remove impenitent heretics; it can never say: "You are a heretic, nevertheless you are a member of the True Church and are permitted to receive the Body of Christ". The Cyprianites' elitist, quasi-Anglican model seeks to institutionalize dogmatic differences, making them the norm. It is the dogmatic equivalent of the Tolstoyan moral teaching on the necessity of non-resistance to evil.
Abp. Chrysostomos
A man who has accused us of hypocrisy, heresy, lying, and insincerity over the years is hardly being consistent in calling US elitists. To call us quasi-Anglican and compare our confession of Orthodoxy to Tolstoy's teaching of non-resistance to evil is likewise quite over the line and lamentable.
Dr. Moss deserves our prayers and our pity, since his enmity and hatred for us, most of whom he has never even meant, speak to a spiritual hurt in him that can only prompt in me, along with my shock at his sometimes vicious, unfair, and caustic accusations, a sincere love for him as an injured soul. The more he attacks the more I feel compelled to respond with logical guidance to others, yet with love for him.
Dr. Vladimir Moss
It should be remembered that in 1984 Metropolitan Cyprian broke communion with his first-hierarch, Metropolitan Callistus, and with all the other "Florinite" hierarchs, explicitly for reasons of the faith. He regarded the confession of faith of Metropolitan Callistus, which is identical to the confession of faith of today's GOC, as "without witness, unproven, anti-patristic, and hence un-Orthodox" (Agios Kiprianos, July, 1983, p. 210). In other words, he regarded Metropolitan Callistus' views to be heretical - even if he did not use the word "heretical" for diplomatic reasons.
Abp. Chrysostomos
This is, of course, not a true statement of the historical facts. Metropolitan Kallistos, in returning to a Matthewite viewpoint under the influence of certain individuals and in senescence, actually retired from the Synod. At the time, Metropolitan Cyprian remained in the Synod. Dr. Moss may call me a liar for saying this, but that does not change historical fact.
Moreover, to accuse Metropolitan Cyprian of "diplomacy" in avoiding the word "heretic" in speaking of Metropolitan Kallistos is something worthy of tears. Our love for Metropolitan Kallistos was such that a word like this would have caused all of us incredible pain, and in particular because, though in error in his return to extremism, he was not a heretic.
Metropolitan Kallistos himself, when he was the First Hierarch of our Synod, advised me NEVER to say that I would not bury the New Calendarists in the Greek side of my family. He chastised me severely when I presented him with a view that I had once, in youthful impetuosity, wrongly accepted with regard to the New Calendarists. My "Cyprianitism" was reinforced by none other than Metropolitan Kallistos when he was at our monastery in Ohio.
Dr. Moss I have never met and do not know one another. Metropolitan Kallistos I knew. Dr. Moss is simply off the mark.
Dr. Moss should hang his head in eternal shame for suggesting that Metropolitan Cyprian considered Metropolitan Kallistos a heretic. Rather, he considered him a holy man and lamented his fall, once more, to a Matthewite mentality in senility.
Dr. Vladimir Moss
Now, believing this, it was quite natural for Metropolitan Cyprian to break communion with Callistus and to refuse to enter into communion with any hierarch who thought like him.
Abp. Chysostomos
This is just silliness and a kind of sad projection on Dr. Moss's part.
Dr. Vladimir Moss
But then why are his successors now seeking to re-enter communion with our Church, although our hierarchs have not changed their confession in any way? Either Metropolitan Cyprian was wrong to break communion with Metropolitan Callistus, or the present Cyprianite hierarchs are wrong to seek to enter into communion with the GOC hierarchs who think like Metropolitan Callistus - there is no "third way".
Abp. Chrysostomos
We began by being accused of preventing union with the Church of G.O.Ch. because of our tenacious adherence to our principles, whereas now we are chided for setting our principles aside, llike cheap opportunists, by seeking to join with G.O.Ch. Apparently, we are damned if we do and damned if we do not. Once again, if communion with the Church of G.O.Ch. can occur without our violating our ecclesiological principles, we have no difficulty with this, if it is God's Will. This entails no compromise.
It speaks volumes that it is Dr. Moss who is calling us heretics, not we who are calling him and his Bishops heretics.
Dr. Vladimir Moss
The present Cyprianite hierarchs are trapped by their loyalty to their founder, by their refusal to admit that he made a serious mistake. How different has been the behaviour of the Tikhonites, who in their recent Odessa Council clearly and unambiguously renounced Cyprianism and admitted that the ROCOR hierarchs' entrance into communion with the Cyprianites in 1994 was wrong. This is the way forward: to place the True Confession of Faith as the first value, and to admit honestly and honourably that mistakes can and have been made in relation to it even by the most distinguished of hierarchs - there is no place for man-pleasing or man-worship in the Church of Christ.
Abp. Chrysostomos
What a sad misunderstanding. We are tied to our spiritual Father by love, which never traps one. It is hatred which traps one. Dr. Moss's personal hatred for us is so strong that, while he admits that Hierarchs can be wrong and can ask forgiveness for their errors and still be Orthodox, he calls us heretics for saying the same thing. He is trapped by his hatred for us (or the hatred for us that the Evil One has inspired in him). We believe what he does and apply it to those who have adopted an extremist attitude toward New Calendarists and ecumenists. Yet, we are heretics, since this does not agree with Dr. Moss or fulfill his expectations of hypocrisy, insincerity, and hypocrisy from us. Truly sad.
As for Archbishop Tikhon's group, one can contrast its condemnation of us to the communion that we maintain with Metropolitan Agafangel, who, unlike Archbishop Tikhon, was in fact a member of the ROCA right up to the time that it united with Moscow. He was the sole survivor of the union. Metropolitan Agafangel has not said that the ROCA/MP was wrong (for ten years!) in maintaining communion with us. And he still maintains communion with us. We hope and pray that Archbishop Tikhon and his group will seek unity in Russia, but it will not do so by condemning our Synod and others. Condemnation is not the way to unity.
Again, one can only pity such a thing and lovingly but firmly point out to Dr. Moss that it is HE who is providing the spirit of divisiveness and nastiness that impedes hope for unity.
Dr. Vladimir Moss
Nor is there any place for elitism, for a hierarchy of Orthodox, semi-Orthodox and heretics within the One Church. The Body of Christ is composed solely and exclusively of those who confess the True Orthodox Faith in its entirety, and those who publicly reject any part of that Faith cannot be admitted to the Holy Mysteries. If this were not so, then the Church would not be One, but would actually be an aggregate or confederation or alliance of many sub-churches, differing from each other in one or more articles of the Faith, on the model of the Anglicans or the World Council of Churches.
Abp. Chrysostomos
Again, it curious that a man whose hatred has caused me to find love for him in my soul and whom I do NOT consider a heretic, even if I believe him to be very wrong, should condemn me and those with me as elitists. His truculence, which leads him to claim that we advocate things that we do not and never have, is a true sign of arrogance and elitism: the kind that marks those who refuse to love others, who degrade them, who mock them, and thus who fail to understand that those whom they perceive to be heretics and "terrible enemies" are actually friends.
Dr. Vladimir Moss
At the First Ecumenical Council St. Nicholas of Myra slapped the face of the heretic Arius. He did not wait for the Council to condemn him officially - and the Lord and the Mother of God approved of his act. If the Cyprianites claim to have the same faith and zeal as St. Nicholas, let them (metaphorically) slap the face of the ecumenist heretics and confess that they are outside the One True Church and deprived of the grace of sacraments. Then there will truly be a sound basis for them to re-enter the True Church, having sincerely repented of the schism they created. But if they do not repent, then the True Church, holding fast to the principles of the true ecclesiology, must refuse them entry; for, as the Prophet says, "how can two walk together if they be not agreed?" (Amos 3.3).
Abp. Chrysostomos
Let us not slap one another, but kiss one another with the kiss of peace. Let us not emulate the act of a Saint and man of love whose feet we are unworthy to kiss, but the humble spirit of the prostitute and sinner and, rather than call upon the covenant of the Old Testament, "speak," like those of the New Covenant, "the truth in love," imploring God to join what is separated. What sinner among us dares to raise his hand against a brother or to take solace in disagreement and walking apart from his brother?
All of you who have read Dr. Moss's words: I exhort you to pray for him and to offer him, as do I, a kiss of Christian love. Ask God to show him that we make enemies of people only when we fail to see the good in them and to love them. Our supposed enemies become our friends when we sense, see, and admit that they, too, have the same good that we seek in ourselves; and, indeed, sometimes those whom we hold in enmity, but hold us in love, can move our minds to higher things and join what is at odds. We should all hold Dr. Moss in love, for there is surely much good in him, much tortured affection in him, and even virtuous but misguided zeal, if we see him through the eyes of the Theotokos' love.
Dr. Vladimir Moss
Vladimir Moss
December 6/19, 2008.
St. Nicholas of Myra, the Wonderworker.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
