Subject: On "the royal path"
From: ekklisiastikos@gmail.com
To: joannahigginbotham@live.com
Dear sister,
there is not "a royal path" or a "middle way" on dogmatic and confessional matters. Only such matters are black and white (not gray..)
The "Royal Path" is, as far as we know, first spoken of in the Second Conference of Abba Moses, found in the Conferences of St. John Cassian, regarding Discretion (Diakrisis). Abba Moses speaks of the royal path of moderation in ascetical exercise - fasting, vigils, etc. As far as we know, the Fathers never applied this concept to the dogmas or to dealing with denial of the dogmas (heresy), because Truth, unlike prudent ascetical activity, is not a mean between extremes. To apply this to our times: Orthodoxy is not a mean between ecumenism and dogmatic truth, nor is there a mean between being in the Church and being out of the Church.
As for the Ecumenists, they are doing their best to have themselves out of the Church and you (i.e. ROCOR-A, SiR etc) stubbornly want them inside the Church. Don't you see that Bartholomeos and the rest prefer the heresy than the pure dogmas of genuine Orthodoxy? The "sitting on the fence" ecclesiology of Kyprianos Koutsoubas, no matter how hard he tried to promote it as the the "middle way", it was a only an excuse for his obviously unreasonable schism.
With all due respect, we consider "Agathagelites" seriously misinformed.
Ο Εκκλησιαστικός
www.ekklisiastikos.com
| From: | |
| Sent: | Thu 7/15/10 11:03 AM |
| To: | ekklisiastikos@gmail.com |
Dear Ekklisiastikos,
I agree with you that the Royal Path is not a "middle ground", it is actually a HIGHER way. If the right tries to see it by looking directly to the left, they miss it or see right through it. You have to also look UP, and with the help of God. A perfect Church can not be found on earth - only in heaven.
The indisputable indication that something is not right with the super-correct logic is this: There is grace in the SIR. I cannot deny this since I experienced it myself. It is so thick you can cut it with a knife. By super-correct logic there can be no grace in SIR. So even if super-correct logic seems logical, something is wrong with it for it to come to that conclusion. Grace is not what needs to realize that it should not be there - instead the super-correct logic needs to realize it has made a wrong turn somewhere. It ends up denying that grace is where it is: in the SIR.
Others have also experienced this same grace in ROCA-A since the union, which was being strangled out of ROCOR prior to the union. I'm referring to the same grace that was perceived years ago when serving with Met. Philaret, it is again returned as the same familiar and unmistakable grace.
It is this grace that the SIR and the ROCA-A recognize in each other. This is the cause for our bond - not some "need" to make another bishop. [God provides for His Church, He will also provide bishops.] Our critic from ekklistiastikos.com, Fr. Steven Allen, misses the mark when he says we "claim" to be the sole valid continuation of ROCOR - it can be called a "claim" only after the fact. After there was first a recognition - we recognize ROCA-A as the sole valid continuation of ROCOR. Not because of a "claim" - this bold claim is a result of a recognition which came first.
Our aim is not to just "recreate" the old ROCOR, our aim is to go forward with God's Church. The way things are now, and I pray for this to be preserved, our Sister Churches are right in step with us.
How good it would be if you could join us!
love, Joanna Higginbotham
The super-correct seem to have a compulsion to argue legalistically. Because of the lawyer-like arguing and debating mentality of the super-correct, there is no sense trying to use logic with them - they just twist it to suit their conclusions. This is why I do not argue - I just say to them: "Sorry, I experience grace where you say there is none - so something is wrong with what you say." I do not try to pick apart exactly what it is that is wrong. [That's for them to figure out - they are the smart ones, right?] What comes next then is they do not accept my experience as valid - they say I have no argument. In that they are right. I won't argue. I don't have to.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment