www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Graceless Heretics?

And who might they be?

ZT,

Perhaps a better example is the one regularly used by Bishop Tihkon on the Indiana List: Why is Constantine, who was baptized on his deathbed by an Arian heretic, regarded as a saint of the Orhtodox Church?

Your comment on the use of "Sister Churches" is not supported by Ut Unum Sint, Dominus Iesus, or the letter from Ratzinger on the use of the phrase. But maybe it reflects some particular teaching of the "RCC" rather than the CC. (You make a funny scramble of 2nd and 3rd persons in your PS, what's that all about?)

Zoe,

That was rather harsh, I admit, and also not properly qualified. For that, I apologize.

However, there is still within Catholicism (despite the emphasis on our "sister church" status, and the RC statement that within Orthodox Christianity there is the presence of undoubtedly fruitful mysteries) a large number of people who desire to "convert" the Orthodox.

My problem with this is not that it exists, of itself. I suppose if another religion thinks it's true, it's not surprising to see them work towards the conversion of others to their creed. Being perplexed by such a thing, is like being scandalized that snakes bite, or hawks eat cute little bunnies. Where my problem lies, is in the duplicity involved in such an enterprise - while on one hand the RCC positions itself as a "friend", it underhandedly (both officially and unofficially) acts against the Orthodox Church.

One quick example that comes to mind, is the situation of the Old Calendarists in Greece. Without going into the whole history of this situation, I'll simply say that the Old Calendarists are simply those Orthodox who refused to go along with a renovationist change in the Greek "State" Church which had been explicitly anathematized by three separate Pan-Orthodox Synods, which had in fact been chaired by the very Ecumenical Patriarchate that later introduced this innovation.

However, it is with this EP, that the RCC is "bargaining." And it is not a well kept secret, that the RCC has encouraged the Greek State's/EP/Greek State church's persecution and marginalization of the Old Calendarist. Even honest men within the State church, like the late Fr.John Romanides, recognized this phenomenon (since he as well was shown the same treatment, due to his traditional, authentically Orthodox views on ecclessiological questions).

The same is true of the situation in Slavic lands, whether it be Russia or Ukraine. While it is true that there have been for sometime been Uniates in the Ukraine (though this itself is an ugly example of past RC aggression against the Orthodox), geographically Kiev is not a centre for them. However, historically it is a centre for Holy Orthodoxy, at one time even being an Archepiscopal See of great importance. So why then is so great an expense being made, by the Uniates (with foreign, Latin raised funds) to build an Archepiscopal Cathredral for themselves in Kiev (particularly when there is no native flock to justify such an undertaking)? Easy - because the Ukranian Uniates still pass themselves off as the inheritors of the ancient Ukranian Orthodox heritage, and this is a very conspicuous missionary endevour. And things like this are definatly not happening without any sort of Vatican involvement.

Like I said, if these things were just "happening", as is, I wouldn't find them surprising. But it is that they happen, via the left hand, while the right is extended as a friendly handshake, that I find incredibly disingenous.

True Orthodox, otoh, make no pretense about where it see's the standing of relations between the Orthodox Church and Catholicism. If the worldly Orthodox involved in ecumenism do not "missionize" the west, it is only because of their utter indifference, not an ecclessiological stand either way.

Their attitude may be partly ignorance, partly ostrich-ism (head in the sand, not wanting to see things for how they are.) Trust me, I'm already familiar with this, as I speak more often with these folks than I do Latins or Protestants. It is also the leaders of these people who, in the past century, have the blood of martyrs all over their hands (the acts of the Sergianist MP against the Catacomb Church in Russia, which still goes on to this day, and the persecution of Old Calendarists in Greece at the encouragement of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Archbishop of Athens.)

I think there might be two questions here - on one hand the "how" as in "how is it possible for you to know" (which is an interesting, if peculiarly RC apologetical question), the other being the "how" as in simply "by what means do you know."

The latter I can answer fairly easily - the canons of Ecumenical and important Pan-Orthodox Councils (or even Local Councils whose canons were eventually accepted abroad), the doctrine of the Holy Fathers, Sacred Scriptures, and most directly, my teachers in Christ; a teaching they have not failed to clarify and justify in my sight (the way the Apostles did before the unbelieving Jews.) This is not a tremendously esoteric subject - and it is because of this, that the ecumenistic leaders of "world Orthodoxy" often go out of their way to viciously persecute and slander those who reject their innovations and lapses. A good example of this - why heirarchs like the EP often do and say things which make it appear that the "branch theory" is acceptable within an Orthodox paradigm (it is not), leaving everyone (including the poor RC's themselves) believe that they regard RC sacraments as true, grace bearing mysteries not at all substantially different from those of the Orthodox Church, they will go out of their way to denounce Old Calendarist Greeks and Catacomb believers in Russia as being "graceless schismatics", and have little compulsion about sicking the state authorities onto them (or in the case of Russia, even utilizing ultra-nationalist, neo-fascist groups to vandalize true Orthodox Churches and physically abuse and even murder Orthodox Priests, monastics, and laymen.)

In short, they're scared of the true confessors. And they should be, as their father the devil is terrified of the grace of Christ which is inevitably going to put his wicked ways to an end.

Well, I've already explained the "how" in this respect. If you want the details, that's another matter entirely, which I'm not sure is even worthwhile getting into with you. If you were truly inclined to hear the good news of Jesus Christ, taught unsullied and unadultered only in the Holy Orthodox Church of Christ, then it'd be worthwhile to get into these matters to dispel any confusion. But as it stands, you're interest is merely academic - which as far as I can see, is not only not worthwhile, but might even do you more harm than good.

"Athanasius vs. the world", "Maximos against the world"...it's happened before. Though I'm certainly no St. Athanasius or St.Maximos - but then again, most of their followers and brothers were not of their caliber either. Truth, as Bl.Augustine taught, is not democratic.

Now getting to the other dimension of the "how" question...that is more difficult to get into. However, I would say this is a problem that not only has to be dealt with by Orthodox, but by Roman Catholics as well. Indeed, it's the problem of human knowledge, and certitude, underlined by modern, post-enlightenment philosophers. That is to say can we really know anything?

That's an interesting discussion, and I have my own thoughts on that, but it's not really necessary to this thread - since I think it's safe to assume that both you and I accept (off the bat) that there is not only such a thing as "truth", but that it can also be apprehend by human beings. Bringing up Orthodoxy's lack of an "infallible Papal heirarch" doesn't make it an issue that plagues us any more than you, since all you've done is trade the Holy Canons and Scriptures for a man - yet one could still wonder what moves you to accept his authority?

Seraphim

Highly dependent? The "Russian" practice has been rather invariant over time. Far from a case-by-case decision for strictness or economy, there is a solid tradition that forms the basis for prescribing current practices. And as the MP document notes, the very fact that these practices are traditional - perhaps morphing to Traditional - provides insight as to the way Orthodox actually views other churches. Good to refer to "traditional " groups in quotes, as they are not following tradition.

I am a fan of Bishop Tihkon's writing for a number of reasons - one of which is its uniform excellence; he doesn't write poorly. Your spin on what he might mean, really misses his crucial point.

One thing that became apparent when I read this post, is that you've misunderstood (not entirely hard to understand, btw., but it's still a misunderstanding) what is meant by there only being grace in the Orthodox Church.

Grace, as understood by the Church, is truly an example of God's energetic involvement. Unlike traditional Latin theologians (at least since the Middle Ages), who explicitly taught that grace is a "created relationship" between God and His creatures (which exists in two forms - actual "graces", which are "helps" as it were, and "sanctifying grace" which is envisioned as a static "state" which justified souls possess - a "habit" of the soul, a categorization drawn from the post-Cordova Aristotelianism which took over theological schools in the RCC during the Middle Ages), Orthodoxy believes that "grace" is really God Himself having contact with His creatures. How? Because we believe that God's energies are uncreated (like His Essence, which is unknowable) outpourings of His Essence, real revelations of Himself and the way He takes up a presence and acts in the creation.

Because the universe continues to exist, and people are gently led towards the Truth (without ever violating their free will), it's obvious that this grace is at work in the world, among all peoples, and in all things. It can still be rightly called "grace", because it is unmerited benvolence on His part.

However, this interaction with God is "exoteric" - to use an analogy, it works from "without" rather than "within."

Yet the promise of Christ to His Saints is that the "living waters" He gives, will start gushing out from within - that they will in truth, become Temples of the Most High.

This "ability" to render men Temples of God, and for them to corporately exist as a singular Temple of the Lord, is something unique to the Church of Christ. Thus, why Orthodoxy can only recognize as "grace bearing" Her own Mysteries, and why Orthodox speak of there being "no grace" outside of the Church. It is a statement referring to this manifestation of the grace of the Holy Spirit, not to God's activity in the creation in general. For as our Lord Jesus Christ taught in St.Matthew's Gospel, God makes it rain and shine on both the wicked, and upon the upright.

I don't doubt it. Honestly, I've met plenty of Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, etc., whose gentleness and kindness puts me and many of my co-religionists to shame.

This is an interesting affirmation on your part. You regard them as "brothers" (seemingly on a C.S. Lewish style "mere Christianity" basis), yet they'd undoubtedly regard Priesthood as a vain imposition of men upon sinners who need Jesus (even though the Fathers taught that there are no Holy Mysteries, and thus no salvation, without them! St.John Chrysostomos' words on the Priesthood in his famous "Six Books on the Priesthood" comes to mind right away), are indifferent to the supremely Priestly mystery of Baptism, and would be forced to say that you're at least materially an idolater for regarding the bread and wine of the Eucharist, after being consecrated, as the precious Body and Blood of the God-Man, Jesus Christ.

Simply put, I fail to see how such a person is a "brother" of any sort, at least in a way significantly different from the notion of mankind's brotherhood as a whole.

That's very good news. Cancer is a horrible disease.

a) I can hardly say whether this was a miracle or not. There are still natural capacities in man, including the psychic realm, which are not fully understood by traditional medical sciences. "Positive thinking" for example, has been shown to do amazing things. What is entirely clear, is that we, physically, are fallen beings, who probably have natural capacities which are incredibly hampered by the reign of the devil, sin, and mortality.

b) Assuming this was an act of special intervention, it has no effect on Orthodoxy's ecclessiological position. I would only say that what may be infrequent outside of the Church (miracles), happens quite a bit within Her.

Taking what happened to your Pentecostal friend as proof of anything in the ecclessiological realm (while unnecessary) would not only have implications for me, but also for you (since such a view would make the Mystery of anointing the sick, which requires a Priest, a pointless formality - since apparently it can be done without Priests, if that is how one wants to understand your friend's case.)

As an aside, I think this line of discussion deserves a special aside - mention of Orthodox Christianity's incredibly "personalist" attitude towards causation. All effects have causes - and as far as Orthodoxy is concerned, there is no such thing as impersonal causes. While our darkened vision cannot always perceive this in every circumstance, no Orthodox Christian with any understanding believes things happen without personal causation.

Thus, all things, ultimatly will find their cause in God Himself, His Angels and Saints, men, or sadly, the devils. This is why we should take care not to grumble at our lot - for in doing so, we are passing an implicit judgement upon God for letting it come upon us. In the Holy Scriptures, we are given a cosmology which is incredibly "personalist" - the Apocalypse describes even physical aspects of our universe having spiritual personalities behind them (Angels in particular.) Also, the Prophet Isaiah describes places of desolation and despair as being literally filled with demons. This is why Orthodox Priests excorcize waters for Baptism, and why places are blessed for spiritual excercises - to drive out any demons which may be present. If you're interested, here is a link to a very good article pertaining to this subject...

http://www.stvladimirs.ca/library/orthodox-doctrine-causality.html

Thus, even when a physician does his work in this life by applying medicines to us, and our illness goes away, we should not only thank him, but supremely thank God, Who gives health (for the truth is, if it was really our time to die, there is nothing a doctor could do for us.)

Seraphim

Djs,

Yes, rather invariant. It's had exceptions. However, you'll note I was talking about Greek practice, which certainly has been more varying.

I'm aware it's not a "case by case" issue with the Russians, at least prior to relatively recently (since most of the Russian true confessors now, undoubtedly receive converts by exactitude). Indeed, generally this is not a "case by case" basis - usually a Synod will take a position for an indefinate period of time. I've said that reception via economy is pretty normal in Russian practice, so you're not informing me of anything controversial.

I quote "traditional", because in truth there are not two different types of Orthodoxy - I only use the phrase diplomatically, since in truth there is only Orthodoxy, and heterodoxy.

As for implications regarding the significance of traditional Russian practice, this is precisely the reason why this practice is inappropriate (in the judgement of at least two Russian groups I can think of at the top of my head) in our current context - because theological innovators (diplomatic speak for heretics) are drawing incorrect conclusions from this practice.

If you can produce a statement from a nominally "Orthodox" heirarch that the mysteries of the RCC and other schisms are undoubtedly grace bearing mysteries, all you've accomplished is the solicitation of a statement of heresy.

Canon XLVI.

We ordain that a bishop, or presbyter, who has admitted the baptism or sacrifice of heretics, be deposed. For what concord hath Christ with Belial, or what part hath a believer with an infidel?

Canon XLVII.

Let a bishop or presbyter who shall baptize again one who has rightly received baptism, or who shall not baptize one who has been polluted by the ungodly, be deposed, as despising the cross and death of the Lord, and not making a distinction between the true priests and the false.

Put another way - ask even the most liberal "Orthodox" Priest, whether a defrocked Priest can either truly celebrate the Divine Liturgy (put more precisely, call down the Holy Spirit so that the bread and wine become the Precious Body and Blood of the Saviour), or be witness to a man's repentence (Confession). Unless he's really out to lunch, I'm quite sure you'll receive a negative answer. In which case then, how could such men turn around and say that those who are cut off from the Church have the "communication of the Holy Spirit" (to quote St.Basil's canons)?

This is not a question on the reception of converts without going through the full Baptismal rite - it's a question of where the Church in fact "is", since the confession of there being grace in a well established schism/heresy (particularly as some ecumenists state it - they've gone beyond speculation on the case of this or that person, but consider it a given for that religion) is a statement of that body's existance in the Church of Christ. That is blasphemy, and makes the martyrdom of true Orthodox Confessors vain.

Seraphim

Not my point at all. I simply responded to your request for evidence. Whether the cited statements prove heresy, or are just poorly (or cleverly) written, doesn't matter much to me. I provided them in response to your request to get your take on them.

But it is your assertion that the conclusions are incorrect. Others (like Fr. Romanides) criticize such statements (e.g. Balamand) because they apprehend that such conclusions are the "correct" ones, but that the implicated course of action is wrong.

But the Orthodox that I know express such ideas cautiously - certain about bodies where it is, but specifically declining to say where it is not. Apparently, there are others who are not so circumspect, but seem confident in pronouncing where the church is not. And this is a basic question of the thread ISTM. Who is out to lunch?

I think the topic "graceless heretics" and the "validity of the sacraments outside the Church of Christ" has been mixed up. Seraphim has said (and I think he is more in line in what the canons and the Church Fathers said) that the baptismal rite as performed in the Catholic Church and other mainline Protestant communities ARE valid. This is what St. Basil and the Council of Trullo is saying. Now the follow-up question is: "does this have grace?" which Augustine had said that "it may" or "may not". That is why Chrismation is administered to converts to correct the deficiency. Though Seraphim has said that we, Catholics, have VALID baptism there are certain factions in Orhodoxy that denies the validity of Catholic baptism.

I am into the chrismation thing but to repeat the rite of baptism is not in line with the tradition of the Universal Church (prior 1054).

As for the Synod of Arles, it was not accepted into the East because it answered the Carthaginian controversy of rebaptizing. Also, the East did not encountered Donatism. Though not accepted in the east, it is inline with the Council of Trullo's teachings.

ruel

Hi, Seraphim....

I wasn't saying that, when Pentecostals "pray over" each other, that's the equivalent of the Sacrament of the Sick. I was merely saying that this woman's apparently miraculous cure shows that Grace -- and the Spirit -- operate outside the bounds of your communion (and mine).

No time now to respond to the rest of your posts. Later, I hope.

Blessings,

ZT

Elexeie,

I'm not aware of any that reject this possibility (acceptance of the exterior validity of RC baptisms) - though I'm sure you'll find someone to represent any position, somewhere. The only possible example I can think of (and I'm not sure of this) is on Mt.Athos, where I've been told some of the monasteries do not accept converts received via chrismation, or "third rite" conversions.

I think the "maybe, maybe not" position is a possible one to take. However, the less irenic position is possible as well - both "fit" with the canons on this subject.

What cannot be accepted though, is anything above a cautious agnosticism - for to state, outright that "this non-Orthodox church has grace bearing mysteries" is to effectively state they are still organically part of the Church, in total. That is quite different than cautiously saying "there may be true mysteries there, there may be not". It is also a sentiment that I have never seen any evidence for in the Fathers.

However, what I think can be said with certainty, is that the canons take a posture based on what we "can know" - and what we can know, is that "person x" is not a member of the Orthodox Church, which is synonymous with Christ's Body. Thus, the operative (and not theoretical, which in many ways is actually irrelevent) position is a non-recognition of rites performed outside of the Church.

To speak with any more certainty, in a positive manner, is similar to presuming the salvation of those outside of the Church (particularly when there are no guarantees being Orthodox in name is going to save a man!), which also weighs against a very explicit dogmatic belief (that there is no salvation outside of the Holy Church.)

Thus, with regard to those stuck in schisms or heresies, there may be some wiggle room speculatively, but practically there is none. This is the primary problem with the many manifestations of the ecumenical movement - the outright affirmation of "Churchess" in other groups, confirmed by concelbrating acts which are prohibted by Holy Tradition for precisely that reason.

Seraphim


Seraphim

Seraphim:

I prayed for you today before the beautiful statue of Our Lady of Guadalupe in our parish church.

May La Guadalupana -- who converted six million Aztecs and single-handedly stopped the satanic practice of human sacrifice -- bring you back to the Church Our Lord Himself founded upon Peter the Rock-Man.

Our Lord refuses her nothing, and she has pulled your file, kiddo!

Blessings,

ZT

Zoe,

I appreciate anyone's good will, however misguided. Thank-you for the kind thoughts.

btw., do you have any thoughts on what I wrote to you last, in reply to some of your concerns about Orthodox Christianity (particularly, your whole questioning on the grace issue, involving your Pentecostalist friend)?

Seraphim

Dearest Zoe Theodora.

(I still positively LOVE that name!)

I was going to try to stay out of this one, but none of you would stop!

So, here is my two cents:

Seraphim is I believe ROCOR (correct me if my assumption is wrong, dear brother Seraphim). They are considerably more 'hardline', and more 'fundamentalist' in their Orthodoxy than other jurisdictions here in the U.S. So, ecumenical relations arguments with Seraphim will be considerably different than they will be with other Orthodox.

As for this statement, I will agree AND disagree:

You will find no greater fan of the holiness of the current Pope than me, (even among my Roman Catholic brethren),

BUT,

The older brother (seat of Peter, first among equals) needs his younger siblings (apostolic seats of Eastern Patriarchs) just as much as they need him, in order for the family to be whole and functioning again!

In Christ,
Alice

P.S. And to both you and Seraphim, I would like to humbly offer you my favorite quote: "there is no schism in heaven!"....so, my beloved brethren in Christ, accept that your banter back and forth about who has and doesn't have grace, and to what degree, yada, yada, yada, is nothing more than mere mortal folly, and won't matter one bit before the awesome judgement seat.

Seraphim, you post so much, I'll have to get back over my lunch hour.

I've been following this thread since the beginning and finally thought I'd say something. In a "former life" I was a priest in the Old Roman Catholic Church. A priest friend in yet another jurisdiction and I were discussing validity of priestly orders and the Roman Catholic Church. The orders in my Church were recognized as valid by Rome, but my friend pointed out that even if Rome didn't accept them as valid my Church did and that was the important thing. So my response to those RCs here who seem to be so upset that some Orthodox Churches or hierarchs don't accept the validity of sacraments outside Orthodoxy, according to their definition of what it means to be Orthodox, what difference does it make? If your sacraments are valid in your eyes, who cares what someone else thinks? And as for my Orthodox brothers and sisters, if you are being true to your understanding of what it means to be Orthodox, then God bless you and strengthen you in your resolve. Who knows, maybe our Orthodox brothers and sisters are right? But then again, maybe our hardcore RC brothers and sisters are right? And who knows, even those of us in the middle could be right too? Don