Your Grace Vladimir, Archbishop of San-Francisco, and the Western Americas. Bless master! In your recent correspondence with me, and now on your official web-site, I have noted that the ROCiE Synod has issued several statements condemning ROCA (formerly ROCOR-A) as Sergianists and Ecumenists, and therefore heretics. I now understand from your correspondence with me that similar opinions apply to other Synod’s as well, and that, in your opinion, of all the Synods that have spawned from ROCOR or who have at one time or another been in prayerful Eucharistic communion with ROCOR, only the ROCiE Synod alone is neither heretical nor schismatic. Further, you implied in your correspondence that ROCiE does not recognize the ROCA Synod's, (and apparently now that of others) mysteries as being effective for salvation. In my humble opinion, these are spiritually bold, even audacious, judgments, and should be investigated in the light of traditional, non-innovative, Orthodox dogmatic and pastoral theology, with the understanding that the resolution of administrative disagreements in the church is a pastoral, and not a dogmatic issue. Before looking more closely at the veracity of ROCiE's bold opinions, I feel compelled to point out to you that in our private conversations you did not express this opinion at all. This opinion was made known to me after I requested that you provide me with a proper and respectful procedure I could follow to have the ROCiE Synod release me to the GOC Florinite Synod. This of course greatly saddened me, because it appears to me that you were being deliberately deceptive. During our private discussions you expressed an opinion that I was comfortable with, and that was consistent with ROCOR's ecclesiology, that is: "the ROCiE Synod only denies the efficacy of the mysteries of the MP". Had I known that ROCiE's ecclesiology even questioned the efficacy of the mysteries of other confessing Synods, I would have undertaken the composition of an opinion similar to this much earlier. With this in mind, please accept the following humble explanation of what I find I cannot accept as God-pleasing and Orthodox with respect to what I now understand to be ROCiE’s ecclesiology. I am a technical writer. I write papers and articles for international Engineering Caucuses and Societies. I also write Expert Witness reports for the Federal Patent court, and other legal entities, so at times my writing may appear dry and technical, even curt, and thereby disrespectful. However, it is not intended to be read that way. I ask that you bear with my weaknesses, and understand that there is no disrespect intended or implied, only statements of facts as I understand them to be, stated in the way I usually present them. I humbly ask that you take what is written seriously, and that you read it completely. Please do not think that because it appears long-winded, and verbose, it is unreadable. There is a difference between long-winded, and thorough. I ask that you not dismiss it prematurely because of its length, and because it comes from a sinful priest, and not a bishop of the church. What this means is: when I ask a question, please take the time to answer it respectfully and fully. Feel free to ask me questions if you are not sure you understand what is being asked, or if you are unsure about the meaning of any of the opinions expressed herein. It also means that if I point out a mistake of judgment by you personally or the ROCiE Synod, as I understand the dogmatic and pastoral traditions of the Orthodox Church to be, I humbly ask that you acknowledge it as such, or if I am mistaken, correct me with counter opinions that are consistent with traditional Orthodox dogmatic and pastoral theology. Please refrain from only quoting your personal interpretation of Church canons alone. These are not unreasonable requests. I thank you for taking the time to engage in this discussion with me.
Finally, I am not capable of expressing myself with precision in the Russian language, therefore I have written the following in English. Please have one of our Clergy who is fluent in both Russian and English translate it for you. Using an on-line translation medium will not yield an adequate translation of the text. Preamble: From reading the correspondence you sent me, my understanding of the ecclesiological position of the ROCiE Synod with respect to the release of clergy from ROCiE to any other Synod, is the following: i. The ROCiE Synod will not release any of their clergy to another Synod when that Synod espouses Heresy, or are Schismatic. ii. ROCiE does not release any of their clergy from the ROCiE Synod, to any other Synod, because all other Synods, and Orthodox Church administrative entities, are either Heretics, or unrepentant Schismatics. (This is what I do not accept as God-pleasing and true). iii. From points i. and ii. above, it is not difficult to deduce that the reason the ROCiE Synod is not in communion with any other Orthodox Synod, is because the opinion of the bishops of the ROCiE Synod is that every other Synod, without exception, is either espousing and teaching heresy, or are unrepentant schismatics (my deduction based on an interpretation of the intent, and content of the correspondence you sent me). As best as I can fathom, ROCiE understands this to be the ROCOR ecclesiological position prior to the ROCOR-L schism, and because ROCiE is fulfilling the admonition "Revelation 3:11; Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown." this position cannot be changed or altered in any way. The following opinion assumes that ROCiE's ecclesiological position as stated above is properly understood. I hope to clearly show that this and other ROCiE ecclesiological positions I am now aware of, do not represent the positions held by ROCOR when presided by Metropolitans Anthony, Anastassy, St. Philaret, and Vitaly while he was Metropolitan of ROCOR. Question: If my understanding of ROCiE's ecclesiology is not correct, please let me know, and I will restate my opinion. The mystery of Iniquity In the early days of Christianity, Apostle Paul advised the Church at Thessaly: "2nd Thessalonians 2:7; For the mystery of iniquity doth already work ..." This mystery, which has assailed the church from that time until today, can be called 'The Political Process'. It is thru this process, that the enemy of man enslaves mankind to the will of God's enemies. This process is recognized by the following characteristics:
i. Applying the letter of the law (the spirit of which will never fade away, but is eternal - Luke 16:17 “And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail."), for the purpose of maintaining power and/or influence and control over persons/peoples/societies/churches or any other organization of governance, where the preservation of truth is not the objective, rather the preservation of influence/power/control is the objective. ii. Applying the Letter of the Law while disregarding the spirit in which the law was to be applied. "Mathew 23:23; Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone". "Romans 7:6; But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter." iii. Applying the letter of the law, while at the same time transgressing the spirit of the law for which the law itself was made. "Romans 2:27; And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfill the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?" Summary: When I reference the 'Political process' the above is what I am referring to. The Political process, as I recognize it in the polemical statements of the hierarchy of confessing Orthodox Synods, uses language and semantics (i.e. words) to rationalize ecclesiological positions that can be justified in a narrow and strictly legal sense, using innovative/litigious interpretations of canon law that, until the 20th century, had never before been seen in the Orthodox Church. These interpretations are derived to support a given opinion/ecclesiological-position for the sole purpose of providing a legal justification, as it relates to church administration. What do I mean when I reference 'innovative/litigious interpretations of canon law'? Answer: Interpretations made by individuals/Synods that represent opposing views on how the church should be administered, but which reference the same canons in the composition of their ecclesiological positions. Only the interpretations of those canons differ, in a purely legal sense. This is by definition litigious. I also recognize that those who interpret canon law in such a way do not perceive their interpretations as innovative in a litigious way; they perceive them as traditional. However, when one compares the contemporary application of canon law from the perspective of both the 'World Orthodox', and the 'Confessing Orthodox' Synods, to historical precedence in the church, it is anything but traditional. The Orthodox Church has seen this type of rigid/dogmatic litigious approach to solving pastoral issues before, and rejected it, when confronted with the Donatist and Novationist heresies in the 3rd and 4th centuries. I hope to persuade you that this kind of legalistic interpretation of the church canons is executed at the expense of abandoning the spirit/purpose for which the words used to execute them, (to wit: scriptures, Canons of the great councils and of universally recognized local councils, writings of the Holy Fathers etc.), were themselves composed. The psalmist David, the Apostle Peter, and many others, speak of this: "Psalm 56:5; Every day they wrest my words: all their thoughts are against me for evil." "2nd Peter 3:15-17; … even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness. " In my opinion, the application of the 'Political process' and the use of innovative interpretations of canon law in prosecuting the administrative functions of the Orthodox Church is the main cause of contemporary schisms in Christ’s body. With the above in mind, the following discussion seeks to comprehend what the 'spirit of the law' is while identifying and rejecting misapplications of the 'letter of the law' in the application of canon law. It attempts to show that such misapplications of canon law render them God-hating, as opposed to God-pleasing.
I would be amiss if I neglected to point out a much overlooked fact, a fact that should be obvious to one who reads the dogmatic, moral, and ascetic writings of the Holy Fathers, but apparently is not. This fact is: One cannot find references to specific church canons to justify particular ecclesiological, dogmatic or moral positions, in any of the writings of the Holy Fathers. I state this from the knowledge I have garnered from those that I have read. These include; the Apostolic, Nicene, and post-Nicene fathers, the writings and sermons of St Gregory Palamas, the ascetic treatises in the Philokalia, and the writings of the great Russian Fathers, and others. The writings of the Holy Fathers use scriptures, reason, and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to opine their various opinions and dogmatic positions, and because of this they do so with gravitas, and spiritual authority: "Their sound hath gone forth into all the earth and their words unto the ends of the world". Before the 20th century, canons were traditionally only found referenced in the proceedings of local and ecumenical church councils, and even then their usage is sparse (for example, read the proceedings of the seven great councils), and certainly not applied in the legal sense, that is seen today in the various polemical communications between Synods/Jurisdictions in the contemporary Orthodox Church. Canons that are referenced outside the confines of conciliar gatherings have traditionally been used to guide the hierarchy in its deliberations concerning marriage, divorce, ordinations, and other pastoral/moral issues. From the 20th century on, every Synod/Jurisdiction which seeks to justify their canonical standing uses various permutations of said innovative/novel interpretations of the administrative canons of the church. They seldom reference scripture and the Holy Fathers. Why? In my opinion the answer to this question reveals who/what is behind the fractious state of the confessing GOC and ROC Synods, that is; the ultimate 'lawyers', God's spiritual enemies. How did the Orthodox Church deal with the memory of Hierarchs who unwittingly expressed opinions that were later shown to be erroneous?
Your correspondence contained several instances of ROCiE's recollection of supposed 'heretical teachings', as opposed to 'personal opinions', espoused by reposed hierarchs such as Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina. ROCiE claims that the rejection of these 'heresies' is the foundation upon which it bases its objection to entering into prayerful Eucharistic communion with any of those Synods who trace their apostolic succession to Synods led by these hierarchs. From your correspondence I understand that ROCiE considers prayerful Eucharistic communion with them to be communion with unrepentant heretics/schismatics and is therefore forbidden. As stated in the preamble above, I find, and hope to clearly show, that this type of thinking/reasoning/deduction is consistent with that exhibited by hierarchs who espoused the Novationist, and Donatist heresies in the 3rd and 4th centuries. This approach, which identifies resolutions to pastoral issues using rigid dogmatic thinking, is in essence a pharisaical pastoral theology that uses only logic. By the admission of Donatus Magnus himself, this rigid thinking has no place for mercy, compassion, and forgiveness. That is, it has no place for economia. This type of rigid thinking is a characteristic of dogmatic theology, not pastoral theology. As stated previously, issues of administrative misconduct and the use of canon law to resolve them exist in the sphere of pastoral theology. Given this observation, I thought it prudent to make a more thorough investigation of the following: Can I find instances in the history of the Orthodox Church where hierarchs unwittingly held opinions that were erroneous, and then reposed? And if so, how did the Orthodox Church deal with their memory from a canonical perspective? Did the church, using purely dogmatic deductive thinking canonically condemn them posthumously because it was revealed that they held erroneous opinions, and did not repent of these opinions in strict accordance with those Canons of the church that govern the censure of those who preach heresy? Would the Holy Orthodox Church condemn them, even though they were never afforded the opportunity to repent because a council was never convened to offer this to them? Or did the church posthumously forgive them, due to circumstances that surrounded them while formulating their mistaken opinions? To answer the above question, I think it appropriate to concentrate on one example, that is: Blessed Augustine, who is venerated on June 15th in the Eastern Church. Blessed Augustine of Hippo. Purpose: To show that the Orthodox Church does not condemn the souls of individuals because they, in good conscience, but mistakenly, held opinions that were misleading, opinions which after their repose were shown by consensus among erudite fathers of the church to be so.
I have read much of St Augustine's writings, and for the most part found them very orthodox and edifying. It is clear however that there are parts which, upon reading, immediately strike one as problematic. These opinions have to do with:
i. Predestination (which underpinned the theology of the reformation). ii. The guilt, as opposed to the stain, of original sin. iii. Obscure eschatological teachings that preceded the Roman Catholic doctrines of indulgences, and purgatory. It is not the purpose of this opinion to discuss the details of the theologically problematic teachings of St. Augustine, problems which have been addressed by fathers of the Orthodox Church. I only wish to point out that they were composed by a saint of the Orthodox Church, who, without conciliar guidance, but in good faith, did express erroneous opinions. These errors were not seen as impediments to his veneration by the fathers of the Orthodox Church who corrected them for the faithful. Why? Because St Augustine often admitted to this possibility by stating the following, or similar: (Letters of St Augustine - Letter LXXXIII, 2)
"...fearing lest, as frequently happens, I should myself be mistaken through partiality for my own opinion" (Letters of St Augustine - Letter CLVIII, 12) "I beseech you in the name of Christ the Lord to correct me where I am mistaken, and teach me what you know that I am desirous to learn" However, blessed Augustine clearly did expose as false the teachings of the Manicheans, the Novationists/Donatists, Pelagianists, and other heretics. He also wrote edifying treatises/commentaries on the Holy Scriptures, the Holy Trinity, the sacramental mysteries of the Church, and others. He was also spiritually close to St Ambrose of Milan, who mentored him before his conversion to Christianity from Manichaeism. In much the same way as St Athanasius the Great pounded the Arians with his clear and erudite repudiations of their many and varied (it seems almost endlessly evolving) postulations, Blessed Augustine pounded the followers of Antipope Novation (Novationists) and Donatus Magnus (Donatists), with erudite commentaries that clearly exposed the God-hating nature of the dogmatic "rigorism" used by them to justify their strict pastoral opinions. Opinions that rejected the efficacy of the sacraments of lapsed Clergyman (especially with respect to Baptism and Ordination), and their rejection of the penance of the lapsed as "repentance that can never be sufficient to allow them (the 'traditores') to once again be whole in the Holy Spirit" - Donatus Magnus. It is true however, that in the process of composing his dogmatic and pastoral refutations of these and other heresies, Augustine occasionally erred. Why then did the Orthodox Church not condemn his memory after his erroneous opinions were identified? Answer: Because the Orthodox Church rejected the rigorist thinking of the Donatist, and rather than use 'rigor' to justify condemning him as an unrepentant heretic, the Orthodox Church posthumously forgave him. The Orthodox church has historically exhibited a compassionate and understanding attitude towards those hierarchs who, like Augustine, expressed opinions that were mistaken, but did so in ignorance, without conciliar guidance. When these teachings were later corrected at council, or by consensus among God-loving church fathers, it did so to the glory of God, not with the aim and intent of destroying the memory of hierarchs who led blameless lives, (there are exceptions, such as Origen - but that is a different issue, and is outside the scope of this discussion). Even in our times, blessed Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky, St John of Shanghai, and St Philaret occasionally inadvertently expressed opinions, either by word or deed, that could be shown to be inconsistent with the dogmatic theology of the Orthodox Church, or the ecclesiology of ROCOR. These were simple 'slip-ups' made without adequate reflection, and certainly not heresies that besmirch their blessed memories. Interestingly, because of these inadvertent errors, some of the excessively strict GOC traditional Synods (such as the Mathewites) deny the efficacy of the mysteries of the ROCOR Synod. This is a good example of the Donatist nature of such reasoning. Showing deferential tolerance to hierarchs who inadvertently expressed mistaken opinions is an important historical reality of the doctrinal life of the church. One that correctly applies the letter of the law (propagating truth with linguistic precision) by subjecting it to the spirit of the law (showing mercy and compassion towards sins of ignorance) - that is, the quick forgiveness of sins attributed to ignorance, while giving glory to God for His loving-kindness and providence in revealing what is true. "Luke 12:47-48; And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes." If there was no forgiveness for the sin of expressing an opinion which was at risk of being revealed as erroneous posthumously, there would have been no doctrinal development in the church. Why? Because those venerable and God-bearing fathers whose minds dwelt in the uncreated light of the divinity, but who were immeasurably humble, would have been reluctant to express their opinions for fear of erring, and having them posthumously revealed as mistaken. Debate would have withered, and Orthodoxy would not have flourished. The debate which took place in the first eight centuries AD is the well-spring from which Orthodoxy issued forth. When innovation and erroneous opinions have sprung forth in the church, debate, followed by doctrinal development, has been required in the mind of the Church to preserve a proper Orthodox and God-pleasing confession of faith. Those who undertook such efforts, always did so with the understanding that they could be mistaken, but out of humility remained open to correction through debate, and through conciliar overview. A heretic is someone who obstinately refuses to be corrected by debate and conciliar decision, and who cleaves to his erroneous opinions until death. Doctrinal development in the Orthodox Church was at all times accomplished in subjection to a simple rule. That is, it must be organic. St Vincent of Lerins provides a beautiful description of this simple rule, and the proper development of doctrine: (The Development of Doctrine - Saint Vincent of Lerins) “Is there to be no development of religion in the Church of Christ? Certainly, there is to be development, and on the largest scale. Who can be so grudging to men, so full of hate for God, as to try to prevent it? But it must truly be development of the Faith, not alteration of the Faith.
The Development means that each thing expands to be itself, while alteration means that a thing is changed from one thing into another. The understanding, knowledge, and wisdom of one and all, of individuals as well as of the whole Church, ought then to make great and vigorous progress with the passing of the ages and the centuries, but only along its own line of development, that is, with the same doctrine, the same meaning and the same import. The religion of souls should follow the law of development of bodies. Though bodies develop and unfold their component parts with the passing of the years, they always remain what they were. There is a great difference between the flower of childhood and the maturity of age, but those who become old are the very same people who were once young. Though the condition and appearance of one and the same individual may change, it is one and the same nature, one and the same person. The tiny members of un-weaned children and the grown members of young men are still the same members. Men have the same number of limbs as children. Whatever develops at a later age was already present in seminal form; there is nothing new in old age that was not already latent in childhood. There is no doubt, then, that the legitimate and correct rule of development, the established and wonderful order of growth, is this: - in older people the fullness of years always brings to completion those members and forms that the wisdom of the Creator fashioned beforehand in their earlier years. If, however, the human form were to turn into some shape that did not belong to its own nature, or even if something were added to the sum of its members or subtracted from it, the whole body would necessarily perish or become grotesque or at least be enfeebled. In the same way, the doctrine of the Christian religion should properly follow these laws of development, that is, by becoming firmer over the years, more ample in the course of time, more exalted as it advances in age. In ancient times our ancestors sowed the good seed in the harvest field of the Church. It would be very wrong and unfitting if we, their descendants, were to reap, not the genuine wheat of truth but the intrusive growth of error. On the contrary, what is right and fitting is this: there should be no inconsistency between the first and last, but we should reap true doctrine from the growth of true teaching, so that when, in the course of time, those first sowings yield an increase it may flourish and be tended in our day also.” Given that the church encourages doctrinal development to protect the Orthodox faith, and that individuals do err, which errors are forgivable, and which are not? St Cyril of Alexandria speaks of two types of 'error of judgment', the one committed in ignorance, and the other deliberately, in the following commentary on the Gospel according to St. Luke.
(St. Cyril of Alexandria; Commentary of the Gospel of St. Luke Ch. 12 8-10); And that blasphemy is a most wicked crime for men to commit, He has further taught us by saying, that whosever shall speak a word against the son of man it shall be forgiven him; but unto him who blasphemeth against the Holy Sprit it shall not be forgiven. And in what way is this too to be understood? Now if the Savior means this, that if any scornful word be used by any one of us towards some mere man, he will obtain forgiveness if he repent, the matter is free from all difficulty, for as God is by nature good, He will free from blame all those who repent. But if the declaration has reference to Christ Himself, the Savior of all, how can he be innocent or secure from condemnation, who has spoken against Him? What we then say is this; that whenever anyone, who has not yet learnt the meaning of this mystery, nor understood that being by nature God, He humbled Himself to our estate, and became man, speaks anything against Him, blasphemous to a certain extent, but yet not so wicked as to pass forgiveness, such things God will pardon in those who have sinned from ignorance. And to explain my meaning by an example Christ somewhere said; I am the living bread which came down from heaven and giveth life to the world. Because, therefore some did not know His glory, but thought that He was mere man, they said: is not this the carpenter’s son, whose father and mother we know? How doth He now say that I came down from heaven? And again, He was once standing teaching in a Synagogue, and was wondered at by them all. But some, it tells us, said: How knoweth that man learning, having never been taught? For of course they knew not that in Him are all the treasures of wisdom, and the hidden things of knowledge. Such things might well be forgiven as being spoken inconsiderately from ignorance. But to those who have knowingly blasphemed the Godhead itself, condemnation is inevitable, and the punishment eternal both in this world and in that which is to come, For by the Spirit He means not only the Holy Spirit, but also the whole nature of the Godhead, as understood to consist in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, And the Savior Himself also somewhere said, God is a spirit, Blasphemy therefore against the Spirit is against the whole supreme substance; for as I said, the nature of the Deity, as offered to our understanding in the holy and adorable Trinity, is one." To summarize: the sin of expressing an erroneous opinion in ignorance is forgivable, but those who refuse to hearken to the church’s declarations, (declarations which have been revealed as God-pleasing through debate and conciliar decisions), and thereby knowingly adhere to erroneous opinions, cannot be forgiven. Why? As shown below, they are blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Blessed Augustine, like many of those who inadvertently erred, admitted that he was human, and prone to error. He did not undertake his doctrinal development with a haughty attitude that turned a blind eye to correction. Quite the opposite, he encouraged those who found errors in his opinions to correct him, unlike the obstinate Novationists, and Donatists. One cannot help but notice that those individuals, who vehemently reject the memory of blessed Augustine, are typically the same individuals who embrace a Donatist-like pharisaical and legalistic polemic, lacking in mercy, compassion, and understanding, when interpreting canon law. Is this a co- incidence? "Luke 17:9; I trow not", "Mathew 7:20; Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them" - the fruits exhibited by such individuals are: division, slander, humiliation, brotherly hatred, hard-heartedness, backbiting, etc. Perhaps blessed Augustine's biting words, which clearly exposed and condemned the dogmatic rigor of the Donatists’ pastoral opinions, pricks the heart of the 'rigidly Orthodox' adherent of canonical purity, and for this reason they reject his memory. Only God knows what lies in the heart of man, and I defer judgment concerning this to my Creator.
What was the cornerstone of the Donatist Heresy? As stated above, the Donatists used rigid and innovative interpretations of scripture to justify their condemnation of the 'traditores', or those who gave up the sacred books and liturgical vessels during the Diocletion persecutions. The Donatists refused to accept the repentance of the lapsed, and re-baptized those whom lapsed clergy had baptized. They also re-ordained clergy who were ordained by clergy who were, in their own self-proclaimed determinations (that is – without universal conciliar agreement), deemed to be 'traditores'. As if this was not sufficient for them, they added an even more egregious transgression by separating themselves from Eucharistic communion with the entire Orthodox Catholic Church, because the rest of the Orthodox Catholic Church would not condemn those whom they unilaterally condemned. Blessed Augustine sharply rebuked the spirit in which the Donatists unlawfully condemned these clergy. For example: his rebuttal of the Donatist’s condemnation of the former Bishop of Carthage, Cæcilianus:
(St Augustine, Epistle CLXXXV-4) “4… For they prefer to the testimonies of Holy Writ their own contentions, because, in the case of Cæcilianus, formerly a bishop of the Church of Carthage, against whom they brought charges which they were and are unable to substantiate, they separated themselves from the Catholic Church, that is, from the unity of all nations. (That is: because of the supposed sins of one man, the Donatists cut themselves of from communion with the rest of the church, because the rest of the church remained in communion with him) Although, even if the charges had been true which were brought by them against Cæcilianus, and could at length be proved to us, yet, though we might pronounce an anathema upon him even in the grave, we are still bound not for the sake of any man to leave the Church, which rests for its foundation on divine witness, and is not the figment of litigious opinions, seeing that it is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man. For we cannot allow that if Cæcilianus had erred, - a supposition which I make without prejudice to his integrity, - Christ should therefore have forfeited His inheritance. It is easy for a man to believe of his fellow-men either what is true or what is false; but it marks abandoned impudence to desire to condemn the communion of the whole
(St Augustine, Epistle CLXXXV, Ch 7) “For the Donatists met with the same fate as the accusers of the holy Daniel. For as the lions were turned against them, so the laws by which they had proposed to crush an innocent victim were turned against the Donatists; save that, through the mercy of Christ, the laws which seemed to be opposed to them are in reality their truest friends; for through their operation many of them have been, and are daily being reformed, and return God thanks that they are reformed, and delivered from their ruinous madness. And those who used to hate are now filled with love; and now that they have recovered their right minds, they congratulate themselves that these most wholesome laws were brought to bear against them, with as much fervency as in their madness they detested them; and are filled with the same spirit of ardent love towards those who yet remain as ourselves, desiring that we should strive in like manner that those with whom they had been like to perish might be saved.” Both Sts. Augustine and Ambrose advocated applying the letter of the law on a case-by-case basis, in much the same way as strictness and economia are practiced in the proper application of canon law today. Summary: The Donatists misused scriptures by picking and choosing scriptural references that supported their rigid 'way of thinking' (misapplication of the letter of the law), while ignoring the many scriptures and oral/written pastoral traditions that refuted 'their way of thinking' (ignoring the spirit of the law). Further reading of the history of Donatism reveals that they attempted to legitimize their isolation from the rest of the church by consistent, deliberate, and calculated misapplication of the intent/meaning of the opinions expressed at the church councils held at Carthage by St Cyprian. The Donatists twisted the intent/meaning of these opinions (which included references to the Apostolic Canons) in a narrow legal sense, so that the resulting interpretation justified their separation from the rest of the church in almost the exact same way some confessing GOC and ROC Synods do today. From the above brief discussion, the cornerstone of the heresy of the Donatist is identified as not so much their refusal to accept the repentance of the lapsed, their practice of re-baptizing/re-ordaining those who were baptized/ordained by lapsed clergy, or their isolationist ecclesiology. These are symptoms of the real problem. The real problem is their obstinate, legalistic, and rigid 'way of thinking'. A way of thinking that is to this day shared by many heretics and schismatics. To wit: The heretical Donatist 'way of thinking' can be summarized as:
1. A litigious/legalistic use of Scriptures and Church canons to justify strict, yet novel/untraditional, pastoral/ecclesiological positions. a. Note: Administrative disputes in the church are considered pastoral issues, but dogmatic disputes are not. Dogmatic disputes must at all times be resolved using rigid, linguistically precise and consistent interpretations of Scriptures, the Canons of the Church, and the writings of the Holy Fathers. 2. A litigious/legalistic use of the administrative canons of the Church to justify isolation from the rest of the Orthodox Catholic Church. Given this understanding of what the Donatist 'way of thinking' is, can it be applied to help formulate an Orthodox and God-pleasing opinion about much of what you sent me in your correspondence? In my opinion it can. A heresy that, in the mind of the Bishops of ROCiE, is supposedly espoused by the GOC Florinite Synod. From your correspondence I understand the following to be the ROCiE position with respect to the Canonical standing of the GOC Florinite Synod. You Claim:
1. In 1937 Metropolitan Chrysostomos recognized the new calendarists as 'non-schismatic'. a. According to ROCiE, he did so, based on the teaching: "This heresy ascribes to divine energy of God potential state of created matter " (Question: I do not know what you mean, please explain. I assume that you mean he taught that the New- calendarist mysteries have the "potential" to be effective for salvation.) b. In 1950 Chrysostomos recanted his opinion that the sacraments of the New Calendarists are valid for salvation, but did not officially recant, with a written Synodal declaration or 'ukaz', the teaching described in point 1.a. c. Since then the GOC Florinite Synod (now called the GOC-K Synod) has not officially recanted this teaching from point 1.a.. d. Because of the opinion described in point 1.a. all Synods who trace their apostolic succession from the Synod of Chrysostomos are de-facto followers of this teaching, and by implication 'Heretics'. My Response:
1. The facts of the matter, in a most absolute sense, do not support this thinking. The opinion you ascribe to Metropolitan Chrysostomos is obscure and even unknown among many of the clergy in the GOC Florinite Synod. a. One cannot find an article that describes it as an official position of the GOC Florinite Synod, let alone supports and/or defends it. Metropolitan Demetrius of New York does not teach this. The recent ecclesiological statement from the SIR and GOC Florinite Synods in a most striking way and with exactitude, express opinions that do not agree with this. b. Because it is difficult to find material defining this doctrine as an official position of the GOC Florinite Synod this accusation fails the litmus test of Heresy. Why? because the opinion does not exist in the mind of the GOC Florinite Synod, and its clergy, in fact the exact opposite is true, as shown below in 1.c, and 1d. This opinion is far less egregious and significant than the mistaken opinions ascribed to St. Augustine, which are still used today to justify heterodox doctrines of the Roman and reformed Churches. To use the 'electric plug' doctrine (described below) as a means of denying the orthodoxy of all bishops who trace their apostolic succession to the Chrysostomos Synod is obtuse, and in my opinion, a misapplication of canon law consistent with the rigorist 'way of thinking' of the Donatist. At the least it is disingenuous, at worst, it is deliberately deceptive. c. The ROCOR Synod did not officially deny the efficacy of the mysteries in the New Calendarist Greek Church. They remained silent concerning this. I am firm on this opinion, having been there when these discussions took place while I was in seminary. This was true when the ROCOR Synod was under the Omophorion of Metropolitan Anthony, Metropolitan Anastassy, and St. Philaret. While presiding over ROCOR, Metropolitan Vitaly never once officially stated that the mysteries of the New Calendar GOC were not valid for salvation (this was a prerequisite for the union of the ROCOR synod with the Cyprianite Synod of Fili in 1994, over which Metropolitan Vitaly presided here in Cleveland). I know this because I spoke about it with Bishop Gregory Grabbe when the Sobor was held here. Bishop Gregory and Archbishop Anthony of LA were staying at our home at the time. Does this mean that everyone who was in the ROCOR Synod are heretics (including you and Vl. Vitaly) because ROCOR did not, with an official 'ykaz', reject the supposed heresy of Chrysostomos, with whom they had shared prayerful Eucharistic communion, and that because of this, ROCOR did not deny the efficacy of the mysteries of the New Calanderists, and therefore did not deny the 'potential' for God's grace to exist in their mysteries? This cannot be true, because the ROCiE Synod canonized St. Philaret, and St. Philaret was far more tolerant than the GOC Florinite Synod when it came to stating positions about this. d. The GOC Florinite Synod has always held a far stricter position than ROCOR ever had concerning the efficacy of the mysteries of the new-calendarist Greek Church. In my opinion the ROCOR position was more 'Orthodox' and appropriate (To wit: "We do not have an opinion about this at this time, we await the decision of a universally accepted council before expressing consensus with an opinion concerning this"). It seems to me from reading your correspondence, that the strict position of the GOC Florinite Synod is not strict enough for ROCiE, i.e. denying the efficacy of the New-calendarist mysteries must also be coupled with a formal 'ykaz' recognizing Chrysostomos of Florina as a heretic, and all clergy who currently trace their apostolic succession to the Synod over which he presided must repent of this heresy. This is not, and has never been, a ROCOR ecclesiological position, ROCiE has thereby effected a de-facto change in ROCOR's ecclesiology, and not a continuation of the well-balanced and considered traditional ROCOR position, as it was so stated by St. Philaret, Bishop Gregory Grabbe, St. John of Shanghai, and others. (for example: Bishop Gregory Grabbe stated in his article on ‘The Dubious Orthodoxy of Metropolitan Cyprian’s Group’: “It is of interest that our Sobor, while seeking union with the ‘True Orthodox’ Greek groups, made no effort whatsoever toward unity with the far more numerous and decent group of Archbishop Chrysostom Kiousis of Athens”. If ROCOR considered the GOC Florinite Synod heretical, why would its most revered and canonically 'correct' thinker prefer union with them? Q.E.D.) Summary: In my opinion, the opinion you are referring to, and which you suppose to be a heresy espoused by Metropolitan Chrysostomos, stems from the same perplexing dilemma that confronted the ROCOR Synod from the time of their exile, until the Sobor here in Cleveland. To wit: Do we have the right to cond emn the new calendar innovation as egregious enough to state with certainty that the new calendar faithful are denied the grace of God in their mysteries? After all, the adoption of the new calendar was an unlawful innovation, not a heresy. There is nothing dogmatic about it, it is an unlawful pastoral innovation that was adopted for the wrong reasons, and led to schism, and is therefore an egregious abuse of authority by the 33rd degree freemason Patriarch Metaxes Meletius. It is right and proper to condemn the innovation, but not the souls of individuals who inadvertently find themselves trapped in it. Recall that Metropolitan Chrysostomos, faced with the many spiritual conflicts that were prevalent then, was loathe to condemn the faithful who found themselves under the Omophorion of an innovationist bishop, and for this reason constructed the opinion you describe as a 'heresy'. Recall also that St Nicholas Planas “Papa Nicholas” was under the Omophorion of an innovationist bishop. That and many other similar pastorally difficult circumstances surrounded the traditionalist orthodox at that time. Oddly Metropolitan Chrysostomos and his Synod eventually eschewed that opinion, as you yourself noted, while the ROCOR Synod effectively embraced it by entering into communion with the Cyprianite Synod in 1994. Like those mistaken opinions inadvertently expressed by St's John and Philaret, Metropolitan Chrysostomos, inadvertently expressed an opinion that was well intentioned, but not well thought out. He certainly did not boldly preach heresy as you imply. For the same reasons the Eastern Church venerates blessed Augustine, the True Orthodox Church rightly lauds the memory of Metropolitan Chrysostomos, recognizing him as a confessor and protector of orthodoxy, while forgiving sins committed in ignorance. ROCiE apparently does not. I am having difficulty understanding why you and ROCiE appear to me to be deliberately propagating misleading renovationist GOC history. Anyone who is familiar with the facts instantly recognizes this. Question: Given the above information, please re-explain to me why you are of the opinion that the GOC Florinite Synod are 'heretics'. The explanation you have given me does not show this to be true, even in a most remote sense. In my opinion, the Holy Spirit would inspire one to investigate the truth of this matter, and dispel the fog of misunderstanding by, for example, simply speaking with Metropolitan Demetrius about it. A simple meeting is all that is needed. If I saw that I would be comforted greatly, because it would indicate that there is a desire to know the truth, not a desire to use polemics and obvious misstatements of facts (i.e. deploying 'the political process'), to maintain a fractious separation, which I personally loathe. ROCiE believes that the Old-calanderist Greek Synods have committed numerous infractions of the administrative canons of the church, and are, without exception, Schismatics. Strictly employing a purely legalistic, and strict (in the sense of being the opposite of economia – no room for pastoral understanding and forgiveness), approach to the interpretation of the canons of the church that deal specifically with its administration, the ROCiE position you have stated in your correspondence can be justified. But then again, using fairly straight- forward and very similar, in a legally correct sense, interpretations of the same administrative canons of the church, the schismatic standing of ROCiE can be rendered just as easily by the ROCA Synod (formerly ROCOR-A). Similarly, the 'Makarios' Synod rendered a labyrinth-like legal opinion on why they are the true Orthodox Church, and the GOC Florinite Synod is not. The same can be said for all the schismatic Synods you mention in your correspondence. It would be a great disservice to truth, to make the bold assumption that ROCiE is the only Synod that is capable of rendering a canonical justification for its non schismatic status which is correct in a strictly legal sense.
How can this be when all these groups reference the same canons? The difference lies in subtle differences in the legal interpretations of those canons. Simple logic tells one that the interpretations have to be different, not incorrect in a legal sense, just different, or they would all be drawn to the same conclusion. These differing innovative/novel interpretations of the canons are formulated in much the same way Protestants mishandle Holy Scriptures to justify their mistaken opinions, and in much the same way the Donatists mishandled scriptures, and the opinions of the Carthagenian councils, to obstinately justify their heresy and ecclesiology. As stated above, I have read with an open mind canonical arguments expressed by other Synods ROCiE describes as non-canonical and their canonical constructs are just as 'tight' in a legal sense, as ROCiE's are. It was for good reason ROCOR abstained from making such judgments. Why? Because those who jumped into their self-created, small and, fragile boats, and set forth into the 'Sea of isolation' shared the same faith. Rational minds in the ROCOR Synod recognized that these schisms had more to do with personal disagreements than with Orthodoxy, and that canon law was being wielded as a weapon of personal attrition, and not being correctly applied to protect the church from heterodoxy and innovation. For this reason ROCOR avoided jumping into this quagmire. Personal disagreements are no reason to create schism, and using canon law to justify ones strategy in waging personal battles is an egregious abuse of canon law, and in opposition to the purpose for which the laws were composed.
There are three types of canons. To wit:
1. Those canons that govern the acceptance and rejection of dogmatic opinions in the church. These are composed to preserve a proper confession of faith and cannot be compromised in any way. 2. Those canons that govern the administration of the church and which were composed to protect that confession of faith in a visible UNITY, These canons can be exercised with either strictness or economia, but solely for the purpose of preserving the unity of the church in a proper confession of faith, not to splinter and destroy her for personal/economic/social reasons. 3. Those canons that deal with morality, and which are always practiced with strictness/economia commensurate with the individual needs of each and every application of the law. Given that the many contemporary confessing Synods each compile their own unique 'we are non-schismatic' - canonical justification using innovative/litigious interpretations of canon law, and that these justifications certainly do not preserve the unity of the church in a proper confession of faith, there must be something egregiously wrong with this type of thinking/reasoning/deduction. It cannot be God-pleasing because it separates those who confess the same faith. It is clearly an abuse of canon law, not the proper use of it. It is every bit as wrong as the legalese canonical tripe one sees issuing forth from the MP and other 'World Orthodox' church administrations, as they make their bold official canonical condemnations of the traditional orthodox synods. They are two sides of the same God-hating coin. When one investigates the schisms that separate confessing Orthodox Synods one should first ask: “Are they making a proper confession of Orthodoxy?” If such an investigation shows that each and every one confesses the same faith, it would be prudent to then investigate whether the schism is a result of the 'political process' (often historical in nature), or is it indeed a genuine effort to preserve the church from wolves who wish to lead her away from Orthodoxy and into innovations that lead the faithful away from God? After asking these questions and investigating their answers, the 'spirit of the law' leads one to the conclusion that these schisms are indeed the result of bitterness in personal relationships, and disagreements about how the church should be administered, and have nothing to do with preserving Orthodoxy. As stated above, a God-pleasing application of canon law uses strictness/economia in a balanced way to preserve the well-being and unity of the church in a proper confession of faith, and not to facilitate her destruction in that same confession of faith, ROCOR was wise to avoid these pitfalls in its deliberations. It seems to me that ROCiE has discarded this wisdom, and embraced the same God-hating polemics that those whom she now calls schismatics and heretics had embraced in their past. Summary: Wise and prudent souls, having sought a God-pleasing balance of strictness and economia, preserve the Church's unity in a God-pleasing confession of faith. The froward soul cleaves either too far towards strictness - thereby fracturing the body of Christ through schism, or too far toward economia, thereby compromising her faith and principles to achieve a false union in a violated confession of faith (i.e. the Orthodox syncretist/mason/ecumenist). From my perspective, a fractious spirit is an easily recognized hallmark of the enemies of Christ. Divide and conquer. In good conscience, I have to say that the fruits of this kind of narrow and legalistic interpretation of canon law speak for themselves, and tell me that it is not God-pleasing. Taking the above into consideration:
You Claim:
2. Over the last 80 years, the ecclesiological 'mess' of the Old-Calendar Greek churches resulted in ROCOR entering into, and then breaking prayerful Eucharistic communion, with all of them at one point or another. The last (and most problematic of them all) was the 1994 agreement to enter into Eucharistic communion with the Cyprianite Synod. a. Because the ROCOR Synod broke prayerful Eucharistic communion with all the traditional GOC Synods at some point in time, they are all without exception, either heretics, or unrepentant schismatics. b. Because they are either heretics, or unrepentant schismatics, the ROCiE Synod cannot release clergy to them, (but apparently can accept clergy from them).
My Response There is no doubt that the hierarchs of the confessing GOC churches have made poor errors of judgment, and engaged in 'the political process' , which led to administrative misconduct, for the purpose of preserving control over those who came under their rule. For this reason ROCOR properly abstained from participating in their errors, until such time as they displayed a genuine desire to overcome their differences, and reconcile. (Bishop Gregory Grabbe: “The Dubious Orthodoxy of Metropolitan Cyprian's Group” – Introduction) “... the Sobor of 1975 resolved not to have communion with the Greek groups until they themselves had become united, and the Synod, already presided over by Metropolitan Vitaly, reaffirmed this wise decision in the spring of 1993, that is, a mere year and a half ago. Everyone is aware that the Greek groups can in no wise boast of having already achieved unity.” It is also true that Bishop (at that time a married priest) Gregory Grabbe, with the consensus of the ROCOR Synod, authored strong rebukes to some for their administrative misconduct, however it is disingenuous, even deliberately misleading, to imply that ROCOR was ever of the opinion that their orthodoxy was dubious. Exceptions to this are the above noted Cyprianite teachings which were investigated by Bishop Gregory Grabbe and exposed as dubious (not heretical, but dubious). The de-facto acceptance of them by ROCOR after the establishment of prayerful Eucharistic communion with the group of Old Calendarists headed by Metropolitan Cyprian of Fili in the fall of 1994 can be considered the beginning of the end of ROCOR. Several hierarchs, such as Bishop Gregory Grabbe, Archbishop Anthony of LA, both of whom stayed in our home whenever they were in Cleveland, and other clergy - myself included - expressed doubts about the veracity of this union, and the Orthodoxy of the opinions of Metropolitan Cyprianos. In my opinion, the following is a more accurate description of how the schisms referenced in your correspondence are to be understood from the perspective of ROCOR’s ecclesiology. It is also a refutation of the narrow and destructively strict interpretation of canon law, which is used by ROCiE (and others), to justify an ecclesiology that does not recognize other Synods as 'canonical'. This type of interpretation of canon law implies that other Synods are, in a purely narrow/technical legal sense, unrepentant schismatics. Why? Because they have not 'officially' repented of their administrative misconduct before the ROCiE Synod. They therefore remain schismatics, and their mysteries are not effective for salvation. Because of this, ROCiE cannot release clergy to them.
2. In the Orthodox Church, both strictness and economia have waxed, and waned over the years. Sometimes being deployed extremely strictly. For example breaking Eucharistic communion with followers of Arius, and other specifically identified individuals that have been identified as propagating an opinion which was rejected at an ecumenical or other universally accepted council. And sometimes deployed with great economia, for example, the acceptance of the 'Old Believers' back into the bosom of the ROCOR Synod despite centuries of repeated and egregious canonical infractions. b. The application of strictness or economia in the interpretation of the administrative canons of the Orthodox Church for each individual case, is to be done at all times for the following reasons: i. To preserve the unity of the church, and expel those who lead the flock away from Orthodoxy, and into Heterodoxy and innovation. ii. To protect and preserve a proper, Orthodox, and God- pleasing theological interpretation of Orthodox doctrine. iii. To maintain a spiritual environment for the flock of Christ, that is conducive to maintaining a God-pleasing Orthodox way of life. iv. To maintain administrative order in the church. c. Currently, Old-calendarist GOC and ROC Churches can be found who are making good faith efforts to reconcile. The recent entering into prayerful Eucharistic communion between the GOC Florinite Synod, the SIR (Cyprianite) Synod, and ROCA (ROCOR-A) is a good example. This would not have taken place had there not been discussions about the doctrinal differences that previously separated them. Your correspondence referred to this as a 'Roman Catholic heresy': "In March 2014 Cyprianites agreed to merge with the Florinite GOC. The idea of such a union
http://www.hsir.org/pdfs/2014/03/22/E20140322aCommonEcclesiology15/E20 140322aCommonEcclesiology15.pdf
In my opinion, the statement linked to above is not an example of a 'Roman Catholic heresy', but quite the opposite, it is a good example of a fruitful reconciliation in the orthodox faith. It would be prudent to investigate this further, to verify that such an opinion is warranted. d. As Bishop Gregory stated, the opinions of Metropolitan Cyprianos were dubious (note: he was careful to not say heretical). I am in complete agreement with him about why they harbor within themselves sprinklings of a misguided ecumenical influence. It is clear that the dilemma that confronted Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina, also tormented Metropolitan Cyprianos, and he, like Metropolitan Chrysostomos, attempted to construct a dogmatic solution to this pastoral problem that was later shown to be similarly misguided. (The Donatist misapplied dogmatic strictness to resolve pastoral issues, here, Metropolitan Cyprianos misapplied pastoral economia to resolve a perplexing dogmatic issue. A sin of ignorance that is easily forgiven.) i. After the recent repose of Metropolitan Cyprianos, the GOC Florinite Synod, the SIR (Cyprianite), and ROCA Synods, met and discussed those doctrines that were deemed by each other to be problematic. After careful study of those doctrines in the light of traditional orthodox dogma, and pastoral practice, they released the above ecclesiological statement which was accepted by all participating Synods as God-pleasing and Orthodox. The stated, and implied, gist of the ecclesiology of this statement from the perspective of the history of ROCOR's ecclesiology can be summarized as: 1. A de-facto rejection of the mistaken opinions of Metropolitan Cyprianos and his Synod. Opinions which were refuted by Bishop Gregory Grabbe. These opinions (to wit: the 'sick church member doctrine') are no longer espoused or taught, by clerics in either Synod. 2. A confession of the same ecclesiology (especially with respect to Ecumenism and Sergianism) as that found in Bishop Gregory's articles, and St. Philaret's epistles. That is: a continuation of ROCOR's well balanced ecclesiology. ii. From your emails, ROCiE either does not believe this to be true, or finds this ecclesiology, and the underlying repentance, to be unsatisfactory in much the same way the Donatists refused to accept the repentance of the lapsed as being satisfactory. It appears to me that, in the mind of the ROCiE Synod, there is no acceptable remedy. Even a formal 'ukaz' condemning and censoring Metropolitan Cyprianos and his Synod as heretics, and then having them return in repentance to ROCiE may not be sufficient. Having read the history of the struggle between Orthodoxy and the Donatists in northern Africa, this attitude is strikingly similar to that taken by the 'rigidly purist' Donatists, who also rejected agreeing to any penitential remedies from the lapsed. As stated previously, St Augustine and St Ambrose clearly exposed the God-hating nature of this kind of rigorism. Perhaps it would be prudent for you and his grace Ambrose to read their opinions and commentaries regarding this. iii. In my opinion, applying the administrative canons of the church in the strict way that ROCiE is applying them is not prudent, as it was not prudent when ROCOR accepted the Old-believers back into the Church. Those who interpret the canons in such a way do so with the intent of fostering and maintaining division. By doing this, ROCiE may render themselves schismatic (i.e. separated). iv. You expressed the opinion that “In the Orthodox Church, one can only be accepted or fallen away from Church”. I agree with this completely, my disagreement is with ROCiE taking upon itself the right to 'unilaterally' draw the lines of the boundary of the Church, in almost the exact same way the Donatists did in their day. In good conscience I cannot agree with such audacious statements. Statements that carry within themselves the implication that ROCiE is the Church. I am also saddened that such an ancient and well understood spiritual malady even exists among those who are brothers and sisters in Christ. In your mind, you see ROCiE as bold defenders of Orthodoxy, sadly I see history repeating itself. c. Without exception, the other Old-calendarist GOC synods have, as stated above, been guilty of administrative misconduct, but at the same time, misconduct that is far less egregious than that of the Old-believers. However, to label them as 'Heretics' verges on the absurd. They have endured the persecution they endure because they have taken a stand to preserve the Orthodox faith inviolate. For this reason alone, any opportunity that can be taken to heal the administrative wounds of the confessing Synods of the traditionalist Orthodox Churches should be encouraged, and pursued, not obstructed. As stated above, if ROCiE has an issue with a given Synod's opinion on a particular topic (with respect to the veracity of their Orthodoxy) a simple meeting could easily dispel such misunderstandings. I know from experience that this is a good way to conduct oneself, and recognize as God-hating those who obstinately refuse to do so. d. ROCOR did issue strong rebukes to various Old-calendarist GOC Synods (as noted in your correspondence), which at the time were meant to arouse contrition. It is well known that Bishop (at that time a priest) Gregory Grabbe unilaterally instigated this because he was very precise in his application of canon law. In seminary this was discussed ad-nauseam and the consensus was that "It was a bad idea" - it only led to more schisms. That is why after 1976, ROCOR did not issue any further rebukes (exception being the Boston Schism - a different matter altogether), and attempted to patch things up discretely. For example, Metropolitan Chrysostomos (of Etna) attended, and prayerfully participated in the glorification of St John of Shanghai - that simple truth renders ROCiE's opinion of ROCOR's ecclesiology concerning the Old-calendarist GOC Synods dubious. Of course, the agreement with the Cyprianite Synod that followed in 1994 completely destroyed all dialogue between ROCOR and the traditionalist GOC Synods. This was by design: i. The last thing Archbishop Laurus and his clique (Archbishop Mark, Achimandrite Peter, et. al.) wanted was to patch things up with Archbishop Chrysostomos (Kiousis). They were interested in creating an ecclesiological environment that opened the door to accepting the Moscow Patriarchate (MP) as grace-filled, and thereby pave the way to reunion. ii. Because the mistaken Cyprianite doctrine of 'the sick church body members' allowed ROCOR to accept the mysteries of the MP as being effective for salvation, (in opposition to the well-stated and clearly defined ROCOR position that the mysteries of the MP were not effective for salvation) it was a logical stepping stone to reunion. iii. Archbishop Laurus et. al. signaled the demise of ROCOR when they engaged in the 'political process' to ensure that ROCOR would not align itself with the traditionalist Synods of the GOC, by secretly pursuing a union with the Cyprianite Synod. I discussed this with Vladiko Gregory in 1994. iv. The very GOC Synods ROCiE accuses of a 'Roman Catholic heresy', were by default shown to be the exact opposite. They, in ecclesiological consensus, rejected the very teachings that ROCOR embraced on their path to union with the MP. It is shameful to even speak of this God-pleasing effort as a 'Roman Catholic heresy', it is quite the opposite. Summary: The schisms that separate the confessing GOC and ROC Synods are the result of Hierarchs applying the God-hating 'political process' in their relationships with each other. As stated above, it is the way of the hater of mankind to foster separation and isolationism, using the fractious 'political process' to divide and conquer. Rather, it is God-pleasing to pursue healing and reconciliation, and the application (strictness/economia) of canon law should be done to encourage this, not obstruct it, with the understanding that Orthodox doctrinal purity cannot be compromised in even the minutest way. What then is a God-pleasing reconciliation? We know that Ecumenists seek reconciliation. Are the attempts being made to reconcile among the traditionalist/confessing GOC and ROC Synods Ecumenist in nature?
Ecumenism, psuedo-Ecumenism, and true reconciliation. An argument has been put forth (originally by the Mathewites) that defines attempts at reconciliation by the confessing GOC Synods, attempts which require a relaxed application of the administrative canons of the church (economia), as a form of 'Ecumenism'. The Mathewite Synod explained the reasoning behind this with the 'Electric Plug' interpretation of canon law. A doctrine derived from a novel, and before the 20th century never before seen, interpretation of administrative Church canons woven like a spider's web, a web that ensnares the gullible faithful in the net of canonical rigorism. What is the Mathewite 'electric plug' interpretation of canon law? It can be summarized as: Anyone who has served with anyone who ... ad-infinatum ... has served with a New-calendarist, is deprived of the activity of God's uncreated energies in his liturgical activities, and any attempt to reconcile will result in further abandonment of God's grace by those who attempt to reconcile - they are effectively unplugged from God’s uncreated energies by the single historical instance of serving with a New-calendarist. All clergy who have fallen under this anathema must return to the Mathewite Synod, and fulfill the penances outlined for heretics and schismatics, as practiced in the times of the Ecumenical councils, or the grace of God will not be present in their mysteries. To do otherwise would be to practice ecumenism. For reference, a typical procedure from the time of the Ecumenical Councils used to receive heretics back into the church is given below: Canon VII of the Second Ecumenical Council
THOSE who from heresy turn to orthodoxy, and to the portion of those who are being saved, we receive according to the following method and custom: Arians, and Macedonians, and Sabbatians, and Novatians, who call themselves Cathari or Aristori, and Quarto-decimans or Tetradites, and Apollinarians, we receive, upon their giving a written renunciation [of their errors] and anathematize every heresy which is not in accordance with the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of God. Thereupon, they are first sealed or anointed with the holy oil upon the forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth, and ears; and when we seal them, we say, “The Seal of the gift of the Holy Ghost.” But Eunomians, who are baptized with only one immersion, and Montanists, who are here called Phrygians, and Sabellians, who teach the identity of Father and Son, and do sundry other mischievous things, and [the partisans of] all other heresies—for there are many such here, particularly among those who come from the country of the Galatians:—all these, when they desire to turn to orthodoxy, we receive as heathen. On the first day we make them Christians; on the second, catechumens; on the third, we exorcise them by breathing thrice in their face and ears; and thus we instruct them and oblige them to spend some time in the Church, and to hear the Scriptures; and then we baptize them. The reasoning behind the 'electric plug' doctrine was then extrapolated to include Synods, that is: Any Synod that has at one point in time been in communion with a schismatic Synod, or a Synod that has taught heresy, is deprived of the activity of God's uncreated energies in the liturgical activities of all its clergy. Any attempt to reconcile between offending Synods, without fulfilling the penances outlined for heretics and schismatics, as practiced in the times of the Ecumenical councils (see above) was also a form of ecumenism. This teaching - which I consider heretical in the sense of the Donatist - sits at the heart of the isolationist canonical ideology of ROCiE and other confessing Synods. St John Chrysostom talks of this madness: (St John Chrysostom; Commentary of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans: 1: 17)
"Let (them) hearken to the voice of the Spirit, for such is the nature of their reasonings. They are like some labyrinth of puzzles which have no end to them anywhere, and do not let reason stand upon the rock, and have their very origin in vanity. For being ashamed to allow of faith, and to seem ignorant of heavenly things, they involve themselves in the dust-cloud of countless reasonings"
From the perspective of the Heterodox, what is Ecumenism? And how is it refuted? In general, the heterodox who participate in the Ecumenical movement have little interest in dogma. The main focus of their ecumenical activities is the pursuit of fraternity, charity, and congenial relations. Dogma is something that is thrown under the bus, if it gets in the way of these pursuits. This is because at the core of their belief system, they are free-thinking religious humanists. The thoughts contained in the link to the ecclesiological SIR/GOC/ROCA statement above explain this with great precision.
The ecumenists base their methodology to achieve a union of disparate religious entities on the belief that the process must identify only those doctrines that all can agree upon. Doctrinal positions that foster separation should be put aside so that those who participate can make progress. These identified ‘common-core’ beliefs can then be used as pivots around which discussions concerning reconciliation may proceed. This reasoning process is syncretistic, and has as its goal the formation of a new religion based on a plethora of doctrinal compromises. At first glance the desire for reconciliation appears to be worthy, and for this reason many Orthodox hierarchs and faithful have been deceived by it. However, as you are well aware, ecumenism has been exposed by a multitude of Orthodox writers as a pan-heresy of the worst sort. Metropolitan Vitaly wrote a very good exposé about this, and the ecclesiological confession above explains this as clearly as it can be expressed, using the tools of dogmatic linguistics. In lieu of a dogmatic and canonical refutation of this way of thinking, such as those described above, an Orthodox refutation based on moral theology can be more readily presented, and is more appropriate in gaining a better understanding of what a God-pleasing reconciliation is, and what a God- hating reconciliation is.
Reconciliation based on any form of dogmatic syncretism denies the mystical activity of God's grace in the mind of the Church. Further, it denies that this mystical activity has revealed to mankind through the God-inspired teachings of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, all that mankind needs to know about his Creator, the Holy Trinity, the God-man Christ, and how to lead a God-pleasing life, such that one may attain to the kingdom of heaven, and dwell eternally nourished by God’s uncreated energies. The essence of the ecumenical process (by implication) teaches mankind that God has not provided all that mankind needs for salvation thru the dogmas, and spiritual teachings of the Orthodox Church, that only now this syncretistic process is discovering this knowledge and revealing it to mankind. This implies that God has not been guiding His church over the past 20 centuries, thereby denying God's providential care and love for His bride - the Church- and is therefore blasphemous. The Ecumenist asks: How does Ecumenism deny the mystical activity of the Holy Spirit in the mind of the Church? How is it blasphemous? Christ told the Jews on many an occasion, that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the only unforgivable sin. "Luke 12:10; And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven" The Jewish Sanhedrin and the Synagogue elders accused Christ of working miracles by the power of Beelzebub, thereby ascribing to the openly manifest activity of God's most Holy Spirit, something insidious and evil. Why would they do this? The reason the Jewish elders made such a judgment was not because the miracles themselves were unworthy of salutation, but because Christ was teaching that He was the God-man, and served His Father, and was therefore 'not subject to their jurisdiction'. His moral and inspired teachings stood in opposition to their rigid interpretations of the Mosaic Law.
Christ was in effect leading the Jewish people away from a God-hating understanding of the law based on the 'letter of the law' and into a God- pleasing understanding of the law based on the 'spirit of the law'. By teaching in such a way, He stood in opposition to them, and since they were of the opinion that God was with them because they were the chosen race - the sole dispensers of God's judgment here in this vale of tears - Christ must have been opposed to God. But the exact opposite was true: "John1:17; For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ" "Mathew 5:17; Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."
The Ecumenist, like the Jewish Sanhedrin, obstinately refuses to submit to the divine authority of the Church of Christ - the Orthodox Church - because she teaches dogmas/doctrines that they do not agree with, doctrines that impede reconciliation, that encroach on and refute their self-determined opinions, dogmas which are hard to accept. "John 6:60; Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?" The ecumenist denies that the sacred determinations of the Orthodox Church are free gifts given to mankind - like the miracles of Christ - by the Most Holy Spirit acting mysteriously in the mind of the church, as noted below: “In order that the thoughts of an individual not be mistaken for those that proceed from God, the Church instituted the holy Ecumenical Councils, which sought consensus of revelation from its participants, and issued proclamations of those determinations. This is ‘the miraculous activity of the Holy Spirit in the mind of the Church, leading her to the correct and God-pleasing confession of Christ’s divinity’…” The Ecumenist denies the miraculous activity of the Holy Spirit in the mind of the church for the exact same reasons the Jews of yore did. That is: they do not want to surrender their will to God. "James 4:7; Submit yourselves therefore to God". The ecumenist asks: How can we not be surrendering ourselves to the will of God? Answer: Because the ecumenist rejects the fruits of this miraculous activity in the deliberations of the Orthodox Church for the simple reason that accepting them as God-inspired would require the ecumenist to admit that his personal opinions are wrong. By rejecting the sacred determinations of the Orthodox Church as something imperfect, a product of the mind of man, they render themselves guilty of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. This is the hallmark of every heresy, of every manifestation of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (vis-à-vis, refusal to accept the mystical activity of the Holy Spirit, because to do so would require one to abandon ones personal opinions). For this reason alone it would be prudent for yourself, ROCiE, and others, to look more closely at the healing process taking place between confessing ROC and GOC Synods. I would certainly not want to be found guilty of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit by rejecting and condemning these efforts when at the last judgment it is revealed that the Holy Spirit is inspiring them. This is especially true if to do so would require one to abandon opinions around which one may have built one’s ecclesiology, and which are shown to be mistaken. From the lives of the saints we know that the humble man admits his mistakes, but the heretic, consumed with pride and a high-opinion concerning the veracity of his own judgments, cleaves to them, even until his death. The former is blessed by his humility; the latter is condemned by his opinions. Summary: When one is of the opinion that the Orthodox Church has erred, and that its teachings are not inspired by the Holy Spirit, but are mistaken creations of the minds of men gathered in council, and further, states this only because these teachings disagree with abstract self-determined opinions which have evolved from the syncretistic ecumenical (or any other) process, one does indeed manifest oneself as a blasphemer of the Holy Spirit. Because this kind of reconciliation (Ecumenical) is based on a rejection of the miraculous activity of the Holy Spirit in the mind of the Orthodox Church, it cannot be God-pleasing. By embracing doctrines that contradict the truth revealed to mankind through this miraculous activity, the ecumenist leads mankind away from revealed truth, and because God is truth, he leads mankind away from God. Therefore, this kind of reconciliation cannot be God-pleasing. However, let us ask ourselves honestly, does the reconciliation taking place between confessing GOC and ROC churches deny the mystical activity of the Holy Spirit in the mind of the church? - of course not! Does it reject, or attempt to alter in any way, the dogmatic, moral, and pastoral teachings of the Holy Orthodox Church? - of course not! What then is this kind of reconciliation? Can we show it to be God-pleasing? Reconciliation and the royal path.
The Orthodox Church has never taught that reconciliation is not God- pleasing, however she has always understood that true, God-pleasing and spiritually fruitful reconciliation must be done in obeisance to the doctrines and teachings of the Church, and consequently, in full recognition of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in her mind. Because ecumenism brazenly opposes the authority of the Orthodox Church to dispense judgments concerning Doctrine (Dogmatic theology), church administration (Pastoral theology/Canon law), and morality (Moral theology), it sets itself up in opposition to God, as described above. The bringing together it seeks is a phantom of God-pleasing reconciliation. What then are the hallmarks of a God-pleasing reconciliation? In my opinion, they are the following:
i. The preservation of Orthodoxy. ii. The preservation of an Orthodox way of life. iii. The preservation of fraternal unity in the bond of love, and in the communion of the Holy Spirit. iv. The rendering of canonical judgments done in the spirit of the law, while accomplishing i, ii, and iii above (God-pleasing reconciliation requires an appropriate application of strictness and economia for each and every instance the law is applied). Therefore, in my humble opinion, to determine if the current reconciliation that is taking place between the GOC Florinite Synod, and the SIR (Cyprianite) Synod is true, proper, and God-pleasing, one must establish that it passes the litmus test described above. Is the reconciliation between the GOC Florinite Synod, and the Cyprianite Synod seeking to preserve Orthodoxy? The answer to this is self-evident. Both Synods stand united in their resistance to the errors of 'World Orthodoxy'. These errors all sprout from the same roots - Ecumenism, modernism, syncretism, and are well known. The simple truth that the Bishops of the SIR Synod humbled themselves, and by default, admitted that their previous opinions were mistaken by agreeing to the above linked ecclesiological statement, and no longer espouse or teach them, indicates a reconciliation that seeks to preserve Orthodoxy. Further, the application of economia in this case is commendable, because without it there would not have been a God-pleasing reconciliation. By putting aside each other’s rigid canonical opinions justifying their separation, they paved the way to separate themselves from that which they genuinely needed to be separated, that is; opinions that were shown by many traditionalist orthodox thinkers, to be erroneous. By doing this they preserved in purity their Orthodoxy. Why is ROCiE obstinately refusing to recognize this, accusing both parties of engaging in a 'Roman Catholic heresy'? Is it due to a strict interpretation of the administrative canons? That is: they have not satisfactorily repented and returned to ROCiE with all the 'legally required documents' (ukazes), defrockings, suspensions, etc? Or are there other motivations? In good conscience I am baffled by, and cannot agree with, your judgment concerning this.
Is the reconciliation between the GOC Florinite Synod, and the Cyprianite Synod seeking to preserve an Orthodox way of life? The answer to this is also self-evident. The schisms that exist between the confessing GOC and ROC Synods have resulted in the abandonment of a liturgical life for many of their adherents. Families have been fractured, friendships destroyed, and souls lost because of these schisms. As each schism takes its human toll, prayer life wanes, and a sense of community evaporates. Only the strongest have the will and fortitude to continue a spiritual life under such spiritually oppressive circumstances. How is this true? An example: suppose a family is composed of a Greek father, and a Russian mother. The mother wants the children raised in the ROCOR-A church, the church of her parents, however only a Florinite GOC mission church exists in the area. The mother obstinately refuses to attend the GOC church because they are not in communion. As a result the children are raised in the absence of a normal Orthodox liturgical life, and fall away from Orthodoxy when they attend college. This happens all the time. As confessing Synods enter into discussions to clarify issues and misunderstandings about each other's Orthodoxy, and reach a consensus by humbling themselves, and having put aside polemics, find it pleasing to the Holy Spirit to enter into communion with each other, pastoral issues dispel, communities are strengthened, and souls are saved. Is not this the true purpose of a God-pleasing reconciliation?
Given that the former isolated Cyprianite, ROCOR-A, and Florinite GOC parishes are now in communion, many souls that were previously denied a healthy liturgical life by the schisms that engulfed them, can now embrace a full liturgical life for themselves and their families. For this reason alone, the reconciliation of the GOC Florinite, and Cyprianite synods fulfils the second requirement above. Is the reconciliation between the GOC Florinite Synod, and the Cyprianite Synod seeking to preserve a fraternal unity in the bond of love, and in the communion of the Holy Spirit? St Ambrose of Milan answers this on my behalf: (St Ambrose of Milan - Selected letters (Schaff) CHAPTER XXXIII. Good-will exists especially in the Church, and nourishes kindred virtues) "GOOD-WILL expands in the body of the Church, by fellowship in faith, by the bond of baptism, by kinship through grace received, by communion in the mysteries. For all these bonds claim for themselves the name of intimacy, the reverence of children, the authority and religious care of parents, the relationship of brothers. Therefore the bonds of grace clearly point to an increase of good-will." With regard to those who 'pick and choose' where God’s grace is and isn't, and what they consider adequate in terms of repentance, (i.e. rejecting the humbling exhibited by the Clergy of the Synod formerly headed by the reposed Metropolitan Cyprianos, as 'not good enough, does not satisfy the canonical requirements of penance by heretics'), I prefer to abstain from judgment, and would rather let St Ambrose speak for me: (St Ambrose of Milan - Selected letters (Schaff) CHAPTER IX - 37. pp505)
"But you say that the grace of the mysteries works in the font. What works, then, in penance? Does not the Name of God do the work? What then? Do you, when you choose, claim for yourselves the grace of God, and when you choose reject it? But this is a mark of insolent presumption, not of holy fear, when those who wish to do penance are despised by you. ... (you say) touch me not, for I am pure.” Given that the reconciliation between the two former bitter enemies was accomplished with great care to ensure that the memory of reposed hierarchs was respected, (for example, Archbishop Kallinikos served a panachida at the grave of Metropolitan Cyprianos), while rejecting those opinions that were shown to be misleading, a clear effort can be observed by both Synods to abstain from fractious polemics. They chose, in the name of the Holy Spirit, and in the bond of brotherly love, to reconcile. This kind of reconciliation is similar to ROCOR’s traditional well-balanced approach, and is similar in spirit to that which took place between ROCOR and the Old-believers. Thus it is reasonable to state that the reconciliation that took place satisfied the third requirement above. While accomplishing i, ii, and iii above, did the GOC Florinite and Cyprianite Synods render canonical judgments in the spirit of the law? This is also self-evident from the discussion above. Yes. Is the reconciliation between the GOC Florinite Synod and the Cyprianite Synod God-pleasing? In my opinion, the agreement between the GOC Florinite and Cyprianite Synods bears all the hallmarks of a God-pleasing reconciliation. Certainly this is true in terms of Orthodoxy, the preservation of an Orthodox way of life, and a balanced application of strictness and economia. In my opinion, the reason ROCiE is unwilling to recognize this union as God-pleasing has little to do with dogma, Orthodoxy, or the application of strictness/economia, it has more to do with the pre-existing union between ROCOR-A and the SIR (Cyprianite) Synod. My concern is that ROCiE, like others before them, will resort to quoting canons, using litigious/novel interpretations of them in a legally correct sense, to show that the two Synods remain schismatic because they have still not officially repented of their administrative misconduct with an official 'ukaz' before the ROCOR Synod. Since ROCiE has constructed a canonical argument that presents itself as the sole heir of ROCOR (legally correct by one interpretation of canon law) they must first issue an official statement of repentance to ROCiE etc., before the union can be accepted. If by your response to this opinion, my above concern is shown to be correct, it should be clear by now that I consider that 'way of thinking' Donatist in nature. Why? Because, as I have said many times, it applies interpretations of the administrative canons of the church in a sense that they were never meant to be applied. To wit: strictness that leads to the fracturing of the church by those who confess the same faith and not the correct application of economia which encourages those who confess the same Orthodox faith to embrace God-pleasing reconciliation and union in that proper confession of faith. Finally: Recall that the Donatists believed in the Divinity of Christ and the Holy Trinity with the same confession of faith as did the Orthodox faithful, but they obstinately refused to admit that their pastoral strictness was God- hating. It is hard for the modern Donatist to see that his traditional and strict interpretations of canon law are in fact, like those of the Donatists of old, an innovation, and not traditionally Orthodox. The Schism between the Synod of Metropolitan Agathangel (ROCOR- A) and ROCiE. I have no interest in making judgments concerning the character of Metropolitan Agathangel, even though he was a party who assented to, and participated in, the humiliating, grossly unchristian, and uncanonical treatment of Metropolitan Vitaly, and others in the ROCiE Synod. I am only interested in discussing the opinion the ROCiE Synod has with respect to the Orthodoxy of the ROCA (formerly ROCOR-A) Synod. As stated previously, personal disagreements/dislikes are no cause for creating, or even tolerating, schism. Schisms based on such divisions are the result of individuals, and groups of individuals, who divide the body of Christ by engaging in the 'political process' for either personal gain, and the preservation of power and/or control. St. Ambrose:
(St Ambrose of Milan - Against the Novations - Chapter IV, - page 348 in Schaff) 24. ... And He affirms that they act with satanic spirit who divide the Church of God, so that He includes the heretics and schismatics of all times, to whom He denies forgiveness, for every other sin is concerned with single persons, this is a sin against all. For they alone wish to destroy the grace of Christ who rend asunder the members of the Church for which the Lord Jesus suffered, and the Holy Spirit was given us." Let me be clear about this: I do not share the opinion that only the ROCiE Synod is the true Orthodox Church, or that only the ROCiE Synod can claim to be non-schismatic, or that only the ROCiE Synod does not espouse any heretical opinions. I consider these and other similar opinions to sprout forth from the same spiritual madness St. John Chrysostom described previously, and from the same 'way of thinking' that consumed the Novationist, and the Donatist. Due to the obvious disagreement that exists between what ROCiE believes to be true, and what my conscience advises me to be true, I feel compelled to provide a more detailed explanation of why, in my opinion, this difference exists. In my opinion it is due to the improper application of the letter of the law. The proper use, and improper abuse of Canon Law: From the previous discussions one may be tempted to assume that I am of the opinion that canon law is not to be used at all when resolving issues of administrative misconduct in the church. To believe this would be to ignore the purpose for which this opinion is being written. To wit: To identify God- hating misapplications of the 'letter of the law' while identifying God- pleasing applications of the 'letter of the law' in the 'Spirit of the law'. By simple reasoning this implies that the law must be used. I think that a simple way to present an opinion on how Canon Law should be applied in a God-pleasing way is by example. That is: by quoting a specific canon and showing the various ways it may be applied/misapplied and interpreted/misinterpreted. In order to make such an example relevant, and to avoid excessive long-windedness, I would like to discuss a single canon (the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council of Constantinople) that is germane to the ROCiE/ROCOR-A schism. Before I do this I think it prudent to summarize the ecclesiological mess that has resulted from the many schisms that have occurred in ROCOR.
Excessive canonical strictness – a misapplication of DOGMATIC reasoning to resolve Pastoral problems. Dogmatic reasoning, as practiced in the formulation and illumination of doctrine in Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, is employed in the debates/deliberations of the church’s holy fathers, and in the determinations of the church’s holy councils, to express revealed dogmatic truth in a precise and linguistically correct way. The process by which dogmatic revealed truth is determined and expressed has always been one of consensus by the whole church. That is: dogmatic agreement that manifests itself through repeated debate in the church by those whose minds which have been enlightened by the Holy Spirit, and is confirmed by consensus at council; this is the essence of Orthodox dogmatic consensus. Orthodox doctrinal development has always been subject to a simple litmus test: Does the dogmatic expression of revealed truth contradict any doctrines that have preceded it? This statement is not trivial, and needs to include the idea of comprehension as explained below: “… proper doctrinal development in the Church is a process that augments but does not contradict all that has preceded it. Impartial analysis of doctrinal development in the Church using the tools of Linguistics and logic clearly demonstrate that all doctrinal disputes in the Church took place because individuals attempted to modify doctrine in such a way that the new doctrine opposed or altered the Orthodox Church’s universally accepted understanding of doctrine that preceded it, in a linguistic sense.” The previously quoted text on "The development of Doctrine in the Church” by St Vincent of Lerins explains this concept in a simple, easy to comprehend way.
Ecumenism has been exposed as a pan-heresy by repeated debate in the mind of the church, and its condemnation is clearly a product of the process of Orthodox dogmatic consensus. It is ripe for censure at a universal Orthodox Church council, and has already been condemned by ROCOR in 1983. A good example of a ‘non heresy’ is the opinion of Metropolitan Chrysostomos that you referenced in your correspondence. I do not see vibrant debate in the mind of the church concerning this. This simple observation is another indicator to me that this opinion is not what you think it is. Returning to the subject at hand; using the same process of dogmatic reasoning as that used to expose the heresy of ecumenism, to deliberate and resolve pastoral issues such as the schismatic status of ROCA (ROCOR-A) is a great mistake. As shown in previous discussions, it is the same mistake the Donatists made, and by which they expelled themselves from the church. With this in mind let us examine the schism between ROCiE and ROCA (ROCOR-A). ROCiE claims that they are the true and proper continuation of the ROCOR Synod, that the ROCA (ROCOR-A) Synod is schismatic and teaches heresy. There are two distinct historical events that ROCiE uses to make these claims. 1) The uncanonical expulsion of Metropolitan Vitaly, which led to the ROCiE/ROCOR-L schism 2) The adoption of an ecclesiology that was tolerant of Ecumenism and Sergianism by ROCOR-L, which eventually led to their union with the MP and the ROCOR-MP/ROCA (ROCOR-A) schism. The ROCOR-L/ROCOR-V (ROCiE) Schism The arguments Metropolitan Vitaly used to show that his expulsion from ROCOR was uncanonical and further, that it was his expulsion that led to the ROCiE/ROCOR-L schism, were proper in a legal sense. However, the canons he referenced have traditionally been used to resolve pastoral issues, and deal with administrative misconduct. In such a case, to preserve the unity of the church in a proper confession of faith, economia should have been used by both parties to heal the wound in Christ’s body without offending the Holy Spirit. Sadly neither party was willing to talk out their differences, and both parties cleaved to their own rigid canonical justification for separation, thus no healing took place. Why?
The underlying reason for this lack of reconciliation was due to personal dislikes/disagreements that existed between Metropolitan Laurus et al. and Metropolitan Vitaly et al. These dislikes were historical (earlier than the time ROCOR entered into prayerful Eucharistic communion with the SIR Synod in 1994) and stemmed from differences of opinion about the problematic relationship with the Cyprianite Synod, and the conduct of secret negotiations between Metropolitan Laurus et. al. and the MP. This is a good example of the harm the 'political process' wreaks in the church, and shows it be God-hating. Both parties were at fault for not pursuing reconciliation. It is superfluous to undertake a detailed examination of the canonical arguments used by both sides in the ROCiE/ROCOR-L schism to justify their canonical standing, because the tide of history has already rendered such an effort moot and irrelevant. ROCOR-L has dissolved into the MP. The fruits of engaging in the political process have been made manifest for all to see. Consumed by the MP, ROCOR-MP no longer exists as a confessing Synod. The ROCOR-L/ROCOR-A Schism The second schism however is far more important, because the ROCA (ROCOR-A) Synod still exists, and was party to the joint ecclesiological statement issued by the GOC Florinite, the SIR, the ROCA (ROCOR-A), and the True Orthodox Bulgarian/Romanian Synods. From the perspective of ROCA’s (ROCOR-A) ecclesiology, ROCA are the true heirs of ROCOR, and the ROCiE Synod is schismatic. They base this judgment on the historically correct fact that ROCiE broke away from ROCOR and formed the ROCOR-V (now ROCiE) Synod before the union with the MP was complete; that is, before the ROCOR-L Synod officially embraced Ecumenism, and Sergianism by completing their union with the MP. This was true, even though it was becoming clear to the casual observer that ROCOR-L was indeed actively pursuing union with the MP. While the union with the MP was still not official, ROCOR-L maintained that it was proper to conduct secret negotiations with them, because the purpose of the discussions was to bring about a change in the ecclesiology of the MP, to have the MP repent of Sergianism, and withdraw from participation in the Ecumenical movement etc. However, after the union, that was quickly shown to not be the case. ROCOR-A maintains that, because there were legitimate reasons to conduct secret negotiations with the MP before the official union, those who held personal opinions that opposed this activity did not have the canonical right to leave ROCOR-L, until the union had transpired. This includes the clergy in ROCiE. Shortly before the union with the MP, ROCOR-L was obliged to issue a statement acknowledging the 'canonical legitimacy' of the MP. This statement was written in such a way that it provided the MP with a de-facto rejection of ROCOR-L’s opinion that ‘Sergianism was a heretical abuse of Canonical authority’. By this time, the opinion that Sergianism was a heretical abuse of canonical authority was already well established through debate, and enjoyed strong consensus/agreement among the confessing Orthodox Synods. Metropolitan (then Bishop) Agathangel was party to the issuance of this statement. Since then he has repudiated his participation in this betrayal of the long-standing ROCOR opinion concerning this. How? By agreeing to the joint ecclesiological statement issued by the GOC Florinite, SIR, and ROCA Synods, which clearly defines Sergianim as a heretical abuse of canonical authority. ROCA now openly confesses that the MP was established on the unlawful antichristian principles of Sergianism. The larger question is: how does the ROCA Synod justify themselves as canonical, and the ROCiE Synod as schismatic? In the ecclesiological opinion of ROCOR-A, the expulsion of Metropolitan Vitaly by ROCOR-L was canonically justified. The arguments they use to justify this are tedious, but can be construed as correct in a strictly legal sense, by using strict/rigid dogmatic reasoning when interpreting applicable administrative canons of the church in a novel/innovative/litigious way. However it was plain for all to see that this was not true in a moral pastoral sense. As I have stated many times, and I think clearly shown to be true, this type of reasoning is similar to that used by the Donatists, and has been rejected by the Orthodox Church as heretical. I find it hard to understand how hierarchs who are obliged by oaths taken during their consecration to protect the unity of the church in a proper confession of faith, do not see these canonical games for what they are, that is; the misapplication of canon law for personal reasons. What does the ROCOR-L/ROCOR-A Schism have to do with ROCiE? From the perspective of ROCiE’s (ROCOR-V) ecclesiology, the expulsion of Metropolitan Vitaly was shown (by legally correct interpretations of canon law), to be uncanonical. Ironically this was explained using the same/similar canons as those used by ROCOR-L to justify the expulsion of Metropolitan Vitaly, only the interpretations (both legally correct) of the canons differed. From ROCiE’s ecclesiological perspective, Metropolitan Vitaly remained the president of the ROCOR Synod. Since he was the canonical president of ROCOR, he had the canonical right to convene a Synod meeting and unilaterally censure the ROCOR-L Synod. This he did, stating that ROCOR- L had expelled him unlawfully, and were now schismatics. After the passing of Metropolitan Vitaly, ROCiE (ROCOR-V) continued to investigate the formulation of narrow/legalistic canonical arguments to justify their opinion that the ROCOR-V (now ROCiE) Synod alone remains canonical, all the other Synods (ROCOR-A et. al.) are schismatic. These ecclesiological arguments are very similar to those used by the Mathewites. To wit: From the time the ROCiE (ROCOR-V) Synod censured the ROCOR-L Synod as schismatic, the ROCA (ROCOR-A) Synod, which maintains its Apostolic Succession from the censured ROCOR-L Synod, and any other Synod who enters into prayerful Eucharistic communion with them, must also be uncanonical. How is this ecclesiology similar to the Mathewite ecclesiology? Answer: While ROCiE does not officially (i.e. with an 'ukaz') espouse the 'Electric Plug' doctrine, the implied gist of ROCiE’s statements express the same thing. That is: because the ROCOR-L Synod was placed under canonical censure by ROCiE (ROCOR-V) they were effectively 'unplugged' from God’s uncreated energies until such time as they return in repentance to ROCiE. The ROCOR-A Synod, which was 'plugged in' via the ROCOR-L Synod, must also now be effectively 'unplugged' from God’s uncreated energies etc. etc. As stated above, while ROCA remains 'unplugged', anyone who enters into prayerful Eucharistic communion with them will also be 'unplugged', and their mysteries cannot be effective for salvation. This means that, from the perspective of ROCiE’s ecclesiology, the GOC Florinite Synod which joined the ROCA Synod in prayerful Eucharistic communion is now also 'officially unplugged' from God’s uncreated energies. In my opinion, previous to the agreement leading to the prayerful Eucharistic communion between ROCA and the GOC Florinite Synod, the status of the GOC Florinite Synod’s mysteries from ROCiE’s ecclesiological perspective was not certain. This was true even though you stated in your correspondence that they were heretics. I find it reasonable to assume that ROCiE’s opinion that Metropolitan Chrysostomos taught heresy is solely stated to provide additional confirmation for their opinion (which is implied not stated officially) that the mysteries of the GOC Florinite Synod are no longer effective for salvation, and therefore you cannot release me to them. As I have repeatedly stated previously, this 'way of thinking' is the same God-hating litigious/innovative canonical reasoning as that used by the Mathewite Synod to justify their isolation from the rest of the Orthodox Church. It is based on the misapplication of rigid dogmatic thinking in the resolution of pastoral (administrative misconduct) issues in the church, and is inspired by the same spirit as that which inspired the heresies of the Novationist/Donatist. To pick and choose where God’s grace is, and where it is not, is presumptuous, as St Ambrose in his rebuke of the Novationists stated (re-quoted here for ease of reading): (St Ambrose of Milan - Selected letters (Schaff) CHAPTER IX - 37. pp505)
"But you say that the grace of the mysteries works in the font. What works, then, in penance? Does not the Name of God do the work? What then? Do you, when you choose, claim for yourselves the grace of God, and when you choose reject it? But this is a mark of insolent presumption, not of holy fear, when those who wish to do penance are despised by you. ... (you say) touch me not, for I am pure.” Before continuing, the following quote from the letters of St. Basil the Great is germane to this discussion. (St Basil the Great - Selected letters (Schaff) Letter CLXXXVIII - To Amphilochius) "So it seemed good to the ancient authorities to reject the baptism of heretics altogether, but to admit that of schismatics, on the ground that they still belonged to the Church." The patristic teaching concerning schismatics, is one that recognizes that they are still in the church. They may or may not be under canonical censure, in much the same way as those individuals who commit sins worthy of epitimia are censured. Each and every case is different. To treat them all the same is to fall into the same trap as that which ensnared the Donatist. Therefore, when speaking of those who are in schism: It is presumptive to unilaterally take upon oneself the right to declare where God's most Holy Grace is not. It is every bit as presumptive to take upon oneself the right to declare where His most Holy Grace is as well (the dogmatic mistake that sits at the core of the "sick church member" doctrine of Metropolitan Cyprianos). Since when does man assume the right to tell the Divinity where His Grace should be, and should not be, based on the frail reasoning of spiritually weak, and fragile minds. Until such time as an opinion has been identified as heretical, and condemned as such at a universally accepted council, the existence, or non- existence of Grace in the mysteries of those in schism is known only to God. Once a heresy has been condemned at a universally accepted council, and the council has been identified by many years of evaluation in the church as God-pleasing, the Most Holy Spirit, through the process of Orthodox Dogmatic consensus in the mind of the Church, itself proclaims that the mysteries of the offending heretic are no longer effective for salvation. This may take decades, or even centuries to be known with certainty. However, once the Orthodox Church has identified heresy it behooves us to listen to the voice of the Spirit, and hear what is said, and separate ourselves from the unrepentant heretic, so that we be not abandoned by the Holy Spirit, and we may know with certainty that the uncreated energies of God remain present in our mysteries.
'World Orthodoxy', and the abuse of Economia – A DOGMATIC problem One might be tempted to assume that the 'World Orthodox' Churches are not guilty of a way of thinking that is heretical in the sense of the Donatist, that they exhibit a proper balance between strictness and economia in their interactions with each other, and with other religious organizations…. Nothing could be further from the truth. While the excessively strict among the confessing GOC and ROC Synods clearly exhibit Donatist thinking, those who apply economia in excess, which is the hallmark of the 'World Orthodox' ecumenist, are every bit as Donatist in their thinking as are the former. The 'World Orthodox' ecumenist may be surprised by this and ask: how can this be? While it may be difficult for them to grasp, it can easily be shown to be true: Recall that, in my opinion, the Donatist 'way of thinking' as exposed by Blessed Augustine, and St Ambrose of Milan, can be summarized (with a slight change in wording) as:
1. A litigious/legalistic use of Scriptures and Church canons to justify strict, yet novel/untraditional, pastoral/ecclesiological positions. 2. A litigious/legalistic use of the administrative canons of the Church to justify the isolation
How does 'World Orthodoxy' commit dogmatic transgressions by simply participating in the ecumenical process? The answer to this should be obvious if one has read the contents of this opinion, to wit: The Orthodox Church's dogmatic, pastoral, and moral teachings issue forth from the miraculous activity of the Holy Spirit in the mind of the church. Participating in the ecumenical process is a de-facto rejection of this belief by those who participate (even though they do not agree with this, truth does not require the agreement of those who trample it). For this reason it is blasphemous to participate in such a movement, especially so because it leads mankind away from a God-pleasing reconciliation, and into a God- hating one. The 'Orthodox ecumenist' seeks to justify their participation in this movement by a continual, numbing, and excessive abuse of economia, while at the same time practicing an egregiously strict application of canon law to condemn and isolate those who expose them. Q.E.D. Summary: Both the excessively canonically strict traditionalist GOC and ROC hierarchies, and the excessively canonically lax 'World Orthodox' ecumenist hierarchies, use innovative/litigious interpretations of canon-law, scriptures, and the writings/commentaries of the holy fathers, to justify their particular ecclesiological/dogmatic positions. Both do this by carefully picking and choosing scriptures, canons, and commentaries/epistles of the Holy Fathers, and by employing innovative/litigious interpretations of these writings (legalistic abuse of the letter of the law), they change the original understanding/intent (ignoring the spirit of the law) for which they were written, in exactly the same way the Novationist/Donatist of yore did. Both are guilty of bringing about schism in Christ's body. The one maintains Orthodox doctrine in purity, but fractures Christ's body by using excessive dogmatic strictness to justify a God-hating pastoral practice as did the Donatists of yore (In the case of the Novationist/Donatist, the refusal to accept any penance on behalf of the lapsed. In the case of the excessively strict ROC/GOC Synods, the refusal to employ economia and pastoral understanding in the prosecution of administrative misconduct). The other abandons a proper confession of faith by embracing syncretism, and attempting to modify Orthodox dogma (in terms of understanding) by innovative/litigious re-interpretations of scriptures and the writings of the Holy Fathers, to justify a God-hating pastoral practice, as did the Donatists of yore (in the case of the Novationist/Donatist, excessive pastoral strictness/lack of mercy and compassion. In the case of the 'World Orthodox', prayerful ecumenical fellowship with heretics). The fruit of this activity is self-evident: both have brought about one egregious fracturing of Christ's body, followed by another.
It should be clear by now that the wondrous well-balanced ecclesiology of ROCOR was truly a gift from God, and that its passing has brought about nothing but schisms, schisms that result from both strictness and the unbridled fostering of laxity. ROCOR under the Omophorion of its saintly leaders was the voice of reason in the chaotic madness of contemporary Orthodoxy. Examples of the proper use, and improper abuse, of Canon Law A canon that is frequently quoted as the root canonical justification for 'walling off' from other Jurisdictions/Synods is the 15th Canon of the 2nd ecumenical council held at Constantinople.
(15th Canon of the First-Second Council of Constantinople) “But as for those who on account of some heresy condemned by the Holy Councils or Fathers, sever themselves from communion with their president, that is, because he publicly preaches heresy and with bared head teaches it in the Church, such persons as these not only are not subject to canonical penalty for walling themselves off from communion with the so-called Bishop before Synodal clarification, but [on the contrary] they shall be deemed worthy of due honor among the Orthodox. For not Bishops, but false bishops and false teachers have they condemned, and they have not fragmented the Church’s unity with schism, but from schisms and divisions have they earnestly sought to deliver the Church.” This canon grants those who identify the bared-head preaching of heresy by a hierarchy, a blessing to 'wall themselves of' from the offending bishops. This is only true if they in good conscience identify that they are preaching heresy. The main problem in the application of this canon by those who misuse it, is the improper, or worse - deliberately misleading, identification of an heretical opinion.
Some examples of the misuse of the 15th canon;
1. If one in good conscience identifies an 'innovation' and mistakenly identifies it as a heresy, and separates from their ruling hierarch. (A sin of ignorance, easily forgiven) 2. If one in good conscience mistakenly identifies a 'heresy' because of a lack of proficiency in dogmatic thinking, and separates from their ruling hierarch. (A sin of ignorance, easily forgiven) 3. If one claims that an opinion is heretical, but there has been no Orthodox Dogmatic consensus identifying the suspect opinion as heretical (at the least: vibrant debate, ideally: followed by conciliar decision), and separates from their ruling hierarch. a. If the reason for identifying the suspect opinion is solely to provide a reason for separation: (The political process, an egregious sin committed knowingly). b. If the reason for identifying the suspect opinion is in good conscience an attempt to identify a mistaken opinion: (A sin of ignorance, easily forgiven). 4. If for personal reasons one does not want to be in obedience to his/her ruling hierarch, and wishes to separate canonically. To accomplish this, one fabricates an opinion that is heretical, from a concoction of dubious personal opinions expressed by the ruling hierarch, with the sole purpose of providing a canonical justification for separation. (The political process, an egregious sin committed knowingly) In all of the above examples, a schism results, and the body of Christ is fractured. The proper application of canon law requires that those who preside over such unfortunate occurrences make all possible effort to effect a God-pleasing reconciliation, as described previously. St Basil the Great:
(St Basil the Great - Selected letters [Schaff] Letter LXIX - To Athansius, bishop of Alexandria) "... you quite understand and I am sure will give heed to, that, when they come, if God will, they must not let loose schisms among the Churches; and, even though they find some who have personal reasons for mutual differences, they must leave no means untried to unite all who are of the same way of thinking." (St Basil the Great - Selected letters [Schaff] Letter XCII - To the Italians and Gauls) "For all these reasons we do indeed desire your help, that, for the future all who confess the apostolic faith may put an end to the schisms which they have unhappily devised, and be reduced for the future to the authority of the Church; that so, once more, the body of Christ may be complete, restored to integrity with all its members." Failure to make an attempt at reconciliation is God-hating. However, if after all attempts have been made to conclude a God-pleasing reconciliation, one party obstinately refuses to do so, that party puts their flock at risk of being in schism, (not yet outside the church). This is true until a conciliar decision has been rendered. At that point the faithful are at risk of censure, and of being cast from the church.
Some examples of the proper use of the 15th canon
1. If there has been vibrant and definitive discussion in the mind of the church with respect to a particular suspect opinion, and a consensus has formed that the opinion in question is a heresy, the church hierarchy have an obligation to 'wall themselves of' from those who with bare-head (i.e. from the Ambon, or in official epistles) defiantly continue to espouse the said suspect opinion. Walling oneself in this case is a God-pleasing confession of faith. a. Ecumenism has been identified by Orthodox Dogmatic consensus as a heresy, it has also been condemned at a local ROCOR council (1983). The faithful have an obligation to separate from those who teach and participate in it. i. However, the faithful do not have the spiritual right to claim whether/whether-not the mysteries of those from whom they have separated are effective for salvation. This decision is left for resolution at a general council. b. Papal infallibility has been identified by Orthodox Dogmatic consensus as a heresy. The schism between the west and the east has existed since the issuance of the Papal Bull declaring the Eastern Church in schism (1054) on the premise that the Pope had the right to unilaterally do this. Since then, at numerous councils, the Pope's claim to universal jurisdiction has been condemned by the Orthodox Church. The faithful not only have the right to separate themselves from Papists, they are also obliged to make known to all, that the Papist Church is unrepentant, and that their mysteries are not effective for salvation. i. In my opinion, this does not mean that all Papists are condemned to Hades. The innocent in heart will be judged according to the cognizance of this heresy they possess. I have written a long article about this, and you are welcome to read it at: http://www.st-sergius.org/News/Lie.pdf The two examples above cover the two types of proper use of the 15th canon. That is: 1) When an opinion has been identified as heretical by Orthodox Dogmatic consensus, but not clarified at a general church council, and 2) Those opinions that have not only been identified as heretical by Orthodox Dogmatic consensus, but also by decision at a general council. Those applications of the 15th canon that fall under the first example require the faithful to 'wall themselves off' from prayerful Eucharistic communion with the offending hierarch, but it does not grant them the right to declare whether the mysteries of those under the Omophorion of the offending hierarch are, or are not, effective for salvation. As stated previously, this is true until such time as the heresy has been presented and condemned at council, and the offending hierarch has been granted the opportunity to repent, and recant his offending opinion. Another reason one should abstain from declarations of where God's grace is, and where it is not, is the risk of improper censure by a 'robber council'. History tells us that it takes time for the Orthodox Church to declare such things with certitude, as stated previously, this often takes decades, or even centuries. Those applications of the 15th canon that fall under the second example also require the faithful to 'wall themselves off' from prayerful Eucharistic communion with the offending hierarch. However, it also obliges them to declare for the whole ecumene to see and understand, that the mysteries of those under the Omophorion of the offending hierarch are ineffective for salvation. Why? Because the rational sheep are to be afforded the opportunity to understand the gravity of their participation in the sin of a declared heresy, which as described earlier, is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. How does the above discussion relate to the 'uncanonical' MP and its mysteries? After debate, and resolution at council, ROCOR issued several well reasoned canonical explanations which clearly described what Sergianism is, and why an institution established on Sergianist principles cannot be considered an organic member of Christ's body. I am sure that you are aware of these Synodal statements, and I do not need to repeat them here. These canonical explanations did not employ crafty legal reasoning to draw their conclusions, they were simple, easy to comprehend, and had only the well being of the organic Orthodox Church in Russ at heart. What is most interesting about these explanations is that in the process of rebutting the canonical claims of the Soviet Church, they clearly exposed the pharisaical nature of 'legal reasoning' in the prosecution of canon law. Indeed, the scholarly Orthodox canon-law lawyers of the Soviet Church were adept at manipulating church canons to justify their canonical right to exist as the legitimate church administration in the Soviet Union. Their abuse of canon law was also employed to give them license (in their mind) to persecute the confessing catacomb church. ROCOR canonical commentators (Bishop Gregory Grabbe et. al.) exposed the litigious nature of the Soviet Church's claims, and provided a clear rebuttal based on a patristic (not innovative or litigious) application of Orthodox canon law. The reasoning used by the Soviet church canonists was a clear example of Donatist thinking (vis-à-vis; using the law to justify a God-hating morally corrupt and pastorally strict practice. In this case; the physical, emotional, and spiritual discipline of those who opposed them, by the approval of incarceration and by turning a blind eye to the use of torture and assassination). The ROCOR Synod took the bold ecclesiological position of stating that the mysteries of the Soviet church were not effective for salvation. I am in complete agreement with this wise decision, which was issued in a manner inconsistent with Orthodox tradition, but which was required to be done quickly to resolve an ecclesiological issue that had never before been seen in the history of the Orthodox Church. What I have issue with, is the Mathewite-like ecclesiology ('electric plug' doctrine) that is used by ROCiE and others, to condemn the entire Orthodox Church as 'graceless' because they are in communion with the MP, or because they are in communion with heretical ecumenists. That is an improper and untraditional application of canon law. As stated previously, such decisions can only be made at a council that is ecumenical in scope, and whose decisions have been evaluated by God-loving enlightened Orthodox minds for decades, perhaps even centuries. Finally; it is proper to 'wall oneself of' from the offending Soviet, and 'World Orthodox' hierarchies, however it is not proper for those who have 'walled themselves of' to make a God-pleasing confession of faith, to 'wall themselves of' from each other.
How does the above discussion relate to Metropolitan Agathangel and ROCOR-A (ROCA) ROCiE noted that Metropolitan Agathangel issued a statement in 1994 in a personal blog (i.e. expressing his personal opinions), which recognized the existence of God’s grace not only in the sacraments of the ‘World Orthodox', but also in those of other heterodox Christian religions, and even non-Christian religions. This is one of the core beliefs of ecumenism, which has already been identified as a pan-heresy. ROCiE also notes that prior to the official union between the MP and ROCOR-L, Metropolitan Agathangel signed the 'ukaz' issued by ROCOR-L which recognized the MP as the legitimate canonical church of Russia. Because Metropolitan Agathangel was a co-signer of this 'ykaz' ROCiE claims that he is also a Sergianist. ROCiE also claims that, because the ROCA (ROCOR-A) clergy commemorate Metropolitan Agathangel as its president, the ROCA Synod and all its clergy are not only schismatics, but heretics as well.
Reasoning continues along the lines of the 'electric plug' doctrine: Because ROCA are heretics, ROCiE does not recognize their mysteries as being effective for salvation. Further, ROCiE sees itself empowered with the obligation to maintain a separation from any prayerful Eucharistic communion with ROCA, until they formerly repent of these heresies and return in repentance to the ROCiE Synod, so that they can be 'plugged back in'. Stepping back, and looking at the history that preceded Metropolitan Agathangel's expressions of clearly mistaken opinions, one notes that: Around the time of the 1994 Synod in Cleveland, there were elements in the ROCOR Synod (Archbishop Laurus et. al.) who were distancing themselves from the traditionalist GOC Synods and secretly negotiating an agreement to enter into prayerful Eucharistic communion with the SIR (Cyprianite) Synod. It was 'fashionable' at that time to show ones agreement with Archbishop Laurus et. al., by distancing oneself from the 1983 ROCOR Synod condemnation of ecumenism, and expressing an opinion that was compatible with the erroneous SIR 'sick church member' doctrine. One of the ways this could be done was by issuing a personal opinion similar to that attributed to (at that time) Bishop Agathangel. There is no question that this statement is not only mistaken, but heretical in the sense of ecumenism. That was then, what is the situation now? As described previously, the union between the MP and ROCOR-L resulted in the disintegration of ROCOR-L, and a schism between ROCOR-L (by now ROCOR-MP) and ROCOR-A. ROCOR-A (ROCA) has since officially condemned the personal opinions of Metropolitan Agathangel by signing the ecclesiological statement referred to in the discussions above. By proxy, Metropolitan Agathangel has recanted the opinions ROCiE refers to as heretical, and which ROCiE uses to justify the ecclesiological position that ROCOR-A (ROCA) are heretics. By virtue of the confession of faith expressed in the text drawn up by the 'True Orthodox Churches of Greece, Romaina, and the Russian Church Abroad' they can no longer be called heretics, unless of course you can show that the content of that ecclesiological statement is heretical. My petition for release to the GOC Florinite Synod, and the obligation of clerical obedience. The church places great emphasis on obedience as a cornerstone of a successful spiritual life, however, as the application of the 15th canon quoted above shows, this is not always prudent. There are times when one must be disobedient to satisfy the requirements of one's conscience. Blind obedience is the hallmark of a cult, not that of the rational sheep.
I have asked you to provide me with a respectful and proper procedure to release me from the ROCiE Synod to the GOC Florinite Synod, the reasons for this were at the time purely pastoral. However that is no longer the case. Please let me explain so that there is no misunderstanding. There can only be one of two scenarios they are:
1. You provide me with a proper procedure to be released to the GOC Florinite Synod, and based on that act of good faith, my conscience will be comforted by the fact that you and ROCiE do not harbor the opinion that: Only ROCiE is the Orthodox Church, that only ROCiE is not schismatic, and that only ROCiE does not teach heresy. This would indicate to me that ROCiE does not exhibit 'Mathewite' like Donatist thinking, and we can then begin discussions about how to heal the administrative wounds that separate ROCiE and the GOC Florinite (now SIR) Synod. 2. You do not provide me with a proper procedure to be released to the GOC Florinite Synod, and by that, I will conclude that ROCiE harbors the opinion that: Only ROCiE is the Orthodox Church, that only ROCiE is not schismatic, and that only ROCiE does not teach heresy. This is Donatist thinking, and in good conscience I cannot agree with you, and we must separate. a. The only exception to this scenario would be if you can provide me with a reasonable/rational explanation that refutes the content of this opinion using only the writings of scripture, and the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church. It should be clear that the use of Canon Law is inappropriate because the premise of this opinion is that the use of Canon Law to resolve administrative misconduct is too easily abused by litigious interpretation (You can construct a canonical censure I am sure, but it will have no gravitas).