Can Eastern Orthodox prove they’re the One True Church?

[searn77]

Certainly a majority can fall into heresy, as has happened, but I don’t believe the Church as a whole can.

Neither do I.

If Bishops believe their ruling Synod has fallen to heresy they have alternatives

The alternative is to break communion with heresy, so therefore, break communion with their Synod.

I have never once seen any evidence that the calendar was a dogmatic issue. Pan-Orthodox councils may have forbade adopting the Gregorian Calendar, but the Council which created the New Julian did so on the same authority they did.

Personally I don’t see why you would want a religious calendar that is exactly the same as the civil, but with a 13 day offset and a different new year.

Those Pan-Orthodox councils anathemized anyone who celebrates according to a new Paschalion or new Menologion, as this would bring many dangers and a disruption into the Orthodox Church’s liturgical cycle which is more important than astronomical accuracy. So when the Patriarchal locum tenens issued his heretical encyclical “Unto the Churches of Christ Everywhere” which, among many other heretically ecumenical ideas stated that all Churches should accept a uniform calendar so that all can celebrate Christian feasts together (which in my opinion is a false unity), and then the Church of Greece adopted the “Revised Julian” calendar and strong-armed it into the Greek Church with the help of the authorities, many Greek bishops of that time were able to see that the changing of the calendar to the “Revised Julian” calendar will indeed be dangerous and cause disruption into the Church, which is what indeed happened. It wasn’t until after much pleading did the Greek Old Calendarists break away from the Greek State Church. Many clergymen of the Greek State Church were even sympathetic and helped the Old Calendarists out when they were being persecuted, but were too afraid of the authorities to break communion and follow the Old Calendarists. There were even a few clergymen who became Old Calendarists but whenever the authorities began persecuting them jumped back to the State Church.

I personally don’t see why one would want a “Revised Julian” calendar which may be more astronomically right when it comes to non-Paschal feasts but is astronomically wrong when it comes to Pascha and the dating of feasts that depend on Pascha. Why not just go ahead and adopt the Gregorian calendar and become even more astronomically correct, that way you’d even be able to celebrate Easter with those on the civil calendar?

 

[searn77]

I’m not familiar with that one. Do you have a link to something that describes it?

The action of one bishop consecrating another bishop alone, without the assistance of other bishops, such as the case of Bishop Matthew of Bresthena consecrating Bishop Spyridon of Trimythus, is an act of economia (otherwise known as “leniency” or “dispensation”), and is permissible at such times of necessity. Bishop Matthew used economia to fulfill (not violate) one of the Apostolic Canons, and Bishop Matthew only used this act of economia once. All subsequent consecrations were performed according to acryveia (to wit, the “strictness” or “exactness” of the Sacred Canons). Accordingly, only one canon, the following canon, was not fulfilled according to acryveia, but rather by economia: CANON I OF THE HOLY AND RENOWNED APOSTLES:

“A Bishop is to be ordained by two or three other Bishops.”

However, in the interpretation of the above-quoted Canon, as found in the Holy Rudder, we find the following clause by St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain (see: Orthodox Christian Education Society: The Rudder, Chicago, 1957, p. 4, lines 11-13):

“The Apostolic Injunctions (Book 8, Chapter 27), on the other hand, commands that anyone ordained by a single bishop be deposed from office along with the one who ordained him, except only in case of persecution or some other impediment by reason whereof a number of bishops cannot get together and he has to be ordained by one alone, just as was Siderius ordained bishop of Palaebisca, according to Synesius, not by three, but by one bishop, Philo, because of the scarcity of bishops in those times.”

genuineorthodoxchurch.com/1948consecrations.htm

 

[Nine_Two]

genuineorthodoxchurch.com/1948consecrations.htm

Interesting. I was unaware of that. I just launched a lengthy search for that, and while I didn’t find that (It makes sense now I should have gone straight to the rudder), I did find an Old Calendar Website that actually goes into detail about why the Matthewites were wrong.

Canons XIII-XV of the First-and-Second Council, for example (I’m taking this from the website mind you, haven’t double checked them), state that a Bishop does not have the right to break away from his Metropolitan unless a) His Metropolitan has been tried and found guilty, or b) during a trial, his Metropolitan has publically proclaimed a heresy already condemned by a Council.
The trial of a bishop itself requires twelve bishops (Canon XII and CXI of Carthage), and most certainly a single bishop cannot depose another bishop (Canon II Constantinople).

Note that he himself was ordained by this group which did not see itself as seperating from the Church, but simply they were insuring themselves against any moves that would create schism. They did this by ordaining additional bishops (Including Matthew), which was itself a violation of the Canons.

So looking at this particular group you have to get past all of those violations of canons to even begin to argue that they are legitimate.

The Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians is, I would say, should be declared to have fallen into heresy, believing the Calendar to be of such import that it would deprive all who use another of Grace.

I have more sympathy with the Holy Synod in Resistence, as they are a group that, though not in Communion, have not completely severed themselves from Orthodoxy. They see the calendar as symptomatic, rather than as an actual crime against the church, and I think they have some legitimate concerns - though they have gone about raising them in a completely uncanonical manner.

 

[searn77]

See, now that’s actually a good example.

It is something that has arisen multiple times, both in the East, and the West, where someone who we look back on as being legitimate was deposed by a malicious group of heretics.

The methodology I stated before is an excellent method of deciding who among these random little groups that pop up now and then claiming the rest of the church has gone astray, is true. It is simple, and it is not messy.

But the case you’ve presented here is very similar to the break with Rome (though it has many major differences).

When it comes to those holding the Patriarchal office (and this works with the smaller groups as well), then you must look at whether or not they hold the faith of Orthodoxy.
Meaning: Are they in Communion with the other Churches, and do they hold the same faith as their predicessors.

In the particular case you gave, the new Patriarch was not recognized by the rest of the Orthodox world (at the time including Rome), and he did not hold with the faith (holding to a heresy which had been condemned).

I will maintain my original formula will work in sorting out the bulk of these groups.

I’m not sure if I’m understanding you right, but how is that a good example of your method of who is the true EO Church, when today both the Old Calendarist and New Calendarist EO Church consider men on both sides of the Antioch split saints? I don’t think declaring where the true EO Church is is as black and white as I feel you are portraying it as (please correct me if I’m misunderstanding you). Sure, one side may be “more” in the right than the other, but would you honestly say that the other side was not a part of the Church, while even today your Church considers men on the “wrong” side saints? I feel like time has to be considered as well, as maybe if more time elapsed and the “wrong” side strongly stuck with their Arianism and maybe even adopted more heresies, then maybe you could conclude that they were outside the Church.

 

[CMatt25]

One cannot “prove” faith

Very true. It’s called faith for a reason. People can believe their church is the true one. But it takes a lot of faith belief steps to get to the point where they think that.

 

[Paul_theApostle]

Guys,about the ROCOR,i know they anathemitized Ecumenism some time ago

I know some ROCOR churches refused union with moscow,but for the ones that did unite ,do you know if they still stand by that Anathema of Ecumenism?

I mean ,isnt Moscow involved in the Ecumenical movement?

Even if moscow isnt, they would still be in union with Constantinople and other Orthodox churches involved with Ecumenism

do you guys know what the situation is with ROCOR/moscow and Ecumenism?

 

[Nine_Two]

The alternative is to break communion with heresy, so therefore, break communion with their Synod.

The alternative is to try the offending bishop for breaking with the church.

Those Pan-Orthodox councils anathemized anyone who celebrates according to a new Paschalion or new Menologion, as this would bring many dangers and a disruption into the Orthodox Church’s liturgical cycle which is more important than astronomical accuracy. So when the Patriarchal locum tenens issued his heretical encyclical “Unto the Churches of Christ Everywhere” which, among many other heretically ecumenical ideas stated that all Churches should accept a uniform calendar so that all can celebrate Christian feasts together (which in my opinion is a false unity), and then the Church of Greece adopted the “Revised Julian” calendar and strong-armed it into the Greek Church with the help of the authorities, many Greek bishops of that time were able to see that the changing of the calendar to the “Revised Julian” calendar will indeed be dangerous and cause disruption into the Church, which is what indeed happened. It wasn’t until after much pleading did the Greek Old Calendarists break away from the Greek State Church. Many clergymen of the Greek State Church were even sympathetic and helped the Old Calendarists out when they were being persecuted, but were too afraid of the authorities to break communion and follow the Old Calendarists. There were even a few clergymen who became Old Calendarists but whenever the authorities began persecuting them jumped back to the State Church.

As I said in my previous post (responding to the post you made after this (crazy!), I do have my sympathies with the more mild within those of the Holy Synod in Resistance. However I think it is a bit wrong to make a big fuss because canons forbid changing the canons, on the grounds that people will make a big fuss about it. Thats a bit like a self-fullfilling prophecy, except not even that.
As I said, the councils that announced those anathema’s (really? Anathema?) have the same authority as the one which created the calendar.

I personally don’t see why one would want a “Revised Julian” calendar which may be more astronomically right when it comes to non-Paschal feasts but is astronomically wrong when it comes to Pascha and the dating of feasts that depend on Pascha. Why not just go ahead and adopt the Gregorian calendar and become even more astronomically correct, that way you’d even be able to celebrate Easter with those on the civil calendar?

The date of Pascha isn’t important, what is important is that we celebrate it together. No other feast is so important as to require that (While the celebration of pascha and its associated feasts can be traced to the very first days of the church, the second most important, Christmas (which I say on the grounds of the lengthy fast preceeding it) was an afterthought of the church).
As I said, it isn’t important to have a more astronomically correct religious calendar, it is simply easier to use the secular calendar.

I figure that that last comment will inevitably give rise to the comeback that if it is just for simplicity, is it worth all the chaos it has caused in the churhc, to which I refer back to my comment that I have a certain sympathy for some of the Old Calendarists.

 

[Nine_Two]

Guys,about the ROCOR,i know they anathemitized Ecumenism some time ago

I know some ROCOR churches refused union with moscow,but for the ones that did unite ,do you know if they still stand by that Anathema of Ecumenism?

I mean ,isnt Moscow involved in the Ecumenical movement?

Even if moscow isnt, they would still be in union with Constantinople and other Orthodox churches involved with Ecumenism

do you guys know what the situation is with ROCOR/moscow and Ecumenism?

The problem with the term ecumenism is that it really only exists by degrees.
I am quite certain that the more extreme degrees of ecumenism are heretical, stuff like open communion for the sake of making people feeling welcome.
At the other end of the extreme it can mean just talking and getting to know those around you.

While ROCOR has generally been closed to talking with those outside Orthodoxy, I have a hard time believing it condemned such action. By joining with Moscow, which has been doing so for some time, it illustrates that.

 

[Nine_Two]

I’m not sure if I’m understanding you right, but how is that a good example of your method of who is the true EO Church, when today both the Old Calendarist and New Calendarist EO Church consider men on both sides of the Antioch split saints? I don’t think declaring where the true EO Church is is as black and white as I feel you are portraying it as (please correct me if I’m misunderstanding you). Sure, one side may be “more” in the right than the other, but would you honestly say that the other side was not a part of the Church, while even today your Church considers men on the “wrong” side saints? I feel like time has to be considered as well, as maybe if more time elapsed and the “wrong” side strongly stuck with their Arianism and maybe even adopted more heresies, then maybe you could conclude that they were outside the Church.

I meant (and I thought this was clear from the rest of the post) that it was a good example of a time when a split was more complicated (remember in my post I suggested that people apply that methodology before asking the question “well explain this”). I suggested the methodology to avoid the simplistic examples of random group A going off on their own.

 

[searn77]

I meant (and I thought this was clear from the rest of the post) that it was a good example of a time when a split was more complicated (remember in my post I suggested that people apply that methodology before asking the question “well explain this”). I suggested the methodology to avoid the simplistic examples of random group A going off on their own.

Ok, sorry I misunderstood you.

 

[searn77]

Interesting. I was unaware of that. I just launched a lengthy search for that, and while I didn’t find that (It makes sense now I should have gone straight to the rudder), I did find an Old Calendar Website that actually goes into detail about why the Matthewites were wrong.

Canons XIII-XV of the First-and-Second Council, for example (I’m taking this from the website mind you, haven’t double checked them), state that a Bishop does not have the right to break away from his Metropolitan unless a) His Metropolitan has been tried and found guilty, or b) during a trial, his Metropolitan has publically proclaimed a heresy already condemned by a Council.
The trial of a bishop itself requires twelve bishops (Canon XII and CXI of Carthage), and most certainly a single bishop cannot depose another bishop (Canon II Constantinople).

Note that he himself was ordained by this group which did not see itself as seperating from the Church, but simply they were insuring themselves against any moves that would create schism. They did this by ordaining additional bishops (Including Matthew), which was itself a violation of the Canons.

So looking at this particular group you have to get past all of those violations of canons to even begin to argue that they are legitimate.

The Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians is, I would say, should be declared to have fallen into heresy, believing the Calendar to be of such import that it would deprive all who use another of Grace.

I have more sympathy with the Holy Synod in Resistence, as they are a group that, though not in Communion, have not completely severed themselves from Orthodoxy. They see the calendar as symptomatic, rather than as an actual crime against the church, and I think they have some legitimate concerns - though they have gone about raising them in a completely uncanonical manner.

While canons should be followed whenever possible, there are times when the canons cannot be followed. In Greece, there was no chance of having any kind of council like that as anyone who voiced their opinion in favor of the old calendar were persecuted by the authorities, as St. Catherine the New Martyr was. In Soviet Russia there was no council that gave permission for there to be a catacomb Church separate from the State Church, only St. Tikhon’s ukaze.

So sure, the Old Calendarists did not follow all the canons to the T, but the New Calendarists haven’t followed the canons to the T either, not deposing clergy who pray in Jewish synagogues, participating in liturgical services with the non-Orthodox, etc. I did not become an Old Calendarist because they followed the old calendar and kept all the canons to the T; I became one because I saw that they kept the Orthodox faith. In the words of Fr. Seraphim Rose:

“Many of them follow the bishops of the few Orthodox jurisdicitions that have strong stands against the apostasy of our times: the Catacomb Church of Russia, the Russian Church Outside of Russia, the True Orthodox Christians [Old Calendarists] of Greece. But there are some left in other jurisdictions also, grieving over the ever more evident apostasy of their hierarchs and striving somehow to keep their own Orthodoxy intact”

From his book “Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future”

I saw many examples of Orthodox clergy breaking the canons time and time again with no consequences brought on them by their hierarchs at all, and this was due to the heresy of ecumenism that can be found throughout the World Orthodox Church. So when someone close to me was leaving the New Calendarist Church to become an Old Calendarist, after doing my research and praying about it, I too joined him.

 

[searn77]

The alternative is to try the offending bishop for breaking with the church.

In regards to the Old Calendarists, while they weren’t in a position to have a council as I explained, they did do much pleading even amid the persecutions. It took some years for them to finally break communion with the State Church.

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

I would not say the “sole” criteria, but rather the “necessary” criteria - WE call that the Rock of Peter

But what does one do when papal acceptance is contradictory? Should one follow Pope Adrian II’s acceptance of Constantinople IV (869-870) or Pope John VIII’s repudiation of that council via his acceptance of Constantinople IV (879-880)?

But the very point is that the truth is disputed. Perhaps you are unaware there were disputes at Nicea, etc?

How did the Bereans (mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles) discern the words of St. Paul? They read the Septuagint and compared his words with that which was recorded. In a like manner, we must compare with Church tradition.

Putting that aside, the ecumenical councils conveyed truth infallibly because their teachings were rooted in the experiential witness of the hesychasts (that is, those who have beheld the uncreated light). A council without a hesychast base (speakers and/or presiders and/or contributors) will not defend truth with the same accuracy (if at all). Those who have received theosis have received “all truth”, so if there remains confusion, one should follow the God-seeing elders (though this would be wise in all things).

not to mention the Turks at the gate who offered Scholarius the Patriarchal throne for hsi rejection of Florence… you see where this all goes.

Just to clarify for anyone reading, Patriarch Gennadius II was anti-union before the Sultan offered him the patriarchate.

 

[searn77]

The problem with the term ecumenism is that it really only exists by degrees.
I am quite certain that the more extreme degrees of ecumenism are heretical, stuff like open communion for the sake of making people feeling welcome.
At the other end of the extreme it can mean just talking and getting to know those around you.

While ROCOR has generally been closed to talking with those outside Orthodoxy, I have a hard time believing it condemned such action. By joining with Moscow, which has been doing so for some time, it illustrates that.

Talking is one thing, even the Old Calendarists aren’t opposed to talking, as how else would one hear of Orthodoxy if no one told him about it. But there’s quite a jump between talking to the non-Orthodox and joining communion with a church who is a member of a non-Orthodox council (something I have a hard time thinking saints like John Chrysostom or Seraphim of Sarov would be okay with), a council which seeks to unite all the different Christian religions into this one council. While understanding different Christian denominations and recognizing the false misinformation that’s often spread about them is important, there are other ways to do this than to become a member of a non-Orthodox council, a council which doesn’t just stop with discussions, as common prayer is practiced often (going against the canons) which has confused Orthodox clergy and laity alike, as now these ecumenical practices have spread throughout the New Calendarist Church and has spurned many instances where the Orthodox faith and practices are watered down or just plain ignored, as I know of happening in certain parishes (not to say all New Calendarist parishes are like this I have also known some very traditional parishes who have kept the Orthodox faith and practices alive).

That is why I’m an Old Calendarist, because they broke away from the New Calendarist Church and have stopped ecumenism from entering in. Sure, we have our own problems, as there are various synods not in communion with each other (due to persecutions, historical circumstances, and misunderstandings), and some Old Calendarists are plagued with the opposite of ecumenism which is legalism and strictness. But the one thing they have not given in to is the heresy of ecumenism. And hopefully overtime as was done in Antioch in the 4th century, our varied communions will eventually see the Orthodoxy of each other and mutual communion will ensue. I’m not saying that all of the Old Calendarists are not part of the Church here already, as I believe we all are, but just that hopefully in the future we can get past all of these divisions and unite.

Anyways, that’s just the ramblings of a mad Old Calendarist

I know you said you’re sympathetic to the Synod in Resistance, but I would recommend reading HOCNAs confession of faith and the letter written by Met. Ephraim which follows (especially the very last paragraph), which might help explain why I’m sympathetic to many who are still or have been in the World Orthodox Church like Fr. George Calciu whom I regard as a very holy man.
homb.org/our-faith/docs/our-orthodox-confession-of-faith.pdf

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

We have our saints and holy people as well. St. Philaret of New York, St. John Maximovitch, St. Matthew the Confessor, Abp. Auxentius, Bp. Spyridon of Trimythus, Elder Moses of Athikia, St. Gregorios of Greece, St. Catherine the New Martyr, St. Charalambis fool for Christ, etc.

I do not doubt that your church has glorified a number of saints. My statement dealt with the vision of uncreated light. Has anyone from your communion literally seen God?

 

[searn77]

I do not doubt that your church has glorified a number of saints. My statement dealt with the vision of uncreated light. Has anyone from your communion literally seen God?

No doubt the saints that I have mention see the Uncreated Light now, but I’m guessing you mean if they saw the Uncreated Light while they were still living. Well, I know St. John Maximovitch did, I think St. Philaret might have but I’m not sure, a divine force mystically lifted St. Charalampos into a church…

Why do you ask?

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

No doubt the saints that I have mention see the Uncreated Light now, but I’m guessing you mean if they saw the Uncreated Light while they were still living. Well, I know St. John Maximovitch did, I think St. Philaret might have but I’m not sure, a divine force mystically lifted St. Charalampos into a church…

Why do you ask?

Because those who have seen the uncreated light are theologians and consequently speak divine truths. To modify an old Protestant bumper sticker :

“Glorified elders who have seen the uncreated energies of God said it, I believe it, that settles it”.

St. John Maximovitch is venerated in my church, but who, if you don’t mind me asking, is St. Charalampos? I am not familiar with a modern figure bearing that name.