Quantcast

Original Position of the GOC in 1935 Concerning the Patriarchates and Local Churches the Retained the Traditional Church Calendar

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
31 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Original Position of the GOC in 1935 Concerning the Patriarchates and Local Churches the Retained the Traditional Church Calendar

HmkEnoch
Administrator
This post was updated on .
Metropolitan Chrysostomos, Metropolitan Germanus, and Met. Chrysosotmos of Zankynth, DID NOT BELIEVE the other Churches that retained the Old Calendar became schismatic. This was the official position of the GOC in 1935 as evidenced by public statements of the Synod: http://www.slideshare.net/SpyridonVoykalis/goc1935-diangelmabeng

In fact, Metropolitan Germanus was open about this (remember, Metropolitan Germanos had been second in rank in the State Church of Greece, right after the Abp. of Athens), and stated that "we shall collaborate" with Serbia, Jerusalem, Antioch, Russia, Poland, etc, because they retained the Church Calendar; read the pamphlet he published: http://www.slideshare.net/SpyridonVoykalis/goc-demetrias1935eng

This is why Metropolitan Chrysostomos and others continued to travel and work with people in Jerusalem and other Patriarchates. This was the intention all along, as long as those Patriarchates retained the Old Calendar and were friendly.

You can even find illustrations in pamphlets published by the Matthewites in the LATE 1940s which show the Antiochian and Jerusalem Patriarchates as part of the Church: http://www.slideshare.net/SpyridonVoykalis/1935sketch-39568090 since they retained the traditional Calendar.

The attitude of the vast majority of 'Old Calendarists' in Greece gradually hardened to the Patriarchates as all of the Eastern ones adopted the New Calendar save Jerusalem. It also became impossible to work with them especially in the 1960s with the rise of ecumenism to an extremely prominent place. It is therefore possible to firmly place the disconnect between the majority of Greek Old Calendarist, i.e., True Orthodox, and the Patriarchates in the same period that ROCOR began to withdraw from the the Patriarchates (i.e. Sorrow Epistles, lifting of anathemas). Before it was mostly an issue with Greece, later it became more than that.  

It has only been since the late 60s (excepting the Sergianist question in Russia), that the issues have come more to the fore and not been confined to just Greece and Greek speaking communities.  



In Christ,

Fr Enoch
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Original Position of the GOC in 1935 Concerning the Patriarchates and Local Churches the Retained the Traditional Church Calendar

Maximus
Fr. Enoch,

This doesn't make sense if one holds to a rigorous Old Calendarist view. If the EP and the State Church of Greece were heretical (1920 Encyclical) and schismatic (1924), and therefore graceless, and the other Patriarchates remained in communion with them... then how and why could the Greek Old Calendarist hierarchs maintain communion with them??? Btw, that original website with the docs from the links was a treasure trove of info, was the author Stavros?

**Also, I'd like your opinion of this article on pluralistic canonical views within the Church (eg Sts Stephen and Cyprian). http://www.thyateira.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=924&Itemid=165

It has some elements of liberal scholarship but I think the gist of it is true and somewhat similar to what you've tried to communicate. We can even start another thread on it, I would've emailed it to you it but I no longer have your email.**
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Original Position of the GOC in 1935 Concerning the Patriarchates and Local Churches the Retained the Traditional Church Calendar

HmkEnoch
Administrator
Maximus,


"This doesn't make sense if one holds to a rigorous Old Calendarist view."


Obviously the 'extreme' rigorous view was not held by the GOC Synod in 1935.



"If the EP and the State Church of Greece were heretical (1920 Encyclical) and schismatic (1924), and therefore graceless, and the other Patriarchates remained in communion with them... then how and why could the Greek Old Calendarist hierarchs maintain communion with them???"



I'm not sure what the reaction was in Greece to it, or even how many people knew about it.  The 1920 Encyclical was only signed by twelve Metropolitans: 1) Dorotheos of Prusa, Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne; 2) Nicholas of Caesarea; 3) Constantine of Cyzicus; 4) Germanos of Amaseia; 5) Gerasimos of Pisidia; 6) Gervasios of Ankyra; 7) Joachim of Ainos; 8) Anthimos of Bizya; 9) Evgenios of Selyvria; 10) Agathangelos of Seranta Ekklesiai; 12) Chrysostomos of Tyroloa and Serentios; and 13) Eirenaios of the Dardanelles and Lampsakos.    

Notice Metropolitan Chrysosotmos of Florina's name is not there. Notice that a lot of Metropolitans and Bishops of the Ecumentical Patriarchate don't have their names on it (and, remember, this was when there were an whole lot of people in the Ecumenical Patriarchate, not just a shadow organization with dozens of titular bishops like today).  You don't find Metropolitan Chrysosotomos of Smyrna's name either.  

But, yes, you are correct, that we are left with 12 bishops issuing an heretical documents in the name of the Patriarchate.  I can only surmise from the actions of Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina (who left the Ecumenical Patriarchate in 1921 over the election of Meletios Metaxakis, whom he considered to be absolutely uncanonical) and others in this early period were not the 'rigorist view', but, rather a one of being upset, refusing to sign, fighting from within, attempting to change thing, and then, after enough years believing that more 'drastic' actions had to be taken (thus the formation of the GOC Synod in 1935).    Obviously, from the 1935 GOC Synod docs posted, they did not believe that every Church that retained the Traditional Calendar, but was still in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch, State Church of Greece, lost Grace and became schismatic.    

It seems the original dispute in 1937 between some of the GOC bishops was about whether they should stick to the 1935 position that the State Church was schismatic, and there did not have true Sacraments, or they could 're-interpret' that view in light of their collaboration with the other Old Calendar Patriarchates.  To paraphrase Vladimir Moss, "Vacilating over whether people who are using the Old or New Calendar are schismatic or not does not make you an heretic."


In Christ,

Fr. Enoch
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Original Position of the GOC in 1935 Concerning the Patriarchates and Local Churches the Retained the Traditional Church Calendar

HmkEnoch
Administrator
In reply to this post by Maximus
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Original Position of the GOC in 1935 Concerning the Patriarchates and Local Churches the Retained the Traditional Church Calendar

Maximus
In reply to this post by HmkEnoch
Fr. Enoch,

I actually think that the extremist view is much more consistent IF the Greek Church was considered to be schismatic by the consensus of Greek Old Calendarists. If it was schismatic enough to wall oneself off from it then one should also wall themselves off from those who concelebrated with and/or remained indifferent to the errors of the Greek Church. And if the Greek Church was truly schismatic as of 1950 then all those Churches that remained in communion with it were also.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Original Position of the GOC in 1935 Concerning the Patriarchates and Local Churches the Retained the Traditional Church Calendar

HmkEnoch
Administrator
This post was updated on .
It maybe more consistent, and look far more consistent in hindsight. Unfortunately, in Church history, things have not always been so 'consistent'.  It would have been consistent for others to have basically written Patriarch St. Elias off of ever being commemorated;, since he died before the Acacian Schism (i.e. Eastern Quasi-Monopohysite Schism) was healed, since he was in communion with people who were in communion with bishops who rejected Chalcedon and accepted the Henotikon. For about 20 years it was the insistent claim of Orthodox Rome that Euphemius and Macedonius (who were later recognized as saints) omit the names on the diptychs of all those who died in communion with Acacius and others who rejected Chalcedon and accepted the Henotikon (even if they personally defended Chalcedon).  Eventually, in 519 communion was restored, and apparently, the consistent position, or 'rigorist' position, on the commemoration of St. Elias the Patriarch, St. Euphemius and St. Macedonius, and others never was realized (i.e., they were kept in the calendar despite the 'inconsistency').  That's apparently just how things happen.

However, my point is only to prove that the original three GOC Synod members (and thus the Synod) had an official position that they did not (at that time) consider the Old Calendar Patriarchs apostate or schismatic.  Things only began to fundamentally change in the view of the vast majority of True Orthodox with the adoption of the New Calendar by PAtriarchates and beginning in the 1960s due to the ecumenical movement.




In Christ,

Fr. Enoch
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Original Position of the GOC in 1935 Concerning the Patriarchates and Local Churches the Retained the Traditional Church Calendar

Maximus
Fr. Enoch,

I completely agree with your comments and on your use of the Acacian Schism as a precedent. What's ironic is that Pope Gelasius, a truly Orthodox Pope and the first to be called "Vicar of Christ" actually applied the zealot principle to the compromised Eastern Patriarchs.

Fr. Florovsky writes: "He wrote contemptuously to Euphemius, claiming that Euphemius belonged to an "estranged body." He characterized Acacius as a greater sinner than Eutyches precisely because Acacius "had known the truth" and yet associated with the "enemies of truth" — Acacius was a heretic by association. In Gelasius’ letter to his envoy in Constantinople, Faustus, he wrote "consortium damnatorum est damnatus Acacius". Some scholars have seen in this notion of "heresy by association" the African roots of Gelasius, the African influence of Tertullian, Cyprian, and Donatus. The fact remains, however, that the principle used by Gelasius is nothing more than a consistent and logical extension of the theological concept of heresy."

Pope Gelasius said that the Greeks "abound in heresies", and he was absolutely right according to strictness. He was likely the most notable Pope during the Schism. The Church eventually ruled differently however, and there were Saints among those bishops in communion with heretics for decades. People need to learn about these exceptional circumstances in Church history so they'll stop dividing over if someone believes that some other group may have grace.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Original Position of the GOC in 1935 Concerning the Patriarchates and Local Churches the Retained the Traditional Church Calendar

HmkEnoch
Administrator
Maximus,

"I completely agree with your comments and on your use of the Acacian Schism as a precedent. What's ironic is that Pope Gelasius, a truly Orthodox Pope and the first to be called "Vicar of Christ" actually applied the zealot principle to the compromised Eastern Patriarchs. "

The famous Epistle 30?  Well, I suppose since Rome was the only one upholding the 'zealot' and strict view, they would have considered themselves the only Orthodox Patriarchate left (the "Sleepless Ones" and others in Constantinople refused communion with the Patriarchate until it would act on the what was laid down in resolving the issues; i.e., severing of communion with supporters of the Henotikon).  But, it is said in the way of acclamation and appear, to be honest, highly rhetorical, laudatory, and not necessarily infused with the same meaning as a Pius X would have given it, or even an Innocent III.  

Fr. Florovsky writes: "He wrote contemptuously to Euphemius, claiming that Euphemius belonged to an "estranged body." He characterized Acacius as a greater sinner than Eutyches precisely because Acacius "had known the truth" and yet associated with the "enemies of truth" — Acacius was a heretic by association. In Gelasius’ letter to his envoy in Constantinople, Faustus, he wrote "consortium damnatorum est damnatus Acacius". Some scholars have seen in this notion of "heresy by association" the African roots of Gelasius, the African influence of Tertullian, Cyprian, and Donatus. The fact remains, however, that the principle used by Gelasius is nothing more than a consistent and logical extension of the theological concept of heresy."

Yes. It was an issue of no compromise. It was to be one way and that was it.  Those in the East that would not make a firm affirmation of Chalcedon, repudiated the Henotikon, AND break communion with any that did (or any that share communion with any that did, or were in any way indirectly associated with them) AS WELL as remove the names of those who had died in such a state (apparently not only bishops, but, perhaps? clergy, monks and laity) from commemoration for the dead were not received into communion by the Orthodox Church of Rome, since they were regarded as being either heretics or sharing in heresy by some association.

Pope St. Anastasius was similar.  Archbishop John of Nicopolis had to make such a repudiation and to be received.  Pope Hormisdas was equally  a 'zealot' and uncompromising on what they would need to do. However, when the negotiations happened, a number of things were 'omitted' in the formula for re-union (the claims of the Roman Patriarchate, in the final draft, were toned down; apparently a blind eye was turned to commemorating those who had died, as well as a benign neglect for the retention of Euphemius and Macedonius II on the Diptychs, though Acacius had to be removed).

His decree to Faustus says explicitly:
"Hoc igitur modo recidens in consortium damnatorum est damnatus Acacius, qui eorum damnationem antequam praevaricator extitisset, fuerat executus."



Pope Gelasius said that the Greeks "abound in heresies", and he was absolutely right according to strictness. He was likely the most notable Pope during the Schism. The Church eventually ruled differently however, and there were Saints among those bishops in communion with heretics for decades. People need to learn about these exceptional circumstances in Church history so they'll stop dividing over if someone believes that some other group may have grace.

Yes, but, I think you are missing a point.  The Orthodox Romans and all the Orthodox Churches in the West were perfectly justified and well-within their bounds to do what they did.  If they had not, and been more accommodating it would have been disastrous and simply prolonged the controversy and the supporters the Henotikons and enemies of Chalcdon.  It would have been used as an excuse to say, "Look, even the Roman Patriarchate shares communion with us! What's the problem, O  Sabbas, Elias, etc?"  Severus would have made no end of this as would his allies.  So, in retrospect, there were indeed saints in this period, separated from the 'zealot' Orthodox Westerners who refused any communion until all the conditions (enumerated above) were met.  But, at the time, what they did was perfectly correct. Any mistakes can simply be left to future generations to solve; all they knew was what they must do.

In Christ,

Fr. Encoh


 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Original Position of the GOC in 1935 Concerning the Patriarchates and Local Churches the Retained the Traditional Church Calendar

Maximus
Fr. Enoch,

I'm not missing that point at all. I said that the Pope was absolutely right. Rome's "intransigence" ultimately made the East clean up it's act. Plus, heresiarchs like Severus demanded that Chalcedon be anathematized and he also considered those who signed the Henotikon to be compromisers. Frend called him an "akrievist" in his work on the Monophysites.

However, my main point is that despite an abundance of heresy and compromise in the East (explicit and complicit), grace was not completely lost. There was saintliness and the grace of the Mysteries there despite decades of confessed heresy. Again, this is a lesson for "us upon whom the end of ages has come" to quote St. Paul.

in ICXC,
Maximus
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Original Position of the GOC in 1935 Concerning the Patriarchates and Local Churches the Retained the Traditional Church Calendar

Maximus
In reply to this post by HmkEnoch
I'd also like to say that grace in the midst of heresy is extraordinary and should not be presumed. That's the flipside of the error that dogmaticly proclaims that grace in the midst of error and theological compromise is an impossibility.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Original Position of the GOC in 1935 Concerning the Patriarchates and Local Churches the Retained the Traditional Church Calendar

HmkEnoch
Administrator
Maximus,

If I had lived in Asia Minor during the Acacian Schism, or Constantinople, I would have preferred above all things, knowing only what I could know then, to be associated only with the Church was firm in upholding the Orthodox view, and not with those who were in association with promoters of the Henotikon.  It doesn't seem we should behave differently today.

But, back to the original point.  The original GOC position was active and official collaboration with other Patriarchates that would cooperate and were stilling using the tradition, patristic, calender.  However, as noted, this is largely impossible today for a number of reasons.  The ecumenical pan-heresy was not widely spread throughout the different local Churches and Patriarchates, being, at that time, mostly confined to Constantinople and a few other places.  The last Patriarch who displayed 'friendliness' of any kind, anything that could be labelled 'collaboration' was Patriarch Diodoros of Jerusalem, but, he was greatly attacked by Phanar and his allies, and eventually put out of commission.  And this doesn't mean you have to accept Diodoros as some great hero and confessor.

 

In Christ,

Fr. Enoch
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Original Position of the GOC in 1935 Concerning the Patriarchates and Local Churches the Retained the Traditional Church Calendar

Maximus
Easier said than done Fr. Enoch. Tell that to those Easterners who had solid bishops that did not subscribe to the Henotikon but were loosely associated with it nonetheless. It becomes even more opaque when you throw in a bunch of groups that despise, depose, accuse and anathematize each other but all claiming to be the the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. Many of these groups have embraced heresy themselves and/or have a poor grasp of Church history and the Canons as established policy. Even you would admit this, God help us!

Additionally, I would say that the pan-heresy of ecumenism has been in effect for at least 2-3 centuries in varying degrees and throughout many (most) of the Patriarchates. Info traveled a little slower, that's all. I don't hold to the accepted narrative that posits that this all began in 1920s. I know it's a little idiosyncratic but I accept that.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Original Position of the GOC in 1935 Concerning the Patriarchates and Local Churches the Retained the Traditional Church Calendar

HmkEnoch
Administrator
Maximus,

"Additionally, I would say that the pan-heresy of ecumenism has been in effect for at least 2-3 centuries in varying degrees and throughout many (most) of the Patriarchates. Info traveled a little slower, that's all. I don't hold to the accepted narrative that posits that this all began in 1920s. I know it's a little idiosyncratic but I accept that."

Why do you say this?  The pan-heresy of ecumenism defined as the belief that all heresies are part of the one Church.

What Synodal letters and encyclicals written in the 1700s and 1800s were stating the belief in the Orthodox Church being the same a Protestantism and Papism?    Even in 1904 Russian Church Encyclical doesn't say this.

In CHrist,

Fr. Enoch
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Original Position of the GOC in 1935 Concerning the Patriarchates and Local Churches the Retained the Traditional Church Calendar

Maximus
http://www.slideshare.net/mobile/SpyridonVoykalis/pre1924ecumenism2eng

http://thattimehascome.blogspot.com/2011/05/notes-on-true-orthodox-resistance.html?m=1
see points 4 & 5

V. Moss: Thus in 1878 Patriarch Joachim II and his Synod decreed that Orthodox priests could give communion to Armenians who were isolated from their own priests and churches.

The “proto-ecumenism” of the Russian Church in this period came primarily from the tsars. Thus in 1847 Emperor Nicholas I concluded a concordat with Pope Gregory XVI which envisaged that the Russian Orthodox Church would carry out all the sacraments and needs for those who turned to her with such requests from the Catholics exiled for their participation in the Polish rebellions against Russia, if they were living in places where there were no Catholic churches or Catholic clergy.
 (See New Zion in Babylon 1, the chaps. on Greek and Russian "proto-ecumenism".) Arent these policies exactly what Nikodim of Leningrad suggested??

http://classicalchristianity.com/2014/08/21/on-crypto-romanism/
http://classicalchristianity.com/2014/08/29/on-false-ecumenism-prior-to-the-20th-century/

I just read the autobiography of Met. Evlogy and he states that Protestant royalty regularly communed at Orthodox altars. You can also see how pervasive Ecumenism was in Russia by the St. Hilarion of Verey's response to the Englishman World Council of Christian Churches: http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/32129.htm





Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Original Position of the GOC in 1935 Concerning the Patriarchates and Local Churches the Retained the Traditional Church Calendar

Maximus
Here is the information I obtained from Met. Evlogy's "My Life's Journey" Vol. 2, p. 666. In the quote below he is discussing what took place in England for the ecumenical celebration of the 1600th year of the Nicean Council in 1925.

"The basic issue that was discussed at well-attended gatherings was the apostolic primacy of the Anglican hierarchy and the related issue of intercommunion. We representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church exercised great caution. Metropolitan Anthony said that all of the heterodox confessions lack hierarchical grace and that the Anglican Church cannot be isolated from other Christian confessions, including Catholicism. But the Eastern patriarchs expressed more open and liberal opinions, especially since some of them, even the stricter senior Patriarch Photius of Alexandria, did, in fact allow intercommunion with Anglicans in individual cases, while Patriarch Dimitrije of Serbia had already administered communion in private to a Protestant, Queen Marie of Romania."

I was quite shocked at the different picture of Pat. Photius of Alexandria presented here! Met. Evlogy mentions him in an offhand manner with no axe to grind. For more on ROCOR's dealings with Anglicans see:

http://classicalchristianity.com/2014/08/29/met-anthony-khrapovitsky-on-heterodoxy-and-ecumenism/
http://classicalchristianity.com/2014/11/22/on-confessing-the-orthodox-church-with-truth-and-love/

Pat. Photius is present in the pics of the Nicean ecumenical celebration in the link. He was an ecumenist of some sort, and according to Met. Evlogy, the wrong kind.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Original Position of the GOC in 1935 Concerning the Patriarchates and Local Churches the Retained the Traditional Church Calendar

HmkEnoch
Administrator
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Maximus
I'll address the first link in a separate post.
The second is merely old remarks that can simply be only taken as that in as much as they contradict the position of his Church (my Church) in official documents (and I doubt Fr. Raphael is someone to gainsay the Synod if it adopts a position that are contrary to any statements of his; I am the same).  Point 4 and 5 are simply interpretations, with some good deal of truth, about the state of Russian state control over the Church, and the problems of the Turkish yoke in Orthodoxy.  It is impossible to compare the atheist control of the MP to the Turkish government extorting the Church for money! Fr. Raphael's point, though I have some disagreement with the emphasis, is simply that there were problems in Orthodoxy prior to ecumenism, which no one denies (Fr. Raphael certainly doesn't endorse ecumenism, though! since I've personally heard him write and speak against it (in person), and affirm the apostasy of the World Patriarchates from Orthodoxy.) The Old Ritualist-Old  Believer question is too complicated and much misunderstood because there was never a clear divide in many cases, despite them being called "Raskolniki", since among those that accepted Priests many communed in the established Church to varying levels until their gaining of a separate hierarchy in the 1840s.

The point about the Armenians is confused and not quite accurate. The reporting we have on the matter is mostly that issued by Anglican interlocutors, which can make some aspects of it suspect.  But, let us say it is not.  Metropolitan Gregory of Chios, in fact, issue the report you are speaking of in the late 1800s.

http://www.slideshare.net/SpyridonVoykalis/ep-armenians-dialogue1864

I do not know where V. Moss derives the 1878 date from, but, I would be happy to know.  Let me address the letter you bring up in regards to the memorandum composed by Met. Gregory of Chios. In his report, which is in the form of a Treatise that was given to the Ecumenical Patriarchate concerning the possibility of reconciliation with the Armenian Church we see a number of this which jump out at us. Point 3, for example. Met. Gregory recommends to the Patriarchate that as a pre-requisite for talks of reconciliation, there must be no question of the validity of the Baptisms and Ordinations of the Armenian Church.  This, in and of itself, is open to multiple interpretations, and not just necessarily an ecumenist interpretation (I certainly doubt the leaders of the Holy Synod in 1904 were ecumenists, as they confessed the absolute truth of the Orthodox Church as the "Divine Ark of Grace" alone, despite their recognition of the Apostolic Succession of the Latins, Armenians, Copts, and Nestorians; this can indeed all be added to the overweening influence of 'scholastic' and 'Augustinian' thinking in the vast majority of theological schools).  

Point 4 in Met. Gregory's report is not controversial since it agrees with the general practice of the Church hierarchy in the best of times (as well as it agrees with article V of the Encyclical of the Ecumenical Patriarch sometime later, which merely repeats the position of St. Photius from the 9th century; nevertheless, Met. Gregory explicitly mentions that they all "should be ready to waive, or even to abandon these [customs and usages], so far as they shall be proved contrary to Catholic tradition, and to admit the customs of the other, no longer as Hellenic or Armenian, but as Oecumenical, as being in manifest agreement with the Apostolic Constitutions, the decrees of Oecumenical Synods, and the teaching of the Holy Fathers,' i.e., this was a convenient way of attacking the innovation of the Armenian Church in abolishing the mixed Chalice and their introduction of unleavened bread; so, the context is far from 'ecumenical' in the modern sense.)

Indeed, in point 7 the main issues that prevent Union are declared to be  "(1) The Two Natures in Christ; (2) Unleavened Bread; (3) The Holy Oil; (4) The Hymn "Trishagion;" (5) The Feast of the Nativity; and (6) Fasts."  In other words, the exact same things discussed in the last talks for reconciliation in the 1100s.

Let me quote the entirety of point 8 made by Met. Gregory in the report in 1864:

" "8. Should any custom of the Armenian Church be found in disagreement with Catholic tradition and sacred antiquity, but of which the correction shall be shown to be impossible, in consequence of its having become, through the use of many centuries rooted in the conscience of the whole body of a Christian people,--in order that the word of Union may not come to naught, or in other words, that no violence be done to the Law of Love, 'which is the sum of the Gospel, the observance of that custom must be conceded. In such a case, let the Greek and Armenian members of the Commission take for their rule the maxim of the holy Theophylact:--" Not every custom hath power to sever from the Church, but only such as involved difference of doctrine." (It is evident, however, that the final decision with regard to such concession is reserved for the whole Church.) But it is requisite that records of all the circumstance of such concession, and of the ancient Ecclesiastical precedents by which it is supported, should be made with circumspection in the Proceedings, to the removal of any possible offence. "

In other words, since they take St. Theophylact's statement (which I assume come from either his work against the Latins, or one of his letters) as the model, it should be important to remember that St. Theophylact, while admitting the antiquity and Orthodoxy of the basic and many liturgical practices of the Latins, did not in any way concede any dogmatic points (as the quote shows), but was ready to re-establish communion with the Papists provided they abolish such practices as touched the dogmatic foundation of the Chruch (filioque, papal power, unleavened bread, etc). St. Mark of Ephesus, near the end of the Council of Florence, along with the Orthodox party were so exasperated that they made the same point; this is not new, and only a restatement of the position of St. Photius and others.  Even on some points which they found to be long practiced customs which they found disagreeable with Canonical legislation, they were willing to exercise condescension as long as it did not touch the dogmatic foundation of the Faith. So, this is nothing new in the point above.

One only read point 9 to see that Met. Gregory distinguishes between the Ecclesiastical authorities and Synods of the "Orthodox and the Armenian" bodies. If he believed the Armenians were part of the Church, why would he call one Orthodox and the other "Armenian".  

The rest of the work, which quotes from the report of Met. Gregory to the Phanar concerning the Armenians, also quotes from others works of Met. Gregory on the Anglican Church of the 19th century, which show the same cluelessness that many Orthodox hierarchs had about Anglicanism, and the same misplaced optimism of the Anglican's fully embracing Orthodoxy that many had (misplaced optimism about the conversion of an heterodox body to Orthodoxy is certainly not the same as ecumenism; I'm sure many, such as Met. Anthony and others had misplaced optimism about the conversion of the entire Assyrian Church, or the near possibility of the Russian Church bringing the Ethiopian Church to Orthodoxy). Misplaced optimism of this kind is certainly not what we think of as the ecumenical movement.


The “proto-ecumenism” of the Russian Church in this period came primarily from the tsars. Thus in 1847 Emperor Nicholas I concluded a concordat with Pope Gregory XVI which envisaged that the Russian Orthodox Church would carry out all the sacraments and needs for those who turned to her with such requests from the Catholics exiled for their participation in the Polish rebellions against Russia, if they were living in places where there were no Catholic churches or Catholic clergy.
 (See New Zion in Babylon 1, the chaps. on Greek and Russian "proto-ecumenism".) Arent these policies exactly what Nikodim of Leningrad suggested??


This I beg; please show me the report.  Show me a link, somewhere!  But, even if this is true, a private agreement by a layman (even an exalted one like the Emperor) does not mean anything other than that: a private agreement. And this a one that was not accepted by the Church.  I do remember looking for more on this, but, I found nothing.

"I just read the autobiography of Met. Evlogy and he states that Protestant royalty regularly communed at Orthodox altars."

Can you give the quotation?

You can also see how pervasive Ecumenism was in Russia by the St. Hilarion of Verey's response to the Englishman World Council of Christian Churches: http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/32129.htm

 Ecumenism was beginning to develop, mostly under Protestant-Anglican influence in Russia, but, this is not the same as what is happening today.  Where were the joint-prayer commissions?  The persecution of those who rebutted it?  We have priests making statements that are inadmissible, as Abp. Hilarion notes.  But, the resistance of this innovation was immediate, by such as Met. Anthony, Abp. Hilarion and many, many others.  Many heresies have a proto- or crypto-form initially, such as Nestorianism, Arianism, and Monophysitism, Monothelitism, Iconoclasm, etc.  But this proves no more than that.

Aside from the mention of one priest and a few others beginning during the end of the Russian Empire and World War I, I see no evidence for 'pervasive ecumenism' in Russia.

In Christ,

Fr. Enoch




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Original Position of the GOC in 1935 Concerning the Patriarchates and Local Churches the Retained the Traditional Church Calendar

HmkEnoch
Administrator
In reply to this post by Maximus
Maximus,

Here is the information I obtained from Met. Evlogy's "My Life's Journey" Vol. 2, p. 666. In the quote below he is discussing what took place in England for the ecumenical celebration of the 1600th year of the Nicean Council in 1925.

Page 666?  That's kind of disturbingly interesting!


"The basic issue that was discussed at well-attended gatherings was the apostolic primacy of the Anglican hierarchy and the related issue of intercommunion. We representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church exercised great caution. Metropolitan Anthony said that all of the heterodox confessions lack hierarchical grace and that the Anglican Church cannot be isolated from other Christian confessions, including Catholicism. But the Eastern patriarchs expressed more open and liberal opinions, especially since some of them, even the stricter senior Patriarch Photius of Alexandria, did, in fact allow inter-communion with Anglicans in individual cases, while Patriarch Dimitrije of Serbia had already administered communion in private to a Protestant, Queen Marie of Romania."


Where is the source on this?  Even the report given in the late 1800s was vague on the points.  Why is it always Anglicans reporting on how they are accepted by the Orthodox in this period?  

The statement concerning Queen Marie I have seen no evidence for. In fact, to me it looks like he is confusing Patriarch Demetrius of Serbia with the infamous "Patriarch" Miron Cristeau, who I have no doubt from his history, teachings, and blood-thirsty monstrous behaviour, would have done such a wicked act.  


This doesn't prove much other than ecumenism started to take off in the 1920s, it was probably worse than many of us thought, and was eventually fought against and condemned and anathematized within 60 years.

In Christ,

Fr. Enoch
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Original Position of the GOC in 1935 Concerning the Patriarchates and Local Churches the Retained the Traditional Church Calendar

Maximus
Here is yet more corroboration of the Anglican bishop in the altar at Met. Vitaly's ordination. This is taken from "Orthodoxy and the Ecumenical Movement" by Archimandrite Cyprian Agiokyprianites, pp. 80-84. Archimandrite Cyprian states that Fr. George Tsetsis pulled out two photos, one from the 50s and one from the 60s and asked the question:

"In what way does today's President of the Russian Church Abroad, Metropolitan Vitaly, differ from the 'Orthodox ecumenists,' when on the day of his Consecration, for reason of political expediency, he had an Anglican bishop by his side, and inside the Holy Altar, praying with him in full hierarchical vestments; or his predecessor, Metropolitan Philaret, when on one occasion he carried the wonder-working Kursk-Root Icon of the Mother of God in procession on the streets of Marseilles, walking along a 'Papist' bishop, en route to serving a Paraklesis in a Roman Catholic Church?"

Archimandrite Cyprian then accuses Fr. Tsetsis of unbrotherly exploitation (not falsehood) since the Russian exiles were hard-pressed and persecuted. He also says that the Anglican in the altar during the ordination was out of political expediency, according to Fr. Tsetsis' own admission and that no is sure if Met. Philaret participated in a litany since the icon is in it's covering and none of the Russian clergy are wearing vestments. Archimandrite Cyprian then states that all the countless photographs of ecumenists "hobnobbing with the heterodox" would also be cast into oblivion if they reject ecumenism as ROCOR did since "1965 and thereafter".

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Original Position of the GOC in 1935 Concerning the Patriarchates and Local Churches the Retained the Traditional Church Calendar

Maximus
In reply to this post by HmkEnoch
Fr. Enoch,

You said: "Where is the source on this?  Even the report given in the late 1800s was vague on the points.  Why is it always Anglicans reporting on how they are accepted by the Orthodox in this period?"

The source is Met. Evlogy himself, he witnessed the events taking place. I quoted his autobiography so it's not Anglicans reporting these events, it's a Russian bishop. Plus, it's not hard all to find ecumenical craziness and concelebrations taking place in this period at all.

"The statement concerning Queen Marie I have seen no evidence for. In fact, to me it looks like he is confusing Patriarch Demetrius of Serbia with the infamous "Patriarch" Miron Cristeau, who I have no doubt from his history, teachings, and blood-thirsty monstrous behaviour, would have done such a wicked act."

Fr, you accept many other things and post them on this very site without needing all the evidence. Why would you just jump to the conclusion that Met. Eulogy must be confused?? Met. Evlogy is certainly not infallible, agreed, but again, he had no axe to grind.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Original Position of the GOC in 1935 Concerning the Patriarchates and Local Churches the Retained the Traditional Church Calendar

Maximus
In reply to this post by HmkEnoch
Fr. Enoch,

I most certainly know that Fr.Raphael is not an ecumenist. He is an eminent Slavic historian, however. I didn't know your synod had an official policy on pre-1924 ecumenism. Why would such thing even be necessary?

Again, Fr. I've sent you proof of all these goings-on in the Russian Church from Fr. Florovsky, Moss, Fr. Raphael, V. Moss, Kontzevich , Solzhenitsyn and many other secular historians. You simply refuse to believe it even to the point of arguing for the Orthodoxy and piety of Tsar Peter the Great! The normative view is that of St. Hilarion of Verey: “The eagle of Petrine autocracy, shaped in imitation of the West, tore asunder the Patriarchate, that sacred heart of Russian Orthodoxy. The sacrilegious hand of the impious Peter pulled down the senior hierarch of the Russian Church from his traditional seat in the Dormition Cathedral!" You called the Tsars exalted laymen and their agreements private... Do you not realize that the bishops at their ordination vowed that the Tsar was their "ultimate judge" from the time of Peter the Great until the time of Tsar St. Nicholas II, who did away with it? What the Tsars wanted, they got since the Church was reduced to an arm of the State. I also contend that Met. Anthony and St. Hilarion were in the minority with their sacramental and ecumenical views: the false views made it into the textbooks and prayer manuals.

The Greek Church was definitely compromised before 1924, this is beyond argument. Additionally, there is definitely merit in comparing the Turks and the Bolsheviks, St. John Maximovitch did so in his history on the ROCA. Not to mention, I would say that the Turks did a better job of liquidating Christians and churches than the Bolsheviks. On this and the above-mentioned points, we'll have to agree to disagree.

I won't even respond to your views about ecumenical participation in the past being due to misplaced optimism, the frequent concelebrations, and the consideration of heterodox sacraments to be valid. If you don't consider that to be ecumenism then I would say that you have a double standard of the way that you define the word and that most (if not all) True Orthodox historians like Moss, Markou and Fr. Raphael disagree with you.
12
Loading...