Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Antioch in Communion with Monophysites?!

Expand Messages
  • Athanasios Jayne
    Dear Fathers, brothers, and sisters! I have often heard of dialogues taking place between the Antiochians and the Monophysites, but I had never heard, until
    Message 1 of 25 , Jul 20, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Fathers, brothers, and sisters!

      I have often heard of dialogues taking place
      between the Antiochians and the Monophysites,
      but I had never heard, until now, that these
      talks ever resulted in anything concrete.
      Always, it seeemed, there were rumors and
      unconfirmed reports, and ambiguous documents
      of uncertain authority, etc.

      But now I see this:

      http://www.orthodoxunity.org/state13.html

      This is a Synodal and Patriarchal document,
      and therefore unquestionably of the highest
      authority for the Church of Antioch, and as
      I read it, while it does not use the word
      "Communion" in an obvious way, it *does*
      speak of "concelebration," and of other
      things which appear to surely indicate that
      the Church of Antioch has officially been in
      Communion with the Monophysites since 1991,
      with the full approval of the Synod and
      Patriarch of Antioch.

      Is this so??? Have I misunderstood something?
      How can this be? If this is so, how can
      Antioch continue to be recognized as part of
      the Orthodox Church? How can Antioch act
      unilaterally in this, when it concerns the
      whole Church and our holy Orthodox faith?

      Please tell me I am mistaken!

      Athanasios.
    • CW
      I am a member of GOA in Columbus, Ohio. There is a group of Eretrian Copts who attend there and receive communion (although I have never seen Greeks in
      Message 2 of 25 , Jul 20, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        I am a member of GOA in Columbus, Ohio. There is a group of Eretrian Copts who attend there and receive communion (although I have never seen Greeks in conversation with them. Ethno-Centric???) I was told by the assistant pastor several years ago that the Copts were "sort of" divided into two groups and the group most Eretrians belong to is not the same as the Ethiopians. Furthermore, the group in possession of the "Ark of the Covenant" are the Eretrians. It's rather interesting to see the women with a cross tattooed on their foreheads. Usually around Christmas they dress in their traditional dress and attend liturgy. The women always wear sort of a wrap around and keep their heads covered. They also pray with hands extended, elbows bent in front of them as I was taught many years ago. I also noticed the Syrian Orthodox in India are presently divided. However, I don't believe it has anything to do with Orthodox doctrine.

        Jéan-Claude Williams
        Annunciation Cathedral
        Columbus, Ohio

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Athanasios Jayne
        To: orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 3:07 PM
        Subject: [orthodox-synod] Antioch in Communion with Monophysites?!


        Dear Fathers, brothers, and sisters!

        I have often heard of dialogues taking place
        between the Antiochians and the Monophysites,
        but I had never heard, until now, that these
        talks ever resulted in anything concrete.
        Always, it seeemed, there were rumors and
        unconfirmed reports, and ambiguous documents
        of uncertain authority, etc.

        But now I see this:

        http://www.orthodoxunity.org/state13.html

        This is a Synodal and Patriarchal document,
        and therefore unquestionably of the highest
        authority for the Church of Antioch, and as
        I read it, while it does not use the word
        "Communion" in an obvious way, it *does*
        speak of "concelebration," and of other
        things which appear to surely indicate that
        the Church of Antioch has officially been in
        Communion with the Monophysites since 1991,
        with the full approval of the Synod and
        Patriarch of Antioch.

        Is this so??? Have I misunderstood something?
        How can this be? If this is so, how can
        Antioch continue to be recognized as part of
        the Orthodox Church? How can Antioch act
        unilaterally in this, when it concerns the
        whole Church and our holy Orthodox faith?

        Please tell me I am mistaken!

        Athanasios.




        Archives located at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod





        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

        a.. Visit your group "orthodox-synod" on the web.

        b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        orthodox-synod-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

        c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Athanasios Jayne
        Yes, I believe I have a basic grasp of the Christological dogmas in question. But that is not my primary focus, since this aspect of the problem has been
        Message 3 of 25 , Jul 21, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Yes, I believe I have a basic grasp of the
          Christological dogmas in question.

          But that is not my primary focus, since
          this aspect of the problem has been "papered
          over" and essentially buried by the
          Ecumenical talks of the last four decades.

          Yes, they are able to *sound* very Orthodox.

          If they can embrace the truths we embrace,
          praise God. But as I understand the nature
          of our dogmatic faith, there is no room in
          Orthodoxy for any compromise when it comes
          to the Ecumenical Councils. If you read
          the "Statements," they indicate that our Holy
          Fathers, in Ecumenical Council, were MISTAKEN
          and ERRED in Anathematizing Severus and
          Dioscorus, whom the Monophysites have glorified
          as Saints. Thus, we would have to admit that
          the Ecumenical Councils erred, that the Holy
          Fathers erred, and we would have to also bless
          and glorify (or allow them to continue to bless
          and glorify), those whom our Fathers subjected
          to Anathema.

          My faith does not allow for this. My faith
          is that the Ecumenical Councils were as
          inspired and led by the Holy Spirit, as was
          the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem that we read
          about in the divine Scriptures.

          To admit that an error of such a magnitude has
          been embraced by the Church, is a repudiation
          of the Orthodox dogma of the infallibility of
          Church. To admit that the Holy Fathers have
          erred in Ecumenical Council, is to confess that
          the gates of hades have prevailed against her.
          And what is this but blasphemy? What is this
          but to call Christ our God a liar?

          For myself, I will NEVER accept Communion with
          anyone who does not confess the same dogmatic
          faith as expressed by the Seven Holy Ecumenical
          Councils in their entirety, and I will regard
          as heretical anyone who does. If Antioch and
          Alexandria have done this, then according to
          the Holy Fathers and our Orthodox Faith, they
          have cut themselves off from the Church.

          Communion of the Mysteries can only follow
          unity of faith. If the Monophysites repent of
          their error, and embrace the Orthodox Faith,
          whole and undefiled, including her Seven Holy and
          infallible Ecumenical Councils, without addition or
          detraction, then I would embrace them as brothers
          with all my heart. But that is not what has
          happened. They continue to cling to their errors
          through logomachy, they continue to refuse to embrace
          the Councils and the judgment of the Holy Fathers,
          and they have even persuaded some among us to reject
          the wisdom of our Fathers, to overturn their decrees,
          and to blaspheme Christ and the Spirit, by saying
          the gates of hades pravailed, and that the Spirit
          of Almighty God has led us into error instead of truth.

          I submit myself in faith to the Vcice of the Spirit
          which has truly spoken by the Holy Fathers. I agree
          with them and confess that all whom they subjected to
          Anathemaa, are Anathema. I confess that all who do
          not do this, are themselves Anathema, from the Father
          and the Son and the Holy Spirit. This is the faith
          of the Orthodox. This is the faith of the Fathers.
          This is the faith that established the Universe.

          Athanasios.
        • G. B.
          Last month there was an Inter-Orthodox conference on this subject in Sigtuna (Sweden). If you look at its site, christhewhois.com, you will see that it
          Message 4 of 25 , Jul 21, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Last month there was an 'Inter-Orthodox" conference on this subject
            in Sigtuna (Sweden). If you look at its site, christhewhois.com, you
            will see that it involves more than the Antioch patriarchate. The
            programme lists talks such as "Possibilities and Obstacles on the Way
            towards Unity", by Bp. Hilarion (Moscow P.). "Knowing the Past for
            Understanding the Future", Prof. John Erickson (OCA); "Continuing or
            Closing the Council of Chalcedon?" , Archbishop Gregorios
            (Metropolitan of Syrian church), "The Most Important Ecumenical
            Challenge of the New Millenium", Prof. Michael Ellnemyr, "Towards a
            Common Christology", anba Seraphim (Metropolitan of the Coptic
            church). In the usage of the conference, the Monophysite churches are
            "Oriental Orthodox", and so liturgies and "evening prayers" were
            served, in turn, as "oriental" and "eastern", the latter term
            reserved for what we would call simply "Orthodox" . At the end of
            the event, diplomas were distributed by Metropolitan Dioscorus of the
            Patriarchal Vicariate of Sweden (Antiochian?)

            G.B.
          • Fr. John R. Shaw
            ... JRS: When we read remarks about misunderstandings , we should keep several things in mind, 1) The original heretics were not Syrians, Copts, Armenians or
            Message 5 of 25 , Jul 21, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "G. B." <barabtarlog@m...> wrote:

              > Last month there was an 'Inter-Orthodox" conference on this subject
              > in Sigtuna (Sweden). If you look at its site, christhewhois.com, you
              > will see that it involves more than the Antioch patriarchate. The
              > programme lists talks such as "Possibilities and Obstacles on the Way
              > towards Unity", by Bp. Hilarion (Moscow P.). "Knowing the Past for
              > Understanding the Future", Prof. John Erickson (OCA);

              JRS: When we read remarks about "misunderstandings", we should keep several things in
              mind,

              1) The original heretics were not Syrians, Copts, Armenians or Ethiopians. They were
              Greeks, and Constantinople Greeks at that: Nestorius was the Patriarch of Constantinople,
              and Eutyches was the abbot of a monastery there.

              2) The 3rd and 4th Ecumenical Councils did not anathematize any peoples or Local
              Churches. They anathematized these Greek heretics and their errors.

              3) The "misunderstandings" spoken of, at least from our point of view, were not
              misunderstanding perpetrated at the 3rd and 4th Councils, but afterwards, during periods
              of confusion.

              It was in the subsequent confusion, not at the Councils, that the Assyrians came to follow
              Nestorius, and the Syro-Jacobites, Copts, Ethiopians and Armenians came to follow the
              Monnophysites.

              4) There were certain early extreme Monophysites, and others whose teachings were
              closer to Orthodoxy.

              Therefore it is not a question of the Council of Chalcedon being described as "erroneous",
              at least not by the Orthodox.

              In Christ
              Fr. John R. Shaw
            • Athanasios Jayne
              [I initially posted this elsewhere, and thought I should here as well] ... a life of their own. That idea itself can be called heretical. If the Canons and
              Message 6 of 25 , Jul 22, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                [I initially posted this elsewhere, and thought I should
                here as well]

                On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 09:42:53 -0400, Fr. John wrote:

                >However, anathemas do not act automatically or take on
                a life of their own. That idea itself can be called heretical.
                If the Canons and ancient anathemas acted *automatically* and by
                themselves, no one could be sure who had fallen under anathema.<

                An anathema is a definitive statement and sentence by the
                Hierarchs of the Church, which signifies "separation from God,"
                according to the teaching of the Seventh Ecumenical Council.
                Thus, it is essentially the same as those places in the divine
                Scriptures which say things like: "An adulterer shall not inherit
                the kingdom of heaven." Would you dispute that this statement
                acts "automatically?" To say that an adulterer has not
                automatically excluded himself from the kingdom of heaven by
                his adultery (unless he repents and is forgiven), is to contradict
                the Apostle who spoke by the Spirit. Likewise, when, for example,
                the Ecumenical Councils by the same Spirit and with the same
                Apostolic authority, declare to us:

                "If, however, there be anyone in the world who does not care to
                hold and embrace the aforesaid dogmas of piety, and believe and
                preach thus, but, on the contrary, attempts to by-pass them,
                let him be anathema, in accordance with the definition (or rule)
                already previously promulgated by the aforesaid holy and blissful
                Fathers, and let him be erased and expunged from the Christian
                Roll like an alien, and as one not belonging to our Faith. For
                we are fully resolved and have been determined not to add anything
                to or remove anything from what has been previously decreed, or
                any words whatsoever that we have been able to understand."

                (Canon 1 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council).

                And there are many other similar decrees in the Ecumenical Councils,
                which state in no uncertain terms: "IF....THEN ANATHEMA." These
                Holy Fathers, like the Apostles before them, have *already* given
                sentence, have already declared for us that IF someone does, believes,
                says, or teaches a certain thing, THEN the consequence is that they
                *are* anathema, separated from God, or to say the same thing, they
                "will not inherit the kingdom of God," quite irrespective of whether
                or not this sentence is subsequently confirmed by other, lesser
                ecclesiastical authority, which can only recognize formally what has
                already taken place. And yes, it seems to me that if the Councils
                have declared anyone in the future to be anathema if they meet the
                criterion already established by the Councils, then yes, they are
                "authomatically" under the anathema of the Holy Fathers and of the
                Church, for separation from God can be accomplished by ones own self,
                just as an adulterer excludes himself by his own choice. Heresy is
                nothing less than spiritual adultery.

                In the above-cited Canon 1, there is also a confirmation of the
                prior Conciliar anathema against Origen. So, I can say without
                any reservation, that according to the Holy Fathers, anyone who
                teaches that Origen is not anathema, will himself fall under the
                anathema of the Sixth Ecumenical Council. And if they have fallen
                under the anathema of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, because that
                Council says they have, then why is it wrong for me to say what
                the Fathers of the Councils have already said? All I am doing is
                agreeing with the sentence of the Holy Fathers. Are you saying
                that the teaching and decrees of the Holy Fathers are of no effect
                until they are confirmed by subsequent and lesser (that is, not
                Ecumenical) authority? I am not usurping anyone by agreeing with
                the Ecumenical decrees. On the contrary, I am submitting to the
                Holy Fathers and the Ecumenical faith and the Church. Far from being
                "heretical" as you suggest, I would say that it the only Orthodox
                and rational understanding of what the Holy Fathers have decreed in
                Council. You say that if anathemas act "automatically," that we
                could never know who has fallen under them. I don't see why this
                is so. If we are familiar with our Orthodox faith, and the
                decrees of the Holy Fathers (as Clergy especially must be), then
                when we see someone teaching what is anathema according to the
                Holy Fathers, we know that they are, in fact, anathema.
                Rather than saying that the anathemas work "automatically," I would
                simply say that they exist, and are "in effect" and "on the books."
                Just as a law against murder is in effect and on the books.
                If I see someone murdered before my eyes, I believe that it is
                reasonable for me to say that the man is a murderer, even if a Court
                of Law has not yet confirmed the fact officially. In the meantime,
                I will say he is a murderer, and I will accordingly avoid him,
                even if he is out on bail awaiting final and authoritative
                determination. Likewise, if I witnessed an act of adultery, why
                would it be wrong for me to say that so-and-so is, according to
                the teaching of the Church, an adulterer, and that as such, if
                he doesn't repent, he will not inherit the kingdom of God? For
                you to be consistent, Father, it seems to me that you must say
                that this would be a heretical idea also.

                >...one would not need to read the Rudder or other sources very
                long, to see that not just the Copts and Ethiopians, but everyone
                would fall under some anathema.<

                Father, are you seriously suggesting that *everyone* in the Church
                has fallen under some Ecumenical anathema? I do not accept this.

                I wrote:

                >> Whoever is under Ecumenical
                >> anathema, is outside of the Church. If the Aniochians
                >> and Alexandrians are in Communion with those who are
                >> under Ecumenical anathema, then the once Local Churches
                >> of Antioch and Alexandria are now clearly outside of the
                >> Church, having consummated open apostasy with the
                >> bare-headed blessing of their Patriarchs and once-holy
                >> Synods.
                >
                >JRS: In that case, those in communion with them would also be
                outside the Church, and there would be no Church any more, at all.<

                The Holy Fathers broke Communion with heretics, but they did
                not necessarily break Communion with those who confessed Orthodoxy,
                while simultaneously being in Communion with heretics. I have a
                hard time understanding this, but it is the example of the Holy
                Fathers, and as you say, there would be no Church if what I have
                said were strictly applied without some qualifications.
                The Orthodox should not be in Communion with heretics, but perhaps
                there is some sort of middle catagory, of those who hold Orthodoxy,
                while also compromising Orthodoxy by Communing heretics. I suppose
                these are "sick sheep" who must be quarantined. We must "wall
                ouselves off" until such tiime as they either recover, or perish
                altogether. But sick sheep are still sheep, and while we cannot
                be in Communion with them without risk to ourselves of heretical
                contagion, at the same time we can receive their sheep as sheep
                so long as they do not manifest the sickness of their former
                shepherds.

                >There is a reason why the Church has bishops and Synods. If you
                stand in church and hear monophysitism being preached, if the
                priest or bishop says that "Christ did not suffer on the cross,
                it was all only an outward appearance"--then it is time for you
                to flee that priest or bishop.
                >
                >But not before.<

                I agree, and I would also flee that Priest, and that Local
                Church, if its Patriarch and Synod taught this, or proclaimed
                their Communion with those who taught this. And I would
                further confess that, according to the Holy Fathers, they
                are anathema, as should all faithful Orthodox Christians,
                because this is the confession of Orthodoxy, just as much
                as confessing that "The Word became flesh." Again, the
                Fathers are clear: to deny their decrees, to overthrow
                their anathemas, is to incur their anathemas. This is beyond
                dispute, regardless of whether or not one teaches a heresy
                that was anathematized. To deny the Ecumenical anathemas
                of the Holy Fathers, is to be anathema oneself. To deny
                that this is true, is to contradict the Holy Fathers,
                and to contradict the Holy Fathers, is heretical.

                Athanasios.
              • Fr. John R. Shaw
                ... JRS: One is subject to discipline by the current, canonical hierarchy. It is they who apply the Canons, not the Canons that apply themselves. ... JRS: It
                Message 7 of 25 , Jul 22, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  JRS had written:

                  > anathemas do not act automatically or take on
                  > a life of their own.

                  Athanasios Jayne wrote:

                  > An anathema is a definitive statement and sentence by the
                  > Hierarchs of the Church, which signifies "separation from God,"

                  JRS: One is subject to discipline by the current, canonical hierarchy. It is they who apply the
                  Canons, not the Canons that apply themselves.

                  > Thus, it is essentially the same as those places in the divine
                  > Scriptures which say things like: "An adulterer shall not inherit
                  > the kingdom of heaven." Would you dispute that this statement
                  > acts "automatically?"

                  JRS: It is up to God to judge sinners, including adulterers.

                  Again you do not specify the passage in Scripture you are quoting.

                  Here it would seem to be I Corinthians 6:9 -- "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not
                  inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor
                  adulterers, ... nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall
                  inherit the kingdom of God".

                  > To say that an adulterer has not
                  > automatically excluded himself from the kingdom of heaven by
                  > his adultery (unless he repents and is forgiven), is to contradict
                  > the Apostle who spoke by the Spirit.

                  JRS: There is no "automatically" in the passage from Corinthians.

                  It is not a question of only a select few
                  remaining in the Church.

                  NO ONE could avoid anathema.

                  And the Church, having
                  anathematized all Her members on earth, would have left no way to regenerate Herself.

                  The Church would have ceased to exist in this world -- not just in our time, but ages ago.

                  Indeed, there would, in all probability, have been no more earthly members of the Church
                  before the 7th Council even convened!

                  Thus we could not even tell which of the Ecumenical Councils was really an Ecumenical
                  Council.

                  In Christ
                  Fr. John R. Shaw
                • Athanasios Jayne
                  ... not just in our time, but ages ago. ... more earthly members of the Church ... Councils was really an Ecumenical Council.
                  Message 8 of 25 , Jul 22, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Fr. John R. Shaw"
                    <vrevjrs@e...> wrote:
                    >
                    > NO ONE could avoid anathema.
                    >
                    > And the Church, having
                    > anathematized all Her members on earth, would have
                    >left no way to regenerate Herself.
                    > The Church would have ceased to exist in this world--
                    not just in our time, but ages ago.
                    > Indeed, there would, in all probability, have been no
                    more earthly members of the Church
                    > before the 7th Council even convened!
                    > Thus we could not even tell which of the Ecumenical
                    Councils was really an Ecumenical Council.<<

                    Dear Fr. John,

                    Please tell me which specific Ecumenical anathemas
                    are unavoidable by Orthodox Christians. You have
                    yet to identify these "unavoidable anathemas."

                    Until you do, it seems to me that your assertion
                    is unsubstantiated.

                    Thank you,

                    Athanasios.
                  • Athanasios Jayne
                    ... you are referring to.
                    Message 9 of 25 , Jul 23, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In normalorthodox@yahoogroups.com,
                      "Fr. John R. Shaw" <vrevjrs@e...> wrote:
                      > JRS had written:
                      >
                      > > anathemas do not act automatically or take on
                      > > a life of their own. That idea itself can be called heretical.
                      > > If the Canons and ancient anathemas acted *automatically* and by
                      > > themselves, no one could be sure who had fallen under anathema.<
                      >
                      > Athanasios Jayne wrote:
                      >
                      > > An anathema is a definitive statement and sentence by the
                      > > Hierarchs of the Church, which signifies "separation from God,"
                      > > according to the teaching of the Seventh Ecumenical Council.
                      >
                      > JRS: You do not specify which Canon of the 7th Ecumenical Council
                      you are referring to.<

                      Father bless.

                      Dear Fr. John,

                      I didn't say I was referring to a Canon. In the Epistle
                      which the Hierarchs of the Seventh Ecumenical Council wrote
                      to the Emperor, you will find that these same Hiearchs have
                      defined "anathema" as "separation from God," and I agree
                      with them.

                      > But that is not the same thing as saying that the Canons and
                      anathemas take on a life of their
                      > own, and form traps that automatically place the unwary who fall
                      into them, outside the Church.<

                      Dear Fr. John, I never said that the Canons and anathemas
                      "take on a life of their own," nor did I say that they
                      "form traps that automatically place the unwary who fall
                      into them, outside of the Church." These are your words,
                      not mine. Please do not ascribe them to me.

                      But when Hierarchs (such as those of Antioch) attempt
                      to overthrow Ecumenical anathemas, which cannot be altered,
                      and attribute error to the Holy Fathers in Ecumenical
                      Council, by means of a Patriarchal and Synodal
                      "Statement" that was forty years in the making, I would
                      say that such Hierarchs are far from "unwary." On the
                      contrary, it is a thoroughly premeditated act of heresy
                      that is worthy of anathema according to the Holy Fathers
                      and my faith.

                      > One is subject to discipline by the current, canonical
                      hierarchy.<

                      Agreed.

                      >It is they who apply the Canons, not the Canons that apply
                      themselves.<

                      This is true. But in the case of Ecumenical anathemas, and
                      Ecumenical definitions of the faith, the current, canonical
                      Local Hierarchy must *confirm* them, not overthrow or alter them.
                      To overthrow or alter the Ecumenical anathemas and definitions of
                      the faith, is to depart from Orthodoxy. It is to exceed legitimate
                      Hierarchical authority, and would be a betrayal of Episcopal
                      stewardship.

                      > JRS: It is up to God to judge sinners, including adulterers.

                      Agreed.

                      > Again you do not specify the passage in Scripture you are quoting.
                      >
                      > Here it would seem to be I Corinthians 6:9 -- "Know ye not that
                      the unrighteous shall not
                      > inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators,
                      nor idolaters, nor
                      > adulterers, ... nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor
                      revilers, nor extortioners, shall
                      > inherit the kingdom of God".

                      Dear Fr. John, if you read my words carefully, you will see
                      that I qualified them--twice. I said that according to the
                      Apostle, all who commit such sins will not inherit the
                      kingdom of God--and this is what the Apostle plainly says.
                      But I did not stop there, for I further qualified my
                      affirmation of the Apostle's words with:

                      "unless they repent and are forgiven."

                      Father John, is it your contention that adulterers who
                      never repent, and who have never been forgiven, *will*
                      inherit the kingdom of God? This is impossible, for
                      ultimately it is God who forgives, and if God does not
                      forgive them, they will not be forgiven. And if they
                      are not forgiven, they will not inherit the kingdom of God.
                      Fr. John, if I am mistaken in this belief, please show me
                      why.

                      > Are you sure you have never coveted anything that was
                      not yours, and then forgotten this sin? <

                      I would say, Fr. John, that it strikes me as a little
                      unlikely that it would be as easy to forget a moment of
                      covetousness in one's heart, as it would be to forget
                      commiting adultery with one's body and another man's wife.
                      But even so, God knows our hearts, and if our repentance
                      is true, His mercy can cover a multitude of sins, both
                      known and unknown, committed in knowledge or in ignorannce,
                      according to our holy Orthodox faith. But still, it seems
                      to me that we ought to confess all the sins we can remember
                      while we still have time for repentance. But again, if I am
                      mistaken, I welcome your correction.

                      > > To say that an adulterer has not
                      > > automatically excluded himself from the kingdom of heaven by
                      > > his adultery (unless he repents and is forgiven), is to
                      contradict
                      > > the Apostle who spoke by the Spirit.
                      >
                      > JRS: There is no "automatically" in the passage from Corinthians.

                      True, Father. So I retract that word. Do you affirm with me,
                      that unless they repent and are forgiven, "adulterers will not
                      inherit the Kingdom of God," according to the divine Scriptures
                      given to us by the holy Apostle St. Paul? If you do, then
                      we are in agreement.

                      > > Likewise, when, for example,
                      > > the Ecumenical Councils by the same Spirit and with the same
                      > > Apostolic authority, declare to us:
                      > >
                      > > "If, however, there be anyone in the world who does not care to
                      > > hold and embrace the aforesaid dogmas of piety, and believe and
                      > > preach thus, but, on the contrary, attempts to by-pass them,
                      > > let him be anathema,
                      >
                      > JRS: That is not the same as saying, "He is already,
                      automatically, anathema".

                      Very well, Father, I thank you for your precision.
                      I willingly amend my words. Henceforth, unless I can
                      be shown why I shouldn't, I will strive to express
                      myself in words such as these: "According to the Holy
                      Fathers in Ecumenical Council, those who do or teach thus
                      and so, are WORTHY of anathema." This would, of course,
                      be my own lay opinion, nothing more, and everybody would
                      be free to disagree and correct me if I am wrong. Would
                      this be acceptable to you?

                      I believe that as an Orthodox Christian, I should cry out
                      against what I perceive to be heresy according to the teaching
                      of the Holy Ecumenical Councils. It is for the Hierarchs to
                      faithfully apply the Canons and the Ecumenical anathemas
                      according to proper ecclesiastical discipline, and to correct
                      the faithful if they are mistaken. I believe the role of
                      the Hierarchy does not negate the responsiblity of the Laity
                      to also hold and confess the undefiled Orthodox faith, and to
                      cry out against error when it is perceived.

                      > None of the infants we baptize have any idea of these doctrines,
                      yet they are still members of
                      > the Church.

                      Dear Fr. John, so far as I can see, this has nothing to do
                      with our discussion. Infants are made members of the Church by
                      means of the Holy Mysteries, upon confession of the Orthodox faith
                      by their parents and/or Godparents. Since infants cannot deny
                      the faith, they cannot be subject to ecclesiastical discipline.
                      We *can* deny the faith, and are therefore proper subjects of
                      ecclesiastical discipline. Are you suggesting that since
                      infants lack knowledge of the faith without blame, that heretics
                      should be exempt from ecclesiastical discipline? I really don't
                      see how that follows.

                      > > And there are many other similar decrees in the Ecumenical
                      Councils,
                      > > which state in no uncertain terms: "IF....THEN ANATHEMA." These
                      > > Holy Fathers, like the Apostles before them, have *already*
                      given
                      > > sentence, have already declared for us that IF someone does,
                      believes,
                      > > says, or teaches a certain thing, THEN the consequence is that
                      they
                      > > *are* anathema, separated from God, or to say the same thing,
                      they
                      > > "will not inherit the kingdom of God," quite irrespective of
                      whether
                      > > or not this sentence is subsequently confirmed by other, lesser
                      > > ecclesiastical authority, which can only recognize formally what
                      has
                      > > already taken place.
                      >
                      > JRS: That is not the teaching of the Orthodox Church.
                      >
                      > In fact, what you are writing above, is itself a kind of heresy.

                      Dear Fr. John, why, specifically, is what I have written above,
                      "a kind of heresy"? This is most serious accusation. I am
                      at a disadvantage at the moment, in that I don't have my usual
                      copy of the Ecumenical Councils at hand. But I distinctly recall
                      that, for example, at the end of the definition of the Seventh
                      Council, the Hierarchs *pronounce* anathema upon several kinds
                      of offenders. They are using, I believe, the grammatical "vocative"
                      when they say "anathema!" That is, they describe certain catagories
                      of offenders, with the introductory word "TO..." followed
                      by "anathema!" That is, these Holy Fathers, over 1,000 years ago,
                      have already pronounced anathema upon such persons. If this is so,
                      then any action by the present Hierarchy against such persons would
                      be in the nature of a *confirmation* of the already-existing and
                      already-declared anathemas. So, while I am willing to say that
                      someone is *worthy* of anathema if I believe this is so according to
                      the Holy Fathers, I still see what appears to me to be ample warrant
                      to say they are actually "anathema" in light of the fact that the
                      Holy Fathers have already long since passed sentence upon them. Of
                      course, the present Hierarchy should confirm whether or not someone
                      is anathema, for the good order of the Church and for the protection
                      of the faithful. Really, it seems to me that your objection,
                      fundamentally, is that you think it is wrong for a layperson to give
                      an opinion, as to whether someone is under Ecumenical anathema or
                      not. Isn't this the real issue?

                      > If that were true, then as I have said many times, it is not a
                      question of only a select few
                      > remaining in the Church. NO ONE could avoid anathema. And the
                      Church, having
                      > anathematized all Her members on earth, would have left no way to
                      regenerate Herself. The
                      > Church would have ceased to exist in this world, not just in our
                      time, but ages ago.
                      > Indeed, there would, in all probability, have been no more
                      earthly members of the Church
                      > before the 7th Council convened.

                      Dear Fr. John, please tell me which specific Ecumenical
                      anathemas are absolutely unavoidable by Orthodox Christians,
                      and which ones you believe all Orthodox Christians to be guilty
                      of simultaneously at some point in history (or at the present
                      time).

                      > > And yes, it seems to me that if the Councils
                      > > have declared anyone in the future to be anathema if they meet
                      the
                      > > criterion already established by the Councils, then yes, they
                      are
                      > > "authomatically" under the anathema of the Holy Fathers and of
                      the
                      > > Church, for separation from God can be accomplished by ones own
                      self,
                      > > just as an adulterer excludes himself by his own choice. Heresy
                      is
                      > > nothing less than spiritual adultery.
                      >
                      > JRS: But you see, you yourself are preaching heresy. What you say
                      may sound zealous and strict to you, but it is not the teaching of
                      Orthodoxy.<

                      You have now publicly accused me of preaching heresy.
                      Fr. John, please tell me the name of my heresy, and what
                      Council has condemned it. According to your reasoning,
                      I don't see how I can be a heretic until the present
                      Hierarchy has canonically declared that I am.

                      Ecumenical Councils have declared certain teachings
                      to be heresies, but it seems to me that you would not allow
                      a layperson to say: "If you deny that Christ is perfect God
                      and perfect Man, One Person in two Natures, you (Name) are a
                      heretic." According to your reasoning, I am preaching heresy
                      because I say that such a person is "automatically" a heretic,
                      because I did not wait for a Hierarchical determination of
                      the case. But, Fr. John, anyone who has an Arian faith,
                      is a heretic, and I say that they are heretics, because
                      the Holy Fathers in Ecumenical Council have said so.
                      Likewise, I say that the Patriarch of Antioch is worthy
                      of anathema--because the Holy Fathers in Ecumenical
                      Council have said so. It seems to me that you are equating
                      the defense of Orthodoxy with heresy. Everything I have
                      been saying since the beginning of this thread has been
                      in the defense of Orthodoxy. Instead of supporting this
                      defense, you have chosen to attack and accuse the defender.
                      How important is it whether I say "is anathema," or "is
                      *worthy* of anathema"? So I am inexact. I am a recent convert
                      with no formal theological education. Forgive my inexactitude.
                      Meanwhile ...Christ is sold for silver.

                      Earlier in this post, I have stated that I am willing to
                      amend my words, so that I say (in my opinion) "so-and-so
                      is WORTHY of anathema, according to the Holy Fathers."
                      Does this satisfy you? Does this concession clear me of
                      the heresy you have now publicly accused me of preaching
                      while I have been attempted to defend my faith and my Church?

                      > > In the above-cited Canon 1, there is also a confirmation of the
                      > > prior Conciliar anathema against Origen. So, I can say without
                      > > any reservation, that according to the Holy Fathers, anyone who
                      > > teaches that Origen is not anathema, will himself fall under the
                      > > anathema of the Sixth Ecumenical Council.

                      > JRS: In fact, it is generally held that Origen himself did not
                      really hold the views ascribed to
                      > him. In Jordanville, for example, the present Metropolitan Laurus
                      taught us in patrology class
                      > that it was not Origen, but his overzealous followers, that made
                      him appear such a heretic.<

                      These are the relevant words of Canon 1 of the Sixth Holy
                      Ecumenical Council, according to my copy of "The Pedalion":

                      "We take the pious utterances of the one hundred and sixty-five
                      God-bearing Fathers who assembled upon the ground of this
                      Imperial City in the reign of Justinian... and, recognizing
                      them to have been inspired and uttered by the Spirit, we teach
                      them outright to our posterity; WHICH FATHERS INDEED AS A
                      COUNCIL ANATHEMATIZED AND CONSIGNED TO ABOMINATION Theodore
                      of Mopsuestia, the teacher of Nestorius, AND IN ADDITION ORIGEN
                      and Didymus and Evagrius... Hence we solemnly decree that this
                      Council... is committed to holding the faith firm and sure,
                      even till the consummation of the age, and that it shall
                      remain immutable and unaltered, as well as their God-imparted
                      writings and dogmas."

                      Father, if this translation is unreliable, please produce
                      a correct version. But if this translation is reliable,
                      I admit that I do not know how to reconcile it with your
                      account of what you say His Eminence Metropolitan Laurus
                      said. It may well be that the translators have erred here,
                      or that you did not hear correctly, or any number of other
                      possibilities which we imperfect human beings are
                      unfortunately subject to from time to time. I know that our
                      Vladyka Laurus would never intentionally say anything
                      that is contrary to the Holy and God-bearing Fathers!
                      May we be blessed by many more years of his faithful service
                      to the Lord. I am thankful that I was able to receive
                      a blessing directly from his holy hands only yesterday at
                      Compline here at Jordanville (where I am visiting friends).

                      > So it would seem that you are mistaken again. Either we were
                      taught heresy in the seminary,
                      > and consequently we all fall under anathema, or else the Canon you
                      refer to is not to be
                      > taken literally. It refers, not to Origen personally, but to
                      certain doctrines that have come to
                      > bear his name.

                      Well, Father, the text as I have given it is literal and personal
                      so far as I can see. If you have a different text, please
                      produce it. If it is not literal and personal here, then why
                      should we think it is literal and personal anywhere else, for
                      example, when Arius is named, or Honorius, or Nestorius, etc.?
                      I have never heard that such anathemas are to be taken in
                      a figurative or allegorical or hyperbolic sense. Father, as you
                      can see, Origen is named in-between Theodore of Mopsuestia
                      and Didymus, followed immediately by Evagrius. So, are we
                      to understand the text in this way?:

                      1) Theodore of Mopsuestia, literal and personal anathema.
                      2) Origan, figurative and impersonal, applicable to certain
                      doctrines that came to bear his name.
                      3) Didymus, literal and personal anathema.
                      4) Evagrius, literal and personal anathema.

                      Is this how we to understand how the one word "anathema" (once
                      spoken in the sentence of this text) applies in two different ways
                      to four different persons--despite there being no suggestion
                      whatsoever to this effect in the text itself?

                      Athanasios.
                    • Fr. John R. Shaw
                      ... JRS: For example, Canon VI of the Holy Apostles: A Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon must not undertake worldly cares. If he does, let him be deposed from
                      Message 10 of 25 , Jul 23, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Athanasios Jayne wrote:

                        > Please tell me which specific Ecumenical anathemas
                        > are unavoidable by Orthodox Christians. You have
                        > yet to identify these "unavoidable anathemas."
                        >
                        > Until you do, it seems to me that your assertion
                        > is unsubstantiated.

                        JRS: For example, Canon VI of the Holy Apostles:

                        "A Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon must not undertake worldly cares. If he does, let him be
                        deposed from office".

                        Canon IX of the Holy Apostles"

                        "All those faithful who enter and listen to the Scriptures, but do not stay for prayer and Holy
                        Communion must be excommunicated, on the ground that they are causing the Church a
                        breach of order".

                        Canon X:

                        "If anyone pray in company with one who has been excommunicated, he shall be
                        excommunicated himself".

                        JRS: Need I go on?

                        In Christ
                        Fr. John R. Shaw
                      • Athanasios Jayne
                        ... a life of their own. That idea itself can be called heretical.
                        Message 11 of 25 , Jul 28, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Fr. John R. Shaw <vrevjrs@e...> wrote:
                          >
                          > anathemas do not act automatically or take on
                          a life of their own. That idea itself can be
                          called heretical.<

                          I (AJ) wrote:
                          >
                          > And there are many other similar decrees in the
                          Ecumenical Councils, which state in no uncertain
                          terms: "IF....THEN ANATHEMA." These Holy Fathers,
                          like the Apostles before them, have *already* given
                          sentence, have already declared for us that IF someone
                          does, believes, says, or teaches a certain thing,
                          THEN the consequence is that they *are* anathema,
                          separated from God ...quite irrespective of whether or
                          not this sentence is subsequently confirmed by other,
                          lesser ecclesiastical authority, which can only
                          recognize formally what has already taken place.<

                          Fr. John R. Shaw responded:
                          >
                          > That is not the teaching of the Orthodox Church.
                          In fact, what you are writing above, is itself a kind
                          of heresy.<

                          I (AJ) wrote:
                          >
                          > ...it seems to me that if the Councils have
                          declared anyone in the future to be anathema if they
                          meet the criterion already established by the Councils,
                          then yes, they are "authomatically" under the anathema
                          of the Holy Fathers and of the Church, for separation
                          from God can be accomplished by one's own self, just as
                          an adulterer excludes himself by his own choice. Heresy
                          is nothing less than spiritual adultery.<

                          Fr. John R. Shaw responded:
                          >
                          > But you see, you yourself are preaching heresy.
                          What you say may sound zealous and strict to you,
                          but it is not the teaching of Orthodoxy.<

                          Then, Fr. John, according to you, St. Theophan the Recluse
                          taught and preached heresy, for he wrote:

                          "...BY THE VERY FACT that you have conceived a different
                          view of things than that which is maintained in the
                          Church, YOU HAVE ALREADY SEPARATED YOURSELF FROM THE
                          CHURCH. It is not inscription in the baptismal records
                          which makes one a member of the Church, but the spirit
                          and content of one's opinions. Whether your teaching
                          and your name are pronounced as being under anathema
                          or not, YOU ALREADY FALL UNDER IT WHEN YOUR OPINIONS
                          ARE OPPOSED TO THOSE OF THE CHURCH, and when you persist
                          in them. Fearful is the anathema. Leave off your evil
                          opinions. Amen."

                          --St. Theophan the Recluse, "What is an Anathema?"
                          translated from the Russian text published by
                          Pravoslavnaya Rus, #4, 1974, (emphasis mine--AJ).

                          Fr. John R. Shaw wrote:
                          >
                          >...it is clear that the Canons often use the terms
                          "excommunicated" and "anathema" with the same meaning.<

                          Fr. John, your statement is contrary to the teaching of
                          St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco, who clearly
                          differentiated the meaning of these terms, when he wrote:

                          "In the acts of the Councils and the further course of
                          the New Testament Church of Christ, the word "anathema"
                          came to mean complete separation from the Church.
                          "The Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes," "let
                          him be anathema," "let it be anathema," means a complete
                          tearing away from the Church. While in cases of "separation
                          from the communion of the Church" and other epitimia or
                          penances laid on a person, the person remained a member
                          of the Church, even though his participation in her
                          grace-filled life was limited, those given over to anathema
                          were thus completely torn away from her until their
                          repentance."

                          --St. John Maximovich, "The Word "Anathema" and its
                          Meaning," From Orthodox Life, vol. 27, Mar-April 1977,
                          pp. 18, 19.

                          I agree with these holy Fathers. If I have taught heresy,
                          then St. Theophan the Recluse taught heresy, for my words
                          agree with his.

                          Athanasios Jayne.
                        • Fr. John R. Shaw
                          ... JRS: And a blessed St. Vladimir s day to you, also. Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) had a controversial view that the moment of Redemption was when
                          Message 12 of 25 , Jul 28, 2005
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Athanasios Jayne wrote:

                            > Then, Fr. John, according to you, St. Theophan the Recluse
                            > taught and preached heresy, for he wrote:
                            >
                            > "...BY THE VERY FACT that you have conceived a different
                            > view of things than that which is maintained in the
                            > Church, YOU HAVE ALREADY SEPARATED YOURSELF FROM THE
                            > CHURCH.

                            JRS: And a blessed St. Vladimir's day to you, also.

                            Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) had a controversial view that the moment of
                            Redemption was when the Lord prayed in the garden of Gethsemane, and not on the cross.

                            But Metropolitan Anthony *did not insist* on this being the only view -- so he is not accused
                            of heresy.

                            In Christ
                            Fr. John R. Shaw
                          • Maureen Girard
                            ... Hi Father, Today is the day I miss Jackson. Maureen
                            Message 13 of 25 , Jul 28, 2005
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Fr. John R. Shaw"
                              <vrevjrs@e...> wrote:
                              >
                              > JRS: And a blessed St. Vladimir's day to you, also.>>
                              Hi Father,
                              Today is the day I miss Jackson.
                              Maureen
                            • Fr. John R. Shaw
                              ... JRS: Today, I was remembering St. Vladimir s day in 1965, when I drove down from Connecticut with the future Bishop Daniel, leaving at 0430, and gradually
                              Message 14 of 25 , Jul 28, 2005
                              • 0 Attachment
                                > > JRS: And a blessed St. Vladimir's day to you, also.>>

                                Maureen Girard wrote:

                                > Hi Father,
                                > Today is the day I miss Jackson.

                                JRS: Today, I was remembering St. Vladimir's day in 1965, when I drove down from
                                Connecticut with the future Bishop Daniel, leaving at 0430, and gradually worked my way
                                through the crowds outside the church and on the terraces and steps, into the church.

                                4 bishops were celebrating: Metropolitan Philaret, Archbishop Nikon, Archbishop Averky, and
                                the Bulgarian Bishop Kirill (who is now in the OCA). A priest with a crew cut and mustache
                                received an award at the Little Entrance.

                                The services, including the procession to the lake, took till about 2:00 p.m., and finally there
                                was a meal served at picnic tables.

                                It must have been hot -- but for some reason, I don't remember that; only the very pleasant
                                and friendly atmosphere.

                                In Christ
                                Fr. John R. Shaw
                              • Maureen Girard
                                ... drove down from ... gradually worked my way ... steps, into the church. ... Nikon, Archbishop Averky, and ... a crew cut and mustache ... about 2:00 p.m.,
                                Message 15 of 25 , Jul 28, 2005
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Fr. John R. Shaw"
                                  <vrevjrs@e...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > > > JRS: And a blessed St. Vladimir's day to you, also.>>
                                  >
                                  > Maureen Girard wrote:
                                  >
                                  > > Hi Father,
                                  > > Today is the day I miss Jackson.
                                  >
                                  > JRS: Today, I was remembering St. Vladimir's day in 1965, when I
                                  drove down from
                                  > Connecticut with the future Bishop Daniel, leaving at 0430, and
                                  gradually worked my way
                                  > through the crowds outside the church and on the terraces and
                                  steps, into the church.
                                  >
                                  > 4 bishops were celebrating: Metropolitan Philaret, Archbishop
                                  Nikon, Archbishop Averky, and
                                  > the Bulgarian Bishop Kirill (who is now in the OCA). A priest with
                                  a crew cut and mustache
                                  > received an award at the Little Entrance.
                                  >
                                  > The services, including the procession to the lake, took till
                                  about 2:00 p.m., and finally there
                                  > was a meal served at picnic tables.
                                  >
                                  > It must have been hot -- but for some reason, I don't remember
                                  that; only the very pleasant
                                  > and friendly atmosphere.>>

                                  I remember the friendly atmosphere, the early AM Liturgy in the
                                  basement church, and thousands of dishes to wash.<s>
                                  Maureen
                                  >
                                  > In Christ
                                  > Fr. John R. Shaw
                                • Maureen Girard
                                  ... drove down from ... gradually worked my way ... steps, into the church. It seems like yesterday but it s been years since I ve seen Bishop Daniel. The
                                  Message 16 of 25 , Jul 28, 2005
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Fr. John R. Shaw"
                                    <vrevjrs@e...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > > Hi Father,
                                    > > Today is the day I miss Jackson.
                                    >
                                    > JRS: Today, I was remembering St. Vladimir's day in 1965, when I
                                    drove down from
                                    > Connecticut with the future Bishop Daniel, leaving at 0430, and
                                    gradually worked my way
                                    > through the crowds outside the church and on the terraces and
                                    steps, into the church. >>

                                    It seems like yesterday but it's been years since I've seen Bishop
                                    Daniel. The last time I saw him was at a friend's house in Conn.
                                    How is he?

                                    Here's another memory. Remember sorting those thousands of little
                                    colored chips for the mosaic?<sp?> That was quite a job. We
                                    rounded up anyone who could distinguish blue from yellow. Everytime
                                    I see a picture of the Church, I have a flashback of all those
                                    lovely little chips sitting on tables in the back of the basement
                                    church. Every-so-often I get the urge to go back but almost
                                    everybody we knew has either died or moved away. I guess that's
                                    life.
                                    Maureen
                                  • cantor71
                                    ... and this is the day I miss Jackson and Fr John and Matuskha Maureen, having ventured there the first time in 1972, I believe, and staying overnight at
                                    Message 17 of 25 , Jul 28, 2005
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      ... and this is the day I miss Jackson and Fr John and Matuskha
                                      Maureen, having ventured there the first time in 1972, I believe,
                                      and staying overnight at Matushka's home. That was also the first
                                      time I slept on a futon!

                                      Nah ... it can't possibly have been 33 years!

                                      George Skok
                                      Toronto


                                      --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Maureen Girard"
                                      <maureengirard@y...> wrote:
                                      > --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Fr. John R. Shaw"
                                      > <vrevjrs@e...> wrote:
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > > > Hi Father,
                                      > > > Today is the day I miss Jackson.
                                      > >
                                    • Fr. John R. Shaw
                                      ... JRS: The early Liturgy, then the arrival of the Pochaev icon, the slava to meet the Bishop, the Bishop s Liturgy, the procession to the lake, the
                                      Message 18 of 25 , Jul 29, 2005
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Maureen Girard wrote:

                                        > I remember the friendly atmosphere, the early AM Liturgy in the
                                        > basement church, and thousands of dishes to wash.<s>

                                        JRS: The early Liturgy, then the arrival of the Pochaev icon, the "slava" to meet the Bishop, the
                                        Bishop's Liturgy, the procession to the lake, the blessing of the waters, the procession back
                                        up the hill, the speeches, and finally the dinner, by mid-afternoon -- and yet, after all that,
                                        one still did not feel tired!

                                        Fr. Vladimir from Jordanville usually had a table or two with books and icons. People would
                                        be having their picnics all over the hill.
                                      • michael nikitin
                                        Metr. Anthony s (Khrapovitsky) view was that redemption encompassed everything from His birth through His Resurrection. Michael N Fr. John R. Shaw
                                        Message 19 of 25 , Jul 29, 2005
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Metr. Anthony's (Khrapovitsky) view was that redemption encompassed everything from His birth through His Resurrection.

                                          Michael N



                                          "Fr. John R. Shaw" <vrevjrs@...> wrote:
                                          Athanasios Jayne wrote:

                                          > Then, Fr. John, according to you, St. Theophan the Recluse
                                          > taught and preached heresy, for he wrote:
                                          >
                                          > "...BY THE VERY FACT that you have conceived a different
                                          > view of things than that which is maintained in the
                                          > Church, YOU HAVE ALREADY SEPARATED YOURSELF FROM THE
                                          > CHURCH.

                                          JRS: And a blessed St. Vladimir's day to you, also.

                                          Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) had a controversial view that the moment of
                                          Redemption was when the Lord prayed in the garden of Gethsemane, and not on the cross.

                                          But Metropolitan Anthony *did not insist* on this being the only view -- so he is not accused
                                          of heresy.

                                          In Christ
                                          Fr. John R. Shaw




                                          __________________________________________________
                                          Do You Yahoo!?
                                          Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                                          http://mail.yahoo.com

                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        • Fr. John R. Shaw
                                          ... His birth through His Resurrection. JRS: There is a certain parallel with the dispute over the moment of transsubstantiation : the Latins put forth the
                                          Message 20 of 25 , Jul 29, 2005
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Regarding:

                                            > Metr. Anthony's (Khrapovitsky) view was that redemption encompassed everything from
                                            His birth through His Resurrection.

                                            JRS: There is a certain parallel with the dispute over the "moment of transsubstantiation": the
                                            Latins put forth the view that the Words of Institution were also those of consecration at the
                                            Eucharist; the Orthodox responded that, on the contrary, the Epiclesis is the consecration.

                                            But of course, the *entire* Eucharist is necessary: not just isolated sentences from it.

                                            By the same token, there are the great moments in the life of Christ, but they cannot be
                                            separated from the *entire* plan of our salvation, the advent and ministry of the Lord --
                                            from the Annunciation through His Birth, Passion, Resurrection, Ascension, sending of the
                                            Paraclete, and beyond.

                                            In Christ
                                            Fr. John R. Shaw
                                          • Athanasios Jayne
                                            ... Have you studied theology?
                                            Message 21 of 25 , Aug 1 3:27 PM
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              --- In orthodox-rocor@yahoogroups.com, "Fr. John R. Shaw"
                                              <vrevjrs@e...> wrote:
                                              > Athanasios Jayne wrote:
                                              >
                                              > > Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky's error has
                                              > > been widely criticized, and rightly so.
                                              >
                                              > JRS: How do you know it was an "error"?
                                              Have you studied theology?<

                                              Dear Fr. John,

                                              Yes, I frequently study theology, when I read the divine
                                              Scriptures, and the writings of the Holy Fathers, and
                                              I am far from alone in the conclusion that Met. Anthony
                                              was mistaken in his teachings about our Redemption in
                                              Christ. Fr. John--do you wish to state, here in this
                                              forum, that Met. Anthony was *not* mistaken on this
                                              subject? Please tell us your opinion of the teaching
                                              of Met. Anthony concerning Redemption--in your opinion,
                                              was he in error, or was he not?

                                              But whether Met. Anthony was mistaken or not has little
                                              bearing upon our discussion of anathemas, except insofar
                                              as it by concrete example establishes the evident truth
                                              that no Hierarch of himself is infallible--which is
                                              something that I have always believed and always said.
                                              Therefore, by extension, it is reasonable to assert that
                                              St. Theophan the Recluse *may* have been mistaken when
                                              he taught the following, which exactly agrees with my
                                              teaching which you have called "heresy":

                                              "...BY THE VERY FACT that you have conceived a different
                                              view of things than that which is maintained in the
                                              Church, YOU HAVE ALREADY SEPARATED YOURSELF FROM THE
                                              CHURCH. It is not inscription in the baptismal records
                                              which makes one a member of the Church, but the spirit
                                              and content of one's opinions. Whether your teaching
                                              and your name are pronounced as being under anathema
                                              or not, YOU ALREADY FALL UNDER IT WHEN YOUR OPINIONS
                                              ARE OPPOSED TO THOSE OF THE CHURCH, and when you persist
                                              in them. Fearful is the anathema. Leave off your evil
                                              opinions. Amen."

                                              --St. Theophan the Recluse, "What is an Anathema?"
                                              translated from the Russian text published by
                                              Pravoslavnaya Rus, #4, 1974, (emphasis mine--AJ).

                                              However, neither you, nor anyone else so far, has
                                              produced any evidence that St. Theophan was in error
                                              when he taught this, or that any other Saint or Holy
                                              Father ever said anything which in any way contradicts
                                              this teaching. And so, presented with the teaching
                                              of a glorified Hierarch of the Church--a teaching
                                              which has never to my knowledge been disputed--as a
                                              son of the Orthodox Church I must favor the undisputed
                                              teaching of a glorified Hierarch over that of one
                                              Priest--despite the fact that I have always held this
                                              particular Priest in the highest regard for his wisdom,
                                              knowledge, and moderation. I speak of Fr. John R. Shaw.

                                              > I did not make any accusations against St. Theophan
                                              the Recluse. It was you who introduced his name into the
                                              discussion. I doubt he would have supported your writing
                                              such things.<

                                              Yes, I introduced his name--just as you introduced the
                                              name of Met. Athony Khrapovitsky. There is nothing
                                              wrong, per se, with introducing names, so far as I can see.
                                              However, as I believe I have shown, the name you introduced
                                              has little relevance, except to remind us that Hierarchs
                                              are not infallible (something I have not forgotten),
                                              while the name I have introduced, by contrast, has a
                                              direct bearing upon our discussion, in that it introduces
                                              the witness of a glorified Hierarch which clearly confirms
                                              what I have been saying about anathemas, and which,
                                              with equal clarity, contradicts what you have been saying.

                                              You say you do not make accusation against St. Theophan,
                                              and yet you have clearly asserted that his teaching about
                                              anathemas is "heresy." By calling my teaching which
                                              agrees with St. Theophan "heresy," you likewise condemn
                                              the teaching of St. Theophan--for his teaching, which
                                              I have quoted above, and mine, are the same. If you say
                                              that "A" is heresy, and if "A" is the same as "B," then
                                              you must also say that "B" is heresy, or you contradict
                                              yourself by a logical fallacy.

                                              Now, let us again examine the case of Origen, whose name
                                              you previously introduced.

                                              This is the teaching of the Church concerning Origen:

                                              "If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius,
                                              Macedonius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, and ORIGEN,
                                              as well as their impious writings, as also all other
                                              heretics already condemned and anathematized by the
                                              Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and by the aforesaid
                                              four Holy Synods and [if anyone does not anathematize]
                                              all those who have held and hold or who in their
                                              impiety persist in holding to the end the same
                                              opinion as those heretics just mentioned: let him
                                              be anathema."

                                              --The Holy Fifth Ecumenical Council, Canon XI.

                                              So you see, Father, that not only Hierarchs can say
                                              "so-and-so is anathema." For by this Canon ALL
                                              are required to anathematize these heretics,
                                              and not only these heretics, but also their writings,
                                              and also all the heretics who were previously condemned
                                              and anathematized by the Church. And not only that,
                                              all are required to anathematize "all those who have
                                              held AND HOLD [present tense] ...the same opinion as
                                              those heretics just mentioned." Further, in the
                                              Service of the Triumph of Orthodoxy, *all* (laity
                                              included) exclaim "Anathema!" against those who hold
                                              heretical opinions.

                                              Is this because the laity have the power or the
                                              authority to *originate* anathemas? By no means!
                                              An anathema declared by a layperson has no force
                                              whatsoever--*unless* it it agrees with, and confirms,
                                              the anathemas already declared by the Ecumenical
                                              Councils and Holy Fathers, in harmony with the
                                              mind of the Church. Thus, when I or any other
                                              layperson says "That is anathema," or "They are
                                              anathema," we are not originating or decreeing
                                              a new anathema, so long as what we are saying
                                              agrees with and confirms the already-declared
                                              Hierarchical sentence. Further, the confirmation
                                              of a Hierarchical anathema by the laity in any
                                              given instance has no force ecclesiastically,
                                              except to the extent that it is acted upon and
                                              seconded by the Hierarchy.

                                              Ecumenical Canon XI of the Fifth Council requires
                                              me, and all Orthodox, to declare anathema against
                                              whatsoever and whosoever the Church has declared
                                              anathema. According to this Canon, anyone who
                                              fails to do this, is anathema himself.

                                              To hold beliefs which are anathema, has
                                              real consequences: spiritually, individually,
                                              and personally. It causes separation from the
                                              Church. To me, this is self-evident, and this
                                              is what I have been saying, and this is what
                                              St. Theophan taught. In a perfect world,
                                              this spiritual reality would be confirmed
                                              ecclesiastically by the Hierarchs, but this
                                              doesn't always happen. Nevertheless, I do
                                              not hold a Matthewite ecclesiology. On the
                                              contrary, I agree with the "ecclesiology of
                                              resistance" as held and taught by the Synod of
                                              Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Fili, which
                                              agrees with the Holy Fathers and our Orthodox
                                              faith.

                                              I confess that in my intial shock and dismay at the
                                              heretical actions of the Hierarchy of the Church of
                                              Antioch, I made hasty statements which were too general,
                                              too broad, and without sufficient forethought and due care,
                                              and for that I ask the forgiveness of all, and acknowledge
                                              my error. I will not say that the Church of Antioch
                                              has cut itself off from the Church--unless the Hierarchy
                                              makes this judgment. Nevertheless, as an Orthodox
                                              Christian, and therefore of One Mystical Body with the
                                              Church of Antioch, and suffering with her, I bear witness
                                              against the heresies of the Hierarchs of Antioch, heresies
                                              which, according to the Ecumenical Fathers, are worthy
                                              of anathema, and may the Lord grant me to hold this
                                              Orthodox faith until my last breath.

                                              Fr. John, why not just admit that we appear to have a
                                              sincere disagreement over what, in the scheme of things,
                                              is a relatively minor point? Why not rather say that I
                                              hold a "theologoumenon," a religious opinion, which you
                                              believe to be erroneous, or even, which *is* erroneous?
                                              Simple error, and heresy, are two different things. I have
                                              not accused you of any heresy--why go to such an extreme with
                                              me? You have not named my heresy, nor have you shown which
                                              Hierarchs have condemned it (as I have previously asked you
                                              to do). Therefore, I must now ask you, Fr. John: On what
                                              basis do you, as a Priest, make this accusation of heresy
                                              against me? What Hierarchical precedant allows you to
                                              rightly make such a certain and dread judgment against me?
                                              On what basis do you so confidently suggest that St. Theophan
                                              was in error? Why not rather say that perhaps there are
                                              aspects of anathemas which you had not previously considered,
                                              and that St. Theophan may have something to teach us? Or even,
                                              that you personally disagree with, or do not yet understand,
                                              what St. Theophan has taught on this subject? I freely admit
                                              that I have learned a lot in the course of our discussion,
                                              and for that I thank you, Fr. John. But even if we must
                                              "agree to disagree," I see no reason to go so far as to
                                              publicly and inflexibly say "you are teaching heresy."
                                              Perhaps you thought I wouldn't take your words seriously,
                                              but I have taken them to heart, and they have caused me
                                              much grief.

                                              It is my sincere hope that now that I have made myself more
                                              clear, and in part modified my position, you will now
                                              acknowledge that the causes for your initial judgment of
                                              heresy against me no longer exist. Fr. John, I humbly ask
                                              that you withdraw your accusation, so that we may put this
                                              matter to rest.

                                              Pray for the sinner

                                              Athanasios.
                                            • Archpriest David Moser
                                              ... So Athanasius, why do you only emphasize the portion that agrees with your strict interpretation and ignore that which allows for a more lenient practice.
                                              Message 22 of 25 , Aug 2 1:54 PM
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Athanasios Jayne" <athanasiosj@j...> wrote:
                                                > Whether your teaching
                                                > and your name are pronounced as being under anathema
                                                > or not, YOU ALREADY FALL UNDER IT WHEN YOUR OPINIONS
                                                > ARE OPPOSED TO THOSE OF THE CHURCH, and when you persist
                                                > in them. Fearful is the anathema. Leave off your evil
                                                > opinions. Amen."
                                                >
                                                > --St. Theophan the Recluse, "What is an Anathema?"
                                                > translated from the Russian text published by
                                                > Pravoslavnaya Rus, #4, 1974, (emphasis mine--AJ).

                                                So Athanasius, why do you only emphasize the portion that agrees with your
                                                strict interpretation and ignore that which allows for a more lenient practice.
                                                "...and when you persist in them." is just as important as the rest of the
                                                sentence! The other portion that you emphasized says nothing about "anathema"
                                                only about the result of an "incorrect" opinion - which like any time we sin
                                                (that is act contrary to the image and likeness of God) separates us from the
                                                Church but which like every sin can be corrected by repentance. That little bit
                                                you ignored "..when you persist..." is key to the whole quote of St Theophan.
                                                You might do well to stop reading theology and begin practicing it. "Go and
                                                learn what this means - I desire mercy, not sacrifice"

                                                V Rev David Moser
                                                St Seraphim of Sarov Orthodox Church (ROCOR)
                                                Boise, ID
                                                homilies: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/propoved/
                                                ask Fr David: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/frd_private/
                                              • Athanasios Jayne
                                                ... --St. Theophan the Recluse. ... lawful Church hierarchy actually imposes judgment on them.
                                                Message 23 of 25 , Aug 3 1:20 PM
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  > "Whether your teaching
                                                  > and your name are pronounced as being under anathema
                                                  > or not, YOU ALREADY FALL UNDER IT WHEN YOUR OPINIONS
                                                  > ARE OPPOSED TO THOSE OF THE CHURCH, and when you persist
                                                  > in them."

                                                  --St. Theophan the Recluse.

                                                  "Fr. John R. Shaw" <vrevjrs@e...> wrote:

                                                  > 1) No one "already falls under anathema", unless the
                                                  lawful Church hierarchy actually imposes judgment on them.<

                                                  "Anathema means anything that has been separated from God
                                                  and the Church of the Christians and has been dedicated to
                                                  the devil. It is of great importance that one understand
                                                  that it is not the Church that separates someone from God
                                                  by some official act, it is not the hierarchs who make him
                                                  anathema, nor yet is it God Who banishes a man from Him;
                                                  it is man himself who makes himself anathema, who dismisses
                                                  the Grace of God and the Gift of the Holy Spirit from within
                                                  himself and flees far from God. It is only after this that
                                                  the Church steps in to certify and to proclaim this fact,
                                                  with the purpose of protecting first the Divine Gifts from
                                                  any contact with the blasphemous, and, second, the faithful
                                                  from pollution."

                                                  --Dr. Alexander Kalomiros.

                                                  "He that accepts an innovation reproaches with deficiency
                                                  the preached Catholic Faith. But that Faith has long ago
                                                  been sealed in completeness not to admit of diminution or
                                                  increase or any change whatsoever; and he who dares to
                                                  do or think or advise such a thing has already denied the
                                                  Faith of Christ, has already of his own accord been struck
                                                  with an eternal anathema for blaspheming the Holy Spirit
                                                  as not having spoken fully in the Scriptures and through
                                                  the Ecumenical Councils."

                                                  --Encyclical of Gregory VI, Patriarch of Constantinople.
                                                • Athanasios Jayne
                                                  For when the Lord says: he is judged already, and when the Apostle anathematizes even angels, if they teach anything different from what we have preached,
                                                  Message 24 of 25 , Aug 5 1:46 PM
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    "For when the Lord says: "he is judged already,"
                                                    and when the Apostle anathematizes even angels,
                                                    if they teach anything different from what we
                                                    have preached, how can even those who dare all
                                                    things, presume to say that these words refer
                                                    only to the living? Or are they ignorant, or
                                                    is it not rather that they feign to be ignorant,
                                                    that the judgment of anathema is nothing else
                                                    than that of separation from God? FOR THE
                                                    IMPIOUS PERSON, ALTHOUGH HE MAY NOT HAVE BEEN
                                                    VERBALLY ANATHEMATIZED BY ANYONE, NEVERTHELESS
                                                    HE REALLY IS ANATHEMATIZED, HAVING SEPARATED
                                                    HIMSELF FROM THE TRUE LIFE BY HIS IMPIETY."

                                                    --The Decree of the Holy Fifth Ecumenical
                                                    Council.

                                                    "But if anyone at all shall not observe and
                                                    embrace the aforesaid decrees, and teach and
                                                    preach in accordance therewith, but shall
                                                    attempt to set himself in opposition thereto,
                                                    let him be anathema, according to the decree
                                                    already promulgated by the approved holy and
                                                    blessed Fathers, and let him be cast out and
                                                    stricken off as an alien from the number of
                                                    Christians."

                                                    --Canon I of the Holy Sixth Ecumenical
                                                    Council.
                                                  • Fr. John R. Shaw
                                                    ... JRS: The above means the same thing as saying that a sinner, while unrepenting, separates himself from the True Life. However, no one else on earth can be
                                                    Message 25 of 25 , Aug 5 1:56 PM
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      Athanasios Jayne wrote:

                                                      > FOR THE
                                                      > IMPIOUS PERSON, ALTHOUGH HE MAY NOT HAVE BEEN
                                                      > VERBALLY ANATHEMATIZED BY ANYONE, NEVERTHELESS
                                                      > HE REALLY IS ANATHEMATIZED, HAVING SEPARATED
                                                      > HIMSELF FROM THE TRUE LIFE BY HIS IMPIETY."
                                                      >
                                                      > --The Decree of the Holy Fifth Ecumenical
                                                      > Council.

                                                      JRS: The above means the same thing as saying that a sinner, while unrepenting, separates
                                                      himself from the True Life.

                                                      However, no one else on earth can be expected to know this for certain. The separation is
                                                      internal, spiritual, and not a matter of Canon Law.

                                                      Deacons, priests, and bishops are all sinners, in varying degrees. But despite that, unless
                                                      they are suspended or defrocked by the Church, their ministrations remain genuine, and the
                                                      faithful are not cut off from the True Life.

                                                      > "But if anyone at all shall not observe and
                                                      > embrace the aforesaid decrees, and teach and
                                                      > preach in accordance therewith, but shall
                                                      > attempt to set himself in opposition thereto,
                                                      > let him be anathema, according to the decree
                                                      > already promulgated by the approved holy and
                                                      > blessed Fathers, and let him be cast out and
                                                      > stricken off as an alien from the number of
                                                      > Christians."
                                                      >
                                                      > --Canon I of the Holy Sixth Ecumenical
                                                      > Council.

                                                      JRS: Note the words: "Let him be anathema", and "let him be cast out"; not: "He is
                                                      automatically anathematized and automatically cast out, by the living action of this Canon".

                                                      Thus it remains up to the hierarchy to decide how to deal with each case, or to take no action
                                                      at all.

                                                      In Christ
                                                      Fr. John R. Shaw
                                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.