Question about Orthodox ecclesiology

Surprise surprise, the man behind the "Orthodox Nationalist" podcast, Fr. Matthew Raphael Johnson, belongs to the Greek Orthodox Old Calendarist Church. He's a schismatic… I recommend you get your info on Orthodoxy from somebody who's more, you know, in the Orthodox Church.

The Orthodox Ecclesiology is the most fascinating part of the Orthodox theology. But at the same time there is no other part of the Orthodox theology with so many opinions, at some times opposite to one another. The only reliable source of the Orthodox Ecclesiology are the canons of the Church and the writings of the Saints.

Absolutely. Already, St. Jerome rebukes some bishops who think that they can "either condemn the innocent or think that they can loose the guilty. Yet in the sight of God it is not the verdict of the priests but the life of the accused that is examined. We read in Leviticus about lepers that they are commanded to show themselves to the priests and, if they have leprosy, then they are established as unclean by the priest. This does not mean that the priests make them leprous and unclean, but that they have knowledge of the leprous and the non-leprous, and they can discern who is clean and who is unclean. Therefore, just as in that passage it is the priest who "makes" the leper unclean, so also here the priest or bishop binds or looses, not those who are innocent or guilty, but because of his own office. When he hears the various kinds of sins, he knows who should be bound, and who should be loosed."

The heretics are not heretics because some bishop or council has declared them to be heretics. Analogously, the schismatics are schismatics not because a bishop has declared them schismatics. See again what St. Jerome says. Bishops and councils pronounce someone as heretic or schismatic because they know what it means to be a heretic or a schismatic. Nobody will be cut from the grace of God if bishop unlawfully proclaims him as excommunicated. And vice versa, the heretics and schismatics are cut from the Church even in case nobody cares to formally pronounce them as heretics or schismatics.

First, let me give some definitions, based on Canon 1 by St. Basil (acknowledged in Rule 2 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council (of Trullo)).

——————————
Heretics: those who were altogether broken off and alienated from the Church in matters relating to the actual faith.

Schismatics: those who have separated for some ecclesiastical reasons and questions.

Uncanonical congregations: gatherings held by disorderly presbyters or bishops or by uninstructed laymen. As, for instance, if a man be convicted of crime, and prohibited from discharging ministerial functions, and then refuses to submit to the canons, but arrogates to himself episcopal and ministerial rights, and persons leave the Church and join him, this is unlawful assembly.
——————————

The heretics are totally alienated from the Church. They believe in christ, but this christ is not our Christ. According to St. Basil the sacraments of the heretics are void of grace. When, however, the sacraments are performed properly by a hierarchy having a Apostolic succession, it is permissible to apply economy and to acknowledge the sacraments as valid but only after the heretics join the Church (not before).

Many schisms are due to overreaction to some unwarranted novelty in the Church, for example the New ecclesiastical Calendar, the western-style icons and western-style music in Russia, etc. There is no grace in the sacraments of the schismatics, however, we often apply economy and acknowledge the sacraments of the schismatics when they join the Church (not before).

The uncanonical congregations are not because of different opinions about doctrinal or ecclesiastical matters. These are separations caused by the human passions. We acknowledge the sacraments of these people.

It should be noted that we customarily talk about Roman Catholic Church and various Protestant Churches, although there is only one Church, the Orthodox Church and the rest are not churches. In similar way, we often apply the words "schism" and "schismatics" about uncanonical congregations. For example, we customarily call the schismatics in Ukraine schismatics, although the category "uncanonical congregations" is more appropriate for them.

1. Common faith (otherwise – heresy)
2. Mutual acknowledgement of the ecclesiastical customs (otherwise – schism)

All other separations are manifestations of bad human passions. There are even cases when it is not entirely clear which one of the arguing parts was right and which was wrong. These separations are great sins, but they do not cut from the Church. In the worst case these separations are somewhat analogous to being a member of the Church who is denied from the Eucharist due to some ecclesiastical penance.

tl;dr

The Orthodox Church consists of:

1. Local Churches with common faith, mutual acknowledgement of the ecclesiastical customs and Eucharistic communion. This is the proper place to be a member of the Church.

2. Local Churches with common faith, mutual acknowledgement of the ecclesiastical customs but without Eucharistic communion. Here you can become a member of the Church but you will be in a great sin.

Near the border of the Orthodox Church (but outside of it) are:

3. Schismatics with Orthodox faith who do not acknowledge some ecclesiastical customs.

Outside the Church and void of grace:

4. The heretical congregations of the nestorians, monophysites, roman catholics, etc.

Very good response. Allow me to only point out two things:
- What you say about the power of clergymen is reflected in the Greek form of the prayers said during confession. When the priest absolves one of sin, he says that it is done by Jesus Christ through them - in other words, that God alone forgives and the priest's power to forgive or retain sin is only to confirm that sin is forgiven or retained, rather than a power he possesses on his own.

Also: normally, "apostolic succession" requires both a lineage from the apostles and to have kept the true faith. Some schismatics have apostolic succession and some don't, but no heretics have apostolic succession, simply because a heretic who is anathematized becomes a layman, and any "ordinations" after that are empty movements devoid of grace. So I don't know why you are using "apostolic succession" as if heretical hierarchies could have it to begin with.

The visible Church is the body that can be logically presumed to be elect regardless if they are not. You're not softening anything by using the word

Even if we grant that the pope is the regent of the Church (which he most certainly is not, a papacy not being divinely instituted nor Christ being absent), it is still undeniable that a regent is a usurper and a rebel when he claims for himself that which belongs only to the king. No regent is entitled to the royal marriage bed, nor may he claim to be lord of the land. But if the Church is united because it submits to the pope, she takes him for her husband, and he claims dominion over the body. For the true Church is united in Christ, since His status as Lord is its common confession.

Seriously though I think that Romanides gets a lot of beat up by so called """traditionalists""" though I dont get why. I know that what he talks about heaven and hell are basically what others also say, even fundamentalist Russian ones. Does it has to do something with Augustine?

I thought that only liberal Orthodox had a problem with Romanides.

The ordinations by heretics are void of grace. But do these ordinations become valid when the heretics join the Orthodox Church? I don't want to state a particular opinion because I am unsure. Here are some facts:

1. During the unias of Lyon and Florence nobody questioned the validity of the ordinations made by heretics.
2. When uniates rejoin the Orthodox Church, their ordinations are acknowledged.
3. In the 19th century some Iranian nestorians joined the Russian Church; their bishops were acknowledged.

And the same is true for many of the schismatics. In many cases even the leaders of uncanonical congregations are unfrocked, therefore their ordinations and sacraments are void. (This is the case for example with the Ukrainian "patriarch".) But the history shows us again and again that when the time comes for these people to rejoin the Church, their ordinations in most cases are acknowledged.

Romanides has a weird obssession with proving that Orthodoxy is truly "Roman" and truly "Catholic" and so that we're the true Roman Catholics. Also he has a very low opinion of St Augustine's theology and generally just thinks that we should distance ourselves from him. He's not an idiot or a liar, but I just think his theology is underdevelopped in several places (which is true of absolutely everyone anyway, even saints).

It is only by economy that schismatic/heretical ordinations, baptisms, etc. are recognized. The "sacraments" themselves aren't recognized, but, to prevent a convert from getting the impression that their life as a Christian was absolutely devoid of any grace up to that point (indeed, them having no sacraments does not mean that God somehow did not give them a single drop of grace, when God's grace permeates the whole of the creation), the rituals are not repeated, but any grace that may have been lacking in their "sacraments" is compensated by the Eucharist. So some Christians are received without being rebaptized, some are received even without being reordained, but the main practice worldwide is to receive all converts as if they were never baptized or chrismated or ordained, to avoid causing confusion.

It should be noted that the "recognition" of sacraments by economy is not based on some kind of invisible apostolic succession, but just on the overall state of the church the convert used to belong to. I believe that Lutheran and Anglican baptisms from Eastern Europe ceased to be recognized by economy by the Russians once these churches accepted gay marriage for instance. In comparison, the state of the Oriental Orthodox churches or of the Catholic churches is much less dire, as they've still tried to retain the tradition and to seek God even if they took a wrong turn centuries ago, and so their sacraments -can- (but won't necessarily) be recognized by economy… which, again, doesn't mean that they're recognized as valid.

The 7th Ecumenical council accepted the ordinations by the iconoclasts. St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain gives the following explaination:

"Although the Seventh Ecumenical Council accepted the consecrations by heretical iconoclasts (however, not the chiefs of heresy and its passionate adherents who did not repent sincerely and truly, as the divine Tarasius [Patriarch of Constantinople] said, but the followers of truly and genuinely penitent hierarchs) and the ordained from them, without re-ordination […], but this has been done according to the house-building economy for the sake of the great multitude of the then joining iconoclasts."

On the other hand, I looked at the acts of this Ecumenical council and it seems that St. Tarasius regarded the ordinations by heretics valid (in most cases). For example he pointed to the following words by St Athanasius the Great (in his epistle to Rufinianus):

"You ask me about those who were drawn away by necessity but not corrupted by error, and wish me to write what resolution has been come to about them, whether in synods or elsewhere; know, most desired master, that to begin with, when violence was ceased, a synod has been held, bishops from foreign parts being present; while others have been held by our fellow-ministers resident in Greece, as well as by those in Spain and Gaul. And the same decision had come to here and everywhere, namely, in the case of those who had fallen and been leaders of impiety, to pardon them upon their repentance, but not to give them the position of clergy: but in the case of men not deliberate in impiety, but drawn away by necessity and violence, that they should not only receive pardon, but should occupy the position of clergy."

The interesting in this epistle is the testimony of various local councils pronouncing identical decisions.

St. Tarasius also pointed that the first patriarch of Constantinople, St. Anatolius was ordained by the heretics Dioscorus and Eutyches but participated and even presided (some sessions) of the 4th Ecumenical Council. He also pointed that many of the participants in the 5th Ecumenical Council had been ordained by heretics. Many fathers of this council pronounced anathema to those who ordained them.

We have to take into accout St Basil the Great's writings though, which show manifestly that heretical sacraments are only accepted by economy. Roman theology influenced the East during the 8th-9th centuries (you even have a couple of saints saying that a council is only ecumenical if Rome says it is) but it doesn't change that the overall stance, and the one held today, is that heretics have no real sacraments, including ordination.

I made a bad mistake here. St. Tarasius said we customarily accept the ordinations of the heretics when they join the Church. He didn't specify whether we do this by economy or not. And he didn't say the ordinations of the heretics are valid.

Rule 7 of the 2nd Ecumenical Council says the baptism of the arians is accepted.

"Those who embrace orthodoxy and join the number of those who are being saved from the heretics, we receive in the following regular and customary manner: Arians, Macedonians, Sabbatians, Novatians, those who call themselves Cathars and Aristae, Quartodeciman or Tetradites, Apollinarians—these we receive when they hand in statements and anathematise every heresy which is not of the same mind as the holy, catholic and apostolic church of God. They are first sealed or anointed with holy chrism on the forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth and ears. As we seal them we say: "Seal of the gift of the holy Spirit". But Eunomians, who are baptised in a single immersion, Montanists (called Phrygians here), Sabellians, who teach the identity of Father and Son and make certain other difficulties, and all other sects — since there are many here, not least those who originate in the country of the Galatians — we receive all who wish to leave them and embrace orthodoxy as we do heathens."

Nowhere does this say this is not by economy.

Rule 95 of the 6th Ecumenical Council (of Trullo) confirms the above rule and adds that for the nestorians and monophysites not only the baptism is unnecessary but even the confirmation must not be performed. The nestorians and the monophysites are required to renounce their heresy in written form and to anathematize it publicly and thats all – after that they are allowed to take Eucharist.

"The nestorians, eutychians and severians must give certificates and anathematize each his own heresy, and also Nestorius, Eutyches, Dioscorus, Severus, and the other chiefs of such heresies, and those who think with them, and all the aforesaid heresies; and so they become partakers of the holy Communion."

The English translation of this rule at newadvent.org/fathers/3814.htm is erroneous and suggests that baptism is unnecessary for the Manichæans, and Valentinians and Marcionites.

Catholic MRJ fan here. What's the issue with Old Calendrists/True Orthodox? I'm aware that they're roughly your equivalent of sedevacantists but your ecclesiology isn't founded on the impossibility of their position which is the case for sedes. Given what I know about Masonic infiltration and subversion of both the Catholic Church and you guys their positions seem relatively reasonable.

I'm not EO but I'm assuming the problem with them is obvious, they're being schismatic and divisive over non issues and autism. People like this are more afraid of losing some sense of identity and pride than being a christian unfortunately

Not really. It is indeed possible that the new calendar was at least partially a masonic deed. But this doesn't change the fact that one can change the calendar and still be Orthodox. The Old Calendarists deny this and no reasonable theology can explain why a particular calendar is a requirement for Orthodoxy.

Besides that, the Church is where the Spirit is. Consider this: we have many great recent Saints, the Old Calendarists have no saint. Some of our current bishops are great men, while the bishops of the Old Calendarists are unremarkable or worst than that. We are united in our hearts and we will remain united even if the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Moscow do some stupid thing, while the Old Calendarists are split in who knows how many sects without mutual recognition.

It's more than that. The Catholic Church is subverted and no longer exists. And we have some prophesies that the same is going to happen eventually with our Church. Then we will have to separate ourselves from the official pseudo-Church in order to preserve the real Orthodox Church. This time, however, has not come yet because we feel the real presence of the Holy Spirit in our Church.

This is intriguing and I desire to know more.

There isn't much info in English.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Ecclesiastical_Mission_in_Urmia

In Russian: nestorianstvo.ru/prisoedinenie-assirijtsev-nestorian-k-pravoslavnoj-tserkvi/
nestorianstvo.ru/pravoslavie19-20/

Attached: 17.jpg (960x720 40.08 KB, 59.04K)

They schism over the calendar, giving it a dogmatic status. This is against tradition, which does not consider the calendar used a matter of dogma or divine revelation. Notably, the one thing that could indeed be considered a grave and uncaonical problem if it were changed - the date of Easter - was left untouched by the reform.
They consider ecumenism a heresy. By this, they do not understand the concerns that the Church had in the 20th century (with the WCC becoming a syncretic blob of vague doctrine) but rather any dialogue with Catholics and Protestants. In fact many of them interpret the canons on not praying with heretics very strictly and will not attend a relative's marriage or funeral if it is not Orthodox.
Many of them, like sedevacantists, have an apocalyptic mindset and believe the end of the world is right around the corner and the pathetic state of the Church is proof. I think their erratic and aggressive behavior is sufficient to show they are schismatics at best and heretics at worst, per 2 Peter.

Cool, thanks.

Wasn't the Gregorian calendar anathematized, though? Aside from the fact that Meletios Metaxakis was a known Mason.