deba9999

The Moscow Patriarchate’s December 1998 synodal statement concerning the recently increasing cases of abuse by certain pastors of the authority entrusted to them by God “to bind and to loose”. ‘In recent times cases of abuses in spiritual-fatherly practice have become more frequent, negatively affecting the condition of church life. Certain clergymen, having received from God in the sacrament of the priesthood the right to spiritual guidance of the flock, consider that such a right means undivided authority over the souls of people. Not remembering that relations between a spiritual father & spiritual children must be built upon the foundation of mutual respect and trust, such pastors transfer the specifically monastic concept of the unquestioning submission of a novice to an elder onto relations between a layman and his spiritual father; they intrude into the inner questions of the personal and family life of parishioners, subject those being pastored to themselves, forgetting the God-given freedom to which all Christians are called (Gal. 5:13). Such inadmissible methods of spiritual guidance in certain cases turn into a tragedy for the one being pastored, who transfers his disagreement with the spiritual father onto the Church. Such people leave the Orthodox Church and not rarely become easy prey for sectarians. Certain spiritual fathers declare civil marriage unlawful or demand the dissolution of a marriage between spouses who have lived many years together, but who, by force of one or another circumstance, have not had a church wedding in the temple. It happens that a spiritual father insists upon the dissolution of a marriage between spouses when one of the spouses does not belong to the Orthodox faith. Other monastic spiritual fathers forbid their spiritual children to enter into marriage and compel them to accept monasticism on the ground that monasticism is allegedly higher than marriage. Certain pastors & spiritual fathers do not admit to Communion persons living in an “uncrowned” marriage, identifying such a marriage with fornication; they forbid their spiritual children to enter into a second marriage on the ground that second marriage is allegedly condemned by the Church; they forbid married couples to divorce in that case when, by force of one or another circumstance, family life becomes impossible for the spouses. There are cases in which a pastor “does not bless” one or another of his parishioners to marry or to be given in marriage for love, but proposes that he or she, “out of obedience”, enter into marriage with a person recommended by the pastor himself. There are also cases in which a pastor forbids those being pastored to seek medical help, hinders the fulfilment by those being pastored of their civic duties—participation in elections, service in the armed forces. Certain pastors impose upon those being pastored one or another political view. Other spiritual fathers consider study in secular educational institutions “unnecessary” or harmful for salvation. Such demands not only violate the right of each Christian to make independent decisions, but also enter into contradiction with the legislation in force. Cases have become more frequent of the creation by one or another pastor of such church communities in which life is built upon the authority of the pastor himself, reinforced by a negative attitude towards the ecclesiastical Sacred Hierarchy, and also towards other pastors and parish communities. Such pastors have forgotten that their task is to lead people to God, and not to group parishioners around themselves. In parishes of this kind there is created an atmosphere of their own exclusiveness, incompatible with the spirit of conciliarity upon which the Orthodox Church is founded. They resolved: I) Having in view the increased complaints of laypeople concerning canonically unjustified actions of individual pastors, to indicate to priests bearing spiritual-fatherly ministry the inadmissibility of compelling or inclining those being pastored, contrary to their will, to the following actions and decisions: the acceptance of monasticism; the bearing of any church obedience; the making of any donations; entry into marriage; divorce or refusal to enter into marriage, except in cases when marriage is impossible for canonical reasons; refusal of conjugal life in marriage; refusal of military service; refusal of participation in elections or of the fulfilment of other civic duties; refusal of receiving medical help; refusal of receiving education; taking employment or changing one’s place of work; changing one’s place of residence. II) To remind all pastors of the Russian Orthodox Church bearing spiritual-fatherly ministry of the necessity, in spiritual-fatherly practice, strictly to follow the letter and spirit of Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition of the Orthodox Church, the precepts of the Holy Fathers and the canonical regulations, and also of the inadmissibility for Orthodox pastors of introducing into spiritual-fatherly practice any moral or other requirements going beyond the bounds of what is prescribed by the aforementioned regulations, and, according to the word of the Saviour, of “laying upon men burdens hard to bear”(Luke 11:46). III) To remind all pastors & spiritual fathers that they are called to help those being pastored by counsel and love, without thereby violating the God-given freedom of each Christian. To emphasise that unquestioning obedience, upon which the relation of a novice to an elder in monasteries is based, cannot be applied in full measure in parish practice in the relations between a priest and his flock. Especially to indicate the inadmissibility for pastors of interfering in questions connected with the choice of a bridegroom or bride by any of those being pastored by them, except in cases when those being pastored ask for concrete counsel. IV) To emphasise the inadmissibility of a negative or arrogant attitude towards marriage, reminding all clergymen of the first canon of the Council of Gangra: “If anyone censures marriage, and abominates or censures a faithful and devout woman who is joined with her own husband, as though she could not enter into the Kingdom, let him be under anathema.” Especially to emphasise that the acceptance of monasticism is a matter of the personal choice of the Christian, and cannot take place “out of obedience” to one or another spiritual father. V) To remind monastics of the inadmissibility, according to the twenty-first canon of the Council of Gangra, of “taking asceticism as an occasion for pride”, of “exalting oneself over those who live simply” —that is, those who are in marriage—and of “introducing novelties contrary to the Scriptures and the ecclesiastical rules”. The tenth canon of the same council states: “If anyone of those practising virginity for the Lord’s sake shall exalt himself over those who have entered into marriage, let him be under anathema.” VI) While insisting upon the necessity of church marriage, to remind pastors that the Orthodox Church treats civil marriage with respect, and also such a marriage in which only one of the parties belongs to the Orthodox faith, in accordance with the words of the holy Apostle Paul: “The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the believing husband”(1 Cor. 7:14). VII) To remind pastors that in her attitude to second marriage the Orthodox Church is guided by the words of the Apostle Paul: “Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned... The wife is bound by law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is free to be married to whom she will, only in the Lord”(1 Cor. 7:27–28, 39). VIII) To remind pastors of the necessity of observing special chastity and special pastoral caution when discussing with those being pastored questions connected with one or another aspect of their family life. IX) Especially to indicate the inadmissibility for pastors of creating around themselves such communities in which there exists an oppositional and critical attitude both towards the higher ecclesiastical leadership and towards other pastors and parish communities. X) To emphasise the inadmissibility of using the church ambo for the preaching of one or another political view. XI) To call upon diocesan Right Reverend Hierarchs to pay special attention to how, by the pastors of the dioceses entrusted to them, the spiritual care of the flock is being carried out. To strengthen oversight over the strict observance by pastors of the regulations and norms of the Orthodox Church concerning various aspects of spiritual-fatherly practice. XII) To call upon the faithful of the Orthodox Church to address themselves to their ruling hierarch in all cases when a pastor or spiritual father has exceeded the authority given to him by God “to bind and to loose”. To remind the Orthodox flock that the counsels of a spiritual father must not contradict Holy Scripture, Holy Tradition, the teaching of the Holy Fathers and the canonical regulations of the Orthodox Church; and in the case of the divergence of such counsels from the aforementioned regulations, preference must be given to the latter. In this connection, to draw attention to the words of St Symeon the New Theologian concerning how relations between a spiritual child and a spiritual father must be built: “By prayers and tears entreat God to send thee a dispassionate and holy guide. Also examine the Divine Scriptures thyself, and especially the practical writings of the Holy Fathers, so that, comparing with them that which thy teacher and superior teaches thee, thou mayest be able to see this as in a mirror, and to compare it, and that which is in agreement with the Divine Scriptures to receive inwardly and hold in thought, but the false and alien to detect and cast away, so as not to be deceived. For know that many deceivers and false teachers have appeared in these days.” XIII) For the diocesan Right Reverend Hierarchs to bring the present resolution to the knowledge of the clergy, monastics and laypeople of the Russian Orthodox Church.’ –Determination of the Holy Synod of 28–29/12/1998

‘Absolutely all the Holy Fathers affirm that, through the sacrifice of Christ, mankind was delivered from divine wrath. It is precisely this teaching which Romanides (and other modernists) designate a “Western doctrine”, “juridicism”, and the like. It was precisely Romanides who effected a “grandiose shift” in Greek theology, so as to present Orthodox teaching as being of “Western origin”, whilst proclaiming his own neo-Pelagian teaching to be Orthodoxy. John Romanides leaves the reader with the impression that Orthodox theology has, at some point, become incomprehensible: when did it sever its connection with apostolic and patristic teaching in the explanation of such important questions as original sin and redemption? According to John Romanides, this is a “problem of the Orthodox Church”, whereas he himself constitutes a danger to Orthodox theology. Teaching of a similar character is found among other distinguished theologians: Yannaras, Vlachos, Metallinos, Kalomiros, and others.’ -Archpr. Constantine (Jincharadze), Anatomy of Modernism, The “Juridical” Theory of Redemption

‘Unbegottenness, they [Eunomians] say, is the essence, and they likewise elevate generation to the status of essence.’ –St. Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius Bk. 1, §35 ‘They [Eunomians] say: “Is Father a name of God according to essence or according to operation?” And in either case they seek to entangle us.’ –St. Gregory (Nazianzus), Orat. 29.16 The problem with Sijuwade, like so many others today, is that they refuse to simply speak like the Fathers did, ofttimes finding themselves to speak as the heretics did.

‘That very Righteous One Who dies for the sins of men, redeeming them from the dominion of death is none other than Jesus Christ. He Himself said this; He Himself applied this to Himself. Therefore, those who do not believe that Jesus is the Redeemer, that He has truly ransomed us from the righteous wrath of God, and who regard these to be merely polite words intended for crude men, contradict the Lord Jesus Christ and the whole Gospel: indeed, they contradict the entire substance of both the Old and New Testaments.’ –Fr. Daniel (Sysoev), Commentary on 1 Corinthians 15:3

‘The anti-Catholic arguments of the Holy Fathers acknowledge that Catholics possess the Eucharist. St Mark of Ephesus addresses the Pope of Rome as a most beloved Patriarch, who has resolved to gather together the divided members of the Body of Christ. [...] Here we have a certain community which possesses baptism and the gift of the Spirit, yet lies outside the sphere of salvation because it has lost the faith. Its members are infected with a most grievous disease. As St. Theophan the Recluse aptly put it: “Catholicism is a body with tuberculous lungs.” It is decaying. But there has been no ecclesiastical trial of Catholicism. If such an ecclesiastical trial were to take place, the 9th Ecumenical Council would be convened (the eighth was the Photian Council, the great anti-Catholic Council which condemned the filioque [clause]). The Pope of Rome would be summoned before it, and three formal summonses would be issued. He would arrive, and they would say to him: “Here is the teaching of the Fathers. Are you prepared to agree with it?” He either agrees or he does not. If he agrees, then “thou hast gained thy brother.” If he refuses, what does the Council do? “...For uttering impious blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, let him be deprived of his sacred orders and of all the ranks pertaining thereto...” He has fallen away from the company of those being saved. Before our very eyes, an analogous case occurred with Denysenko.’ [...] ‘There was a decree permitting Orthodox Christians, in extreme circumstances, to enter a Catholic church and receive communion. But we must understand that, for us, receiving Catholic communion would constitute an endorsement of false doctrine. For by attending the Liturgy, we would necessarily be professing the filioque, that is, committing the mortal sin of heresy. The Council condemned the heresy, but not the Catholics. Within the Church there exists a presumption of innocence. Let us recall the Ecumenical Councils, guided by the Holy Spirit. Who participated, for example, in the Seventh Ecumenical Council? Bishops who had been ordained by iconoclasts. By that time, iconoclasm had already been condemned by a Local Council in Rome. Nevertheless, episcopal consecrations continued to be performed and were recognised. The 1st Session of the 7th Ecumenical Council is specifically devoted to heretical ordinations. The monks asked St. Tarasius: “How can someone who has himself blasphemed the Holy Spirit through heresy impart the Holy Spirit?” To this St. Tarasius replied that it is not man who performs the ordination, but God. And a son is not answerable for his father. Likewise, the 6th Ecumenical Council was composed of bishops who had received ordination from Monothelites (the Monothelite heresy had already been condemned by the great Lateran Council, attended by 149 Fathers). In particular, heretical Monothelite bishops were themselves present at the Council. But when the anathemas against heretics were proclaimed, only those who had made explicit professions of heresy were anathematised: Pyrrhus, Paul, Cyrus, Peter, Patriarch Sergius, and Pope Honorius of Rome. Those who had not opposed the heresy, but had not publicly addressed the question of how many wills there are in Christ, were regarded by the Council as Orthodox. 80% of the 2nd Ecumenical Council consisted of men who had been ordained by Arian bishops, although the Arians had already been condemned by the 1st Ecumenical Council. A bishop may himself be outside the company of those being saved, yet God acts through him. For him personally, heresy is perdition. But until a bishop has been excommunicated from the Church, grace operates through him. Otherwise, none of us would have any assurance of the validity of our baptism. Fortunately, however, it is not man who performs baptism, but God; and it is sufficient that the bishop should not be a man who has been deprived of his episcopal orders.’ [...] ‘Hilarion (Troitsky) maintains a position which is grounded neither in Scripture nor in the Fathers of the Church. He holds that, in the Mysteries of heretics, a graceless form is transmitted, which is subsequently filled with the content of grace upon entry into the Church. No such teaching is found among the Fathers of the Church.’ [...] ‘There are cases in which the Church may recognise as invalid an ordination canonically performed by canonical bishops. Maximus the Cynic is an example. That is to say, a particular liturgical act may be declared invalid by an ecclesiastical tribunal. The Church has the authority to take away the gift of God, but she cannot bestow it.’ –Fr. Daniel (Sysoev), Lecture Course on Dogmatic Theology: The Orthodox Church as the Sole Place of Salvation

A brief defence of the Russian Church’s practice of icon veneration by Metr. Platon (Levshin), teacher of St. Philaret of Moscow, in his catechism: ‘We do not act contrary to this [the 2nd] commandment, when, according to the ancient custom of Christians, we adorn our temples with the holy pictures. For, in the first place, we do not attempt to draw upon the canvas a representation of the unseen and incomprehensible God, whom we never can represent; but we represent our Saviour in the fashion of a man which he took upon himself, or his favourites. Secondly, the pictures are made and placed in our churches, not for deification, but to commemorate the acts of God and of his chosen servants, that we, in beholding them, (as, for instance, in looking on the picture of our crucified Saviour), may stir up our souls to piety, and to the imitation of them in many acts of their lives. Thirdly, the obeisance which we make before the pictures, we do not render to the pictures themselves, that is, to the boards, colours, ornaments, or skill of the artist, but we render this to the persons whom they represent, and to the pictures only an affectionate salutation. Thus, for example, I bow before the picture of my Saviour, but the devotion of my spirit, my faith, supplications, and hope, and the very obeisance which I pay, are all rendered to my Saviour alone, who is in heaven, and every where present, and the picture is only a kind of sensible incitement of my devotion. Moreover, it is necessary to be known, that the obeisance performed before the picture of our Saviour, and that before the picture of any of the saints, though to appearance the same, yet in reality are very different indeed. For the worship which I perform before the picture of the Saviour, consists in the deepest humility of soul before him as Lord and Creator of all; but that which I perform before the pictures of the saints is a reverence which I render to them out of a loving heart as his favourites, and as of the same nature, and of the same church, and members of the same body with myself. But notwithstanding all that has been said, this lawful and holy reverencing of the pictures may be turned into the most abominable sin of idolatry. This is the case when any one hopes in, or attaches all his respect to the holy pictures, and trusts in their material substance; when, for instance, any one finds greater sanctity in one picture than in another, or places in them any hope of salvation. They, too, are chargeable with this guilt, who bring their own particular picture into the church along with them, and only worship before it, or who respect those pictures more which are adorned than the unadorned, the old more than the new, or decline praying at all when they have not a picture before them. All these, and such like, are great transgressors, and prove a great disgrace to the real profession of the Christian faith. In order to avoid the above-mentioned errors, it is necessary to remember, first, that the worship of God can never be sincere, unless it proceed from a contrite and unfeigned spirit. For all external rites of worship are only marks testifying our internal piety and sincerity towards God, without which they signify nothing. And therefore the gospel requires, that the worshippers of God should worship him in spirit (not externally alone), and in truth, or not in hypocrisy. Second, we must hold to the divine word alone, and rest assured, that it only contains the true rules by which we ought to please God. And therefore Christ said concerning the Holy Scriptures, that in them is contained eternal life.’ –Metr. Platon (Levshin), A Summary of Christian Divinity (Robert Pinkerton ed.), pg. 228-229

This actually (dogmatically) reinforces a response given by Abp. Theophan to Socinian objections to the Atonement repeated unfortunately by some Orthodox writers today (i.e. Frederica Mathewes-Green.) God forgives the sins of men before the Cross—but He does so solely by virtue of Christ’s merits. He does not simply forgive without need of a sacrifice. ‘Objection: “Before Christ, God remitted many sins without any true satisfaction, such as those of Abel and Enoch; therefore the satisfaction of Christ is not required for the remission of sins.” Reponse: I deny the antecedent and the consequent. For Christ is called the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8) for the salvation of all who believe in Him.’ –Abp. Theophan (Prokopovich), Compendium of Orthodox Christian Dogmatic-Polemical Theology, Tome I, Book IX, §255

Fr. Artemy Vladimirov on St. Catherine’s life as a demonstration of the necessity of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness for the possibility of communion with God. ‘St. Catherine [...] was intelligent, serious-minded, and profound in her learning; yet, for some reason, as you remember, the Divine Infant turned away from her when the icon seemed, as it were, to come to life before St. Catherine. But after this royal personage had been vouchsafed Holy Baptism, the Saviour gazed upon her with favour and a smile and bestowed upon her His wondrous ring: St. Catherine was betrothed to the Heavenly Bridegroom. The point is that the human soul, only once it has been washed in the font of Baptism, cleansed by the Blood of the Saviour from the infirmities inherited from our first parents, and clothed in the robe of the Holy Spirit—when the Lord imputes His own righteousness, purity, innocence, and holiness to the newly baptised soul—only upon receiving this birth by grace, is capable of speaking with God, living with God, reigning with Him, entering into communion with Him, and becoming akin to Him. Thus the Lord mystically takes His rest in the soul that has been baptised in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and the human spirit is illumined through the operation of grace.’ –Fr. Artemy (Vladimirov), St. Catherine, the Most Wise Bride of Christ