WARNING

NOT EVERYTHING THAT

CALLS ITSELF ORTHODOX IS

TRULY ORTHODOX


The above warning was given to me when I first met Orthodoxy in 1986. Today [2009] it is even more perilous, even more difficult to find the Royal Path. For one thing there is a far greater abundance of misinformation. And many materials are missing, and other materials are being rapidly rewritten. For another thing there are fewer than ever guides remaining on the Royal Path, especially who speak English. Hopefully this website will be a place where Newcomers to the Faith can keep at least one foot on solid ground, while they are "exploring."


blog owner: Joanna Higginbotham

joannahigginbotham@runbox.com

jurisdiction: ROCA under Vladyka Agafangel

who did not submit to the RocorMP union in 2007

DISCLAIMER



February 24, 2013

Jurisdictional Disputings


Can the disunity of the different Protestant sects be compared to the apparent disunity of the different Orthodox jurisdictions?

No.  At least, not by someone who can recognize the boundaries of the Church.   

The "disunity" in the Protestant world can not be compared with what superficially seems like disunity in the Orthodox world.  In reality there is no disunity in the Orthodox Church – the Church is One.   But in this fallen world, there are necessary separations within the One Church.  Two things illustrate what I mean:

The Holy Fire.  Notice how the Holy Fire comes to all Orthodox: even to the heretical Copts, even to the prison of the true Patriarch Irenios, even to the pseudo-patriarch freemason Bartholomew.  There is no "disunity" here.  But the Holy Fire does not come to Jesuits, Baptists, or etc.  You are either inside the Church or you are outside the Church.  Outside the Church, in the world, there is great disunity.  Christ did not pray for those in the world.  He specified in His prayer, "I pray not for the world" (John 17:9).  Christ's prayer does not apply to Protestants.  The disunity of the Protestants is not analogous to the necessary separations within the Orthodox Church.

The Letters to the Churches.
Revelations chapters 2 and 3.   Notice how the different Churches are separated not just by geography, but by their different spiritual conditions:  the faithful one is tested, the sinful one reproved, the indifferent one faces expulsion.  They are united under His Wing, but there are going to be necessary separations when a Church remains in unrepentant sin.  Such is the state of our fallen world, the wheat and the tares are permitted to grow side by side – the wheat and the tares being the individuals who are members of the Churches.  But yet, if we look past the world [the Church Militant] to the heavenly [the Church Triumphant] we see perfect oneness of the Church.

Recommended reading:
St. Ilarion New Martyr:
Archpriest  Michael Pomazansky
St. Cyprian of Carthage

An intellectual understanding is only the beginning.  As you grow in the Life of the Church through Her sacraments, this understanding becomes much more than an intellectual understanding – it becomes an experience.  You can look forward to this.

February 2, 2013

Is there an Invisible Church?

Fr. Michael Pomazansky

The following brief extract from Fr. Michael's articles shows one of the predominant concerns of his writings.  In it [which is only the introduction to a much larger article], he speaks of the "Heavenly Church", whose reality in the lives of Orthodox Christians sharply distinguishes them from Protestants, who have no contact with it in prayer and can only speculate about it.  At the same time, however, he corrects the mistake of some theologians who, in combatting the false Protestant idea of an "invisible church" which transcends confessional boundaries, have over-emphasized the earthly side of the Church and thereby failed to take advantage of a truth which could even convert some Protestants to the truth: that, yes, there is an invisible , heavenly Church, known in the daily experience of prayer of Orthodox Christians – but it has nothing to do with the empty abstractions of the ecumenical movement.  In the rest of this article Fr. Michael criticizes the polemical overemphasis on the earthly Church in two recent Russians theologians, and then sets forth the Orthodox teaching of the Heavenly Church in Holy Scripture and the Holy Fathers.   –Fr. Seraphim Rose 1981


Is There an Invisible Church?


Western Protestantism, broken into a hundred sects and denominations, naturally had to approach the question: Where is the true Church in the midst of all these confessional divisions?  And it has found no other way out than to invent a teaching of an "invisible church" that mysteriously exists in the midst of all the differences and mistakes and sins of men — a church that is holy, whose membership is known only to God, and that consists only of those who are worthy of being in it.

However, it is for a reason that our Divine Savior has left us parables: the parable of the net that brings to shore not only good fish, but also bad; the parable of the field in which the owner leaves the tares to grow together with the good wheat until the harvest.  The Apostles founded the Church through the visible Mystery of Baptism of all who declared to them their faith in Christ.  And the Church was, as it remains, a net or field "for those who wish to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth", for those who seek eternal life, although now living "in hope," not yet having entered into heavenly repose.

The Apostles founded outwardly "visible" communities, with a definite membership, one in soul even though outwardly separated, and all these communities were the single Church of Christ.  Such will the Church remain forever.  Its aim is to call and prepare men for eternal life in Christ.

Therefore, the Orthodox Apostolic Church, replies: Such an invisible Church which, in the midst of many confessional divisions or above them, would single out the worthy people from among them and would unite them all — does not exist.

But nevertheless, this does not in the least mean that we Orthodox Christians do not believe in an Invisible Church.  If we did not, we would not pronounce in the Creed daily, and even several times a day, both in Divine services and in prayer at home, the words "I believe" with regard to the Church.  Faith, in the definition of the Apostle, is "the evidence of things not seen" (Heb. 11:1).  To the three following and final subjects of the Creed we apply the words "I confess" and "I look for"...  This means that in our teaching on the Church we acknowledge also its invisible sphere.  Where and what is it?

When we talk about the Church, and in our written discussions of it, we often, as it were, forget about this sphere, and by this very fact we lessen the spiritual power, we lose the grace-giving seed which is contained in the Orthodox understanding of the being and essence of the Church.  And therefore our talk about the Church, the earthly Church, in the present period which is so difficult for faith, often brings sorrow rather than consolation.  Restricting our ideas about faith to the earthly sphere alone, we impoverish ourselves.  This can be felt, especially now.  On the one hand, the Orthodox Local Churches are becoming isolated (from each other) in their earthly relations, and possibly deeper divisions lie ahead.  On the other hand, attempts are being made to form "one church" on earth on principles totally foreign to the Orthodox consciousness.  It is not a cold, abstract recognition of the invisible Heavenly Church that we need.  Rather, with all our soul we must think and feel ourselves to be members of the "Church of the called" in living and active communion with the "Church of the chosen".  For in this also is to be found in part our chosenness — not our personal, individual chosenness, but the chosenness of Orthodoxy among the Christian confessions.

In the last century, the Protestant spirit began to penetrate into Russian society, and in some places also into the simple people.  Our church writers had set before them the aim of opposing the above mentioned alien view of the Church the Orthodox, teaching that in the midst of all the divisions in Christianity the Church on earth is one and unique.  They explained that the essential, logically clear, and natural attributes of the Church had to be, and were, the uninterruptedness of the hierarchy, coming from the Holy Apostles, and the teaching of faith, confessed and kept without change.  Such are the outward signs that are understandable for everyone; such is the Orthodox Eastern Church.  Thus the question was limited and answered by the teaching about the Church on earth.

The question of the Church has become a real one in our days also, but now it has a broader scope. Although the "ecumenical movement" of recent times is occupied not with the question of the unity of faith, but with the aim of participating in the proposed plan of an epochal reconstruction of human society — still, sooner or later, the question of the foundations and scope of Christian Faith in this attempt at union will have to arise.  It is our obligation to show why this movement cannot be justified.  But we ourselves will not be completely justified if we descend from the breadth of the Orthodox world-view, with all its fullness, to a narrow platform of conceptions and, most importantly, to Western conceptions of the Church.

At one time it was permissible and harmless for the representatives of our church history and theology, when entering into dialogue with Protestantism, to descend to its narrow platform; but in present circumstances this is no longer justified.

Even if we were not forced to reply to a movement that is passing us by, that is off to the side of us — still, it is always more consoling for us to acknowledge that we are under the protection of a great heavenly choir of saints, than it is to forget about this...

"Today shalt thou be with Me in paradise" (Luke 23:43) — the holy words pronounced on Golgotha.  Paradise!  Is this not a forgotten word?  After the third chapter of Genesis it is not heard in the Old Testament Scripture.  A cherubim with a bared sword was placed to guard the entrance into Paradise.  But on the day of Golgotha its gates were opened: "The Cherubim steps away from the tree of life, and the flaming weapon turns to flight."  The Old Testament righteous ones, the departed first Christian martyrs entered into the Kingdom of Christ in the heavens.

With the course of decades and centuries the granary of the Lord began to be filled, after the Apostles, with the ranks of martyrs and confessors, hierarchs, ascetics and righteous ones.  The Church of the saints lives a life of blessedness in God, with prayers of praise and thanksgiving; and since "love never faileth" (1 Cor. 13:8), these are joined by prayers for the brethren on earth.  And we also ask their prayers for us and for our close ones who are departed.  These prayers, as an expression of' spiritual closeness, are intertwined in all directions, drawing heaven near to earth.  Indeed, how can we not feel the closeness of heavenly and earthly things, when we so desire the blessed life for our close departed ones and entreat the Savior in prayer for them?

Furthermore, the Orthodox Christian, if he has a living bond with his Church, constantly sees and hears in church and at home reminders of the Invisible Church of the saints, and his soul is in constant contact with thoughts about it.  He received in infancy, at his baptism, a Christian name, the name of a saint, and he feels himself especially close to this saint and in his personal prayer entreats the saint to pray to God for him.  He looks into his usual calendar, and before his eyes is a monthly list, filled with the names of the saints of all periods of Christianity.  He enters the church, and before his eyes there appears another world, the heavenly world fixed in images in the icons, on the iconostasis, on the walls, often in the very peak of the dome.

The Vespers service, beginning with the glorification of' the Most Holy Trinity, immediately directs his thoughts to the Kingdom of' Christ, by the call to come together and worship its Head, "Christ Himself our King and our God."  Therefore, the whole service is penetrated with the remembrance of the saints, and especially of the Most Holy Theotokos.  In the shortest litany, "Again and again" — which is said nearly ten times in a feast-day Vigil — we are reminded to "call to remembrance the Most Holy, Most Pure, Most Blessed, glorious Theotokos and Ever-virgin Mary, with all the saints", and in such an awareness to commit ourselves and one another to Christ God.

When giving a prosphora for commemoration in the Altar at the Proskomedia before the Liturgy, the Christian who has ever heard an explanation of the Liturgy knows that the particles taken out of the prosphora will be placed on the sacred paten amidst the particles "for the living and the dead" below the set of' particles which symbolically represent the whole Church of Christ: in the center the Lamb of God, and on the sides one particle in honor of the Theotokos, and other particles in memory of all the saints in their nine ranks.  So close to us is the Heavenly Church that we confide to it all our sorrows, weaknesses, falls, griefs, and joys; we express love for it; we ask its prayers and its help for us.

Such is the spiritual world which is accessible to us even if we live in the usual church parish.  Multiply this possibility for those who live in a monastery, and especially for priests or deacons who frequently serve in the Altar, or for those who are assigned to the cliros.  It turns out that in the Orthodox Church communion with the saints, with the Invisible Church, can be more intimate than with the world that surrounds us outside the church building; for many it is indeed such.

But is a real earthly communion with the whole earthly Church, dispersed in various nations and states, possible for us?  Indeed, within one and the same church parish, does any religious, spiritual communion occur outside the church building?  In vain do people lull themselves, dreaming of a "fullness" of communion and unity of the whole Christian world on earth.

In our Orthodox Church, however, communion of soul and mind, all our striving, everything is directed to the Heavenly Church, so that it, being invisible, becomes almost visible, and from the distance of the heavenly heights becomes the closest thing to us.

Earth and heaven are a single Church of Christ.  This is a Church more complete than any other one that might be organized, even though one might call together and bind with a single name all the varieties of present-day societies and churches which belong to the historical Christianity outside the Church, outside of Orthodoxy.

But isn't our communion with the Heavenly Church one-sided?  Does it give benefit to the soul?  The saints hear us in the same way one soul hears another.  And more than this: on earth the contact between people through the bodily organs of sense somewhat impedes and hinders the immediate communion of souls, but in the heavenly-earthly sphere this communion is free.  In this sphere our voice, our words, reading and singing in the work of prayer are necessary for ourselves, for our sake, so as to unite two or three of us or a whole church into a single common soul, "that with a single heart we may hymn" God and His saints.

It is said of earthly relationships: "Tell me who your friends are, and I'll tell you who you are."  "A man learns from the company he keeps" — whether for good or ill.  Is it not so also in the purely spiritual sphere?  The Apostle John the Theologian instructs in his catholic epistle, which is for all Christians, including ourselves: "I write (the Gospel, the Epistles, the Apocalypse) that ye also may have fellowship with us, and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ" (1 John 1:3).  He writes this, being in great old age, giving us his testament that men live in common love.  The chief of the Apostles writes: "I consider it right, as long as I am in this earthly dwelling, to stir you up by way of reminder, knowing that the laying aside of my earthly dwelling is imminent, as also our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me.  And I will also be diligent that at any time after my departure you may be able to call these things to mind" (II Peter 1:13-15).

However, in speaking of a single heavenly-earthly Church, do we not confuse two distinct spheres?

We do not confuse them, but only confess their union: "Having accomplished for us Thy mission and united things on earth with things in heaven, Thou didst ascend into glory, O Christ our God, being nowhere separated from those who love Thee, but remaining ever-present with us and calling: I am with you and no one is against you" (Kontakion of the Ascension).  The Canonical Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs in the 17th century expresses the truth of the unity of the Church in the words: "Two flocks of a single Pastor."  And so do we believe.

But why did the Fathers of the Church at the Councils not raise the question of the Heavenly Church, but by the word "Church" always had in mind its existence on earth  And why in their works does one have to "search out" the passages where they ascend to thoughts of the heavenly sphere, giving it the name of "Church"?

This is because they were entrusted with shepherding the earthly flock of Christ: all their thoughts, all their effort and care, concern the ordering and service of what had been entrusted to them — the preservation of the faith and the ordering of the earthly sphere of the Church.  But their service was illuminated and received power by the constant awareness of being in the single ecumenical heavenly-earthly Kingdom or Body of Christ.


Georges Florovsky

see what Fr. Seraphim has to say about Fr. Florovsky:
http://remnantrocor.blogspot.com/2018/03/father-seraphim-rose-on-liberal-clergy.html

Book Review

Georges Florovsky: Russian intellectual and Orthodox churchman
Andrew Blane
St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1993 - Biography and Autobiography- 444 pages
The fullest account to date of Florovsky's life. Provides analyses of Florovsky as a Russian intellectual historian and as an Orthodox theologian. Includes a definitive bibliography of Florovsky's writings. Includes 16 pages of photos & index.

This is taken from OCIC  http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/florovsky.aspx .  I agree with OCIC that it is better for us to look elsewhere for sound Theology.  Fr. Seraphim Rose recommends Fr. Michael Pomazansky.  His book, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, is available online and through SJKP.  Also, there is a review on this blog.   One article in particular I want to call attention to is: "Is There An Invisible Church?" is also posted on this blog  - Joanna

Protopresybter Georges Florovsky
by Bishop [now Archbishop] Chrysostomos of Etna
Note: the one who sent this to me pointed out that "while Fr. Florovsky was a phenomenal scholar, had a sound Orthodox piety, and left us a tremendous legacy in his writings, he was not infallible. And he was certainly not a "Father," in the Patristic sense of that word. Needless to say, if this is the case for Fr. Florovsky, how much more is it so for [other modern Orthodox theologians]? We are far wiser to look to contemporaries such as St. Nikodemos for definitive resolutions of these issues."
When I arrived at Princeton to begin my doctoral studies a little more than two decades ago, one of the first people whom I met was Father Georges Florovsky, who had come to Princeton, after a distinguished career at Harvard University, as a visiting professor both at the university and the nearby Princeton Theological Seminary. I immediately approached Father Georges with several questions posed to me by the late Father Seraphim Rose, with whom I maintained a correspondence throughout my years at Princeton and until his repose. With the recent publication (1993) by St. Vladimir's Seminary Press of a comprehensive and generally accurate biography of Father Georges (Georges Florovsky, ed. Andrew Blane), I would like to recount some of this great theologian's conversations with me, thus providing details about his views not wholly evident in this book.

First, let me be blunt about Father Georges' view of the Orthodox Church in America. He was not at all reticent to speak to me, as a passage in the book in question suggests he otherwise was, about his dismissal from St. Vladimir's Theological Seminary. His personal comments about the seminary and about Fathers Schmemann and Meyendorff (whose scholarship he considered limited and deeply influenced by a non-Orthodox spirit), while reserved and polite, were nonetheless terse and quite critical. He would not have been, to my mind, pleased with the dedication of the new library at St. Vladimir's in his honor. I believe that, like me, he would have had reservations about the exploitation of his reputation by an institution which disavowed him and which he-at least privately-also disavowed.

Second, Father Georges was not, as Blane's book suggests, passive about the OCA's acceptance of autocephaly from Moscow. He always approached the Moscow Patriarchate with suspicion, and indeed he once noted, in answering a certain query from Father Seraphim, that he was of one mind with certain moderate elements in the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, the legitimacy of which he never questioned in any manner whatsoever. [He served it in Yugoslavia.] When I asked him directly about the OCA's autocephaly, he called it a "betrayal of sorts" and "unwise." Since he was officially under the Ecumenical Patriarchate, he did not, in fact, publicly concelebrate with OCA clergy when he Liturgized at Princeton. And when a Patriarchal delegation, under the sponsorship of the OCA, visited Princeton, he refused to sit with the Russian clergy in the university Chapel. He sat in the audience [with me and a friend of mine]. However, not only because of his friends in that jurisdiction, but because of his character, Father always treated OCA clergy and faithful with great affection, before and after autocephaly.

Third, this new book very fairly sets forth Father Georges' ecclesiology: that the Orthodox Church is the true Church established by Christ and the Apostles and that the heterodox Churches are not "equal to it" or possessed of its Grace. But it fails to show the extent to which, in his later years, Florovsky was in some sense "anti-ecumenical." Not given to humble admissions of error, he nonetheless once told me that he felt that the ecumenical movement had deviated from its original purposes and that he was perhaps wrong to have been one of its most famous proponents. He was not, as some claim, an advocate of joint communion; did not recognize the validity of non-Orthodox sacraments; and certainly did not concelebrate with non-Orthodox-something which he flatly condemned. Indeed, he even came to disavow a suggestion, in a study which he wrote on the sacramental theology of St. Augustine, that the Orthodox Church might look to the Bishop of Hippo for a model in approaching the sacraments of non-Orthodox Christians: a suggestion which some unscrupulous ecumenists still claim as a "blessing" on their attempts to distort the Church's teachings about non-Orthodox sacraments.

Finally, when one of my preceptorial students at Princeton (later one of Father Florovsky's students and now my assistant Bishop) approached me about converting to the Orthodox Faith, Father Georges agreed with my intention to have him Baptized either in the Russian Church Abroad or by the Old Calendarist Greeks, warning only that I should avoid certain extremist elements in both Churches. This "Orthodox ecumenism" in Father Florovsky is something which his biographers miss. It is an important element in his theology that compromises those who today condemn Orthodox traditionalists as "fanatics" and "outside the Church." They have no ally at all in Father Florovsky, who even concelebrated with Greek Old Calendarists when they were for a short while in the old "Russian Metropolia."


Father Florovsky was not a Saint. He was a brilliant thinker who left a rich theological legacy, but who also made errors in judgment that are today unfairly exploited. I hope that my respect and admiration for this great man of the Church are not lost in my attempts to point out the breadth of his thought and his repentance for some wrong thinking, and to protect him thereby from exploitation.
From Orthodox Tradition, Vol XI (1994), No. 2, pp 28-29.