When the video of this talk is online, I'll post it.
 |
(Orthodox Ethos) - The "Council" of Crete and the New Emerging Ecclesiology: An Orthodox ExaminationComplete article here.
By Protopresbyter Peter Heers, Professor of Old and New Testament, Holy Trinity Orthodox Seminary, Jordanville, NY
Christ is in Our Midst!
I consider it an honor to stand before you today, to speak to the Shepherds and Pastors of Christ's rational flock, and in particular to the successors of the great work begun in the Russian Diaspora by such holy ones as St. John the Wonderworker and Metropolitans Anthony, Anastasi, Philaret, and Vitaly, Archbishop Averky and Metropolitan Laurus and many others, who are revered fathers not only of the Russian Church Abroad, but indeed of the Church Catholic.
The witness given by the Fathers of the Russian Church Outside of Russia with regard to the Holy Tradition, the monastic and ascetic ideal and in particular the ecclesiology of the Church, continues to inspire and guide Orthodox throughout the world.
Today, as the Ark of the Church sways in the wake of the passing of the self-styled 'Great and Holy Council" of Crete, we have great need of their exactitude in life and faith - or, better, we have great need to follow and imitate them in these.
In the short time allotted me today, I hope to succinctly but clearly lay out before you what of notability and significance happened in Crete in June of last year, that being informed you may act according to God's will. In particular I will briefly examine and critique the following three aspects of the "Council" and its aftermath...
Posts
Saints from Mark of Ephesus to Elder Sophrony have called false sects "churches". I'm still not sure why that word alone is made so much of.
ReplyDeleteHello Christopher,
DeleteIt has to do with the context. In a context where the hope is for the gathering to be Pan Orthodox and at which theological texts on topics of dogmatic significance (or at least with dogmatic ramifications) are being presented/discussed, terminological accuracy and precision is required. This is different from contexts where for the sake of politeness we ask, for instance, of an acquaintance, "What church do you attend?" or "Hello Father X". And so the nature of the texts and the context of where and for whom they are being produced is why many are taking issue with the use of the word "churches" to refer to the heterodox.
As a further comment, when a proposed amendment was made by the Church of Greece to change the word in the text from "heterodox churches" to "heterodox communities" at the gathering in Crete, this alteration--which is more theologically accurate, and which the Church of Greece insisted be changed in the pre-conciliar discussions of their synod--was rejected. That is to say, the word was left "churches" intentionally--despite concerns being raised by many local church synods--and was not due to some simple oversight. It begs the question: why not be willing to go with the more precise terminology for the sake of clarity in a theological text produced by Orthodox for Orthodox that is supposed to have some kind of lasting significance?
Re: Canon 72:
DeleteI recently heard an AFR podcast in which Fr P.H. Reardon used the term “societal suicide” to describe societal behavior that undermines the survivability of a society. In North America our public debate about the “heretic/heterodox” non-Orthodox would seem to fit that description. After reading this article’s link, it seems to me that Canon 72, if enforced, would soon lead to the near extinction of the Orthodox population in North America.
I am a lifelong Orthodox(not educated in church Canon), married to a “heterodox” converted to Orthodoxy, and a father of 3 sons baptized and raised in the Orthodox church since infancy. After leaving home for college and post-grad school my sons continued to worship in Orthodox churches near their schools. They all found it impossible to find an Orthodox gal that was “virtuous” or who wasn’t a radicalized feminist. They and their “heterodox wives” are now raising Orthodox children.
So, as this scholastic type dialogue progresses and our North American non-Orthodox friends witness our debate over their not so complimentary status as heretics or heterodox, one has to ask if the end result will be forcing our Orthodox youth out of our churches, so they can marry and have children? I don’t think this public dialogue would be understood by the non-Orthodox, but rather, would give them cause to view us as aloof or prideful.
It seems likely that for any practical purpose the Crete Event will be ignored and forgotten. I sympathize strongly with most of what Fr Peter says, but I wondered about his insistence that "councils" can't be ignored: they must be explicitly accepted or rejected by the fullness of the Church. Is this historically true? For example, was the Council of Florence ever formally rejected by a real council, or did it just slide into the past?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteFr. Peter is right that councils cannot be ignored. They have to be received somehow. To ignore a council, I suppose, is an implicit rejection. The thing is that the most concrete way of receiving or rejection a council, it would seem, "metaphysically, as it were, is by another council. Is the non-Cretan party (shame to call it that, but I like a better term) organized enough as a coalition to advocate for a follow-up synod? That is my main question, and I am skeptical that it can be answered in the affirmative.
Delete*lack a better term. I do not "like" referring to parties or factions in the church at all.
DeleteThis lecture was powerful and informative.....and it speaks to the truth regarding what transpired in Crete. Every clergy and laity from every archdiocese in every jurisdiction needs to read this lecture. Thank you Fr. Peter!!!!
ReplyDeleteThat's the first I've heard Metropolitan Vitaliy (God grant him rest) referred to as holy...
ReplyDeleteThe Synod of 1484 explicitly condemned Florence. It was not just ignored. The Church can't simply ignore communing with heresy, as one cannot merely ignore drinking poison.
ReplyDeleteThanks, that's the information I was looking for.
DeleteIndeed, Maximus, the Council of 1484 considered itself Ecumenical (referred to itself this way in the minutes) and drafted a service of reception for those returning from the "heresy of the Latins" (not schism).
DeleteIt is impossible to imagine the Church allowing the "Cretan Council" simple be ignored or bypassed, given that 10 (or so) Local Churches considered it a "Great and Holy Council" and 4 (or so) at most a pre-conciliar meeting, with two specifying that unorthodox ecclesiological theories were accepted and must be rejected and re-written. . .
[VIDEO NOW AVAILABLE] The "Council" of Crete and the New Emerging Ecclesiology: An Orthodox Examination
ReplyDeleteBy Protopresbyter Peter Heers, Professor of Old and New Testament, Holy Trinity Orthodox Seminary, Jordanville, NY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uz7mHn-H8Hc
SEE ALSO:
https://orthodoxethos.com/post/video-the-council-of-crete-and-the-new-emerging-ecclesiology-an-orthodox-examination
Excellent video/paper!
ReplyDeleteThis "new ecclesiology" heresy has been brewing for several decades in various locations and in sundry forms, and it clearly seems like it's coming to a head now.
Other than protests from Mt. Athos I've never seen anything other than individuals (myself included) speaking in a concerned manner about it. Now we have prominent priests & bishops putting their ecclesiastical positions at risk to publicly oppose it. The tempest may actually turn out to be a tsunami...
We should all proceed prayerfully.