Documents Related to GOC(K)-SiR Union

saliba
BREAKING: Metropolitan Philip Saliba Has Died
March 20, 2014
1_0_674659
Bartholomew: Rome and Constantionple “Sister Churches”
March 20, 2014

Documents Related to GOC(K)-SiR Union

doc images

Official Greek and English Texts of Document of GOC (K) – SiR Union

Official English translation of “The True Orthodox Church in Opposition to the Heresy of Ecumenism

The Official Greek texts of the key GOC(K)-SiR union document, “The True Orthodox Church In Opposition to the Heresy of Ecumenism” has been released.

SiR-GOC Union Admin Structure (1)

Perhaps the passage in “The True Orthodox Church in Opposition to the Heresy of Ecumenism” that has caused the most controversy among some is the following in part VI, section VI, which states:

“More specifically, with regard to the Mysteries celebrated in the so-called official Orthodox Church, the True Orthodox Church, within the boundaries of Her pastoral solicitude, does not provide assurance concerning their validity or concerning their soteriological efficacy, in particular for those who commune “knowingly” [wittingly] with syncretistic ecumenism and Sergiansim, even though She does not in any instance repeat their form for those entering into communion with Her in repentance, having in view the convocation of a Major Synod of True Orthodox, in order to place a seal on what has already occurred at a local level.”

 

 

 

  • Anonymous
    • Jean-Serge Katembue

      5 minutes of inexactitude, ignorance and gargbage… Go and pray with monphysites, papists and so on.

      • Anonymous

        Learn to differentiate between ASSERTION and ARGUMENT. You asserted, but gave no ARGUMENT or EVIDENCE in support of your claim (assertion) against the video.

  • Anonymous

    Giving Communion to new calendarists desensitized their already indifferent clergy toward this union. Here is website critical of the union. It comes from a GOC person.
    http://www.gocnews.info/

    • Daniel Smith

      This site is idiotic. The former SiR clearly in the official documents show that heretics and schismatics do not have the grace of sacraments.

      “1. Ecumenism, as a theological concept, as an organized social movement, and as a religious enterprise, is and constitutes the greatest heresy of all time and a most wide-ranging panheresy; the heresy of heresies and the pan-heresy of pan-heresies; an amnesty for all heresies, truly and veritably a pan-heresy; the most insidious adversary of the local Orthodox Churches, as well as the most dangerous enemy of man’s salvation in Christ, since it is impossible for Truth and Life in Christ to exist in unbreakable soteriological unity within its syncretistic boundaries.”

      • HmkEnoch

        Why would it be idiotic, Daniel? The main issue concerning the clause about not being able to say for certain that their are True Sacraments outside the bounds of the True Orthodox Church. However, everyone who has researched this issue, knows about the stance and historic practice of the Church in this matter. The particular use of Apostolic Canon 46 to condemn the GOC-K, is ahistorical. One need only read the various commentators to understand that, while Ap. Cn. 46 was part of the general condemnation of groups outside the Church, it did not have universal significance to refusing to accept certain groups by things other than baptism. Even the normative teaching of Orthodoxy that there is no Mysteriological Grace outside the Church, which was revived thanks to many Russian hierarchs in the early 20th century, was not being taught for sometime in large segments of Orthodoxy; instead the ‘Augustinian’ view was, which, nevertheless, did not embrace ecumenism (see 1903 Russian Encyclical). Even in that understanding of Ap. Cn. 46 (which viewed the heretics as basically Gnostics, though, Bp. Gregory (Grabbe) states, like I have, a general principle is enunciated to which this Canon can be classified as a species of a genus), and the scholasticized Russian view, they did not have an official policy of the ecumenical heresy like it is in the Patriarchates.
        Yet, the misuse of Ap. Cn. 46 by the opponents of the GOC-K absorption of the former SiR, would have equally worked well condemned the Russian Orthodox Church for centuries! Which would be the height of absurdity! Fundamentally, if one wants to make arguments using the Holy CAnons and writings of the Fathers, they should know the history of the Canons and their praxis, before jumping to conclusions based upon only a cursory reading.
        That being said, the GOC-K is not even in the state of ‘heavy scholasticism’. Even if it were, it might be lamentable, but, not heretical. The GOC-K’s requirement for taking in the former SiR was the abandonment of the opinions and views of Met. Cyprian, or at least, unless I’m mistaken (and I am often, so I will be corrected) the way it was phrased or emphasized. That the old SiR did not accept that traditional non-Orthodox groups like the Papists, monophysites, nestorians, etc, had grace we all know. The issue always revolved around how to view the World Orthodox and whether they were in the Church or out of the Church; the manner in which the statements concerning uncondemned heretics were judged and the fundamentally related issue of Cn. 15 from 1st-2nd. But, that the former SiR folks will readily admit that the World Orthodox are heretics and not part of the Church, that seems to have finished the previous objections. Others will undoubtedly continue to object, and, indeed, there may be problems that arise in the future from various sources, but, it seems that even the old critics of the old SiR (which as you note, has become a Metropolis within the GOC-K, while other sections outside of Greece are being integrated in different ways) can at least admit that there has been ‘improvement’ over the older views and formulations.

        In Christ,

        Fr. Enoch (NFTU-Editor)

      • HmkEnoch

        Why would it be idiotic, Daniel? The main issue concerning the
        clause about not being able to say for certain that their are True
        Sacraments outside the bounds of the True Orthodox Church. However,
        everyone who has researched this issue, knows about the stance and
        historic practice of the Church in this matter. The particular use of
        Apostolic Canon 46 to condemn the GOC-K, is ahistorical. One need only
        read the various commentators to understand that, while Ap. Cn. 46 was
        part of the general condemnation of groups outside the Church, it did
        not have universal significance to refusing to accept certain groups by
        things other than baptism. Even the normative teaching of Orthodoxy
        that there is no Mysteriological Grace outside the Church, which was
        revived thanks to many Russian hierarchs in the early 20th century, was
        not being taught for sometime in large segments of Orthodoxy; instead
        the ‘Augustinian’ view was, which, nevertheless, did not embrace
        ecumenism (see 1903 Russian Encyclical). Even in that understanding of
        Ap. Cn. 46 (which viewed the heretics as basically Gnostics, though, Bp.
        Gregory (Grabbe) states, like I have, a general principle is enunciated
        to which this Canon can be classified as a species of a genus), and the
        scholasticized Russian view, they did not have an official policy of
        the ecumenical heresy like it is in the Patriarchates.

        Yet, the misuse of Ap. Cn. 46 by the opponents of the GOC-K absorption
        of the former SiR, would have equally worked well condemned the Russian
        Orthodox Church for centuries! Which would be the height of absurdity!
        Fundamentally, if one wants to make arguments using the Holy CAnons and
        writings of the Fathers, they should know the history of the Canons and
        their praxis, before jumping to conclusions based upon only a cursory
        reading.

        That being said, the GOC-K is not even in the state of ‘heavy
        scholasticism’. Even if it were, it might be lamentable, but, not
        heretical. The GOC-K’s requirement for taking in the former SiR was the
        abandonment of the opinions and views of Met. Cyprian, or at least,
        unless I’m mistaken (and I am often, so I will be corrected) the way it
        was phrased or emphasized. That the old SiR did not accept that
        traditional non-Orthodox groups like the Papists, monophysites,
        nestorians, etc, had grace we all know. The issue always revolved
        around how to view the World Orthodox and whether they were in the
        Church or out of the Church; the manner in which the statements
        concerning uncondemned heretics were judged and the fundamentally
        related issue of Cn. 15 from 1st-2nd. But, that the former SiR folks
        will readily admit that the World Orthodox are heretics and not part of
        the Church, that seems to have finished the previous objections. Others
        will undoubtedly continue to object, and, indeed, there may be problems
        that arise in the future from various sources, but, it seems that even
        the old critics of the old SiR (which as you note, has become a
        Metropolis within the GOC-K, while other sections outside of Greece are
        being integrated in different ways) can at least admit that there has
        been ‘improvement’ over the older views and formulations.

        In Christ,

        Fr. Enoch (NFTU-Editor)

        • Daniel Smith

          Sorry father, NFTU is not idiotic, just the previous gocnews.info site. It is just a bunch of extremist super-correct nonsense.
          Here is my main point:
          Cyprianism is dead. It may take some time for the Holy Metropolis of O and F to finally admit it, but as an organic member of the GOC, they, out of necessity will eventually have to accede to all our standing encyclicals legitimately issued and received by the clergy and laity of our synod, namely:
          1. New Calendarists are truly schismatic (as regards the calendar) and heretical (as regards ecumenism). Therefore…
          2. The Mysteries of New Calendarists are objectively void of grace. As St. Theodosius of Kiev says “You are dead, and the sacrifice you offer is dead.”
          I believe the document, since it was created largely by former Cyprianites is a great sign of huge leaps forward being made in expressing and embracing a consistent and clear Orthodox ecclesiology, devoid of unnecessary metaphors that confuse more than they clarify. Give it 50 years and we will never know the difference. 😉

          • Anonymous

            What specifically does that site say that is supper-correct nonsense? And what proof do you have Cyprianism is dead? If new calendarists and schismatics are heretical, why does the GOC give them communion? St. Theodosius said nothing about the new calendarists. Elder Joseph the Hesychast said zealots are in prelest, and he received revelation from God that the church was with the patriarch. The problem with the SIR, is that they are a church built on a violation of the canons. Met. Cyprian formed a schism, and was deposed three times. They are completely invalid schismatics.

      • Anonymous

        The quote says nothing about grace or the lack thereof. And like so many dishonest and unethical liars, the SIR most likely exaggerate. The problem with the SIR, is that their synod is built on a violation of the canons. They are schismatic and deposed three times. This is an historical fact. Nobody professing Orthodoxy can be with the SIR.

    • Daniel Smith

      Again from the document stating the Perspective of the Holy metropolis if Oropos and Phylet:


      6. All of these so-called official Churches have now joined decisively, unwaveringly, and unrepentantly in the process of syncretistic apostasy of a Sergianist and ecumenist kind, an anti-ecclesiastical and uncanonical process synodally promoted or permitted by their Hierarchies, with which true Orthodoxy, consistent with its ecclesiological principles regarding “false bishops” and “false teachers,” cannot have any prayerful, Mysteriological, or administrative communion whatsoever.” Here they spell it out.

      • HmkEnoch

        And it’s great. The question everyone was revolving around was the supposed ambiguity of one statement. But, it seems to have been explained sufficiently already. Nevertheless, there were still many well-known figures who were upset, and make extremely negative public statements. Yet, many seem to have forgotten that the same things they would condemn the GOC-K would have fallen upon the Russian Chhurch 100 or so years ago.— Fr. Enoch, Editor

      • HmkEnoch

        And it’s great. The question everyone was revolving around was the
        supposed ambiguity of one statement. But, it seems to have been
        explained sufficiently already. Nevertheless, there were still many
        well-known figures who were upset, and make extremely negative public
        statements. Yet, many seem to have forgotten that the same things they
        would condemn the GOC-K would have fallen upon the Russian Chhurch 100
        or so years ago.— Fr. Enoch, Editor

        • Anonymous

          When did the ROCA ever go into communion with a group they originally called “anathema,” and when did the ROCA ever go into communion with a schismatic group, who’s entire church is built on a violation of the canons, and who’s leader was deposed three separate times?

  • Anonymous