Truth, Error, Ecclesiology, and Unity

"We who wish to remain in the true tradition of Orthodoxy will have to be zealous and firm in our Orthodoxy without being fanatics, and without presuming to teach our bishops what they should do. Above all, we must strive to preserve the true fragrance of Orthodoxy, being at least a little 'not of this world,' detached from all the cares and politics even of the Church, nourishing ourselves in the otherworldly food the Church gives us in such abundance."


-- Fr. Seraphim Rose

"An Orthodoxy, even an eschatologically motivated Orthodoxy, that prioritizes self-will, prelest-ridden certainty, and fanaticism about every jot and tittle, over charity, unity, and obedience to rightful episcopal authority is not Orthodoxy at all. History is littered with the detritus of sectarians who thought their own issue de jour worth disobedience and schism. They lie in unconsecrated ground, forgotten by all but historians, while the Body of Christ remains."

-- Fr. Cassian Sibley

The second quote above is a comment Fr. Cassian Sibley, a ROCOR priest, made to someone who implied, through a series of disjointed quotes from various Fathers and saints, that Fr. Seraphim's quote did not teach what it says.  The first is the quote from Fr. Seraphim Rose, who was a ROCOR priestmonk before his untimely passing, that was the subject of Fr. Cassian's post.  I am in agreement with what Fr. Cassian writes, and obviously also with what Fr. Seraphim wrote.  But I think Fr. Cassian's response deserves some unpacking to demonstrate why he is correct, particularly in these times.

Fr. Cassian's main point was that Fr. Seraphim is often misquoted, and is done a disservice by his fans and critics alike.  I also agree with this point, having dove into Fr. Seraphim's writings of late and discovered they do not really resemble either the rigorist Phariseeism of some of his more vocal fans, nor the disjointed novelty of some of his more vocal critics.  But leaving that aside for the moment, it seems to me what he says above is properly basic Orthodox doctrine, as is what Fr. Cassian writes.  

I wrote recently about the anti-ecumenist movement, a movement with which I share some sympathies, but cannot fully embrace because in my estimation it, or at least certain corners of it, has metastasized into an ideological purity cult rather than a healthy desire to keep the Church and her teaching pure.  The Orthodox Church cannot dilute her dogma in order to appease those who might join us and increase our numbers.  Nor can we afford to pretend differences in dogma don't exist, or perhaps worse, don't matter.  But what I tend to see from this camp, which to be fair is mostly on the internet, is a movement that repeats the false teachings of schismatics, but still operates from within the Church, eating apart the Church from the inside out.  This is seen in some of the replies to Fr. Cassian, which draw from the words and thinking of actual schismatics (and in some cases in this particular post were actually written by actual schismatics), and also from the reply of the person to whom Fr. Cassian replied.

The Church, if it is anything, is the communion of Orthodox bishops, preserving the faith from the Apostles through the present day.  To hear some tell it, the bishops today are all (or mostly) in error, having given into the ecumenical movement in 1965 and ever since having watered down the true faith.  And yet, if this is true, why do those same people remain in communion with those bishops?  Rather than staying behind and attempting to strong-arm the bishops to repentance, and in some cases encouraging disobedience to them if they say something "uncanonical" (which tends to be in the eye of the beholder in these discussions), why not join one of the schismatic groups that are no longer in communion with the supposedly erring bishops?  Or why not utilize the process one can go through to escalate concerns above one's bishop?  I have only contacted my bishop one time to complain about anything, and not having received a response I found satisfactory, I could have elevated that to the Metropolitan and, if need be, higher.  Everyone in the Orthodox Church is in obedience to someone else, after all.  I elected not to do that for reasons that are mine, mostly because I did not think it worth any greater breach of peace and my family and I, with the express blessing of both our former priest and our new priest, had already moved on to another parish under another bishop.  So in the end, I elected to move on in peace rather than continue to quarrel and cause more discord.  And yet, for some reason, some folks stay within the Church, remain under canonically Orthodox bishops and priests (or not, in at least one case), and refuse to work within that organizational structure, opting instead to encourage disobedience and open rebellion.  

I think the reason why is pretty simple -- incrementalism, which is a fundamentally dishonest pursuit, at least as applied here.  Rather than do the honorable thing and leave, or stay and openly confess against the supposedly erring hierarchs, they wish to change the teaching of the Church to suit their narrow view of it, and are willing to wait things out in order to do it, taking ground where they can.  They know they cannot change the teaching of the Church by consensus.  If they could, they would not resort to dishonesty and encourage disobedience, but rather would enter into dialogue with the bishops and others in order to reach fraternal agreement in love.  Instead, they apply outside influence on the Episcopacy, sort of a pressure campaign, which on the internet tends to overstate the reach and influence they actually wield, and lacking a similarly coordinated and organized effort in support of the bishops on whatever issue is being pushed, it is hoped the bishops will cave. And in some cases, they have, and I assume over time, more will. It is, then, up to the bishops to maintain proper Orthodox teaching and practice and refuse to give in to pressure groups, whether they come from within or without the Church.  And it is my prayer and belief that while some have caved and more will cave, most have not, and most will not.

Ironically, this incrementalist approach is not at all unlike the approach taken by others who wish to change the teachings of the Church in the other direction.  Birds of a feather might not see eye to eye on what the problems are, but they sure seem to flock together when it comes to how to achieve their ends.  It is an uncomfortable irony, then, that the Church's "right wing" and "left wing" (I acknowledge these political terms don't fit neatly in this context) seem to share the same playbook.

In my limited experience, the line for "canonical" or "Patristic" Orthodoxy is narrowly drawn by these pseudo-schismatics.  In the case of the insistence of baptizing converts, as just one example among many, it is drawn directly from St. Cyprian through a handful of his contemporaries, and then through the Kollyvades Fathers and current Athonite factions.  The history of the Church is long and varied and not nearly as neat and clean as they pretend it to be.  In addition, Mount Athos is hardly one conglomerate of Orthodox thinking, but rather is a group of 20 monasteries with at least some variance in their stances on issues of importance in the Orthodox Church.  More, the Athonite monasteries and their associated Sketes are not independent communities, but are themselves under the authority of a bishop.  When they disagree with their bishop, they tend to do so directly, not behind the scenes, and certainly not by merely ignoring the bishop, or worse, by lying to him. Saint Maximus the Confessor did not have his tongue cut out and his hand cut off because he snuck around behind the backs of the hierarchs.  He was mutilated and tortured precisely because he stood firm and resolute, defying those bishops (including debating the Patriarch of Constantinople and winning him over to the Orthodox position!) and ultimately dying in exile.  Confessors confess, and they do so directly, not in secret.

So what Fr. Cassian writes is both on the nose and directly relatable to what we see in the world of internet "Orthodoxy" today.  Fr. Cassian is no shrinking violet.  He tends to speak his mind and speak it well, and I have always valued his insights.  More, as a ROCOR priest, it is at least possible, perhaps likely (though I have not asked him), that he receives converts from heterodox traditions by baptism.  So one would not necessarily assume he is "against" the position I use as an example in the preceding paragraph.  Nor am I, as my current priest receives converts typically by baptism.  But Fr. Cassian knows, and says forthrightly here, that whatever his preference, it does not allow him to disobey his bishop.  Persuasion is how consensus has historically been reached in the Church.  People encouraging priests and laity to be disobedient to their bishops refuse to let their "yes" be yes and their "no" be no. And it is not limited to them -- their incitement and encouragement lead others to do likewise. 

As I posted on my Facebook page recently, you have as one example this person who literally lied to his priest about whether he was baptized in order to get the reception into the Church that he wants, rather than that which the Church has prescribed him:

And this person, who suggests that lying is somehow both a Scriptural and Patristic behavior, and a virtue among the Fathers (rather than a gross exception, and probably one worthy of a confession at that):

False witness is not a virtue.  Lying to your priests and hierarchs to manipulate them is not a Christian behavior.  And leaving aside the issue of baptizing converts, we could as easily discuss the Church's response to COVID, and the varying ways in which hierarchs tried to balance public safety and political concerns (such as the threat that their parishes would be shut down entirely rather than being allowed by the government to remain open partially), over and against the sacred Mysteries of the Church, and how best to ensure the faithful are able to receive them in proper abundance.  I am not so bold to suggest that any hierarch or jurisdiction got that exactly correct.  They, on the other hand, have a tendency to suggest they mostly got it incorrect, and that their failure to navigate an unprecedented circumstance with precision and purity amounts to the bishops being "wolves," "heretics," and the like.  So I ask again, if you think your priest and bishop are "ecumenists," and that "ecumenism" is a grave sin (both of which seem apparent from the comment to which Fr. Cassian replied), or if you think they are "wolves" ravaging the flock openly, why are you joining them to begin with?  Why not go to a communion that will receive you as you wish to be received?  They exist, both within and without the Church. Why not fraternally and lovingly exhort them to greater faithfulness, instead of amplifying their supposed faithlessness?

The answer is some of these folks want what they want, and they are willing to sacrifice fraternal consensus and unity to get it.  In the end, this is all self will and pride, neither of which leads to salvation. It is dangerous to the unity of the Church.  And it is wrong.  The bishops are not always right.  But they at least have the Episcopal grace to make those calls.  Where we disagree, we are to do so openly in love and in the spirit of truth, not by backbiting, slander and rebellion.  God help us if we forget that.