Archpriest George Grabbe on the Issue
of Sacramental Grace
I have never asserted the
gracelessness of the Moscow Patriarchate. I believe that any illness in the
Church spreads gradually and that until the final moment, when, as in the case
of the Arian heresy, for example, evil completely poisons the organism of a
certain part of the Church, one must be cautious in declaring anyone graceless.
Regarding the Patriarchate, I cannot help but have doubts about hierarchs who
are agents of the KGB, but how can we name them with certainty? Therefore, I
always refrain from answering the question of gracelessness. Refusal of
communion with someone is by no means equivalent to declaring them graceless.
This is ultimately known only to the Lord God. In this approach to the
question, I believe I express the "Antonian" thought. However, the
Vladyka was very definite in his denial of the sacraments of clerics he had
prohibited (the Evlogians). He called their communion the food of demons, for
in their disregard of lawful prohibition, he saw blasphemy against the Holy
Spirit.
- Letter No. 23 of Fr. George
Grabbe to Archbishop Anthony (Bartoshevich), dated July 23 / August 5, 1975.
I have read the note on church
groupings very carefully. I recognize that the question of grace is very
complex and I do not like to determine where it has disappeared and where it
still remains. However, there are canonical crimes for which retribution follows
without a judicial decision, in the so-called declarative order. Such, for
example, is the crime against the Paschalion, apostasy, etc. The
expression "incorrect position" is very general in nature and can
sometimes be too mild. Can such a definition suffice in regard to Nikodim? I
would agree that in cases of jurisdictional deviations, one may refrain from
rushing to definitive decisions, limiting oneself only to the factual severance
of communion. But is this sufficient when ecumenism reaches the point of
communing heretics? It seems to me that no new principled definition is
required, but it is necessary to maintain the previously established abstention
from concelebration, especially in the liturgy. We should fear not only the
danger of erring and condemning as invalid what has not yet deserved such a
definition regarding the sacraments of those who have separated, but also the
danger of showing indifference to truth and falsehood and some form of
participation in it through liturgical communion with those who have fallen into
it. In general, the very fact that we are discussing this question demonstrates
uncertainty regarding the grace of the separated; and where there is
uncertainty, there cannot be concelebration. Yet such uncertainty is not yet a
definitive decision on the gracelessness of all the separated. I believe that
if ecumenism continues to develop, the time may come for a more definitive
delineation. For now, this heresy nests in the upper ranks but has not yet
spread to the people. But what will happen when the principles of the Thyateira
Confession enter life and practice, and Patriarch Dimitrios serves a liturgy
with Pope Paul? If the First-Second Council indicates that in cases of
violation of Orthodoxy one must sever ties with one’s hierarch, then a District
Council can likewise act concerning the heads of other Churches. Moreover, the
rule not only permits this but directly prescribes it. As for special rules
regarding the order of reception from their flock, it seems that this is only
required when personal delusion and personal preaching transition into the
conviction of the entire Church, i.e., both clergy and laity. Separation from
the Church is not a matter of a single moment but is usually the result of a
known process.
- Letter No. 28 of Fr. George
Grabbe to Archbishop Nathaniel (Lvov), dated March 2/15, 1976.
Russian source: https://vishegorod.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=740&Itemid=151
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.