...trying to better understand/better explain the Cyprianites, etc.
One major conclusion that I have already come to, regarding the "Cyprianite" controversies, is the distinct possibility that there is NO full explanation of their positions, (just as none of the other Greek Old Calendarists seem to approve of each other EITHER!) which will satisfy....everyone. Just as there doesn't seem to be any ONE (accepted by all) concensus as to which bishop or jurisdiction is THE rightful-heir to the old ROCOR, or to the "Catacomb Church", or......WHO? is...part of "THE UNIVERSAL ORTHODOX CHURCH"....and WHO? is not, etc.....Also. "where is Grace?...and where is no Grace?"
The entire history of the Christian Religion, is filled with many many ambiguities and contradictions and differances of views and lots of FIGHTS between believers, etc. (And here, I am speaking of course, of canonical Orthodox Christian Church History).One can read of this in the pages of the New Testament, at the very start of our religion.
But, yes, you are correct in desiring to more fully research the Synod In Resistance....in the context of the entire "Greek Old Calendar Movement"/versus the Ecumenist's Innovations, etc.....which Greek Church history has many different aspects to it, than in post Bolshevik-Russian Church history-either inside of Soviet-Russia or Russian Orthodoxy Outside Russia, etc.....but these related subjects are VERY deep and VERY hard to fully grasp!...and it means obtaining a lot of documents...many of which were never translated into English, for one problem, etc. One needs to become an EXPERT on canon-law, the Holy Fathers, Russian and Greek Church History, familiar with epistles/church documents/various OPINIONS on various church-events of the recent past...up to today, etc. WHERE IS SUCH AN EXPERT??? I am not.
On the specific statement of our Vl. Agafangel, that: "The ecclesiology of the Cyprianites and that of our church...is exactly the same". However, Vl. Agafangel further explains, that: just because we are in communion with each other, we are never-the-less, two separate churches, with different approaches to our different internal pastoral problems....hence we will not automatically agree on every detail of every issue.
This is but his...restatement of what ROCOR stated years ago, when they approved the SIR and full intercommunion with the SIR...and thus, ipso facto, REJECTED!!! the Matthewite/exclusivisitic/condemning of ALL others, but themselves -ecclesiology...of most of the OTHER Greek Old Calendarist churches/synods. Our Vl. Agafangel... still, also rejects that Greek-extremist ecclesiology, and he says so. Here, I will be so bold as to try to paraphrase MY ROUGH estimation of what that comparison-similarity of the two ecclesiologies means:
...We (Vl. Agafangel's church) know what it means to be fully Orthodox in doctrine and church life, in being fully canonical, etc. AND WE KNOW THAT OUR CHURCH IS SUCH!...but (a big "but")....we have NO RIGHT!...in condemning other-Orthodox (in general), as ...not in the CHURCH whatsoever/totally "graceless"/"heretics"/etc. But, we do have the right and indeed duty, to be ...in communion with/in fraternal relations with...only those other local-Orthodox churches which we consider as...fellow...like minded true Orthodox Christians.......and that category does NOT include the. Sergianist..Moscow Patriarchy...or so-called World-Orthodoxy.
And....apparently, the SIR ecclesiology is QUITE similar....as it regards their own SELF-identiy and in their perspective towards ALL other Orthodox :(other Greek Old Calendarists)....or...The State Church of Greece! In the case of the SIR, they refrain from condemning all Orthodox outside their own synod....but!.....they are NOT in communion with them, either, & not with the State Church either!
To critics of the Cyprianites, it is BECAUSE-they refuse to say that the State Church is...entirely without Grace and is entirely .."Non-Orthodox"..... ...THAT! is the number one reason that their critics label them as...in heresy, etc....i.e. because they believe that, merely because of calendar/and SOME other innovations....that the Official State Greek National Church (which after all, includes the vast majority of the total population of Greece!)...is...hopeless of reformation/repentance/....bound for Hell, etc....i.e. it is "SICK" but not yet...DEAD, and can yet be...HEALED and SAVED. Also, much that the State Church does do right, is perfectly Orthodox....those things we encourage in them. The SIR see themselves as those who are trying to SAVE the Greek Church (&entire Greek NATION!) Pretty much, all of the other Greek Old Calendarists, in essence, say....let them go to Hell! (Anathema!), etc....i.e. they are beyond saving!...as is evryone not in OUR particular and unique synod!!!
Our Vl. Agafangel believes....about the Moscow Patriarchy....very much the same GENERAL concept(with it's peculiar Russian-differences)....that it is not entirely "without Grace", and can be, (or...MAY BE?)..yet...cleansed/transformed and....SAVED (God willing!)...and that also, the entire Russian NATION is also not beyond saving, etc. That stance, like it or not, was the (mainstream) ROCOR stance...and hope...for a Future Russia & Future Restored Russian Church. Of course, that the so-called (Stalin engineered) "Moscow Patriarchy" might have to be 100% dismantled FIRST, and then RECONSTRUCTED....was also always seen as....a distinct likelihood too. Now! we have instead, the total surrender of ROCOR to this monstrosity, this unreformed still KGB-government controlled Moscow Patriarchy....all under the lie and excuse, that: "It is time now!", "Russia and it's church are 'free' now", etc.
Of course, such a somewhat complicated view of things, as our Vl. Agafangel has annunciated and as the Synod In Resistance has stated, (as life itself is complicated!) does not easily fit into any NEAT/QUICKIE abbreviated-reading of SOME canons, but it is rather an over-view of ALL the canons, and is getting to the main point of all the canons: TO, IF BY ANY MEANS, TO SAVE SOME!...."Economia"....why Christ became a Man. The Church exists to SAVE Mankind, not to condemn it.....that is the point! So, at this point, you (as many others today also) are probably...confused somewhat, but....that's them apples, I'm afraid. These church matters, are NOT today, nor where they in the past ages-cut-and-dried and are thus open to MANY varied applications of...sundry canons/doctrines/& EPISCOPAL interpretations., not even to mention the personal AMBITIONS of individual "bishops", who really only care about their own power/glory....which in my opinion is what Tikhon of Omsk and Valentine of Suzdal are about. Few if any, of currently living Orthodox bishops (in any local Orthodox churches whatsosever!)....are experts in canon-law.
In fact, the best such "canon-law experts" are in the KGB! And that is because those folks, HAVE to know our Orthodox Church laws, so as to better control us....from our episcopate downwards....and...to USE our own laws to weaken and eventually destroy our religion, etc. This they have done in Russia, since Lennin and Stalin.
Yes, and regarding Bp.Ambrose's responses to "my" questions, (really what questions the critics of the SIR pose, often)....of course, his short responses don't answer everything, by no means. But then, I did ask him for some concise answers, which he gave. If you re-read his answers to me, he refered to those long original SIR Greek/Russian documents, which his synod gave to the ROCOR bishops to study, and which documents convinced those bishops to heartily accept the SIR as equals/sister churches/etc. But, those documents have never been translated into English...so...you and I cannot read them...and thus, we are bereft of what great value, they might have provided us...now
Fr. Victor Dobroff Defends Cyprianism
http://ruschurchabroad.com/eng080304.htm
This article is dated February 17, 2007 on the ROCOR-PSCA English website (above). The purpose for this defence is not to enter into combat with ROAC, but to make these corrections for our instruction and our benefit. -jh
On the Eve of the Vth All-Diaspora ROCA Sobor:
On the Orthodox Nature of the Teachings of Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Fili on the Church and the Wrongfulness of the Anathema by the ROAC Sobor
Fr. Victor Dobroff
"He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches!" (Rev. 3:22)
On February 17, 2007, by a Decision of the Sobor of the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church (ROAC) the Orthodox teachings of Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Fili were judged to be unorthodox in nature. Along with the teachings, all those who agreed with them were also judged as having fallen under the Anathema against Ecumenism issued by the Church Abroad in 1983:
This menacing Decision of the ROAC Sobor was made on the basis of a speech by Bishop Andrey (Pavlovskiy), which is included in its entirety further down.
According to the wording of the approved Decision, even though the Church Abroad under the leadership of the PSEA currently enjoys full relations, as in the past, with the Synod of Resistance of the True Orthodox Church of Greece under Metropolitan Cyprian, and has its own completely independent, traditional ecclesiology separate from Met. Cyprian, there are some that still believe that the Church Abroad falls under its own anathema of 1983.† It behooves us then to examine and consider the speech of the Most Reverend Andrey, as well as the Sobor Decision approved by the ROAC, and see if they are correct.
Bishop Andrey Pavlovskiy's speech to the ROAC Sobor is provided below in its entirety, accompanied by commentary in bold from the author of this article:
On the Disreputable Teachings of Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Fili
Bishop Andrey Pavlovskiy
The prince of this world is Satan, who has waged war with God from the beginning and does so now unceasingly through his servants, his followers, against Almighty God and His chosen entity the Church of the saints and the city of his beloved (see Rev 20:8). He seeks to misrepresent God's Truth, GodТs Revelation to mankind, faith, and the teachings of the saints through the fabrication and dissemination of various false teachings and heresies in order to, if possible, tempt the chosen ones (see Matt. 24:24) and turn them away from the redemptive body of the Church of Christ and lead them to eternal damnation. Even among the small flocks of true Orthodox Christians, the enemy creates temptations and rancor. In our irreligious times, a time of tepidness in faith, he insinuates the deadly heresy of ecumenism, which has overcome all the historical patriarchates and turned them away from the Church. This heresy, in its soft and hidden form, is the new teaching of the Greek Old Calendar Synod of Resistance, led by Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Fili.
Bishop Andrey makes this claim right in the beginning of his speech, without any proof or canonical basis.
Having split in 1985 from the other bishops, Met. Cyprian of Oropos and Met. Giovanni of Sardinia formed their own Synod and created their own ecclesiology, which they consider to be the only faithful one and call all other true Orthodox "extremists."
Time showed that Met. Cyprian was right, when, on the basis of the 15th Rule of the Double Sobor, which confessed the original ecclesiology of the Old Calendar Greek Synod developed back in 1935, he broke from the "extremists," who his opponents actually revealed themselves to be later.
This ecclesiology was put forth by Met. Cyprian in his book, "Ecclesiological Theses or the Explanation of the Teachings of the Church for those Orthodox Resisting the Heresy of Ecumenism" Fili, Attica, 1993. The Synod of Resistance also declared that, "the ecclesiological basis of our Holy Synod Resistance, which was established conciliarly, is clearly different from the ecclesiologies of the other Old Calendar Synods in Greece." (from a epistle to ROCOR dated June 24/July7, 1993).
The teachings of Met. Cyprian were judged to be unorthodox in 1985 by the Synod of the TOC of Greece under the chairmanship of Archbishop Chrysostomos II.
Archbishop Chrysostomos II was compelled to react to the departure of these bishops form his Synod on the basis of serious ecclesiological reasons.
In 1924, after the Greek Church adopted the new calendar and began to participate in the ecumenist movement, the old calendar Christians were left without a single bishop and for the next ten years were without a bishop's omofor.
The episcopate of the old calendar Christians of Greece originated with three bishops, who came over in 1935 to the side of the old calendarists from the Synod of the Greek Church, which by then had already practiced the new calendar and ecumenism for 11 years.
This forms the first canonical inconsistency of the ecclesiology of the contemporary followers of Chrysostomos, which leads every alert observer to note the logical paradox: if grace is not present in the new calendarist and ecumenist synods, which they firmly believe, then how could three bishops "without grace" form in 1935 an old calendarist episcopate which has grace and a old calendarist synod which has grace?
Is it not Jesus who teaches us that, "Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad; for the tree is known by its fruit." (Matthew 12:33)
In 1935, Met. Chrysostomos I the first Hierarch of the old calendarist Greek Synod announced that the sacraments of the new calendarists has grace, as the new calendarists found themselves in the state of a potential schism. After this announcement from the old calendarist "Chrysostomite heretics," two bishops immediately broke off. One of them, Matthew of Brestensk, founded the so-called Matthew Synod by himself 13 years later in 1948.
Fifteen years later, in 1950, the Synod of Met. Chrysostomos I rejected the ecclesiology of 1935 and announced that the new calendarist ecumenists were without grace!
As we can see, the ecclesiology of the Old Calendar Greek Synod, presently headed by Met. Chrysostomos II was not consistent and wavered from one extreme to another, contradicting itself, contradicting all reasonable thinking, and contradicting the traditional ecclesiology of ROCOR, which had refrained from passing final judgments on the question of grace in other jurisdictions.
They are judged, that is the teachings of Metropolitan Cyprian, to be false by other True Orthodox Churches of Greece as well.
But these are not serious accusations, especially since they arise from synods of dubious canonicity and which lack legitimacy. What is quite regretful is that in thinking this way, some of these synods end up judging their own native old calendar episcopate.
Among the Russian bishops, only one, the Most Revered Bishop Gregory (Grabbe), spoke out in 1994 against relations with them out of all the bishops in the ROCOR Synod, only one gave his personal opinion on this matter and gave a short critical assessment of Met. Cyprian's ecclesiology and made the conclusion that Cyprian "confesses his personal view and definitely not the Orthodox teaching of the possible working of grace by the Holy Spirit in churches that are clearly heretical."
This is a very important conclusion by the famous canonist of the 20th century, Bishop Gregory Grabbe. It is clear that Bishop Cyprian is not insisting that Grace is present in the Sacraments of the new calendarists, he simply does not preclude its possibility.
The Most Revered Bishop Gregory (Grabbe) correctly pointed out that having accepted the teachings of Cyprian, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia fell under its own anathema of 1983 against ecumenism.
This claim by Bishop Andrey Pavlovskiy is incorrect. The Church Abroad at a Sobor accepted the Orthodox nature of the teachings of Bishop Cyprian's Synod, and without altering its traditional beliefs, entered into a relationship not with the teachings, which were not different from its own ecclesiology, but with its Greek Sister-Church.
Certainly, the personal opinion of such an esteemed canonist leads us to consider his points, but so do the words of another esteemed bishop, a pillar of Orthodoxy, the abbe of the diaspora Metropolitan Vitaliy (Ustinov), an Archbishop at that time and later the ROCOR Hierarch, who said in his Nativity epistle of 1987:
Nevertheless, what matters to us Orthodox are not the personal opinions of bishops, even the most respected ones, but the opinion of the Church body. The ROCOR Sobor of Bishops of 1994 determined that the ecclesiology of the Synod of Met. Cyprian was Orthodox and that it coincided with the traditional ecclesiology of the Church Abroad and did not contradict it. The Sobor refrained from a conciliar decision on whether God's grace was present or absent in the sacraments of other local churches, which may or may not have been brought into existence by any Local or Ecumenical Council.
In light of this, it is indeed surprising to hear the "anathemas" issuing from the mouths of former bishops and clergy of ROCOR, who previously entreated a Church that was in full communion with the Synod of Met. Cyprian to accept them and even ordain them. In this way, are they not anathematizing themselves?
The main precepts of these teachings are:
1. Sacraments performed by heretics and schismatics are valid up to the time that they are judged by an Orthodox Sobor of the whole church. The decisions of past Sobors are not enough.
This is in fact correct, as only an Ecumenical Council has the power to decide which local church, or independent Synod, has fallen into heresy and is devoid of grace. Met. Cyprian is not claiming that the sacraments of new calendarists and ecumenists are valid, but he does say that until an Ecumenical Council judges them, the sacraments can be considered to be valid.
From this we can draw the conclusion that such people are not heretics and schismatics, but only "members of the Church whose faith is infirm and who have not yet been judged." (Chap. 1)
2. The Orthodox Church is actually not one, but divided between those whose faith is infirm and those who resist heresies. Heretical ecumenists are considered to be members of the Church and are called "Orthodox ecumenists."
Met. Cyprian in his Orthodox teachings does not say that the Orthodox Church is not one, but having affirmed its oneness, he considers the local new calendarist ecumenical churches to be ailing members of that one Church body.
As a result, Met. Cyprian considers the sum-total of all the churches of "global Orthodoxy" to be one church, made up of true Orthodox Christians, in which the redemptive grace of the Holy Spirit inhabits.
It is quite clear that according to the teachings of Met. Cyprian, the sum-total of "global Orthodoxy" is an assembly of members of the One Church, suffering from the spiritual plight of ecumenism and other innovations. Met. Cyprian does not dare say that the same redemptive grace that works among the healthy members of the Church also works among the ailing members. His teachings do lead to the conclusion that the redemptive Wholeness of Grace works exclusively in the healthy parts of the Church Body, and at the same time, depending on how far they have fallen away from Orthodoxy, grace is present in a diminished state in the ailing members of the Church.
Cyprian compares ecumenists to iconoclasts and insists that before the VIIth Ecumenical Council the iconoclasts were not heretics and that their sacraments were valid. Cyprian blasphemes, by saying that the iconoclasts were considered holy fathers not by the catholic church, but by "Orthodoxy," thus seprataing the Church from Orthodoxy.
Once again, we see how wise is Met. Cyprian. It is exactly Orthodoxy to which the members of the church who were caught up in the heresy of iconoclasm returned, since even the way they were received bears witness to this.
Also, the main precepts of the Orthodox Church aver that Orthodoxy and the Church are indivisible, that you cannot be in the Church without believing correctly. St. Maxim the Confessor said, "Almighty God has revealed that the catholic Church is the correct and redemptive profession of faith in Him." St. Cyprian of Carthage also speaks of this, "Just as Satan is not Christ, even though he deceives in His name, so can a person not be considered a Christian, if he does not dwell in the truth of His gospel and faith" (On the Unity of the Church, 14).
It seems, Bishop Andrey is mistaken in his reasoning. What is Orthodox Faith? Faith which has been affirmed by one of the newly-formed synods, or Faith which has been established by the Holy Ecumenical Councils? Who now admires the canonical authority of the Ecumenical Council, while passing judgment and branding the local churches as heretical and schismatic?
St. Gregory the Theologian teaches us, "Adhering to other teachings, one turns away and honors that which is alien to God and the ecumenical Church" (Second Epistle Against Apollinarius). St. Gregory Palamas writes, "Those who are apart from the Church of Christ, are separated from truth; while those who do not dwell in truth, are not in the Church of Christ, as we must identify Christianity not by individuals, but by truth and correctness of faith." In the epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox faith, we read, "We believe that the members of the catholic Church are its essence and many are faithful, that is, steadfast in their confession of the pure faith of the Christ the Savior" (para. 11).†
The Orthodox profess this Faith through the intoning of the Orthodox Symbols of Faith, the Creed.
In this way, without Orthodoxy, without the Symbols of Faith, there is no Church, and he who distorts Orthodoxy, is expelled from the Church.
It was the Church, into which the Holy Fathers at the Councils received penitent heretics. It was said at the sacred VII Ecumenical Council, "Let those who express their repentance before the bishops, do so as if they were before the catholic Church." Our Lord Jesus Christ said in the Gospel, "he who does not believe has been judged already." (John 3:18) Holy Apostle St. Peter also teaches, "But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves." (2 Peter 2:1) Holy Apostle Paul writes in his letter to Titus, "Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned." (Titus 3:10-11).
Each year during the week of the Triumph of Orthodoxy, the Church proclaims anathema on all heretics, whose teachings were once judged at the councils, so that it would be clear to everyone that all teachings of the Holy Fathers that were accepted by the Church at the Councils are still valid to this day and that all those who are not in agreement with these correct and redemptive teachings are cast off from them.
In his commentary on the VIth Rule of the Double Ecumenical Council, the Byzantine canonist Zophar writes, "Those heretics who disagree with the Orthodox faith, whether recently or in the past, have been cast out of the Church, cast out, as Zophar says wisely, by the Ecumenical Council, whether they believed in new or old heresies."
Similarly, the Eastern Patriarchs in their epistle to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church averred that since the Orthodox faith "has been revealed and inscribed completely, it does not allow anything to be added or removed, nor any other change; and those who dare to try, or advise to do so, or even contemplate it, have already rejected the faith of Jesus and have already willingly gone under the eternal anathema for those who profane the Holy Spirit."
The saintly Bishop Philaret of New York reaffirms the words of the Fathers, "An Anathema, issued by the Church, is the removal from it of those who have already ceased to exist within it." (Sermons, vol. 1, pg. 115)
As we can see, the judgments of the Holy Fathers and the Councils are eternal rulings and are applied to all who distort the beliefs of the Church. The 15th Rule of the Double Council calls a bishop, who prophesies heresy and who has not yet been judged by a spiritual court, to be a "false-bishop," as he has clearly fallen under the rulings of previous holy Ecumenical Councils and judged by them.
And so, the Church, in contrast to Cyprian, has always taught and continues to teach that the heresies themselves, not the Councils, remove their proponents from the Orthodox Church and from God and deny them the Grace of God and salvation.
The Church teaches that a "false-bishop" falls under the judgments of previous Holy Councils, who have condemned the heresy promoted by the heretic, and is judged by them - the Ecumenical Councils do!
The Councils only loudly proclaim judgments of heresies and all those who hold to them. They confirm the dogmas of the faith and make it necessary for all those who seek to be saved to believe as they have instructed.
Cyprian teaches falsely that the one Church of Christ is separated by those who are infirm in spirit and those who remain steadfast. Bishop Cyprian teaches that the infirm in spirit and the healthy members of the Church Body separate amongst themselves, while remaining in the one Church Body.
According to Cyprian, the entire Church consists of "healthy members" who are Orthodox and "ill members" who are heretics and schismatics, who have not yet been judged, and therefore not expelled from the Church Body. The healthy members are forbidden from associating with the ill members. But the ill members are potentially one with the healthy members, while those who have been expelled are actually condemned. (Met. Cyrpian, Synod of Resistance publication no. 1, January 2000, pgs. 31-32)
This teaching though is foreign to Orthodox precepts, which teach that the Church, which is the body of Christ, cannot be separated. One can only fall away from it. Just as Our Lord Jesus Christ cannot have several bodies, so can He not have several Churches. Our Lord said "and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:18), and "those who did not remain in the good part, will be separated from it, while those who remained steadfast are not separated." (Sts. Varsanufiy and John. Question 810) "The episcopate cannot be divided," teaches St. Cyprian of Carthage, "and the catholic Church is one, which cannot be divided or destroyed, and is united and bound everywhere by the agreed-upon tenets of its pastors."
Met. Cyprian does not teach of the division of the Body of Christ, but of its unity. This is not some new teaching, but one based on an old belief. St. Paul himself compared the Church to the body of man, made up of healthy and infirm parts, and said, "And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honored, all the members rejoice with it." (1 Corinthians 12:26)
Heretics and the Orthodox have never been in one Church, in one body of Christ. Heretics fall away from the church. Cyprian teaches falsely that new calendarists and ecumenists are members of the Church, while admitting it may be necessary to separate from them into a "oppositionist new creation," "a parallel" Church, thereby creating a "self-made gathering."
Only those schismatics who fall away from the Church of their own volition are separated from the Church. Met. Cyprian does not teach separating from the Church, but to defend oneself from wrong beliefs. Met Cyprian did not create a self-made gathering or a new church torn away from its Mother Church, as some extremists have done. He has done what is required by the Holy Fathers and what the Holy Orthodox Church teaches its faithful to oppose evil and guard oneself from heretics and schismatics until the Judgment of a Council.
Cyprian's ecclesiology distorts Orthodox theology in a crude manner and injects disorder in the Church's canonical rights. He reduces heresy to a simple sin. Sin can separate a person from the Church faithful, but while a sinner remains Orthodox in matters of faith, he remains in the Church and can repent. Heresy, like a mortal sin, realistically separates a person from the Church.
Our Lord Himself, in revealing to us our eventual demise, inherently affirms the correctness of Met. CyprianТs teaching of the healthy and ill members of the Church by the mystery of the seven stars (Apocalypse 1:20). Just as God is pleased with the pure Smyrna and Philadelphia Churches, the Lord still considers the other five to be Churches, though infected by the heresies of false teachings and prophets. "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches." (Apocalypse 3:22)
An examination of Bishop Andrey Pavlovskiy's presentation to the ROAC Sobor leads us to the fundamental belief that the teachings of Metropolitan Cyprian or Oropos and Fili are Orthodox, and though they may differ from the traditional ecclesiology of the Church Abroad, they do not contradict them.
The judgment passed by the ROAC Sobor on the teachings of Metropolitan Cyprian and those who agree with him is incorrect, as it is not supported by the Canons.
This article is dated February 17, 2007 on the ROCOR-PSCA English website (above). The purpose for this defence is not to enter into combat with ROAC, but to make these corrections for our instruction and our benefit. -jh
On the Eve of the Vth All-Diaspora ROCA Sobor:
On the Orthodox Nature of the Teachings of Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Fili on the Church and the Wrongfulness of the Anathema by the ROAC Sobor
Fr. Victor Dobroff
"He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches!" (Rev. 3:22)
On February 17, 2007, by a Decision of the Sobor of the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church (ROAC) the Orthodox teachings of Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Fili were judged to be unorthodox in nature. Along with the teachings, all those who agreed with them were also judged as having fallen under the Anathema against Ecumenism issued by the Church Abroad in 1983:
"We consider the teachings of Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos to be harmful counsel, secretly instilling ecumenist misbeliefs in the minds of the faithful, and we condemn him. All those in agreement with the teachings of Cyprian have fallen under the anathema against the heresy of ecumenism issued in 1983 by the Synod of Bishops under the chairmanship of the saintly Metropolitan Philaret (Vosnesensky), the Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia."
This menacing Decision of the ROAC Sobor was made on the basis of a speech by Bishop Andrey (Pavlovskiy), which is included in its entirety further down.
According to the wording of the approved Decision, even though the Church Abroad under the leadership of the PSEA currently enjoys full relations, as in the past, with the Synod of Resistance of the True Orthodox Church of Greece under Metropolitan Cyprian, and has its own completely independent, traditional ecclesiology separate from Met. Cyprian, there are some that still believe that the Church Abroad falls under its own anathema of 1983.† It behooves us then to examine and consider the speech of the Most Reverend Andrey, as well as the Sobor Decision approved by the ROAC, and see if they are correct.
Bishop Andrey Pavlovskiy's speech to the ROAC Sobor is provided below in its entirety, accompanied by commentary in bold from the author of this article:
On the Disreputable Teachings of Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Fili
Bishop Andrey Pavlovskiy
The prince of this world is Satan, who has waged war with God from the beginning and does so now unceasingly through his servants, his followers, against Almighty God and His chosen entity the Church of the saints and the city of his beloved (see Rev 20:8). He seeks to misrepresent God's Truth, GodТs Revelation to mankind, faith, and the teachings of the saints through the fabrication and dissemination of various false teachings and heresies in order to, if possible, tempt the chosen ones (see Matt. 24:24) and turn them away from the redemptive body of the Church of Christ and lead them to eternal damnation. Even among the small flocks of true Orthodox Christians, the enemy creates temptations and rancor. In our irreligious times, a time of tepidness in faith, he insinuates the deadly heresy of ecumenism, which has overcome all the historical patriarchates and turned them away from the Church. This heresy, in its soft and hidden form, is the new teaching of the Greek Old Calendar Synod of Resistance, led by Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Fili.
Bishop Andrey makes this claim right in the beginning of his speech, without any proof or canonical basis.
Having split in 1985 from the other bishops, Met. Cyprian of Oropos and Met. Giovanni of Sardinia formed their own Synod and created their own ecclesiology, which they consider to be the only faithful one and call all other true Orthodox "extremists."
Time showed that Met. Cyprian was right, when, on the basis of the 15th Rule of the Double Sobor, which confessed the original ecclesiology of the Old Calendar Greek Synod developed back in 1935, he broke from the "extremists," who his opponents actually revealed themselves to be later.
This ecclesiology was put forth by Met. Cyprian in his book, "Ecclesiological Theses or the Explanation of the Teachings of the Church for those Orthodox Resisting the Heresy of Ecumenism" Fili, Attica, 1993. The Synod of Resistance also declared that, "the ecclesiological basis of our Holy Synod Resistance, which was established conciliarly, is clearly different from the ecclesiologies of the other Old Calendar Synods in Greece." (from a epistle to ROCOR dated June 24/July7, 1993).
The teachings of Met. Cyprian were judged to be unorthodox in 1985 by the Synod of the TOC of Greece under the chairmanship of Archbishop Chrysostomos II.
Archbishop Chrysostomos II was compelled to react to the departure of these bishops form his Synod on the basis of serious ecclesiological reasons.
In 1924, after the Greek Church adopted the new calendar and began to participate in the ecumenist movement, the old calendar Christians were left without a single bishop and for the next ten years were without a bishop's omofor.
The episcopate of the old calendar Christians of Greece originated with three bishops, who came over in 1935 to the side of the old calendarists from the Synod of the Greek Church, which by then had already practiced the new calendar and ecumenism for 11 years.
This forms the first canonical inconsistency of the ecclesiology of the contemporary followers of Chrysostomos, which leads every alert observer to note the logical paradox: if grace is not present in the new calendarist and ecumenist synods, which they firmly believe, then how could three bishops "without grace" form in 1935 an old calendarist episcopate which has grace and a old calendarist synod which has grace?
Is it not Jesus who teaches us that, "Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad; for the tree is known by its fruit." (Matthew 12:33)
In 1935, Met. Chrysostomos I the first Hierarch of the old calendarist Greek Synod announced that the sacraments of the new calendarists has grace, as the new calendarists found themselves in the state of a potential schism. After this announcement from the old calendarist "Chrysostomite heretics," two bishops immediately broke off. One of them, Matthew of Brestensk, founded the so-called Matthew Synod by himself 13 years later in 1948.
Fifteen years later, in 1950, the Synod of Met. Chrysostomos I rejected the ecclesiology of 1935 and announced that the new calendarist ecumenists were without grace!
As we can see, the ecclesiology of the Old Calendar Greek Synod, presently headed by Met. Chrysostomos II was not consistent and wavered from one extreme to another, contradicting itself, contradicting all reasonable thinking, and contradicting the traditional ecclesiology of ROCOR, which had refrained from passing final judgments on the question of grace in other jurisdictions.
They are judged, that is the teachings of Metropolitan Cyprian, to be false by other True Orthodox Churches of Greece as well.
But these are not serious accusations, especially since they arise from synods of dubious canonicity and which lack legitimacy. What is quite regretful is that in thinking this way, some of these synods end up judging their own native old calendar episcopate.
Among the Russian bishops, only one, the Most Revered Bishop Gregory (Grabbe), spoke out in 1994 against relations with them out of all the bishops in the ROCOR Synod, only one gave his personal opinion on this matter and gave a short critical assessment of Met. Cyprian's ecclesiology and made the conclusion that Cyprian "confesses his personal view and definitely not the Orthodox teaching of the possible working of grace by the Holy Spirit in churches that are clearly heretical."
This is a very important conclusion by the famous canonist of the 20th century, Bishop Gregory Grabbe. It is clear that Bishop Cyprian is not insisting that Grace is present in the Sacraments of the new calendarists, he simply does not preclude its possibility.
The Most Revered Bishop Gregory (Grabbe) correctly pointed out that having accepted the teachings of Cyprian, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia fell under its own anathema of 1983 against ecumenism.
This claim by Bishop Andrey Pavlovskiy is incorrect. The Church Abroad at a Sobor accepted the Orthodox nature of the teachings of Bishop Cyprian's Synod, and without altering its traditional beliefs, entered into a relationship not with the teachings, which were not different from its own ecclesiology, but with its Greek Sister-Church.
Certainly, the personal opinion of such an esteemed canonist leads us to consider his points, but so do the words of another esteemed bishop, a pillar of Orthodoxy, the abbe of the diaspora Metropolitan Vitaliy (Ustinov), an Archbishop at that time and later the ROCOR Hierarch, who said in his Nativity epistle of 1987:
"The majority of Local Churches have presently endured two horrible blows to their bodies: the new-style calendar and ecumenism. Nevertheless, though they might be in terrible condition, we do not dare say, keep us from this O Lord, that they lack God's grace. We proclaimed an anathema against ecumenism for the faithful of our church only, and in this way, we humbly, yet steadfastly; tenderly, yet decisively, invite the Local Churches to consider this matter."
Nevertheless, what matters to us Orthodox are not the personal opinions of bishops, even the most respected ones, but the opinion of the Church body. The ROCOR Sobor of Bishops of 1994 determined that the ecclesiology of the Synod of Met. Cyprian was Orthodox and that it coincided with the traditional ecclesiology of the Church Abroad and did not contradict it. The Sobor refrained from a conciliar decision on whether God's grace was present or absent in the sacraments of other local churches, which may or may not have been brought into existence by any Local or Ecumenical Council.
In light of this, it is indeed surprising to hear the "anathemas" issuing from the mouths of former bishops and clergy of ROCOR, who previously entreated a Church that was in full communion with the Synod of Met. Cyprian to accept them and even ordain them. In this way, are they not anathematizing themselves?
The main precepts of these teachings are:
1. Sacraments performed by heretics and schismatics are valid up to the time that they are judged by an Orthodox Sobor of the whole church. The decisions of past Sobors are not enough.
This is in fact correct, as only an Ecumenical Council has the power to decide which local church, or independent Synod, has fallen into heresy and is devoid of grace. Met. Cyprian is not claiming that the sacraments of new calendarists and ecumenists are valid, but he does say that until an Ecumenical Council judges them, the sacraments can be considered to be valid.
From this we can draw the conclusion that such people are not heretics and schismatics, but only "members of the Church whose faith is infirm and who have not yet been judged." (Chap. 1)
2. The Orthodox Church is actually not one, but divided between those whose faith is infirm and those who resist heresies. Heretical ecumenists are considered to be members of the Church and are called "Orthodox ecumenists."
Met. Cyprian in his Orthodox teachings does not say that the Orthodox Church is not one, but having affirmed its oneness, he considers the local new calendarist ecumenical churches to be ailing members of that one Church body.
As a result, Met. Cyprian considers the sum-total of all the churches of "global Orthodoxy" to be one church, made up of true Orthodox Christians, in which the redemptive grace of the Holy Spirit inhabits.
It is quite clear that according to the teachings of Met. Cyprian, the sum-total of "global Orthodoxy" is an assembly of members of the One Church, suffering from the spiritual plight of ecumenism and other innovations. Met. Cyprian does not dare say that the same redemptive grace that works among the healthy members of the Church also works among the ailing members. His teachings do lead to the conclusion that the redemptive Wholeness of Grace works exclusively in the healthy parts of the Church Body, and at the same time, depending on how far they have fallen away from Orthodoxy, grace is present in a diminished state in the ailing members of the Church.
Cyprian compares ecumenists to iconoclasts and insists that before the VIIth Ecumenical Council the iconoclasts were not heretics and that their sacraments were valid. Cyprian blasphemes, by saying that the iconoclasts were considered holy fathers not by the catholic church, but by "Orthodoxy," thus seprataing the Church from Orthodoxy.
Once again, we see how wise is Met. Cyprian. It is exactly Orthodoxy to which the members of the church who were caught up in the heresy of iconoclasm returned, since even the way they were received bears witness to this.
Also, the main precepts of the Orthodox Church aver that Orthodoxy and the Church are indivisible, that you cannot be in the Church without believing correctly. St. Maxim the Confessor said, "Almighty God has revealed that the catholic Church is the correct and redemptive profession of faith in Him." St. Cyprian of Carthage also speaks of this, "Just as Satan is not Christ, even though he deceives in His name, so can a person not be considered a Christian, if he does not dwell in the truth of His gospel and faith" (On the Unity of the Church, 14).
It seems, Bishop Andrey is mistaken in his reasoning. What is Orthodox Faith? Faith which has been affirmed by one of the newly-formed synods, or Faith which has been established by the Holy Ecumenical Councils? Who now admires the canonical authority of the Ecumenical Council, while passing judgment and branding the local churches as heretical and schismatic?
St. Gregory the Theologian teaches us, "Adhering to other teachings, one turns away and honors that which is alien to God and the ecumenical Church" (Second Epistle Against Apollinarius). St. Gregory Palamas writes, "Those who are apart from the Church of Christ, are separated from truth; while those who do not dwell in truth, are not in the Church of Christ, as we must identify Christianity not by individuals, but by truth and correctness of faith." In the epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox faith, we read, "We believe that the members of the catholic Church are its essence and many are faithful, that is, steadfast in their confession of the pure faith of the Christ the Savior" (para. 11).†
The Orthodox profess this Faith through the intoning of the Orthodox Symbols of Faith, the Creed.
In this way, without Orthodoxy, without the Symbols of Faith, there is no Church, and he who distorts Orthodoxy, is expelled from the Church.
It was the Church, into which the Holy Fathers at the Councils received penitent heretics. It was said at the sacred VII Ecumenical Council, "Let those who express their repentance before the bishops, do so as if they were before the catholic Church." Our Lord Jesus Christ said in the Gospel, "he who does not believe has been judged already." (John 3:18) Holy Apostle St. Peter also teaches, "But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves." (2 Peter 2:1) Holy Apostle Paul writes in his letter to Titus, "Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned." (Titus 3:10-11).
Each year during the week of the Triumph of Orthodoxy, the Church proclaims anathema on all heretics, whose teachings were once judged at the councils, so that it would be clear to everyone that all teachings of the Holy Fathers that were accepted by the Church at the Councils are still valid to this day and that all those who are not in agreement with these correct and redemptive teachings are cast off from them.
In his commentary on the VIth Rule of the Double Ecumenical Council, the Byzantine canonist Zophar writes, "Those heretics who disagree with the Orthodox faith, whether recently or in the past, have been cast out of the Church, cast out, as Zophar says wisely, by the Ecumenical Council, whether they believed in new or old heresies."
Similarly, the Eastern Patriarchs in their epistle to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church averred that since the Orthodox faith "has been revealed and inscribed completely, it does not allow anything to be added or removed, nor any other change; and those who dare to try, or advise to do so, or even contemplate it, have already rejected the faith of Jesus and have already willingly gone under the eternal anathema for those who profane the Holy Spirit."
The saintly Bishop Philaret of New York reaffirms the words of the Fathers, "An Anathema, issued by the Church, is the removal from it of those who have already ceased to exist within it." (Sermons, vol. 1, pg. 115)
As we can see, the judgments of the Holy Fathers and the Councils are eternal rulings and are applied to all who distort the beliefs of the Church. The 15th Rule of the Double Council calls a bishop, who prophesies heresy and who has not yet been judged by a spiritual court, to be a "false-bishop," as he has clearly fallen under the rulings of previous holy Ecumenical Councils and judged by them.
And so, the Church, in contrast to Cyprian, has always taught and continues to teach that the heresies themselves, not the Councils, remove their proponents from the Orthodox Church and from God and deny them the Grace of God and salvation.
The Church teaches that a "false-bishop" falls under the judgments of previous Holy Councils, who have condemned the heresy promoted by the heretic, and is judged by them - the Ecumenical Councils do!
The Councils only loudly proclaim judgments of heresies and all those who hold to them. They confirm the dogmas of the faith and make it necessary for all those who seek to be saved to believe as they have instructed.
Cyprian teaches falsely that the one Church of Christ is separated by those who are infirm in spirit and those who remain steadfast. Bishop Cyprian teaches that the infirm in spirit and the healthy members of the Church Body separate amongst themselves, while remaining in the one Church Body.
According to Cyprian, the entire Church consists of "healthy members" who are Orthodox and "ill members" who are heretics and schismatics, who have not yet been judged, and therefore not expelled from the Church Body. The healthy members are forbidden from associating with the ill members. But the ill members are potentially one with the healthy members, while those who have been expelled are actually condemned. (Met. Cyrpian, Synod of Resistance publication no. 1, January 2000, pgs. 31-32)
This teaching though is foreign to Orthodox precepts, which teach that the Church, which is the body of Christ, cannot be separated. One can only fall away from it. Just as Our Lord Jesus Christ cannot have several bodies, so can He not have several Churches. Our Lord said "and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:18), and "those who did not remain in the good part, will be separated from it, while those who remained steadfast are not separated." (Sts. Varsanufiy and John. Question 810) "The episcopate cannot be divided," teaches St. Cyprian of Carthage, "and the catholic Church is one, which cannot be divided or destroyed, and is united and bound everywhere by the agreed-upon tenets of its pastors."
Met. Cyprian does not teach of the division of the Body of Christ, but of its unity. This is not some new teaching, but one based on an old belief. St. Paul himself compared the Church to the body of man, made up of healthy and infirm parts, and said, "And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honored, all the members rejoice with it." (1 Corinthians 12:26)
Heretics and the Orthodox have never been in one Church, in one body of Christ. Heretics fall away from the church. Cyprian teaches falsely that new calendarists and ecumenists are members of the Church, while admitting it may be necessary to separate from them into a "oppositionist new creation," "a parallel" Church, thereby creating a "self-made gathering."
Only those schismatics who fall away from the Church of their own volition are separated from the Church. Met. Cyprian does not teach separating from the Church, but to defend oneself from wrong beliefs. Met Cyprian did not create a self-made gathering or a new church torn away from its Mother Church, as some extremists have done. He has done what is required by the Holy Fathers and what the Holy Orthodox Church teaches its faithful to oppose evil and guard oneself from heretics and schismatics until the Judgment of a Council.
Cyprian's ecclesiology distorts Orthodox theology in a crude manner and injects disorder in the Church's canonical rights. He reduces heresy to a simple sin. Sin can separate a person from the Church faithful, but while a sinner remains Orthodox in matters of faith, he remains in the Church and can repent. Heresy, like a mortal sin, realistically separates a person from the Church.
Our Lord Himself, in revealing to us our eventual demise, inherently affirms the correctness of Met. CyprianТs teaching of the healthy and ill members of the Church by the mystery of the seven stars (Apocalypse 1:20). Just as God is pleased with the pure Smyrna and Philadelphia Churches, the Lord still considers the other five to be Churches, though infected by the heresies of false teachings and prophets. "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches." (Apocalypse 3:22)
An examination of Bishop Andrey Pavlovskiy's presentation to the ROAC Sobor leads us to the fundamental belief that the teachings of Metropolitan Cyprian or Oropos and Fili are Orthodox, and though they may differ from the traditional ecclesiology of the Church Abroad, they do not contradict them.
The judgment passed by the ROAC Sobor on the teachings of Metropolitan Cyprian and those who agree with him is incorrect, as it is not supported by the Canons.
What's Wrong With Cyprianism?
A discussion worth wading through:
http://euphrosynoscafe.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1078
http://euphrosynoscafe.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1078
Reader Daniel Writes Bishop Ambrose
To: Bishop Ambrose
From: Reader Daniel
Saturday Feb 17/March 1, 2008
Dear Vladyka Ambrose, Bless Master!
My name is Reader Daniel Everiss, who is loyal to our Vladyka Agafangel, and I live here in Oregon, U.S.A.
I often must explain to others, the total case in favor of our bishop and his continued-ROCOR, and thus too, WHY/HOW we are in full communion with your Synod In Resistance.....which synod...many critics near and far, deprecate and proclaim as "heretical", etc. ...ad nauseum!
I have searched your official Synod In Resistance web, but no where can I find a simple/direct answer to the three main charges which critics make against you:
1) your Synod was declared by all the other Old Calendar Churches, as" heretical/uncanonical"
2) that your "doctrine" of "the sick and healthy parts...of THE Church" is uncanonical/heretical, and
3) that your clergy...routinely...give your communion to...new-calendar laity (&clergy?)...as a POLICY of your synod.
Please Vladyka, if you have the time, please give me your answers to these 3 pertinent accusations so that I can then USE them, to respond to OUR mutual attackers.
One fact that is for sure, the precise history of your "Greek Old Calendar" movement vis-a vis the Official State Greek Church (New Calendar)....has many differences with.....the Russian-experiences....since the Bolshevik revolution...up to now. And yet, our two churches have also MUCH in common, as regards matters of the Orthodox Faith, etc.
If you have time and if you will, please Vladyka Ambrose, give me a short explanation of this matter, so that I can share it with others, for their edification and enlightenment. As your Grace well knows, these days, we are surrounded by a great cloud or rather a SMOG of...self-appointed/armchair "Experts on Canon law".......who are...doing much damage to our Orthodox people, as they tend to USE their often off-balanced and out-of-context-PRIVATE interpretations of "the canons" to attack and destroy and harm each other, and thus...our entire Orthodox Church. God save us from these "canon-law experts"!!!
With much esteem and respect, and asking Your Grace's Blessing, I remain-
Reader Daniel Everiss, in Oregon
______________________________________________________________
RESPONSE FROM BISHOP AMBROSE
Subject: Re: What Do The Cyprianites Really Believe?/HELP VLADYKA AMBROSE!
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 17:26:18 +0200
Bp. Ambrose:
Dear Daniel, I will try to answer your questions briefly (time is always a problem!) . If you knew Greek, you would be able to find quite a quantity of apposite material on our website, but not all has been translated into English, and, unfortunately, still less into Russian.
Bp. Ambrose:
All the other old-calendarist groups in Greece subscribe officially to a position which regards themselves as the sole representatives of the Church of Greece, and both the new-calendarist official Church and all the other old-calendarists as being outside the Church. As the Russian Church Abroad examined the questions regarding both our ecclesiological position and our canonical status with considerable care before entering into communion with us in 1994, and since nothing has changed since then, it is clear that Vladyka Agafangel is just continuing where the rest of the Synod was before their apostasy. We have, of course, all the documentation that was sent to the commission of the ROCOR Synod in both Greek and Russian (it was never put into English) if such is ever needed. If Vladyka Agafangel is wrong now in communing with us, then so was the entire ROCOR a few years ago!
Bp. Ambrose:
Our Ecclesiological position was accepted by the ROCOR as 'identical to their own' in 1994. I remain convinced that our position on the subject in question is incontrovertible; indeed most of those opposed to us accept it. The real difference lies in whether we consider the new calendarists/ecumenists to be already synodically condemned or not. Some of our opponents consider that such a Synodical condemnation was effected by the Greek Hierarchs who separated from the new calendar in 1935, some that it was with the ROCOR's anathema of ecumenism in 1973, some that it was effected by the synods of 1583-1592, and so on - there is no accord on the question. We, I am sure with very good reason, prefer a more circumspect outlook, which, as I stated above, was also that of the ROCOR hierarchy before their apostasy.
Bp. Ambrose:
This very peculiar accusation comes often from those whose clergy do on a large scale what they accuse us of. The distribution of the Holy Mysteries to New Calendarists whether in Greece or of the diaspora is not our policy, and if occasionally exceptions have been made, then this is for very specific pastoral reasons. It is, as I say, astonishing that this accusation usually originates with those who, although they regard the new-calendarsists as outside the Church and are, in theory, thus strictly forbidden from communicating them, do so often with perfect indifference! - I will not here enter into the invidious task of naming them!
Bp. Ambrose:
Every local Church has its own experience, but we are united in the one Orthodox faith, which inspires our fathers, through the grace of the Holy Spirit, to react to critical situations, which may indeed externally be entirely different, in very similar ways, just as the apostates are similarly united - just think of Patriarch Meletios Metaxakis' enthusiastic support of the schismatic renovationists in Russia!
Bp. Ambrose:
Here you are very right. We have great need both of sobriety, humility and prayer in order not to stray from the royal Path.
Bp. Ambrose:
May God bless you. I take the liberty of sending a copy of this letter to our Synodal Exarch in America, Archbishop Chrysostomos, as you live in his parts.
+ Bishop Ambrose
________________________________________________________________________
From: clarkbob7h@hotmail.com
To: oregdan@hotmail.com
CC: ambrose@synodinresistance.org; agafangel@paco.net
Subject: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 19:21:52 -0500
Daniel,
I am one of those people who has been disapointed in the path taken by Bishop Agafangel and someone had forwarded the mass e-mail response to your question. I will try to provide you some perspective to consider as you pursue your own path. It is meant to help. You will notice that I cc'd the two most effected by my thoughts and no one else. I am no expert, and am open to hearing any attempt to correct what I write..........
Unfortunately he did not answer “2”. This idealogy is way off base from Christian teaching. Don't think it is necessary to expand on this.
Also, it should be noted that in 1994, two schisms began to develop in ROCOR (Valentine & Lazar…..now Thihkon); AND, this is when Vladika Gregory, the conscience, and the official synod secretary for ALL of our previous hierarchs, was “black balled” from synod meetings………the move to Cyprian was a step from Met. Philaret’s ideology and to Moscow / Stalin’s ideology.
This was stated then (by “fanatics”) and time has shown it to be true. Vladika Agafangel could have avoided all these issues and questions with patience, prayer, and perhaps more dialogue with other local Orthodox churches (even the Romanians).
To suggest that since ROCOR put together a commission and its conclusions are infalable is naive. They also put together a commission to study joining with Moscow......Vladika Lavra also in the forefront........must it too be right? Know that the events of 2001 led to 2007.........the events of 1994 led to 2001.
My hope is that Bishop Agafangel will lead ROCOR.......... realizing that it has been manipulated to acheive its current state, a lot of work needs to be done, no doubt. In conclusion, he needs to (only in my unworthy opinion) "nip this issue" regarding the Cyprianites cannonicity in the bud. It is clearly in question. Let's examine it and address it. He did not need to act so quickly. Lets look at this independently and without the Greek's help......... no offense Bishop Ambrose....... if your position is true, we will learn that after careful study. I recognize that you were just answereing a question asked of you.
Daniel, Good luck in your search for truth............
Following is a summary someone else wrote, of the "Cyprianites", hope it is helpful:
_______________________________________________________________
DANIEL'S REPLY TO BOB CLARK:
Sharing With Bp. Auxentios, of my reply to "Bob Clark":
Reply: My Attempt:
Dear Bob Clark,
Well, firstly...I am not sure which mailing originating with myself, you are speaking of. If it is the answers of Bp. Ambrose to my questions to him (?)....well then, of course, that email is no where sufficient, to cover ALL the tangled issues involved with...all of the related matters touched upon. But, so you fully understand my position: I am quite happy and fully trusting in the wise & totally Orthodox episcopal guidance of our heroic bishop, Vladyka Agafangel. GOD GRANT HIM MANY YEARS!!!
Therefore, my sole interest in further clarification of 1) the precise-Cyprianite's positions about THEMSELVES, and 2) ROCOR's past...and now present-ROCOR-Vl. Agafangel's current positions vis-a-vis the Cyprianites....and regarding all other pertinent issues and rival Russian-dissident groups/the MP/Worldly Orthodoxy, etc., etc., etc....is...indeed for my own knowledge, and as POLEMICAL information to share with those...who like myself, do really care about the TRUTH of things.
But, I do not feel that I can or want to ARGUE with you. Not at all!
Our biggest lacking, at this time, is in the area of getting our side of matters accross to the public, INFORMATION SHARING, and that is because of several problems: the Russian-language is THE language of communication in our church & therefore, English readers are at a disadvantage currently, Vl. Agafangel's main avenue of communicating his stances & positions, etc,.....are on his blog site/in Russian. Otherwise, our Fr. Victor Dobroff composes and puts out what he can, but again in Russian. The English versions take much longer to get translated and published. Hence, we suffer a communication-limbo situation.
We are the few floating survivors...after the Titanic went down to the bottom! So, all that I can share with you, regarding the Cyprianites, is that I fully believe that they are...100% PURE AS THE DRIVEN SNOW ORTHODOX!!! And everything, everything! written to try to prove otherwise is based on either :1) ignorance of accurate historical events or documents or CANONS, 2) depending too heavily upon their critics views and their critics interpretations of "the canons", 3) ignoring Vl. Agafangel's own ecclesiology: To wit: That HE! is the SOLE-CANONICAL EPISCOPAL continuation of the historic ROCOR, and that, thus- he has no right to change....virtually ANY previous LAWFUL decisions of the old-canonical ROCOR...but rather that it is HIS DUTY! to enforce such past decisions, unchanged and untampered with.....unless and untill a church-sobor (the hoped for "All-Russian Land-Pomestney World-Wide Sobor") will in sobornost-conciliarity....judge otherwise, 4) SO- just as the old ROCOR...carefully studied all pertinent documents of the Cyprianites...when they received them in sisterly co-communion, just so, Vl. Agafangel CONTUNUES such co-communion. And as ROCOR gave them their episcopate, so now the Cyprianites are reciprocating and helping us to restore OUR-ROCOR episcopate.
For these reasons and more, we believe STRONGLY, that the foes of the Cyprianites are our foes too. And...we believe that all their foes' cunning & clever sophistries of pretended-"righteous indignation" against our Cyprianite brothers...are....RUBBISH!
*And who? wrote your below "A summary someone else wrote, of the Cyprianites"? It sounds like the clever baloney from Vladimir Moss, is it? I am sorry, Bob, but our Fr. Victor Dobroff has more than refuted Mr. Moss and RPATS and all other detractors of our Cyprianite brothers. And, IT DOES MATTER! that the old-ROCOR OFFICIALLY! studied/examined/accepted them years back. What does not truly matter, was the personal opinion of Bp. George Grabbe later on, or the epistle from the Vitaly-ite Schismatics...after Vitaly Ustinov was no longer our Metropolitan.....those two flawed documents ARE of some passing interest.(& both of which our Fr. Victor has long ago de-bunked)..but have no real bearing nor canonical weight whatsoever, NONE!!!
If you carefully read Bp. Ambrose's initial words to me, he stated that it is too bad that I don't read Greek.......because ALL the original and most important historical/doctrinal documents of/from/about the Cyprianites...which were handed to ROCOR years back, were/are in Greek and Russian........and NONE were never translated into English. And AH!...to me, those documents would most likely give many answers to critics today (the ones who care about truth and not rivallry and church-power struggles....as do RTOC and ROAC, etc.)
For myself, I can read Russian texts on the internet, only....via the rough-Google translations. If YOU read Russian, then you can read what our Fr. Victor just put up on these exact matters, his: "In anticipation of the Vth. All-Abroad Sobor: About the Orthodox teachings of the Church of Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Fili and the fallacy of the recent (Feb. 17, 2008) RPATS-Sobor's anathema against the Cyprianites". In Russian: http://ruschurchabroad.com/080304.htm If you first punch in the google: http://www.google.com ......and then when the google firstpage comes up, type in either:
http://elmager.livejournal.com .... or
http://guest-2.livejournal.com .....
because both of those RUSSIAN sites, give this text......and on those sites....via Google......you can get a rough translation into..."English" (better if you know SOME Russian vocabulary), of this statement.
So, I must conclude here.
I will say to you, that I do fully trust our Vladyka Agafangel and our clergy, and I have NO doubts as to their canonicity or Orthodoxy, nor do I doubt the correctness and rightness of our Cyprianite brothers.
Those I do not trust, are the snide & conceited and ill-informed detractors of us and our friends.
However, I admit to you, that...again.....adequate COMMUNICATION (especially in our English language) is a serious lacking in our ROCOR-PSCA.
So far, we have not been very adept at getting out, what WE believe....whether anyone out there agrees with us...or not.
So, forgive me, if I may have here appeared to jump on you, as that is not what I meant to do. But, such issues are HOT ones, regardless.
I will forward to you, another (easier to read) copy of my "Responces from Bp. Ambrose" letter.
Thank you.
PEACE!
Reader Daniel Everiss
From: Reader Daniel
Saturday Feb 17/March 1, 2008
Dear Vladyka Ambrose, Bless Master!
My name is Reader Daniel Everiss, who is loyal to our Vladyka Agafangel, and I live here in Oregon, U.S.A.
I often must explain to others, the total case in favor of our bishop and his continued-ROCOR, and thus too, WHY/HOW we are in full communion with your Synod In Resistance.....which synod...many critics near and far, deprecate and proclaim as "heretical", etc. ...ad nauseum!
I have searched your official Synod In Resistance web, but no where can I find a simple/direct answer to the three main charges which critics make against you:
1) your Synod was declared by all the other Old Calendar Churches, as" heretical/uncanonical"
2) that your "doctrine" of "the sick and healthy parts...of THE Church" is uncanonical/heretical, and
3) that your clergy...routinely...give your communion to...new-calendar laity (&clergy?)...as a POLICY of your synod.
Please Vladyka, if you have the time, please give me your answers to these 3 pertinent accusations so that I can then USE them, to respond to OUR mutual attackers.
One fact that is for sure, the precise history of your "Greek Old Calendar" movement vis-a vis the Official State Greek Church (New Calendar)....has many differences with.....the Russian-experiences....since the Bolshevik revolution...up to now. And yet, our two churches have also MUCH in common, as regards matters of the Orthodox Faith, etc.
If you have time and if you will, please Vladyka Ambrose, give me a short explanation of this matter, so that I can share it with others, for their edification and enlightenment. As your Grace well knows, these days, we are surrounded by a great cloud or rather a SMOG of...self-appointed/armchair "Experts on Canon law".......who are...doing much damage to our Orthodox people, as they tend to USE their often off-balanced and out-of-context-PRIVATE interpretations of "the canons" to attack and destroy and harm each other, and thus...our entire Orthodox Church. God save us from these "canon-law experts"!!!
With much esteem and respect, and asking Your Grace's Blessing, I remain-
Reader Daniel Everiss, in Oregon
______________________________________________________________
RESPONSE FROM BISHOP AMBROSE
Subject: Re: What Do The Cyprianites Really Believe?/HELP VLADYKA AMBROSE!
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 17:26:18 +0200
Bp. Ambrose:
Dear Daniel, I will try to answer your questions briefly (time is always a problem!) . If you knew Greek, you would be able to find quite a quantity of apposite material on our website, but not all has been translated into English, and, unfortunately, still less into Russian.
Rd. Daniel:
...1) your Synod was declared by all the other Old Calendar Churches, as" heretical/uncanonical"
Bp. Ambrose:
All the other old-calendarist groups in Greece subscribe officially to a position which regards themselves as the sole representatives of the Church of Greece, and both the new-calendarist official Church and all the other old-calendarists as being outside the Church. As the Russian Church Abroad examined the questions regarding both our ecclesiological position and our canonical status with considerable care before entering into communion with us in 1994, and since nothing has changed since then, it is clear that Vladyka Agafangel is just continuing where the rest of the Synod was before their apostasy. We have, of course, all the documentation that was sent to the commission of the ROCOR Synod in both Greek and Russian (it was never put into English) if such is ever needed. If Vladyka Agafangel is wrong now in communing with us, then so was the entire ROCOR a few years ago!
Rd. Daniel:
...2) that your "doctrine" of "the sick and healthy parts...of THE Church" is uncanonical/heretical, and
Bp. Ambrose:
Our Ecclesiological position was accepted by the ROCOR as 'identical to their own' in 1994. I remain convinced that our position on the subject in question is incontrovertible; indeed most of those opposed to us accept it. The real difference lies in whether we consider the new calendarists/ecumenists to be already synodically condemned or not. Some of our opponents consider that such a Synodical condemnation was effected by the Greek Hierarchs who separated from the new calendar in 1935, some that it was with the ROCOR's anathema of ecumenism in 1973, some that it was effected by the synods of 1583-1592, and so on - there is no accord on the question. We, I am sure with very good reason, prefer a more circumspect outlook, which, as I stated above, was also that of the ROCOR hierarchy before their apostasy.
Rd. Daniel:
...3) that your clergy...routinely...give your communion to...new-calendar laity (&clergy?)...as a POLICY of your synod.
Bp. Ambrose:
This very peculiar accusation comes often from those whose clergy do on a large scale what they accuse us of. The distribution of the Holy Mysteries to New Calendarists whether in Greece or of the diaspora is not our policy, and if occasionally exceptions have been made, then this is for very specific pastoral reasons. It is, as I say, astonishing that this accusation usually originates with those who, although they regard the new-calendarsists as outside the Church and are, in theory, thus strictly forbidden from communicating them, do so often with perfect indifference! - I will not here enter into the invidious task of naming them!
Rd. Daniel:
... One fact that is for sure, the precise history of your "Greek Old Calendar" movement vis-a vis the Official State Greek Church (New Calendar)....has many differences with.....the Russian-experiences....since the Bolshevik revolution...up to now. And yet, our two churches have also MUCH in common, as regards matters of the Orthodox Faith, etc.
Bp. Ambrose:
Every local Church has its own experience, but we are united in the one Orthodox faith, which inspires our fathers, through the grace of the Holy Spirit, to react to critical situations, which may indeed externally be entirely different, in very similar ways, just as the apostates are similarly united - just think of Patriarch Meletios Metaxakis' enthusiastic support of the schismatic renovationists in Russia!
Rd. Daniel:
... As your Grace well knows, these days, we are surrounded by a great cloud or rather a SMOG of...self-appointed/armchair "Experts on Canon law".......who are...doing much damage to our Orthodox people, as they tend to USE their often off-balanced and out-of-context-PRIVATE interpretations of "the canons" to attack and destroy and harm each other, and thus...our entire Orthodox Church. God save us from these "canon-law experts"!!!
Bp. Ambrose:
Here you are very right. We have great need both of sobriety, humility and prayer in order not to stray from the royal Path.
Rd. Daniel:
With much esteem and respect, and asking Your Grace's Blessing, I remain
- Reader Daniel Everiss, in Oregon
Bp. Ambrose:
May God bless you. I take the liberty of sending a copy of this letter to our Synodal Exarch in America, Archbishop Chrysostomos, as you live in his parts.
+ Bishop Ambrose
________________________________________________________________________
From: clarkbob7h@hotmail.com
To: oregdan@hotmail.com
CC: ambrose@synodinresistance.org; agafangel@paco.net
Subject: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 19:21:52 -0500
Daniel,
I am one of those people who has been disapointed in the path taken by Bishop Agafangel and someone had forwarded the mass e-mail response to your question. I will try to provide you some perspective to consider as you pursue your own path. It is meant to help. You will notice that I cc'd the two most effected by my thoughts and no one else. I am no expert, and am open to hearing any attempt to correct what I write..........
Unfortunately he did not answer “2”. This idealogy is way off base from Christian teaching. Don't think it is necessary to expand on this.
Also, it should be noted that in 1994, two schisms began to develop in ROCOR (Valentine & Lazar…..now Thihkon); AND, this is when Vladika Gregory, the conscience, and the official synod secretary for ALL of our previous hierarchs, was “black balled” from synod meetings………the move to Cyprian was a step from Met. Philaret’s ideology and to Moscow / Stalin’s ideology.
This was stated then (by “fanatics”) and time has shown it to be true. Vladika Agafangel could have avoided all these issues and questions with patience, prayer, and perhaps more dialogue with other local Orthodox churches (even the Romanians).
To suggest that since ROCOR put together a commission and its conclusions are infalable is naive. They also put together a commission to study joining with Moscow......Vladika Lavra also in the forefront........must it too be right? Know that the events of 2001 led to 2007.........the events of 1994 led to 2001.
My hope is that Bishop Agafangel will lead ROCOR.......... realizing that it has been manipulated to acheive its current state, a lot of work needs to be done, no doubt. In conclusion, he needs to (only in my unworthy opinion) "nip this issue" regarding the Cyprianites cannonicity in the bud. It is clearly in question. Let's examine it and address it. He did not need to act so quickly. Lets look at this independently and without the Greek's help......... no offense Bishop Ambrose....... if your position is true, we will learn that after careful study. I recognize that you were just answereing a question asked of you.
Daniel, Good luck in your search for truth............
Following is a summary someone else wrote, of the "Cyprianites", hope it is helpful:
The Cyprianites state that: 1.) the condemnations of the 16th century Pan-Orthodox councils against anyone who would adopt the New Calendar do not apply to the modern New Calendarists;[4] 2.) the ecumenist New Calendar Church is the “Mother Church” of the Old Calendar Church; 3.) its mysteries are fully valid until condemned by a Pan-Orthodox council—“even if the resolution of the situation be prolonged until the Second Coming;”[5] 4.) to be considered Pan-Orthodox, this council must be attended by the ecumenists and New Calendarists themselves;[6] 5.) a local council has no right to issue an anathema against a heresy[7] (such as the Russian Church Abroad issued against ecumenism in 1983);[8] 6.) a bishop who publically proclaims heresy is not a heretic, but is rather an ailing member of the Church until he anathematizes his own heresy at a Pan-orthodox council;[9] 7.) a local Church may splinter into any number of synods which are out of communion with one another because of matters of faith, yet they are all equally part of the Church until the Pan-Orthodox council is held—or forever, if the various synods (including the ecumenists themselves) never agree to convene the Pan-Orthodox council to condemn ecumenism;[10] and 8.) anyone who disagrees with these positions is a gravely mistaken fanatic with whom it is impossible to have communion.[11] The Cyprianites are also schismatic, having failed to return to the canonical Church from the Callistos schism with the other bishops ordained in 1979 by Callistos.[12]
Finally, the canonical Church of Greece, which comprises about 70% of the Old Calendarist movement, maintains the traditional position that the New Calendar is graceless; but actual opinion in the Church is not necessarily unilateral on this question. Its bishops reject the New Calendar church not so much because they view it as graceless, but because it has abandoned the truth. Since it does not adhere to an Orthodox confession of faith, it is impossible for the True Orthodox to recognize it, a schismatic and hereticizing body, as the Mother Church, or officially to declare that beyond a shadow of doubt it possesses sacramental grace—as Cyprian teaches. (empasis in this last sentence is mine, not the original author).
4. See “An Informatory Epistle” by Met. Cyprian, 4:12.
5. An Ecclesiological Position Paper, by Met. Cyprian.
6. Ibid.
7. See “An Informatory Epistle,” 4, passim.
8 Ibid. 5:3
9. See “An Ecclesiological Position Paper.”
10. Ibid.
11. See “Second Encyclical of the Holy Synod in Resistance.”
12. From 1994 to 2006 the Russian Church Abroad and the Cyprianites were in communion. Archbishop Mark of Berlin and several other bishops instrumental in the ROCOR union with Moscow also played a leading role in the ROCOR union with the Cyprianites. The ROCOR bishops stated that their ecclesiology—previously somewhat unclear, at least on an official level—was now the same as Cyprian’s. Subsequently, certain of Cyprian’s notions proved very useful to the ROCOR bishops in justifying their union with Moscow.
_______________________________________________________________
DANIEL'S REPLY TO BOB CLARK:
Sharing With Bp. Auxentios, of my reply to "Bob Clark":
Reply: My Attempt:
Dear Bob Clark,
Well, firstly...I am not sure which mailing originating with myself, you are speaking of. If it is the answers of Bp. Ambrose to my questions to him (?)....well then, of course, that email is no where sufficient, to cover ALL the tangled issues involved with...all of the related matters touched upon. But, so you fully understand my position: I am quite happy and fully trusting in the wise & totally Orthodox episcopal guidance of our heroic bishop, Vladyka Agafangel. GOD GRANT HIM MANY YEARS!!!
Therefore, my sole interest in further clarification of 1) the precise-Cyprianite's positions about THEMSELVES, and 2) ROCOR's past...and now present-ROCOR-Vl. Agafangel's current positions vis-a-vis the Cyprianites....and regarding all other pertinent issues and rival Russian-dissident groups/the MP/Worldly Orthodoxy, etc., etc., etc....is...indeed for my own knowledge, and as POLEMICAL information to share with those...who like myself, do really care about the TRUTH of things.
But, I do not feel that I can or want to ARGUE with you. Not at all!
Our biggest lacking, at this time, is in the area of getting our side of matters accross to the public, INFORMATION SHARING, and that is because of several problems: the Russian-language is THE language of communication in our church & therefore, English readers are at a disadvantage currently, Vl. Agafangel's main avenue of communicating his stances & positions, etc,.....are on his blog site/in Russian. Otherwise, our Fr. Victor Dobroff composes and puts out what he can, but again in Russian. The English versions take much longer to get translated and published. Hence, we suffer a communication-limbo situation.
We are the few floating survivors...after the Titanic went down to the bottom! So, all that I can share with you, regarding the Cyprianites, is that I fully believe that they are...100% PURE AS THE DRIVEN SNOW ORTHODOX!!! And everything, everything! written to try to prove otherwise is based on either :1) ignorance of accurate historical events or documents or CANONS, 2) depending too heavily upon their critics views and their critics interpretations of "the canons", 3) ignoring Vl. Agafangel's own ecclesiology: To wit: That HE! is the SOLE-CANONICAL EPISCOPAL continuation of the historic ROCOR, and that, thus- he has no right to change....virtually ANY previous LAWFUL decisions of the old-canonical ROCOR...but rather that it is HIS DUTY! to enforce such past decisions, unchanged and untampered with.....unless and untill a church-sobor (the hoped for "All-Russian Land-Pomestney World-Wide Sobor") will in sobornost-conciliarity....judge otherwise, 4) SO- just as the old ROCOR...carefully studied all pertinent documents of the Cyprianites...when they received them in sisterly co-communion, just so, Vl. Agafangel CONTUNUES such co-communion. And as ROCOR gave them their episcopate, so now the Cyprianites are reciprocating and helping us to restore OUR-ROCOR episcopate.
For these reasons and more, we believe STRONGLY, that the foes of the Cyprianites are our foes too. And...we believe that all their foes' cunning & clever sophistries of pretended-"righteous indignation" against our Cyprianite brothers...are....RUBBISH!
*And who? wrote your below "A summary someone else wrote, of the Cyprianites"? It sounds like the clever baloney from Vladimir Moss, is it? I am sorry, Bob, but our Fr. Victor Dobroff has more than refuted Mr. Moss and RPATS and all other detractors of our Cyprianite brothers. And, IT DOES MATTER! that the old-ROCOR OFFICIALLY! studied/examined/accepted them years back. What does not truly matter, was the personal opinion of Bp. George Grabbe later on, or the epistle from the Vitaly-ite Schismatics...after Vitaly Ustinov was no longer our Metropolitan.....those two flawed documents ARE of some passing interest.(& both of which our Fr. Victor has long ago de-bunked)..but have no real bearing nor canonical weight whatsoever, NONE!!!
If you carefully read Bp. Ambrose's initial words to me, he stated that it is too bad that I don't read Greek.......because ALL the original and most important historical/doctrinal documents of/from/about the Cyprianites...which were handed to ROCOR years back, were/are in Greek and Russian........and NONE were never translated into English. And AH!...to me, those documents would most likely give many answers to critics today (the ones who care about truth and not rivallry and church-power struggles....as do RTOC and ROAC, etc.)
For myself, I can read Russian texts on the internet, only....via the rough-Google translations. If YOU read Russian, then you can read what our Fr. Victor just put up on these exact matters, his: "In anticipation of the Vth. All-Abroad Sobor: About the Orthodox teachings of the Church of Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Fili and the fallacy of the recent (Feb. 17, 2008) RPATS-Sobor's anathema against the Cyprianites". In Russian: http://ruschurchabroad.com/080304.htm If you first punch in the google: http://www.google.com ......and then when the google firstpage comes up, type in either:
http://elmager.livejournal.com .... or
http://guest-2.livejournal.com .....
because both of those RUSSIAN sites, give this text......and on those sites....via Google......you can get a rough translation into..."English" (better if you know SOME Russian vocabulary), of this statement.
So, I must conclude here.
I will say to you, that I do fully trust our Vladyka Agafangel and our clergy, and I have NO doubts as to their canonicity or Orthodoxy, nor do I doubt the correctness and rightness of our Cyprianite brothers.
Those I do not trust, are the snide & conceited and ill-informed detractors of us and our friends.
However, I admit to you, that...again.....adequate COMMUNICATION (especially in our English language) is a serious lacking in our ROCOR-PSCA.
So far, we have not been very adept at getting out, what WE believe....whether anyone out there agrees with us...or not.
So, forgive me, if I may have here appeared to jump on you, as that is not what I meant to do. But, such issues are HOT ones, regardless.
I will forward to you, another (easier to read) copy of my "Responces from Bp. Ambrose" letter.
Thank you.
PEACE!
Reader Daniel Everiss
What Makes The Cyprianites "tick"?
A MATTER TO STUDY AND PONDER: What Makes the Cyprianites..."tick"-?
March 1, 2008
If you have the patience to read and digest this document (&then..perhaps other formative statements, about themselves & their detractors, etc. on the Synod In Resistance web), you may get a clearer picture of the main positions of that synod ...and hints as to why? they are so heavily attacked/misunderstood, etc. (Of course, OTHER than the modern fact of all the self-appointed "armchair-cannon law EXPERTS!")-God Save Us and Our Holy Orthodox Church from them!!!
See: http://www.synodinresistance.org/Theology_el/E3a3a009cOrthodoxosEnstasis.pdf "The Orthodox Resistance Against the Ecclesiastical Heresy of Syncretic Ecumenism".
*Note: From this document alone, one can easily see some fundamental Greek/Russian church, HISTORICAL..differences (i.e. differences of each church's exact problems)...and that internal-Greek Orthodoxy...and post-Bolshevik Russian Orthodoxy, have some things in common, and much that is not the same. Hence, some of our current...misunderstandings, especially of the critics of the Cyprianites ...and also similar criticisms NOW thrown against our Vl. Agafangel who is in full communion with them....etc.
Reader Daniel
March 1, 2008
If you have the patience to read and digest this document (&then..perhaps other formative statements, about themselves & their detractors, etc. on the Synod In Resistance web), you may get a clearer picture of the main positions of that synod ...and hints as to why? they are so heavily attacked/misunderstood, etc. (Of course, OTHER than the modern fact of all the self-appointed "armchair-cannon law EXPERTS!")-God Save Us and Our Holy Orthodox Church from them!!!
See: http://www.synodinresistance.org/Theology_el/E3a3a009cOrthodoxosEnstasis.pdf "The Orthodox Resistance Against the Ecclesiastical Heresy of Syncretic Ecumenism".
*Note: From this document alone, one can easily see some fundamental Greek/Russian church, HISTORICAL..differences (i.e. differences of each church's exact problems)...and that internal-Greek Orthodoxy...and post-Bolshevik Russian Orthodoxy, have some things in common, and much that is not the same. Hence, some of our current...misunderstandings, especially of the critics of the Cyprianites ...and also similar criticisms NOW thrown against our Vl. Agafangel who is in full communion with them....etc.
Reader Daniel
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
