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.



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