A behind-the-scenes look at the writing of the Fr. Seraphim's 1976 article, "The Royal Path: True 0rthodoxy in an Age of Apostasy"
"Inside View of The Royal Path
http://rocorrefugees.blogspot.com/2009/12/inside-view-royal-path.html
This article gives an example of the Royal Path in action.
"How To Regard Piety Found In MP"
http://rocorrefugees.blogspot.com/2009/11/how-to-regard-piety-found-in-mp.html
SIR Statement of Doctrine
Abstracts of Metropolitan Cyprian Oroposskogo
Daily Courier
daily-courier.livejournal.com
• Nov. 6th, 2009 at 10:15 AM
Definition of the Council of Bishops of ROCOR in 1974:
Chairman of the Cathedral of St. Filaret New York
"As for the question regarding the presence or absence of the grace of the Holy Spirit in the sacraments of the Church novostilnoy, Pravoslalvnaya Russian Church Outside of Russia does not consider himself or any other local Church has the power to make the final decision as the final solution to this problem belongs to a specially convened Ecumenical Council "
Message from the Council of Bishops of ROCOR from 3 / 16 May 1990 Chairman of Metropolitan Cathedral. Vitaly (Ustinov):
"We believe and confess that in the churches of the Moscow Patriarchate, in those in which the priest believes fervently and sincerely pray, Being not only a minister of religion, but a good shepherd who loves his sheep, by faith beginning, served in the saving grace of the Sacraments."
Resolution of the Synod of Bishops of ROCOR 3 / 16 August 1994 President of the Synod of Met. Vitaly (Ustinov) § 2, paragraph a) "the Synod of Metropolitan Cyprian fully kept the same ecclesiological and dogmatic principles, as our Russian Orthodox Tserkvov.
Ekkliziologicheskie theses
or
Statement of the doctrine of the Church
for Orthodox opposing the heresy of ecumenism
Metropolitan Oropossky and Filiysky Cyprian
1. Church and heresy.
We believe in "one, holy, catholic and apostolic church." The Church in heaven and the Church on earth - one, even if the latter is named after different places, such as the Church of Galatia, "in Ephesus" or " The Church in Greece. "There is one Lord" of the Orthodox Church - Jesus Christ our Lord. "single faith" in the Church - Orthodoxy divinely inspired Apostles, the Holy Ecumenical Councils and Bogonosnyh Fathers. "One Baptism for salvation - Orthodox Baptism in the name of the Father and Son and the Holy Spirit. "
Orthodox Church as a whole - is infallible and invincible. "And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it", says the Lord Almighty. However, Christians and local churches can err in matters of faith, that is, they may be mentally ill, and sometimes there is a kind of "penetration of disease into the body of the Church", as St.. John Chrysostom. Christians can be divided and within the Church may appear "divisive" as the Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians. Local Churches may fall into heresy, as happened with the ancient Orthodox Church of the West, which fell into the great heresy of Protestantism and the papacy and, eventually, to the heresy of heresies - ecumenism.
Spiritual illnesses are treated within the Church or repentance, or ecclesiastical court. Until the eruption of a heretic, schismatic and a sinner - whether the church or directly by the Lord - view individual believer can not replace the verdict of the Cathedral Church and her Lord, Jesus Christ, even if the matter remains unresolved until the Second Coming. As is known, the Church is likened in Scripture field performance of the "wheat and chaff," according to the divine and a church dispensation. Those misguided in a proper understanding of faith in the fact that sins but still untried ecclesiastical court, are the sick members of the Church. Mysteries committed such unconvicted members, according to the Seventh Ecumenical Council, are valid. For example, they are the ordination of God, "as notice of the Cathedral of St. Chair. Tarasius. On the other hand, the possible penalties imposed by the preachers of heresy in the Orthodox opposed to it - are invalid and baseless, according to the teachings of the Church," since the start of their sermons "( that is, from the moment they began to preach heresy), wrote St. Celestine of Rome and adopted the Third Ecumenical Council ..
2. Opposing and unity.
Orthodox Christians have a right based on the Gospel and church canons, detached, that is, to suspend the ecclesial communion and remembrance of the Bishop, who preaches a "heresy prinarodno and bareheaded in church, or one who is accused of what he unrepentant wrong "in matters of piety and righteousness", as stated in th Apostolic Canon, namely, when it acts "against the debt and equity," explains canonist Zonaras. If a bishop or cleric, said SW. John Chrysostom, "Luka in matters of faith, then Run, and reject it if it is not only" man, but even if an angel from heaven. "
The Orthodox, who are separated in such a way, adhering to the sacred canons, not be "canonical punishment." On the contrary, they are worthy of the church "honor", "befitting an Orthodox." They are regarded as worthy Orthodox, because "they did not split the unity of the Church a schism, but, in contrast, sought to rid the Church from schisms and divisions." This means that "they have their office did not cause a split of the Church, but soon released her from splitting (caused by pseudo-bishops) as it depended on them," again explains Zonaras. Those who preach heresy, and the one who brings novelty into the Church, shared her and violated her integrity and unity. Those who oppose the heretical preaching or separated from it, strives to save the integrity and unity of the Church. The purpose of the confrontation and separation - the fight against heresy, the protection of the Orthodox faith and preserve the unity of the Orthodox Church, that is Orthodoxy itself.
3. Separation of the Church due to ecumenism.
Today the Church in Greece, unfortunately, divided and sick. In 1924, the dark forces divided it by innovation trinadtsatidnevnogo change festive calendar. This move resembles the emergence of the iconoclastic heresy. Iconoclastic heresy first showed itself as a failure. of the holy icons. However, this refers to not only the veneration of icons, but there was a vast religious and ecclesiastical reformation. "It was, indeed," very godless and fundamental alteration ", described it as a prep. Theodore. Also a modern innovation in the festive calendar is presented as innocent chronological change. However, this is the beginning and a clear expression and manifestation of the heresy of ecumenism. This change is not just a vast religious and ecclesiastical reformation, but innovation is ecumenical, Orthodox heretics aspirant assimilation and subordination of Orthodoxy heresiarch Antichrist-Pope. It concludes in themselves "the overthrow of all, and ultimately, the adoption of the Antichrist," writes the same teacher. mihiyskoy Theodore of heresy, which, like the heresy of ecumenism, rejects God's law.
Due to innovations in the festive calendar, the Orthodox were divided into two parts: the sick in faith and health; to Renovationists and opposing, to the followers of innovation, as well conscious of our ignorance, and to oppose that separate themselves from heresy to defend Orthodoxy. These latter are the champions of the association "separated", that is, for the unity of the Orthodox Church as the Seventh Ecumenical Council refers to those who are separated for these reasons.
Followers of innovations in the calendar has not yet been convicted as such, it vsetserkovno, as is customary in Orthodoxy.
Writes St. Nicodemus the Holy Mountain, the offender is convicted of the existing rules only when it has already been tried "the second person, that is the cathedral." Novostilniki subject to the court since 1924 and should be judged on the basis of the Holy Council, as the local and universal, and in particular on the basis of religious orders of the sixteenth century, against the then Pope's proposals for reform of the festive calendar. Therefore, those who are separated from novostilnikov actually interrupt ecclesial communion "of the cathedral before the court, as prescribed in Rule 15-m double-Cathedral. So novostilniki has not yet been convicted. Consequently, their sacraments are valid, but the penalties imposed by them on opposing - invalid and baseless. In addition, their repentance and restoration of Orthodoxy - easily, if only they themselves wish this blessed return.
4. Repentance and return.
Each member novostilnoy Church in Greece may be resisting ecumenical innovation. This can be realized through repentance, as it always happened in Orthodoxy. We read in the minutes of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, as some bishops said: "We all have sinned, we all ask for forgiveness." "And rising, a pious bishop Juvenal with them crossed to the other side", ie the side of the Orthodox. "And the representatives of the East, together with their pious bishops exclaimed: Welcome, Orthodox, verily, God brought you!". Thus, through repentance and the transition they were taken to Orthodoxy. We see a similar return and the Sixth Ecumenical Council. St. Tarasov, Chairman of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, tells us that "most" of the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council "were ordained" heretics, namely, "the leaders monofelitskoy heresy." But the same passage, they were taken to Orthodoxy.
Return to Orthodoxy may also be realized through the formal renunciation of heresy. St Meletii Antioch was ordained by heretics who were called "new heretics" because they had not yet been convicted. However, as he said in his speech at the inauguration supported Orthodoxy, he became head of the Orthodox of Antioch in the later became Chairman of the Second Ecumenical Council. Thus, it was adopted by the Orthodox confession and preaching of the Orthodox faith. The same thing happened later. The Seventh Ecumenical Council recalls the relevant episode of "scenes from the life of our father St. Sava. It explores how mentors monks, saints Sawa and Theodosius, with his monks, entered into communion with Archbishop John III of Jerusalem who had previously agreed with the arch-heretic North - after the archbishop referred to verbally renounce heresy. At the same council leader of the iconoclastic heresy Business center, Vosstaniya was accepted to participate in the cathedral through the examination of his beliefs and his written denial of this great heresy.
Orthodox tradition of the Holy Ecumenical Councils of the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church teaches us that the sick in faith members divided the Church of Greece may be taken by one of the above ways of repentance and return to the ranks of Orthodoxy, because they are not condemned as heretics or schismatics, and members of the Church had not yet given to court. The adoption of this blessed repentance and immediate or gradual return belongs, of course, the pious judgment Orthodox bishop, who acts according to God, or his confessor. Believers need to take these God blessed the pastors of God as the path to perfection, according to the will of Jesus Christ our Savior, "who all man hoschet be saved in the mind of the truth Priit" and the divine commandment, which states: "iznemogayuschago in the same verve acceptable, not in doubt thoughts. "All of you," writes St. Ignatius of Antioch, "go to the footprint of the Orthodox bishop and priests. Because "that he approves of, and also want God."
5. To the Cathedral of association.
Since the Church of Greece today is divided, the Holy Cathedral Church of Greece united in the form in which it existed before the innovation of 1924, can not be convened. As it has always been in the Orthodox Church, the convening of such a council
would be possible only when separated will unite in Orthodoxy.
During the dominance iconoclast heresy, for example, it was impossible to convene the Orthodox Cathedral of the Church. Only when the iconoclastic heresy was no longer in power, in the year, was convened by the Seventh Ecumenical Council of Association. The same Seventh Ecumenical Council, through the words of the Holy Fathers declared that he held "to split" differences to reconcile, and to remove the barrier of hostility, and to restore the priority of the original precepts Catholic (Orthodox) church. "In other words, it was held in order to disparate parts of the Church - then divided by the iconoclasts, dissenters from the Orthodox faith, Orthodox, opposed iconoclast heresy - were united in harmony within Orthodoxy. In this way, it is through the consent of Orthodoxy Church United Church of Greece can be convened as the Cathedral of the association "separated" followers of the ecumenical innovation and opposing it.
According to the teachings of the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church, the so-called "Holy Synod of the Church of Greece" is not a united Synod of the Church of Greece. This synod, deviating in innovation, was at odds with the Church. His actions and decisions in favor of changing the calendar and the papal ecumenism - and indeed the heresy of ecumenism - put him clearly in the category of ancient cathedrals, who sympathized with heretics, or were themselves heretical. These churches were going to convene the ecumenical councils, such as the iconoclastic council of 754, was convened to innovation iconoclastic heresy and condemned by the Seventh Ecumenical Council.
But the Holy Synod of the opposing innovation in the festive calendar and ecumenism, too, do not constitute a joint council of the Orthodox Church in Greece. According to the Gospel and the canonical law and the teachings of the Holy Fathers, the separation and the struggle against heresy by the Orthodox opposed to it, is aimed at preserving the unity of the Church's faith, and the union split the Church of Greece by uniting the council. As already mentioned, they did not split the unity of the Church a schism, but, in contrast, sought to rid the Church from schisms and divisions, "Therefore, until such a Council is only expected association and still be held in the future, now struggles to exploit the Orthodox opposition . The existence of different synods oppose - a sign of the good fight and struggle for faith. They should therefore be considered as groups and gatherings of bishops, who represent the spirit of the Orthodox opposition to heresy in favor of Orthodoxy and for the sake of the unity of the Church.
6. Need Orthodox opposition.
By the first requires no administrative organization opposed to innovation, as if they alone form a united Church of Greece, but the need is the struggle against the Orthodox heresy, according to the deeds and teachings of saints of the past. "We need a great fight and the law," said St. Basil the Great in times similar to our. "Indeed, we need a great struggle according to the evangelical and canonical law, the acts of saints and the just state law.
Each combines an ecumenical council of the Church was the fruit of the sacred struggle of Orthodox, who opposed the heresy. First Ecumenical Council was held as a result of righteous struggle for the faith, mainly Sts. Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius, the Second Ecumenical Council - Ss. Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian. Third Ecumenical Council took place thanks to the efforts, first, Ss. Cyril of Alexandria and Celestine of Rome. Fourth and Fifth Ecumenical Councils were convened by the efforts of the Orthodox, who, without sparing himself, fought for the Orthodox faith "even unto death." The Sixth Ecumenical Council was held by the struggle, above all, teacher. Maximus the Confessor and St. Sophronius "The Seventh Ecumenical Council was the result of efforts, in particular teacher. John of Damascus and other saints.
And today, we would come to the Orthodox Cathedral of the divides of the Church in Greece, by imitating the saints and the heroic fighters of the Orthodox Church, which preceded us. This requires: Orthodoxy, Fathers' rationale; standoff following the example of the saints, and cooperation between the opposing in the Orthodox faith and love of truth, "says the Apostle Paul, the struggle against the innovations in the calendar, and generally against the heresy of heresies - ecumenism. The fight must be persistent, the legal and until his death. For the LORD said, a single, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, our Lord Jesus Christ: "Blessed be faithful even unto death, and give ti crown belly"
+ Cyprian, Metropolitan Oropossky and Filiysky, Chairman of the Synod of Resistance (True Orthodox Christians in Greece).
Monastery of Sts. Cyprian and Justina, Fili, Attica, Greece. 1993
Translated from the Greek
Daily Courier
daily-courier.livejournal.com
• Nov. 6th, 2009 at 10:15 AM
Definition of the Council of Bishops of ROCOR in 1974:
Chairman of the Cathedral of St. Filaret New York
"As for the question regarding the presence or absence of the grace of the Holy Spirit in the sacraments of the Church novostilnoy, Pravoslalvnaya Russian Church Outside of Russia does not consider himself or any other local Church has the power to make the final decision as the final solution to this problem belongs to a specially convened Ecumenical Council "
Message from the Council of Bishops of ROCOR from 3 / 16 May 1990 Chairman of Metropolitan Cathedral. Vitaly (Ustinov):
"We believe and confess that in the churches of the Moscow Patriarchate, in those in which the priest believes fervently and sincerely pray, Being not only a minister of religion, but a good shepherd who loves his sheep, by faith beginning, served in the saving grace of the Sacraments."
Resolution of the Synod of Bishops of ROCOR 3 / 16 August 1994 President of the Synod of Met. Vitaly (Ustinov) § 2, paragraph a) "the Synod of Metropolitan Cyprian fully kept the same ecclesiological and dogmatic principles, as our Russian Orthodox Tserkvov.
Ekkliziologicheskie theses
or
Statement of the doctrine of the Church
for Orthodox opposing the heresy of ecumenism
Metropolitan Oropossky and Filiysky Cyprian
1. Church and heresy.
We believe in "one, holy, catholic and apostolic church." The Church in heaven and the Church on earth - one, even if the latter is named after different places, such as the Church of Galatia, "in Ephesus" or " The Church in Greece. "There is one Lord" of the Orthodox Church - Jesus Christ our Lord. "single faith" in the Church - Orthodoxy divinely inspired Apostles, the Holy Ecumenical Councils and Bogonosnyh Fathers. "One Baptism for salvation - Orthodox Baptism in the name of the Father and Son and the Holy Spirit. "
Orthodox Church as a whole - is infallible and invincible. "And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it", says the Lord Almighty. However, Christians and local churches can err in matters of faith, that is, they may be mentally ill, and sometimes there is a kind of "penetration of disease into the body of the Church", as St.. John Chrysostom. Christians can be divided and within the Church may appear "divisive" as the Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians. Local Churches may fall into heresy, as happened with the ancient Orthodox Church of the West, which fell into the great heresy of Protestantism and the papacy and, eventually, to the heresy of heresies - ecumenism.
Spiritual illnesses are treated within the Church or repentance, or ecclesiastical court. Until the eruption of a heretic, schismatic and a sinner - whether the church or directly by the Lord - view individual believer can not replace the verdict of the Cathedral Church and her Lord, Jesus Christ, even if the matter remains unresolved until the Second Coming. As is known, the Church is likened in Scripture field performance of the "wheat and chaff," according to the divine and a church dispensation. Those misguided in a proper understanding of faith in the fact that sins but still untried ecclesiastical court, are the sick members of the Church. Mysteries committed such unconvicted members, according to the Seventh Ecumenical Council, are valid. For example, they are the ordination of God, "as notice of the Cathedral of St. Chair. Tarasius. On the other hand, the possible penalties imposed by the preachers of heresy in the Orthodox opposed to it - are invalid and baseless, according to the teachings of the Church," since the start of their sermons "( that is, from the moment they began to preach heresy), wrote St. Celestine of Rome and adopted the Third Ecumenical Council ..
2. Opposing and unity.
Orthodox Christians have a right based on the Gospel and church canons, detached, that is, to suspend the ecclesial communion and remembrance of the Bishop, who preaches a "heresy prinarodno and bareheaded in church, or one who is accused of what he unrepentant wrong "in matters of piety and righteousness", as stated in th Apostolic Canon, namely, when it acts "against the debt and equity," explains canonist Zonaras. If a bishop or cleric, said SW. John Chrysostom, "Luka in matters of faith, then Run, and reject it if it is not only" man, but even if an angel from heaven. "
The Orthodox, who are separated in such a way, adhering to the sacred canons, not be "canonical punishment." On the contrary, they are worthy of the church "honor", "befitting an Orthodox." They are regarded as worthy Orthodox, because "they did not split the unity of the Church a schism, but, in contrast, sought to rid the Church from schisms and divisions." This means that "they have their office did not cause a split of the Church, but soon released her from splitting (caused by pseudo-bishops) as it depended on them," again explains Zonaras. Those who preach heresy, and the one who brings novelty into the Church, shared her and violated her integrity and unity. Those who oppose the heretical preaching or separated from it, strives to save the integrity and unity of the Church. The purpose of the confrontation and separation - the fight against heresy, the protection of the Orthodox faith and preserve the unity of the Orthodox Church, that is Orthodoxy itself.
3. Separation of the Church due to ecumenism.
Today the Church in Greece, unfortunately, divided and sick. In 1924, the dark forces divided it by innovation trinadtsatidnevnogo change festive calendar. This move resembles the emergence of the iconoclastic heresy. Iconoclastic heresy first showed itself as a failure. of the holy icons. However, this refers to not only the veneration of icons, but there was a vast religious and ecclesiastical reformation. "It was, indeed," very godless and fundamental alteration ", described it as a prep. Theodore. Also a modern innovation in the festive calendar is presented as innocent chronological change. However, this is the beginning and a clear expression and manifestation of the heresy of ecumenism. This change is not just a vast religious and ecclesiastical reformation, but innovation is ecumenical, Orthodox heretics aspirant assimilation and subordination of Orthodoxy heresiarch Antichrist-Pope. It concludes in themselves "the overthrow of all, and ultimately, the adoption of the Antichrist," writes the same teacher. mihiyskoy Theodore of heresy, which, like the heresy of ecumenism, rejects God's law.
Due to innovations in the festive calendar, the Orthodox were divided into two parts: the sick in faith and health; to Renovationists and opposing, to the followers of innovation, as well conscious of our ignorance, and to oppose that separate themselves from heresy to defend Orthodoxy. These latter are the champions of the association "separated", that is, for the unity of the Orthodox Church as the Seventh Ecumenical Council refers to those who are separated for these reasons.
Followers of innovations in the calendar has not yet been convicted as such, it vsetserkovno, as is customary in Orthodoxy.
Writes St. Nicodemus the Holy Mountain, the offender is convicted of the existing rules only when it has already been tried "the second person, that is the cathedral." Novostilniki subject to the court since 1924 and should be judged on the basis of the Holy Council, as the local and universal, and in particular on the basis of religious orders of the sixteenth century, against the then Pope's proposals for reform of the festive calendar. Therefore, those who are separated from novostilnikov actually interrupt ecclesial communion "of the cathedral before the court, as prescribed in Rule 15-m double-Cathedral. So novostilniki has not yet been convicted. Consequently, their sacraments are valid, but the penalties imposed by them on opposing - invalid and baseless. In addition, their repentance and restoration of Orthodoxy - easily, if only they themselves wish this blessed return.
4. Repentance and return.
Each member novostilnoy Church in Greece may be resisting ecumenical innovation. This can be realized through repentance, as it always happened in Orthodoxy. We read in the minutes of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, as some bishops said: "We all have sinned, we all ask for forgiveness." "And rising, a pious bishop Juvenal with them crossed to the other side", ie the side of the Orthodox. "And the representatives of the East, together with their pious bishops exclaimed: Welcome, Orthodox, verily, God brought you!". Thus, through repentance and the transition they were taken to Orthodoxy. We see a similar return and the Sixth Ecumenical Council. St. Tarasov, Chairman of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, tells us that "most" of the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council "were ordained" heretics, namely, "the leaders monofelitskoy heresy." But the same passage, they were taken to Orthodoxy.
Return to Orthodoxy may also be realized through the formal renunciation of heresy. St Meletii Antioch was ordained by heretics who were called "new heretics" because they had not yet been convicted. However, as he said in his speech at the inauguration supported Orthodoxy, he became head of the Orthodox of Antioch in the later became Chairman of the Second Ecumenical Council. Thus, it was adopted by the Orthodox confession and preaching of the Orthodox faith. The same thing happened later. The Seventh Ecumenical Council recalls the relevant episode of "scenes from the life of our father St. Sava. It explores how mentors monks, saints Sawa and Theodosius, with his monks, entered into communion with Archbishop John III of Jerusalem who had previously agreed with the arch-heretic North - after the archbishop referred to verbally renounce heresy. At the same council leader of the iconoclastic heresy Business center, Vosstaniya was accepted to participate in the cathedral through the examination of his beliefs and his written denial of this great heresy.
Orthodox tradition of the Holy Ecumenical Councils of the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church teaches us that the sick in faith members divided the Church of Greece may be taken by one of the above ways of repentance and return to the ranks of Orthodoxy, because they are not condemned as heretics or schismatics, and members of the Church had not yet given to court. The adoption of this blessed repentance and immediate or gradual return belongs, of course, the pious judgment Orthodox bishop, who acts according to God, or his confessor. Believers need to take these God blessed the pastors of God as the path to perfection, according to the will of Jesus Christ our Savior, "who all man hoschet be saved in the mind of the truth Priit" and the divine commandment, which states: "iznemogayuschago in the same verve acceptable, not in doubt thoughts. "All of you," writes St. Ignatius of Antioch, "go to the footprint of the Orthodox bishop and priests. Because "that he approves of, and also want God."
5. To the Cathedral of association.
Since the Church of Greece today is divided, the Holy Cathedral Church of Greece united in the form in which it existed before the innovation of 1924, can not be convened. As it has always been in the Orthodox Church, the convening of such a council
would be possible only when separated will unite in Orthodoxy.
During the dominance iconoclast heresy, for example, it was impossible to convene the Orthodox Cathedral of the Church. Only when the iconoclastic heresy was no longer in power, in the year, was convened by the Seventh Ecumenical Council of Association. The same Seventh Ecumenical Council, through the words of the Holy Fathers declared that he held "to split" differences to reconcile, and to remove the barrier of hostility, and to restore the priority of the original precepts Catholic (Orthodox) church. "In other words, it was held in order to disparate parts of the Church - then divided by the iconoclasts, dissenters from the Orthodox faith, Orthodox, opposed iconoclast heresy - were united in harmony within Orthodoxy. In this way, it is through the consent of Orthodoxy Church United Church of Greece can be convened as the Cathedral of the association "separated" followers of the ecumenical innovation and opposing it.
According to the teachings of the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church, the so-called "Holy Synod of the Church of Greece" is not a united Synod of the Church of Greece. This synod, deviating in innovation, was at odds with the Church. His actions and decisions in favor of changing the calendar and the papal ecumenism - and indeed the heresy of ecumenism - put him clearly in the category of ancient cathedrals, who sympathized with heretics, or were themselves heretical. These churches were going to convene the ecumenical councils, such as the iconoclastic council of 754, was convened to innovation iconoclastic heresy and condemned by the Seventh Ecumenical Council.
But the Holy Synod of the opposing innovation in the festive calendar and ecumenism, too, do not constitute a joint council of the Orthodox Church in Greece. According to the Gospel and the canonical law and the teachings of the Holy Fathers, the separation and the struggle against heresy by the Orthodox opposed to it, is aimed at preserving the unity of the Church's faith, and the union split the Church of Greece by uniting the council. As already mentioned, they did not split the unity of the Church a schism, but, in contrast, sought to rid the Church from schisms and divisions, "Therefore, until such a Council is only expected association and still be held in the future, now struggles to exploit the Orthodox opposition . The existence of different synods oppose - a sign of the good fight and struggle for faith. They should therefore be considered as groups and gatherings of bishops, who represent the spirit of the Orthodox opposition to heresy in favor of Orthodoxy and for the sake of the unity of the Church.
6. Need Orthodox opposition.
By the first requires no administrative organization opposed to innovation, as if they alone form a united Church of Greece, but the need is the struggle against the Orthodox heresy, according to the deeds and teachings of saints of the past. "We need a great fight and the law," said St. Basil the Great in times similar to our. "Indeed, we need a great struggle according to the evangelical and canonical law, the acts of saints and the just state law.
Each combines an ecumenical council of the Church was the fruit of the sacred struggle of Orthodox, who opposed the heresy. First Ecumenical Council was held as a result of righteous struggle for the faith, mainly Sts. Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius, the Second Ecumenical Council - Ss. Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian. Third Ecumenical Council took place thanks to the efforts, first, Ss. Cyril of Alexandria and Celestine of Rome. Fourth and Fifth Ecumenical Councils were convened by the efforts of the Orthodox, who, without sparing himself, fought for the Orthodox faith "even unto death." The Sixth Ecumenical Council was held by the struggle, above all, teacher. Maximus the Confessor and St. Sophronius "The Seventh Ecumenical Council was the result of efforts, in particular teacher. John of Damascus and other saints.
And today, we would come to the Orthodox Cathedral of the divides of the Church in Greece, by imitating the saints and the heroic fighters of the Orthodox Church, which preceded us. This requires: Orthodoxy, Fathers' rationale; standoff following the example of the saints, and cooperation between the opposing in the Orthodox faith and love of truth, "says the Apostle Paul, the struggle against the innovations in the calendar, and generally against the heresy of heresies - ecumenism. The fight must be persistent, the legal and until his death. For the LORD said, a single, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, our Lord Jesus Christ: "Blessed be faithful even unto death, and give ti crown belly"
+ Cyprian, Metropolitan Oropossky and Filiysky, Chairman of the Synod of Resistance (True Orthodox Christians in Greece).
Monastery of Sts. Cyprian and Justina, Fili, Attica, Greece. 1993
Translated from the Greek
Epistle to Cyprianites
Epistle to Cyprianites
From:
O Ekklisiastikos (ekklisiastikos@gmail.com)
Sent:
Mon 10/19/09 2:06 PM
To:
joannahigginbotham@live.com
http://www.ekklisiastikos.com/2009/08/epistle-to-cyprianites.html
Dear brothers and sisters in Christ,
this is a letter to Cyprianites written by the editorial team of the website http://www.ekklisiastikos.com as a responce to their announcement of the cessation of informal dialogue between their community and the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece. If you consider the letter important and if you will you may publish it.
Yours,
--
Ο Εκκλησιαστικός
www.ekklisiastikos.com
≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈
St. Pelagia
Dear Ekklisiastikos,
Thank you for thinking to send this to R0C0R Refugees. You might know that I have a satelite blog devoted to "Cyprianism" in an effort to understand this issue.
http://cyprianites.blogspot.com/
I pretty much ended my searchings into this matter after visiting the SIR monastery in Etna last March. For all the criticisms against the SIR, for all the accusations of their being heretics and schismatics, for all the canons and quotes of saints, all the pages and pages of intellectual logic proving their gracelessness, -- how do we explain that they do in fact have grace?
http://cyprianites.blogspot.com/2009/03/sir-does-too-have-grace.html
Grace is there. It is there where, according to the anti-Cyprianites, it can not be. It is there in the SIR monastery in Etna so thick you can cut it with a knife. The only conclusion I can come to is there has to be something faulty with the anti-Cyprianite reasoning. Just what the error is I could never hope to figure out, that is for somebody smarter than I.
The only other possibility I can imagine is that I'm in prelest - that I mistake a demonic illusion for God's grace. If that is so, then also the grace at my baptism was a demonic illusion, and 0rthodoxy is a trick and not the true faith. That possibility is too absurd to consider.
So, the issue is pretty dead for me, but I will post the invitation to your website for those who wish to look into it further.
In Christ,
Joanna Higginbotham
∞∞∞
WARNING:
I've been advised to be clear to our readers that R0C0R Refugees blog does not recommend the ekklisiastikos.com website or studying these types of materials [about grace, heretics, canonicity] written by the super-correct since it can lead away from the Royal Path.
From:
O Ekklisiastikos (ekklisiastikos@gmail.com)
Sent:
Mon 10/19/09 2:06 PM
To:
joannahigginbotham@live.com
http://www.ekklisiastikos.com/2009/08/epistle-to-cyprianites.html
Dear brothers and sisters in Christ,
this is a letter to Cyprianites written by the editorial team of the website http://www.ekklisiastikos.com as a responce to their announcement of the cessation of informal dialogue between their community and the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece. If you consider the letter important and if you will you may publish it.
Yours,
--
Ο Εκκλησιαστικός
www.ekklisiastikos.com
≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈
St. Pelagia
Dear Ekklisiastikos,
Thank you for thinking to send this to R0C0R Refugees. You might know that I have a satelite blog devoted to "Cyprianism" in an effort to understand this issue.
http://cyprianites.blogspot.com/
I pretty much ended my searchings into this matter after visiting the SIR monastery in Etna last March. For all the criticisms against the SIR, for all the accusations of their being heretics and schismatics, for all the canons and quotes of saints, all the pages and pages of intellectual logic proving their gracelessness, -- how do we explain that they do in fact have grace?
http://cyprianites.blogspot.com/2009/03/sir-does-too-have-grace.html
Grace is there. It is there where, according to the anti-Cyprianites, it can not be. It is there in the SIR monastery in Etna so thick you can cut it with a knife. The only conclusion I can come to is there has to be something faulty with the anti-Cyprianite reasoning. Just what the error is I could never hope to figure out, that is for somebody smarter than I.
The only other possibility I can imagine is that I'm in prelest - that I mistake a demonic illusion for God's grace. If that is so, then also the grace at my baptism was a demonic illusion, and 0rthodoxy is a trick and not the true faith. That possibility is too absurd to consider.
So, the issue is pretty dead for me, but I will post the invitation to your website for those who wish to look into it further.
In Christ,
Joanna Higginbotham
∞∞∞
WARNING:
I've been advised to be clear to our readers that R0C0R Refugees blog does not recommend the ekklisiastikos.com website or studying these types of materials [about grace, heretics, canonicity] written by the super-correct since it can lead away from the Royal Path.
Sticky
HA! See this!
http://rocorrefugees.blogspot.com/2009/06/letters-to-troubled-monastic.html
Thank Dear Heaven! I do not have to hear any more about who has grace and who does not have grace!
http://rocorrefugees.blogspot.com/2009/06/letters-to-troubled-monastic.html
Thank Dear Heaven! I do not have to hear any more about who has grace and who does not have grace!
Miracle In Moscow
(No matter how this miracle is interpreted, it manifested first in the private home of a servant of God in the MP in 1998. Considering this, it shows us the Royal Path regarding how we should view the MP. -jh)
MIRACLE IN MOSCOW
Just as the end of 1997 was wrought with a multitude of ominous and somber signs: the murder of Brother Jose Munoz, the disappearance of the wonder-working, myrrh-streaming icon of the Iverskaya Mother of God, the murder of Fr. Alexander Zharkov, the fire in the Synodal cathedral in Montreal, - so also did the culmination of this past year (1998) become a time of miracles of Divine consolation. On November 10th, the incorrupt remains of Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesenkskii) - the third of the First Hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia - were discovered at Holy Trinity Monastery in Jordanville, New York. Just three days prior to that, an ikon of the Tsar'-Martyr Nicholas II began to exude myrrh in Moscow, Russia.
***
What is particularly significant about the manifestation of this particular icon is that it was presented as a gift to a devout woman, Alla Dyakova, on October 30th, the anniversary of Brother Jose's murder.
As Anna Dyakova related to Elena Yugina, a correspondent for ITAR-TASS, the miracle occurred on November 7th, the annual anniversary of the Bolshevik revolt, which brought a regime of theomachists and regicides to power over a Russia that had turned away from her Tsar'. The servant of God, Alla, pondered on the fact that now (and this, despite the collapse of the communist regime) there are still demonstrators carrying red flags along the streets of Moscow - flags from which streams the blood of millions of New Martyrs. This very bloodshed was itself a sign of Divine wrath on account of sin - of Divine wrath called forth by Russia's falling away from God's Anointed One, from God Himself, and from obedience to the Orthodox Church. On bended knee, and with a heart contrite, Alla offered up a tearful prayer unto the Lord, that He might forgive Russia the sin of regicide. It was precisely then that the miracle took place - the icon began to exude myrrh. And from that moment on, on a daily basis and contrary to all the laws of physics, sweetly fragrant, amber-colored myrrh has been flowing along the face of the icon - not downwards, as would normally be expected, but from its four sides toward its center: toward that spot where the Tsar-Martyr is depicted.
The myrrh-streaming ikon was transferred to the Moscow Cathedral of the Ascension of the Lord, on Gorokhov's Field (Radio St., House 2), which belongs to the Moscow Patriarchate. It was in this cathedral that at one time there was preserved a venerable copy of the icon of the Feodorovskaya Mother of God - the Protectress of the House of the Romanovs. The dean of the cathedral, Archpriest Vasilii Golovanov, immediately placed the miracle-working icon on an analoi so that hundreds of believing pilgrims from the entire could venerate it. According to the dean's testimony, the icon exudes myrrh almost daily, and the fragrance becomes particularly strong during periods of panikhidas for the Czar-Martyr. (The faithful of the Moscow Patriarchate who venerate the Czar-Martyr serve panikhidas for him, as the MP has not canonized him.)
Protopriest Vasilii himself is of the opinion that the myrrh-streaming of the ikon speaks of the approach of the glorification of the Tsar-Martyr in Russia, so much anticipated, and hoped for, by so many. [In fact, the holy and right-believing Tsar-Martyr is already glorified; one can speak only of the recognition of the undeniable fact of his sanctity by the Moscow Patriarchate.] The more so, as the inscription on the ikon states: "This holy Ikon hath been painted for the glorification of the Tsar-Martyr in Russia."
"The commencement of the miracle-working on the fatal day of the October revolt," Protopriest Vasilii says, "is a sign of the fact that the Russian people have been forgiven for their apostasy from God." He feels that we are eye-witnesses to the fulfillment of the hopes and expectations of St. John of Shanghai, who said: "If our hopes and prayers will be strong, the Lord will empower the prayer of the Tsar-Martyr, of Tsarevich Aleksii, and of the Royal Women Martyrs; and they will shine forth as a radiant dawn over our Fatherland, then washed clean by tears of repentance and by the blood of martyrs."
***
The myrrh-streaming of the ikon of the Tsar'-Martyr has become a matter of world news. All of the major information agencies, from ITAR-TASS to Reuters, have reported on the miracle in detail in their communiqués. This most certainly is a unique occurrence in the history of the world's mass media over the past several decades. However, even this apparently fails to persuade those whose hearts have grown shamelessly callous in their opposition to God. Opposition to the canonization of the Royal Martyrs has become the traditional stance of the Moscow Patriarchate's ecclesiastical policy, a line that is adhered to with astonishing consistency and conviction despite the fact that as a result of such "hard-headedness" the hierarchy of the MP suffers significant moral damage. Neither the great numbers of miracles on the part of the Royal Martyrs - the myrrh-streaming and fragrance of their icons, and the healings, - nor their universal veneration throughout the MP itself, nor the position of the government, which was expressed in the rendering of dubious honors to the last Emperor by interring the "Ekaterinburg remains" in the Cathedral of Saints Peter and Paul, have convinced the (Moscow) Patriarchate to take any kind of measures toward their canonization. This opposition in principle to the glorification of the Tsar' can only evoke astonishment when it is viewed in light of that "flexibility" wherewith the MP has frequently exhibited its position in other circumstances.
The hierarchs of the MP have used the classical method of eluding and obscuring the significance of these events in order once again to drown the current wave of spiritual revival in a morass of bureaucracy and conformity. Patriarch Aleksii II, as unofficial sources report, has given the order not to take the ikon anywhere outside the cathedral, and to report in advance to him all coming activities connected with it. The very fact that the dean resolved to place the ikon upon an analoi is already being interpreted by many parishioners as a "courageous action" on his part.
On January 30th, the superintendent of churches was present briefly in the Cathedral of the Ascension of the Lord, on Gorokhov's Field; and, at a general meeting, he issued an order in the presence of the parishioners that the ikon be removed to the altar (although it is true that he did permit it to be brought out occasionally for the veneration of the faithful). Having kept the ikon on its analoi for several more days, the dean finally submitted to the administrative directive and the ikon is now in the altar, being brought out only during the panikhidas served for the Tsar-Martyr. The panikhidas take place daily, at 5:00 p.m., with the exception of those days on which there is an All-night Vigil.
***
What is the significance of this miracle for us? First of all, it bears witness once more time to the fact that the Lord has already glorified the Tsar-Martyr in the Heavens. The faithful sons and daughters of the ROCOR have no need of proofs of the holiness of the Emperor and His Family, which was borne witness to by ROCOR's glorification in 1981. The hierarchs of the ROCOR, then headed by Metropolitan Philaret, were not dismayed by that wave of hatred and slander against the Royal Martyrs which welled up among the emigres and, even more so, in the soviet press. The "haste" displayed at that time was nothing other than spiritual wisdom (as is evident now); and the universal veneration of the Royal Martyrs bears witness most convincingly of all to the truth of the decision made at that time, a decision which nourishes and strengthens this veneration in many.
All the declarations of the Moscow Patriarchate about a need for some sort of investigations (investigations in the course of which slanders refuted decades ago are examined, and re-examined, and then examined again), all its declarations about a need to turn the process of canonization into a public court procedure, in accordance with the mediaeval Roman Catholic model (one in which each and every blasphemer of the Emperor's memory can evoke the applause of a certain part of society), all must conceal one simple fact: that of the Moscow Patriarchate's obstinate desire simply not to join with the voice of the Church of Russia, as this was expressed at the Council of Bishops of the ROCOR, and thus, de facto, to cut itself off from the one Body of the Russian Orthodox Church. The hierarchy of the MP has set itself up as judge over both the Russian Church and the Tsar-Martyr, manifesting an almost sectarian willfulness and pride in this matter. One would expect that the higher clergy of the MP would yet again "adapt to the situation," rejecting Sergianism, glorifying the New Martyrs, and taking a firm, Orthodox position in church matters, thus not only preserving, but also multiplying their assets at the expense of those who suppose that the barrier between the MP and our Church is only one of discipline and practice, and not one of Grace... However, it appears that the hierarchs of the MP are mightily bound by someone or by something so that their stubbornness sometimes manifests itself, even despite its being to their advantage to do otherwise. This bears witness yet once again to the fact that the question of belonging to the Moscow Patriarchate is not simply one of jurisdiction, but one of a definite and sufficiently clear complex set of views in which there is not, nor can there be, any place found for the canonization of the New Martyrs... Hence, the sons and daughters of our Church Abroad should neither be dismayed, nor come to false conclusions on the basis of the fact that the miracle-working ikon of the Tsar'-Martyr happened to appear in the Moscow Patriarchate. The Lord imparts His wonders not just as a consolation to all the faithful; but also as a dread sign to infidels, in order that the minds of those who oppose the Grace of God might be edified by the miracle.
To those who criticized and denounced the firm and strictly ecclesiastical spirit which was connected with the name of our First-Hierarch Metropolitan Philaret, to those who called the years of his primacy "a time of stagnation," the proof of his undoubted sanctity has now been manifested. It was made apparent at that very same time when, among some of our pastors and members of our flock, there arose doubts as to the rightness of this course, and even the temptation to cast themselves into the deceptively open embrace of the Moscow Patriarchate.
Now, as if to try everyone's faith, of the faithful and hierarchs of the Moscow Patriarchate, the myrrh-streaming ikon of the Tsar'-Martyr has appeared. The fruits of this faith have been made immediately apparent by the persecution that was unleashed against this miracle-working ikon.
The Tsar-Martyr has become, de facto, a sign of stumbling for our people. The refusal to glorify Him, the disputes that seethe impiously around his name, bear witness to the fact that the Sin of Regicide continues to weigh heavily upon our people. How mistaken are those who claim that it is absurd to speak of the necessity for national repentance, as no one should have to repent for the sins of one's fathers. Regicide is not the sin of our fathers. It is our sin. Its essence was remarkably expressed by St. John of Shanghai, who stated in one of his sermons that,
O Holy Right-believing Czar-Martyr Nicholas, pray unto God for us sinners!
source: Orthodox Life (Jordanville) Jan-Feb 1999
Translated into English by G. Spruksts from an abridged Russian text appearing in Vertograd-Inform No. 1 (46). Edited by Holy Trinity Monastery
An online photo of the icon:
http://www.albanyrocor.org/miracle.html
MIRACLE IN MOSCOW
Just as the end of 1997 was wrought with a multitude of ominous and somber signs: the murder of Brother Jose Munoz, the disappearance of the wonder-working, myrrh-streaming icon of the Iverskaya Mother of God, the murder of Fr. Alexander Zharkov, the fire in the Synodal cathedral in Montreal, - so also did the culmination of this past year (1998) become a time of miracles of Divine consolation. On November 10th, the incorrupt remains of Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesenkskii) - the third of the First Hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia - were discovered at Holy Trinity Monastery in Jordanville, New York. Just three days prior to that, an ikon of the Tsar'-Martyr Nicholas II began to exude myrrh in Moscow, Russia.
***
What is particularly significant about the manifestation of this particular icon is that it was presented as a gift to a devout woman, Alla Dyakova, on October 30th, the anniversary of Brother Jose's murder.
As Anna Dyakova related to Elena Yugina, a correspondent for ITAR-TASS, the miracle occurred on November 7th, the annual anniversary of the Bolshevik revolt, which brought a regime of theomachists and regicides to power over a Russia that had turned away from her Tsar'. The servant of God, Alla, pondered on the fact that now (and this, despite the collapse of the communist regime) there are still demonstrators carrying red flags along the streets of Moscow - flags from which streams the blood of millions of New Martyrs. This very bloodshed was itself a sign of Divine wrath on account of sin - of Divine wrath called forth by Russia's falling away from God's Anointed One, from God Himself, and from obedience to the Orthodox Church. On bended knee, and with a heart contrite, Alla offered up a tearful prayer unto the Lord, that He might forgive Russia the sin of regicide. It was precisely then that the miracle took place - the icon began to exude myrrh. And from that moment on, on a daily basis and contrary to all the laws of physics, sweetly fragrant, amber-colored myrrh has been flowing along the face of the icon - not downwards, as would normally be expected, but from its four sides toward its center: toward that spot where the Tsar-Martyr is depicted.
The myrrh-streaming ikon was transferred to the Moscow Cathedral of the Ascension of the Lord, on Gorokhov's Field (Radio St., House 2), which belongs to the Moscow Patriarchate. It was in this cathedral that at one time there was preserved a venerable copy of the icon of the Feodorovskaya Mother of God - the Protectress of the House of the Romanovs. The dean of the cathedral, Archpriest Vasilii Golovanov, immediately placed the miracle-working icon on an analoi so that hundreds of believing pilgrims from the entire could venerate it. According to the dean's testimony, the icon exudes myrrh almost daily, and the fragrance becomes particularly strong during periods of panikhidas for the Czar-Martyr. (The faithful of the Moscow Patriarchate who venerate the Czar-Martyr serve panikhidas for him, as the MP has not canonized him.)
Protopriest Vasilii himself is of the opinion that the myrrh-streaming of the ikon speaks of the approach of the glorification of the Tsar-Martyr in Russia, so much anticipated, and hoped for, by so many. [In fact, the holy and right-believing Tsar-Martyr is already glorified; one can speak only of the recognition of the undeniable fact of his sanctity by the Moscow Patriarchate.] The more so, as the inscription on the ikon states: "This holy Ikon hath been painted for the glorification of the Tsar-Martyr in Russia."
"The commencement of the miracle-working on the fatal day of the October revolt," Protopriest Vasilii says, "is a sign of the fact that the Russian people have been forgiven for their apostasy from God." He feels that we are eye-witnesses to the fulfillment of the hopes and expectations of St. John of Shanghai, who said: "If our hopes and prayers will be strong, the Lord will empower the prayer of the Tsar-Martyr, of Tsarevich Aleksii, and of the Royal Women Martyrs; and they will shine forth as a radiant dawn over our Fatherland, then washed clean by tears of repentance and by the blood of martyrs."
***
The myrrh-streaming of the ikon of the Tsar'-Martyr has become a matter of world news. All of the major information agencies, from ITAR-TASS to Reuters, have reported on the miracle in detail in their communiqués. This most certainly is a unique occurrence in the history of the world's mass media over the past several decades. However, even this apparently fails to persuade those whose hearts have grown shamelessly callous in their opposition to God. Opposition to the canonization of the Royal Martyrs has become the traditional stance of the Moscow Patriarchate's ecclesiastical policy, a line that is adhered to with astonishing consistency and conviction despite the fact that as a result of such "hard-headedness" the hierarchy of the MP suffers significant moral damage. Neither the great numbers of miracles on the part of the Royal Martyrs - the myrrh-streaming and fragrance of their icons, and the healings, - nor their universal veneration throughout the MP itself, nor the position of the government, which was expressed in the rendering of dubious honors to the last Emperor by interring the "Ekaterinburg remains" in the Cathedral of Saints Peter and Paul, have convinced the (Moscow) Patriarchate to take any kind of measures toward their canonization. This opposition in principle to the glorification of the Tsar' can only evoke astonishment when it is viewed in light of that "flexibility" wherewith the MP has frequently exhibited its position in other circumstances.
The hierarchs of the MP have used the classical method of eluding and obscuring the significance of these events in order once again to drown the current wave of spiritual revival in a morass of bureaucracy and conformity. Patriarch Aleksii II, as unofficial sources report, has given the order not to take the ikon anywhere outside the cathedral, and to report in advance to him all coming activities connected with it. The very fact that the dean resolved to place the ikon upon an analoi is already being interpreted by many parishioners as a "courageous action" on his part.
On January 30th, the superintendent of churches was present briefly in the Cathedral of the Ascension of the Lord, on Gorokhov's Field; and, at a general meeting, he issued an order in the presence of the parishioners that the ikon be removed to the altar (although it is true that he did permit it to be brought out occasionally for the veneration of the faithful). Having kept the ikon on its analoi for several more days, the dean finally submitted to the administrative directive and the ikon is now in the altar, being brought out only during the panikhidas served for the Tsar-Martyr. The panikhidas take place daily, at 5:00 p.m., with the exception of those days on which there is an All-night Vigil.
***
What is the significance of this miracle for us? First of all, it bears witness once more time to the fact that the Lord has already glorified the Tsar-Martyr in the Heavens. The faithful sons and daughters of the ROCOR have no need of proofs of the holiness of the Emperor and His Family, which was borne witness to by ROCOR's glorification in 1981. The hierarchs of the ROCOR, then headed by Metropolitan Philaret, were not dismayed by that wave of hatred and slander against the Royal Martyrs which welled up among the emigres and, even more so, in the soviet press. The "haste" displayed at that time was nothing other than spiritual wisdom (as is evident now); and the universal veneration of the Royal Martyrs bears witness most convincingly of all to the truth of the decision made at that time, a decision which nourishes and strengthens this veneration in many.
All the declarations of the Moscow Patriarchate about a need for some sort of investigations (investigations in the course of which slanders refuted decades ago are examined, and re-examined, and then examined again), all its declarations about a need to turn the process of canonization into a public court procedure, in accordance with the mediaeval Roman Catholic model (one in which each and every blasphemer of the Emperor's memory can evoke the applause of a certain part of society), all must conceal one simple fact: that of the Moscow Patriarchate's obstinate desire simply not to join with the voice of the Church of Russia, as this was expressed at the Council of Bishops of the ROCOR, and thus, de facto, to cut itself off from the one Body of the Russian Orthodox Church. The hierarchy of the MP has set itself up as judge over both the Russian Church and the Tsar-Martyr, manifesting an almost sectarian willfulness and pride in this matter. One would expect that the higher clergy of the MP would yet again "adapt to the situation," rejecting Sergianism, glorifying the New Martyrs, and taking a firm, Orthodox position in church matters, thus not only preserving, but also multiplying their assets at the expense of those who suppose that the barrier between the MP and our Church is only one of discipline and practice, and not one of Grace... However, it appears that the hierarchs of the MP are mightily bound by someone or by something so that their stubbornness sometimes manifests itself, even despite its being to their advantage to do otherwise. This bears witness yet once again to the fact that the question of belonging to the Moscow Patriarchate is not simply one of jurisdiction, but one of a definite and sufficiently clear complex set of views in which there is not, nor can there be, any place found for the canonization of the New Martyrs... Hence, the sons and daughters of our Church Abroad should neither be dismayed, nor come to false conclusions on the basis of the fact that the miracle-working ikon of the Tsar'-Martyr happened to appear in the Moscow Patriarchate. The Lord imparts His wonders not just as a consolation to all the faithful; but also as a dread sign to infidels, in order that the minds of those who oppose the Grace of God might be edified by the miracle.
To those who criticized and denounced the firm and strictly ecclesiastical spirit which was connected with the name of our First-Hierarch Metropolitan Philaret, to those who called the years of his primacy "a time of stagnation," the proof of his undoubted sanctity has now been manifested. It was made apparent at that very same time when, among some of our pastors and members of our flock, there arose doubts as to the rightness of this course, and even the temptation to cast themselves into the deceptively open embrace of the Moscow Patriarchate.
Now, as if to try everyone's faith, of the faithful and hierarchs of the Moscow Patriarchate, the myrrh-streaming ikon of the Tsar'-Martyr has appeared. The fruits of this faith have been made immediately apparent by the persecution that was unleashed against this miracle-working ikon.
The Tsar-Martyr has become, de facto, a sign of stumbling for our people. The refusal to glorify Him, the disputes that seethe impiously around his name, bear witness to the fact that the Sin of Regicide continues to weigh heavily upon our people. How mistaken are those who claim that it is absurd to speak of the necessity for national repentance, as no one should have to repent for the sins of one's fathers. Regicide is not the sin of our fathers. It is our sin. Its essence was remarkably expressed by St. John of Shanghai, who stated in one of his sermons that,
"All those have sinned against him (the Tsar-Martyr) and against Russia who, in one way or another, either moved against him; or who did not oppose this action; or who, even out of sympathy with it, thus took part (vicariously) in that event which occurred many years ago. This sin lies upon all, until that time when it is washed away by genuine and sincere repentance."How many there are yet in Russia of those who labor tirelessly to blacken the memory of the Tsar-Martyr, sparing no efforts to prevent his universal glorification! How many there are in our midst who, on more than one occasion, have spoken sympathetically of this regicide, repeating fables about "Bloody Nicholas" and unfounded gossip concerning Rasputin, exclaiming: "What kind of saint was the Czar'?!" Even amongst today's zealous defenders of the veneration of the Tsar'-Martyr there are not a few who for years had to scrour away their former blasphemously contemptible and narrow-minded prejudices. And who among us has not sinned through treacherous silence when we listened to the slander poured out against the Royal Martyrs and did nothing to silence lying lips with the word of truth. We must not be deceived, regicide is a fearsome sin, one which, as before, continues to weigh heavily upon our people. It is only through sincere and tearful repentance that we can shake off its burden. If a penitential prayer for the forgiveness of her sins, offered up by one, single, devout woman, had as its consequence the manifestation of a myrrh-streaming ikon, then the repentance of each and every one of us is not pointless, but something laden with great significance, and something that, through the prayers of holy Czar'-Martyr Nicholas, will not remain fruitless before God.
O Holy Right-believing Czar-Martyr Nicholas, pray unto God for us sinners!
source: Orthodox Life (Jordanville) Jan-Feb 1999
Translated into English by G. Spruksts from an abridged Russian text appearing in Vertograd-Inform No. 1 (46). Edited by Holy Trinity Monastery
An online photo of the icon:
http://www.albanyrocor.org/miracle.html
AN ECCLESIOLOGICAL POSITION PAPER
This position paper, composed in 1984 by Metropolitan Cyprian and the Fathers of the Holy Monastery of Sts. Cyprian and Justina, is perhaps the most articulate contemporary ecclesiological document issued by any Old Calendarist group in Greece. Its general tone and the trenchant use of Patristic and Church historical sources are elements which commend it to a general Orthodox audience. Its appealing and reasonable arguments have met with general approval in Greece, both among Old and New Calendarists of moderate inclinations.
AN ECCLESIOLOGICAL POSITION PAPER
For Orthodox Opposed to the Panheresy of Ecumenism
by Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Fili
The Church and Heresy.
We believe in “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.” 99 “The Church in the Heavens and that on earth” are “one,” 100 “even if the latter is designated according to different localities,” 101 as, for example, the Churches of “Galatia,” 102 the Church in “Ephesus,” 103 or the “Church of Greece.” There is “one Lord” of the Orthodox Church, our Lord Jesus Christ. There is “one Faith” in the Church, the Orthodoxy of the God-inspired Apostles, the Holy Ecumenical Synods, and the God-bearing Fathers. There is but one “Baptism”104 unto salvation, that of Orthodox Baptism “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” 105
The Orthodox Church as a whole is unerring and invincible: “And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it,”106 says the Lord, the Ruler of All. It is possible, however, for Christians and for local Churches to fall in faith; that is to say, it is possible for them to suffer spiritually and for one to see a certain “siege of illness within the body of the Church,” as St. John Chrysostom says. 107 It is possible for Christians to separate and for “divisions” to appear within the Church, as the Apostle Paul writes to the Corinthians. 108 It is possible for local Churches to fall into heresy, as occurred in the ancient Orthodox Church of the West, which fell into the heresies of Papism and Protestantism and finally into the panheresy of ecumenism.
Spiritual maladies within the Church are cured either by repentance or by judgment. Until the judgment or expulsion of a heretic, schismatic, or sinner—either by the Church or, in a more direct manner, by the Lord—, the opinion of a believer cannot be a substitute for the sentence of the Church and of her Lord, Jesus Christ, even if the resolution of a situation be prolonged until the Second Coming. As is well known, in the Scriptures, the Church is likened to a field replete with “wheat” and “tares,”109 in ac- cordance with Divine and ecclesiastical economy. Sinners and those who err in correctly understanding the Faith, yet who have not been sentenced by ecclesiastical action, are simply considered ailing members of the Church. The Mysteries of these unsen- tenced members are valid as such, according to the Seventh Ecumenical Synod, as, for example, the President of the Synod, St. Tarasios, remarks: “[their] Ordination” “is from God.” 110 By contrast, should expositors of heresy punish the Orthodox opposed to them, these punishments are ecclesiastically invalid and groundless “from the time their preaching began” (i.e., from the moment they began preaching heresy), as St. Celestine of Rome wrote and as the Third Ecumenical Synod agreed.111
Those in Opposition and Union.
Orthodox Christians have an evangelical and canonical right to wall themselves off: that is to say, to break ecclesiastical communion with and comme- moration of a Bishop who preaches “heresy” “publicly” “and bareheaded in the Church,”112 or who is blameworthy, in that he errs unrepentantly “in point of piety and righteousness,” as the Thirty-First Apostolic Canon states 113—namely, when the Bishop acts “contrary to duty and justice,” as Zonaras the canon lawyer explains. 114 If a Bishop or clergyman is “evil” “with regard to the Faith, leave and abandon him, not only if he be a man, but even if he be an angel come down from heaven,” says St. John Chrysostom.115
Those Orthodox who have canonically separated themselves in this way, in keeping with the holy canons, are not subject to “canonical punishment,” but are even worthy of ecclesiastical “honor” “befitting those of right belief.” They are honored as worthy Orthodox since “they have not sundered the union of the Church with any schism, but, on the contrary, have been sedulous to rescue the Church from schisms and divisions.” 116 That is, “they have caused no schism in the Church on account of their separation, but have rather freed the Church from the schism [of her pseudo-Bishops],” Zonaras again observes.117 He who preaches heresy or he who brings innovation into the Church divides her and abrogates her oneness or unity. He who opposes the preaching of heresy, or who separates himself from it, is eager to save the oneness or unity of the Church. The aim of opposition and separation is the combatting of heresy, the defense of the Orthodox Faith, and the preservation of the unity of the Orthodox Church, indeed of Orthodoxy itself.
The Division in the Church over Ecumenism.
Today, the Church of Greece is, unfortunately, divided and ailing. In the year
1924, dark powers divided her through the thirteen-day inno- vation in the festal calendar. This innovation resembles the innovation of the iconoclastic heresy. The iconoclastic heresy raged in its desire to abolish the sacred Icons. However, it was related not “only to the veneration of Icons, but, more broadly, was a religious and ecclesiastical reformation.” 118 It was, truly, a “transmutation of all things into ungodliness,” as St. Theodore the Studite characterized it. 119 Yet the current innovation in the festal calendar is presented as an innocent chronological change. It is, however, for us the inception and clear manifestation of ecumenism. This change is not simply part of an extensive religious and ecclesiastical reformation, but it is one with ecumenism, which aspires to the assimilation of Orthodox by heretics and the submission of Orthodoxy to the Papacy. It embodies the “overturning of all things, even to [the spirit of] Antichrist,”120 as St. Theodore writes again regarding the Moechian** controversy, which, like the heresy of ecumenism, abolished the law of God.
With regard to the innovation in the festal calendar, Orthodox are divided into two parts: into those who are ailing in Faith and those who are healthy, into innovators and opposers—into followers of innovation, whether in knowledge or in ignorance, and those opposed, who have separated themselves from heresy, in favor of Orthodoxy. The latter are strugglers for oneness among the “divided,” as the Seventh Ecumenical Synod 121 calls those who so separated for the Orthodox unity of the Church. The followers of the festal calendar innovation have not yet been specifically judged in a Pan-Orthodox fashion, as provided for by the Orthodox Church. As St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain writes, the violator of established precepts is considered sen- tenced, insofar as he is judged by “the second entity (which is the council or synod).”122 Since 1924, the innovators have been awaiting judgment and shall be judged on the basis of the decisions of the holy Synods, both Œcumenical and local, and, to be sure, on the basis of the ecclesiastical pronouncements of the sixteenth century against what were then Papal proposals for changes in the festal calendar. In this respect, those who have walled themselves off from the innovators have actually broken communion “before [a] conciliar or synodal verdict,” as is allowed in the Fifteenth Canon of the First-and-Second Synod.123 That is to say, the innovators are still unsentenced. Consequently, their Mysteries are valid, the punishments perchance imposed by them against those in opposition are invalid and groundless, and their repentance and restoration to Orthodoxy are easy, should they wish this blessed return.
Repentance and Return.
Every innovationist member of the divided Greek Church is capable of changing over to opposition against the Ecumenist innovation. This can be accomplished through repentance, as has always taken place in Orthodoxy. In the Acts of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod, we read that certain Bishops proclaimed: “We have all sinned; we all ask forgiveness.” “And having stood up, the revered Bishop Juvenal, along with the others, went over to the other side,” that is, to the side of the Orthodox. “And the Easterners, along with their pious Bishops, cried out, ‘Welcome, Orthodox, God has rightly brought you.’” 124 Hence, they were received through their repentance and by their having approached the Orthodox. We see a similar manner of return in the Sixth Ecumenical Synod. St. Tarasios, President of the Seventh Ecumenical Synod, tells us that the “majority” of the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Synod “had been Consecrated” by heretics—indeed, by “the leaders of the monothelitic heresy.”125 However, by their having approached [the Synod] they were enrolled in Orthodoxy.
A return to Orthodoxy can also take place through a formal renunciation of heresy. St. Meletios of Antioch was Consecrated by heretics—the so-called “new heretics,” since they had not yet come to trial. 126 Since, however, he supported Orthodoxy in his address at his enthronement, he was considered the leader of the Orthodox of Antioch and later became the President of the Second Œcumenical Synod. Thus he was received into Orthodoxy by confession and by preaching the Orthodox Faith. The same also occurred later. The Seventh Œcumenical Synod invoked a pertinent passage “from the life of our Holy Father Sabbas.” In this passage, it is related that the monastic leaders St. Sabbas and St. Theodore, along with the monastics under them, entered into communion with Archbishop John III of Jerusalem—who had previously been in agreement with the arch-heretic Severos—, after the Archbishop verbally renounced the latter’s heresy.127 And at the same Synod, the chief representative of the heresy of iconoclasm, Gregory of Neocaesareae, was received as a member of the synod through an examination of his corrected opinions and previous libel and by his renunciation of this great heresy.128
Therefore, the Orthodox Tradition of the Holy Œcumenical Synods and of the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church prescribes that that part of the divided Greek Church that is ailing in Faith be received by one of the foregoing means of repentance and returned to the ranks of Orthodoxy. For they are not condemned schismatic or heretical Christians, but members of the Church who have not yet been brought to trial. The working-out of this blessed repentance and immediate or gradual return belongs, of course, to the pious judgment of the Orthodox Bishop whose acts are in keeping with the Divine, or to a spiritual child appointed by him. The Faithful are obliged to receive these God-pleasing acts of economy by the Shepherds of God as a process for the perfecting of sinners, in accord with the Will of Christ our Savior, “who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of thetruth.”129 And we also have the divine commandment, which tells us: “Him that is weak in the Faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.”130 “Every one of you,” writes St. Ignatios the God-Bearer, “follow” the Orthodox Bishop and the Presbyters. For “whatever he should approve,” this “is pleasing to God also.” 131
Towards a Unifying Synod.
Obviously, insofar as the Greek Church is divided today, the Holy Synod of the united Greek Church, as it was before the innovation of 1924, cannot be con- vened. As has always happened in the Orthodox Church, the convocation of this Synod will be made possible only when those who are divided are united in Orthodoxy.
During the reign of the iconoclastic innovation, for example, it was impossible for an Orthodox Synod of the entire Church to be convened. For this reason, such a Synod was convened when the iconoclastic heresy was no longer in power, that is, in 787, as the Seventh Œcumenical Synod of union. The same Seventh Œcumenical Synod writes through its Fathers that the Synod took place “so that we might change the discord of controversy into concord, that the dividing wall of enmity might be removed and that the original rulings of the Catholic [Orthodox] Church might be validated.” 132 That is, it was convened so that the differing factions of the Church, divided up to the time of the Synod—the Iconoclasts disagreeing with the Orthodox belief and the Orthodox opposed to the iconoclastic heresy—, might be united by means of an agreement within Orthodoxy.
According to the teachings of the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church, the “Holy Synod of the Church of Greece” is not the Synod of the united Greek Church. This is a Synod in ecclesiastical discord and marked by innovation. Her acts and decisions with regard to the changing of the festal calendar and Papal heresy—or, more generally, the heresy of ecumenism— place her, assuredly, in the category of the more ancient, heresy- befriending or heretical councils that were convened before the Ecumenical Synods, as, for example, the iconoclastic council of 754, convened on behalf of the innovation of the iconoclastic heresy, 133 and condemned by the Seventh Œcumenical Synod.
But neither do the Holy Synods of the opposers of inno- vations in the festal calendar and ecumenism constitute the Synod of the united Orthodox Church of Greece. In agreement with evangelical and canonical law and the teachings of the Holy Fathers, the walling-off and the struggle against heresy, by the Orthodox in opposition to these things, are aimed at saving the unity of the Church’s Faith and at the union of the divided Greek Church through a unifying Synod. As it has been said, such “have not sundered the union of the Church with any schism, but, on the contrary, have been sedulous to rescue the Church from schisms and divisions.”134 Insofar, then, as a unifying Synod is sought for and takes place in the future, and the fight now is one of Orthodox objection, the existing Synods that stand in opposition to innovations represent the good fight for the Faith. That is, they should be considered groups and convocations of Bishops who have, in an Orthodox fashion, made objections, as opposers of heresy, on behalf of Orthodoxy and for the unity of the Church.
The Need for Orthodox Opposition.
What is preeminently required, therefore, is not the administrative organization of those in opposition to innovation, as though they alone constituted the whole Greek Church, but rather the fight against heresy by Orthodox, as the Saints practiced and taught such in times past. “There is a need, then, for a great and lawful struggle,” said St. Basil in a time that parallels our own.135 Indeed, there is a need for a great struggle that conforms to evangelical and canonical law, to the acts of the Saints, and to legitimate state legislation.
Every unifying Œcumenical Synod of the Church was the fruit of the holy struggles of Orthodox who stood opposed to heresy. The first Œcumenical Synod came about especially as a result of the faithful struggles of St. Alexander of Alexandria and St. Athanasios the Great. The Second Œcumenical Synod was the result of the particular struggles of Sts. Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian. The third Œcumenical Synod came forth from the special efforts of St. Cyril of Alexandria and St. Celestine of Rome. The Fourth and Fifth Œcumenical Synods grew forth from the efforts of Orthodox who did not rest, but who struggled for the Orthodox Faith “unto death.”136 The Sixth Œcumenical Synod came forth from the special struggles of St. Maximos the Confessor and St. Sophronios of Jerusalem. The Seventh Œcume- nical Synod was the outcome of the efforts of St. John of Damascus and other Saints.
Today, also, we will attain to a unifying Synod of the divided Greek Church by imitating the holy and heroic strugglers for Orthodoxy who have gone before us. This demands, then: Orthodoxy; a Patristic footing; that our protest be modelled on that of the Saints; collaboration among those putting forth opposition, that is, those rooted in the Orthodox Faith and in the love “of the truth,” as the Apostle Paul says; 137 and a struggle against the change in the festal calendar and, more generally, ecumenism. The fight must be strong, lawful, and unto death. For, “be faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life,” says the Lord of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, our Lord Jesus Christ.138
[Translated from the Greek by Bishop Chrysostomos of Etna.]
——————
** A theological and political dispute involving Emperor Constantine VI and his divorce and remarriage to his mother’s lady-in-waiting. St. Theodore the Studite vehemently opposed the Emperor’s remarriage as adulterous and illicit by Church law. [See comments above, Chapter I.]
Source: Patrick G. Barker, A Study of the Ecclesiology of Resist- ance (Etna, California: C.T.O.S., 1994), pp. 57-66.
See Also: THE TRUE MEANING OF CANONICITY
http://rocorrefugeesreadmore.blogspot.com/2008/08/true-meaning-of-canonicity.html
++++++++
99 The Symbol of the Faith.
100 The Acts and Pronouncements of the First Ecumenical Synod, PM, 2, 889.
101 St. Basil the Great, PG, 32, 629.
102 Gal. 1: 2.
103 Rev. 2:1.
104 Eph. 4:5.
105 St. Mt. 28:19.
106 St. Mt. 16:18.
107 St. John Chrysostom, PG, 48, 844.
108 I Cor. 1:10–14.
109 St. Mt. 13:20–30.
110 Acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Synod, PM, 12, 1042.
111 St. Celestine of Rome, PM, 4, 1045.
112 Fifteenth Canon of the First-and-Second Synod.
113 Thirty-First Apostolic Canon.
114 Zonaras, S.K., 2, 40.
115 St. John Chrysostom, PG, 63, 231.
116 Fifteenth Canon of the First-and-Second Synod.
117 Zonaras, S.K., 2, 694.
118 B. Stephanidou, Ecclesiastical History [in Greek], Athens, 1970, p. 256.
119 St. Theodore the Studite, PG, 99, 1164.
120 Ibid., 1025.
121 Letter of the Seventh Ecumenical Synod, PM, 13, 408.
122 St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain, The Rudder [in Greek], p. 19 [5].
123 Fifteenth Canon of the First-and-Second Synod.
124 Seventh Synod, op. cit., 1034.
125 Ibid., 1047.
126 St. Epiphanios of Cyprus, PG, 42, 429.
127 Seventh Synod, op. cit., 1042–1046.
128 Ibid., 1115–1119.
129 I Tim. 2:4.
130 Rom. 14:1.
131 St. Ignatios the God-Bearer, Bepes, 2, 281 [Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, 8].
132 Letter, op. cit., 408.
133 Seventh Synod, op. cit., 397.
134 Fifteenth Canon of the First-and-Second Synod.
135 St. Basil the Great, PG, 31, 1540.
136 Rev. 2:10.
137 II Thes. 2:10.
138 Rev. 2:10.
AN ECCLESIOLOGICAL POSITION PAPER
For Orthodox Opposed to the Panheresy of Ecumenism
by Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Fili
The Church and Heresy.
We believe in “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.” 99 “The Church in the Heavens and that on earth” are “one,” 100 “even if the latter is designated according to different localities,” 101 as, for example, the Churches of “Galatia,” 102 the Church in “Ephesus,” 103 or the “Church of Greece.” There is “one Lord” of the Orthodox Church, our Lord Jesus Christ. There is “one Faith” in the Church, the Orthodoxy of the God-inspired Apostles, the Holy Ecumenical Synods, and the God-bearing Fathers. There is but one “Baptism”104 unto salvation, that of Orthodox Baptism “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” 105
The Orthodox Church as a whole is unerring and invincible: “And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it,”106 says the Lord, the Ruler of All. It is possible, however, for Christians and for local Churches to fall in faith; that is to say, it is possible for them to suffer spiritually and for one to see a certain “siege of illness within the body of the Church,” as St. John Chrysostom says. 107 It is possible for Christians to separate and for “divisions” to appear within the Church, as the Apostle Paul writes to the Corinthians. 108 It is possible for local Churches to fall into heresy, as occurred in the ancient Orthodox Church of the West, which fell into the heresies of Papism and Protestantism and finally into the panheresy of ecumenism.
Spiritual maladies within the Church are cured either by repentance or by judgment. Until the judgment or expulsion of a heretic, schismatic, or sinner—either by the Church or, in a more direct manner, by the Lord—, the opinion of a believer cannot be a substitute for the sentence of the Church and of her Lord, Jesus Christ, even if the resolution of a situation be prolonged until the Second Coming. As is well known, in the Scriptures, the Church is likened to a field replete with “wheat” and “tares,”109 in ac- cordance with Divine and ecclesiastical economy. Sinners and those who err in correctly understanding the Faith, yet who have not been sentenced by ecclesiastical action, are simply considered ailing members of the Church. The Mysteries of these unsen- tenced members are valid as such, according to the Seventh Ecumenical Synod, as, for example, the President of the Synod, St. Tarasios, remarks: “[their] Ordination” “is from God.” 110 By contrast, should expositors of heresy punish the Orthodox opposed to them, these punishments are ecclesiastically invalid and groundless “from the time their preaching began” (i.e., from the moment they began preaching heresy), as St. Celestine of Rome wrote and as the Third Ecumenical Synod agreed.111
Those in Opposition and Union.
Orthodox Christians have an evangelical and canonical right to wall themselves off: that is to say, to break ecclesiastical communion with and comme- moration of a Bishop who preaches “heresy” “publicly” “and bareheaded in the Church,”112 or who is blameworthy, in that he errs unrepentantly “in point of piety and righteousness,” as the Thirty-First Apostolic Canon states 113—namely, when the Bishop acts “contrary to duty and justice,” as Zonaras the canon lawyer explains. 114 If a Bishop or clergyman is “evil” “with regard to the Faith, leave and abandon him, not only if he be a man, but even if he be an angel come down from heaven,” says St. John Chrysostom.115
Those Orthodox who have canonically separated themselves in this way, in keeping with the holy canons, are not subject to “canonical punishment,” but are even worthy of ecclesiastical “honor” “befitting those of right belief.” They are honored as worthy Orthodox since “they have not sundered the union of the Church with any schism, but, on the contrary, have been sedulous to rescue the Church from schisms and divisions.” 116 That is, “they have caused no schism in the Church on account of their separation, but have rather freed the Church from the schism [of her pseudo-Bishops],” Zonaras again observes.117 He who preaches heresy or he who brings innovation into the Church divides her and abrogates her oneness or unity. He who opposes the preaching of heresy, or who separates himself from it, is eager to save the oneness or unity of the Church. The aim of opposition and separation is the combatting of heresy, the defense of the Orthodox Faith, and the preservation of the unity of the Orthodox Church, indeed of Orthodoxy itself.
The Division in the Church over Ecumenism.
Today, the Church of Greece is, unfortunately, divided and ailing. In the year
1924, dark powers divided her through the thirteen-day inno- vation in the festal calendar. This innovation resembles the innovation of the iconoclastic heresy. The iconoclastic heresy raged in its desire to abolish the sacred Icons. However, it was related not “only to the veneration of Icons, but, more broadly, was a religious and ecclesiastical reformation.” 118 It was, truly, a “transmutation of all things into ungodliness,” as St. Theodore the Studite characterized it. 119 Yet the current innovation in the festal calendar is presented as an innocent chronological change. It is, however, for us the inception and clear manifestation of ecumenism. This change is not simply part of an extensive religious and ecclesiastical reformation, but it is one with ecumenism, which aspires to the assimilation of Orthodox by heretics and the submission of Orthodoxy to the Papacy. It embodies the “overturning of all things, even to [the spirit of] Antichrist,”120 as St. Theodore writes again regarding the Moechian** controversy, which, like the heresy of ecumenism, abolished the law of God.
With regard to the innovation in the festal calendar, Orthodox are divided into two parts: into those who are ailing in Faith and those who are healthy, into innovators and opposers—into followers of innovation, whether in knowledge or in ignorance, and those opposed, who have separated themselves from heresy, in favor of Orthodoxy. The latter are strugglers for oneness among the “divided,” as the Seventh Ecumenical Synod 121 calls those who so separated for the Orthodox unity of the Church. The followers of the festal calendar innovation have not yet been specifically judged in a Pan-Orthodox fashion, as provided for by the Orthodox Church. As St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain writes, the violator of established precepts is considered sen- tenced, insofar as he is judged by “the second entity (which is the council or synod).”122 Since 1924, the innovators have been awaiting judgment and shall be judged on the basis of the decisions of the holy Synods, both Œcumenical and local, and, to be sure, on the basis of the ecclesiastical pronouncements of the sixteenth century against what were then Papal proposals for changes in the festal calendar. In this respect, those who have walled themselves off from the innovators have actually broken communion “before [a] conciliar or synodal verdict,” as is allowed in the Fifteenth Canon of the First-and-Second Synod.123 That is to say, the innovators are still unsentenced. Consequently, their Mysteries are valid, the punishments perchance imposed by them against those in opposition are invalid and groundless, and their repentance and restoration to Orthodoxy are easy, should they wish this blessed return.
Repentance and Return.
Every innovationist member of the divided Greek Church is capable of changing over to opposition against the Ecumenist innovation. This can be accomplished through repentance, as has always taken place in Orthodoxy. In the Acts of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod, we read that certain Bishops proclaimed: “We have all sinned; we all ask forgiveness.” “And having stood up, the revered Bishop Juvenal, along with the others, went over to the other side,” that is, to the side of the Orthodox. “And the Easterners, along with their pious Bishops, cried out, ‘Welcome, Orthodox, God has rightly brought you.’” 124 Hence, they were received through their repentance and by their having approached the Orthodox. We see a similar manner of return in the Sixth Ecumenical Synod. St. Tarasios, President of the Seventh Ecumenical Synod, tells us that the “majority” of the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Synod “had been Consecrated” by heretics—indeed, by “the leaders of the monothelitic heresy.”125 However, by their having approached [the Synod] they were enrolled in Orthodoxy.
A return to Orthodoxy can also take place through a formal renunciation of heresy. St. Meletios of Antioch was Consecrated by heretics—the so-called “new heretics,” since they had not yet come to trial. 126 Since, however, he supported Orthodoxy in his address at his enthronement, he was considered the leader of the Orthodox of Antioch and later became the President of the Second Œcumenical Synod. Thus he was received into Orthodoxy by confession and by preaching the Orthodox Faith. The same also occurred later. The Seventh Œcumenical Synod invoked a pertinent passage “from the life of our Holy Father Sabbas.” In this passage, it is related that the monastic leaders St. Sabbas and St. Theodore, along with the monastics under them, entered into communion with Archbishop John III of Jerusalem—who had previously been in agreement with the arch-heretic Severos—, after the Archbishop verbally renounced the latter’s heresy.127 And at the same Synod, the chief representative of the heresy of iconoclasm, Gregory of Neocaesareae, was received as a member of the synod through an examination of his corrected opinions and previous libel and by his renunciation of this great heresy.128
Therefore, the Orthodox Tradition of the Holy Œcumenical Synods and of the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church prescribes that that part of the divided Greek Church that is ailing in Faith be received by one of the foregoing means of repentance and returned to the ranks of Orthodoxy. For they are not condemned schismatic or heretical Christians, but members of the Church who have not yet been brought to trial. The working-out of this blessed repentance and immediate or gradual return belongs, of course, to the pious judgment of the Orthodox Bishop whose acts are in keeping with the Divine, or to a spiritual child appointed by him. The Faithful are obliged to receive these God-pleasing acts of economy by the Shepherds of God as a process for the perfecting of sinners, in accord with the Will of Christ our Savior, “who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of thetruth.”129 And we also have the divine commandment, which tells us: “Him that is weak in the Faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.”130 “Every one of you,” writes St. Ignatios the God-Bearer, “follow” the Orthodox Bishop and the Presbyters. For “whatever he should approve,” this “is pleasing to God also.” 131
Towards a Unifying Synod.
Obviously, insofar as the Greek Church is divided today, the Holy Synod of the united Greek Church, as it was before the innovation of 1924, cannot be con- vened. As has always happened in the Orthodox Church, the convocation of this Synod will be made possible only when those who are divided are united in Orthodoxy.
During the reign of the iconoclastic innovation, for example, it was impossible for an Orthodox Synod of the entire Church to be convened. For this reason, such a Synod was convened when the iconoclastic heresy was no longer in power, that is, in 787, as the Seventh Œcumenical Synod of union. The same Seventh Œcumenical Synod writes through its Fathers that the Synod took place “so that we might change the discord of controversy into concord, that the dividing wall of enmity might be removed and that the original rulings of the Catholic [Orthodox] Church might be validated.” 132 That is, it was convened so that the differing factions of the Church, divided up to the time of the Synod—the Iconoclasts disagreeing with the Orthodox belief and the Orthodox opposed to the iconoclastic heresy—, might be united by means of an agreement within Orthodoxy.
According to the teachings of the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church, the “Holy Synod of the Church of Greece” is not the Synod of the united Greek Church. This is a Synod in ecclesiastical discord and marked by innovation. Her acts and decisions with regard to the changing of the festal calendar and Papal heresy—or, more generally, the heresy of ecumenism— place her, assuredly, in the category of the more ancient, heresy- befriending or heretical councils that were convened before the Ecumenical Synods, as, for example, the iconoclastic council of 754, convened on behalf of the innovation of the iconoclastic heresy, 133 and condemned by the Seventh Œcumenical Synod.
But neither do the Holy Synods of the opposers of inno- vations in the festal calendar and ecumenism constitute the Synod of the united Orthodox Church of Greece. In agreement with evangelical and canonical law and the teachings of the Holy Fathers, the walling-off and the struggle against heresy, by the Orthodox in opposition to these things, are aimed at saving the unity of the Church’s Faith and at the union of the divided Greek Church through a unifying Synod. As it has been said, such “have not sundered the union of the Church with any schism, but, on the contrary, have been sedulous to rescue the Church from schisms and divisions.”134 Insofar, then, as a unifying Synod is sought for and takes place in the future, and the fight now is one of Orthodox objection, the existing Synods that stand in opposition to innovations represent the good fight for the Faith. That is, they should be considered groups and convocations of Bishops who have, in an Orthodox fashion, made objections, as opposers of heresy, on behalf of Orthodoxy and for the unity of the Church.
The Need for Orthodox Opposition.
What is preeminently required, therefore, is not the administrative organization of those in opposition to innovation, as though they alone constituted the whole Greek Church, but rather the fight against heresy by Orthodox, as the Saints practiced and taught such in times past. “There is a need, then, for a great and lawful struggle,” said St. Basil in a time that parallels our own.135 Indeed, there is a need for a great struggle that conforms to evangelical and canonical law, to the acts of the Saints, and to legitimate state legislation.
Every unifying Œcumenical Synod of the Church was the fruit of the holy struggles of Orthodox who stood opposed to heresy. The first Œcumenical Synod came about especially as a result of the faithful struggles of St. Alexander of Alexandria and St. Athanasios the Great. The Second Œcumenical Synod was the result of the particular struggles of Sts. Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian. The third Œcumenical Synod came forth from the special efforts of St. Cyril of Alexandria and St. Celestine of Rome. The Fourth and Fifth Œcumenical Synods grew forth from the efforts of Orthodox who did not rest, but who struggled for the Orthodox Faith “unto death.”136 The Sixth Œcumenical Synod came forth from the special struggles of St. Maximos the Confessor and St. Sophronios of Jerusalem. The Seventh Œcume- nical Synod was the outcome of the efforts of St. John of Damascus and other Saints.
Today, also, we will attain to a unifying Synod of the divided Greek Church by imitating the holy and heroic strugglers for Orthodoxy who have gone before us. This demands, then: Orthodoxy; a Patristic footing; that our protest be modelled on that of the Saints; collaboration among those putting forth opposition, that is, those rooted in the Orthodox Faith and in the love “of the truth,” as the Apostle Paul says; 137 and a struggle against the change in the festal calendar and, more generally, ecumenism. The fight must be strong, lawful, and unto death. For, “be faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life,” says the Lord of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, our Lord Jesus Christ.138
[Translated from the Greek by Bishop Chrysostomos of Etna.]
——————
** A theological and political dispute involving Emperor Constantine VI and his divorce and remarriage to his mother’s lady-in-waiting. St. Theodore the Studite vehemently opposed the Emperor’s remarriage as adulterous and illicit by Church law. [See comments above, Chapter I.]
Source: Patrick G. Barker, A Study of the Ecclesiology of Resist- ance (Etna, California: C.T.O.S., 1994), pp. 57-66.
See Also: THE TRUE MEANING OF CANONICITY
http://rocorrefugeesreadmore.blogspot.com/2008/08/true-meaning-of-canonicity.html
++++++++
99 The Symbol of the Faith.
100 The Acts and Pronouncements of the First Ecumenical Synod, PM, 2, 889.
101 St. Basil the Great, PG, 32, 629.
102 Gal. 1: 2.
103 Rev. 2:1.
104 Eph. 4:5.
105 St. Mt. 28:19.
106 St. Mt. 16:18.
107 St. John Chrysostom, PG, 48, 844.
108 I Cor. 1:10–14.
109 St. Mt. 13:20–30.
110 Acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Synod, PM, 12, 1042.
111 St. Celestine of Rome, PM, 4, 1045.
112 Fifteenth Canon of the First-and-Second Synod.
113 Thirty-First Apostolic Canon.
114 Zonaras, S.K., 2, 40.
115 St. John Chrysostom, PG, 63, 231.
116 Fifteenth Canon of the First-and-Second Synod.
117 Zonaras, S.K., 2, 694.
118 B. Stephanidou, Ecclesiastical History [in Greek], Athens, 1970, p. 256.
119 St. Theodore the Studite, PG, 99, 1164.
120 Ibid., 1025.
121 Letter of the Seventh Ecumenical Synod, PM, 13, 408.
122 St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain, The Rudder [in Greek], p. 19 [5].
123 Fifteenth Canon of the First-and-Second Synod.
124 Seventh Synod, op. cit., 1034.
125 Ibid., 1047.
126 St. Epiphanios of Cyprus, PG, 42, 429.
127 Seventh Synod, op. cit., 1042–1046.
128 Ibid., 1115–1119.
129 I Tim. 2:4.
130 Rom. 14:1.
131 St. Ignatios the God-Bearer, Bepes, 2, 281 [Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, 8].
132 Letter, op. cit., 408.
133 Seventh Synod, op. cit., 397.
134 Fifteenth Canon of the First-and-Second Synod.
135 St. Basil the Great, PG, 31, 1540.
136 Rev. 2:10.
137 II Thes. 2:10.
138 Rev. 2:10.
SIR Does Too Have Grace
A Testimony
The Anti-Cyprianites are not going to like this. They have it all figured out from the canons that the Cyprianites are heretics and can't possibly have grace. They are simply wrong. Something is missing in their logic. I do not know what it is, their logic seems sound to me. But something has to be wrong, because grace IS there. I'm a witness to it.
When St. Vladimir's envoys said, "We knew not whether we were in heaven or on earth..." that was not just a poetic description of their joy and awe. And it was not because they were overwhelmed with the beauty of the icons, the chanting, the fragrant incense, the peaceful expressions on faces of the worshippers, the majesty of the service.
What struck them was that they found themselves in a "place" where the line between heaven and earth is indistinct. Through no effort of their own, and without expectation, they found themselves in a place where time and thought are suspended. A silencing of all inner strife, profound peace. Effortlessly your whole being becomes an active state of prayer and worship. There is no time or room for anything else. There is nothing like it on earth and no way to describe it with words. It is as the envoys said, "We knew not whether we were in heaven or on earth." Because it is being both in heaven and on earth at the same time. And "earth" does not remain the same when it occupies the same time/space as heaven.
For St. Gregory of Palamas Sunday I visited St. Gregory Palamas' in Etna where my Vladyka Andronik was also visiting. I arrived a little early, and found the monks already deep inside the church with their shoes all neatly piled outside the door. I entered the Church and took "my place" on the woman's side. Immediately I noticed that timelessness that used to be so familiar in old ROCOR services. It became more intense as I stood there, and it overtook me. I do not think I've ever experienced it that strong. A deep sense of belonging and rightness of being in the "here and now."
Later at the convent I was shown the convent chapel of St. Elizabeth's. And Lo! The same timelessness was there even though there was no service going on! I thought, "Everybody is here!" meaning all the saints and angels who are present for services. The nun who showed me the chapel said that the sisters keep the full cycle - maybe that's why heaven does not bother to draw back up in between services.
-jh
The Anti-Cyprianites are not going to like this. They have it all figured out from the canons that the Cyprianites are heretics and can't possibly have grace. They are simply wrong. Something is missing in their logic. I do not know what it is, their logic seems sound to me. But something has to be wrong, because grace IS there. I'm a witness to it.
When St. Vladimir's envoys said, "We knew not whether we were in heaven or on earth..." that was not just a poetic description of their joy and awe. And it was not because they were overwhelmed with the beauty of the icons, the chanting, the fragrant incense, the peaceful expressions on faces of the worshippers, the majesty of the service.
What struck them was that they found themselves in a "place" where the line between heaven and earth is indistinct. Through no effort of their own, and without expectation, they found themselves in a place where time and thought are suspended. A silencing of all inner strife, profound peace. Effortlessly your whole being becomes an active state of prayer and worship. There is no time or room for anything else. There is nothing like it on earth and no way to describe it with words. It is as the envoys said, "We knew not whether we were in heaven or on earth." Because it is being both in heaven and on earth at the same time. And "earth" does not remain the same when it occupies the same time/space as heaven.
For St. Gregory of Palamas Sunday I visited St. Gregory Palamas' in Etna where my Vladyka Andronik was also visiting. I arrived a little early, and found the monks already deep inside the church with their shoes all neatly piled outside the door. I entered the Church and took "my place" on the woman's side. Immediately I noticed that timelessness that used to be so familiar in old ROCOR services. It became more intense as I stood there, and it overtook me. I do not think I've ever experienced it that strong. A deep sense of belonging and rightness of being in the "here and now."
Later at the convent I was shown the convent chapel of St. Elizabeth's. And Lo! The same timelessness was there even though there was no service going on! I thought, "Everybody is here!" meaning all the saints and angels who are present for services. The nun who showed me the chapel said that the sisters keep the full cycle - maybe that's why heaven does not bother to draw back up in between services.
-jh
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
