Email Exchange

Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 16:46:17 +0300
Subject: On "the royal path"
From: ekklisiastikos@gmail.com
To: joannahigginbotham@live.com



Dear sister,
there is not "a royal path" or a "middle way" on dogmatic and confessional matters. Only such matters are black and white (not gray..)
The "Royal Path" is, as far as we know, first spoken of in the Second Conference of Abba Moses, found in the Conferences of St. John Cassian, regarding Discretion (Diakrisis).   Abba Moses speaks of the royal path of moderation in ascetical exercise - fasting, vigils, etc.  As far as we know, the Fathers never applied this concept to the dogmas or to dealing with denial of the dogmas (heresy), because Truth, unlike prudent ascetical activity,  is not a mean between extremes.  To apply this to our times: Orthodoxy is not a mean between ecumenism and dogmatic truth, nor is there a mean between being in the Church and being out of the Church.  

As for the Ecumenists, they are doing their best to have themselves out of the Church and you (i.e. ROCOR-A, SiR etc) stubbornly want them inside the Church. Don't you see that Bartholomeos and the rest prefer the heresy than the pure dogmas of genuine Orthodoxy? The "sitting on the fence" ecclesiology of Kyprianos Koutsoubas, no matter how hard he tried to promote it as the the "middle way", it was a only  an excuse for his obviously unreasonable schism. 

With all due respect, we consider "Agathagelites" seriously misinformed.

--
Ο Εκκλησιαστικός
www.ekklisiastikos.com




From:Joanna Higginbotham (joannahigginbotham@live.com)
Sent:Thu 7/15/10 11:03 AM
To:ekklisiastikos@gmail.com
Dear Ekklisiastikos,
I agree with you that  the Royal Path is not a "middle ground", it is actually a HIGHER way.  If the right tries to see it by looking directly to the left, they miss it or see right through it.  You have to also look UP, and with the help of God.  A perfect Church can not be found on earth - only in heaven.
The indisputable indication that something is not right with the super-correct logic is this:  There is grace in the SIR.  I cannot deny this since I experienced it myself.  It is so thick you can cut it with a knife.  By super-correct logic there can be no grace in SIR.  So even if super-correct logic seems logical, something is wrong with it for it to come to that conclusion.  Grace is not what needs to realize that it should not be there - instead the super-correct logic needs to realize it has made a wrong turn somewhere.  It ends up denying that grace is where it is:  in the SIR.
Others have also experienced this same grace in ROCA-A since the union, which was being strangled out of ROCOR prior to the union.  I'm referring to the same grace that was perceived years ago when serving with Met. Philaret, it is again returned as the same familiar and unmistakable grace.
It is this grace that the SIR and the ROCA-A recognize in each other.  This is the cause for our bond - not some "need" to make another bishop.  [God provides for His Church, He will also provide bishops.]  Our critic from ekklistiastikos.com, Fr. Steven Allen, misses the mark when he says we "claim" to be the sole valid continuation of ROCOR - it can be called a "claim" only after the fact.  After there was first a recognition - we recognize ROCA-A as the sole valid continuation of ROCOR.  Not because of a "claim" -  this bold claim is a result of a recognition which came first.
Our aim is not to just "recreate" the old ROCOR, our aim is to go forward with God's Church.  The way things are now, and I pray for this to be preserved, our Sister Churches are right in step with us.
How good it would be if you could join us!


love, Joanna Higginbotham


  

     The super-correct seem to have a compulsion to argue legalistically.  Because of the lawyer-like arguing and debating mentality of the super-correct, there is no sense trying to use logic with them - they just twist it to suit their conclusions.  This is why I do not argue - I just say to them: "Sorry, I experience grace where you say there is none - so something is wrong with what you say."  I do not try to pick apart exactly what it is that is wrong.  [That's for them to figure out - they are the smart ones, right?]  What comes next then is they do not accept my experience as valid - they say I have no argument.  In that they are right.  I won't argue.  I don't have to.

The Argument Is 0ver

Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 15:09:09 -0700

To: sgpm@sisqtel.net
From: fra@ctosonline.org
COPY OF AN EXCHANGE, FYI. Mostly trash but often blowing in the wind.
Your Imminence. Truly He is risen. I hate to bother you with this stuff again but it comes up and I always want to be able to answer it. X got all this it from Y who's a loud mouth and behind a lot of the stuff I hear. Sorry again. It's made its way around.

***   ***   ***

I saw the Saint Gregory Palmas' site and it doesn't answer the questions. They can't. We consider Kyprianos and his bishops heretics because of what we have said and they can't answer:

Kyprianos was deposed by the State Church of Greece for reasons that have never been made public and which made his spiritual father Elder Philtheos split from him and both Kyprianos and Chrysostomos of Etna were deposed by the Synod of Archbishop Chrysostom II of Athens, the only canonical synod of the old calendar in Greece. Monk Kyprianos was reduced to a monk for heresy and ecumenism and changing his church views for political reasons, and Mr. Chrysostomos was deposed for being made a bishop even though he was  married and for claiming college degrees that are bogus. They were tried and convicted when they refused to appear before the Spiritual Court of the Most Holy Synod.

The resistors synod in Bulgaria  is also run by a married bishop who was deposed.

Auxentios of Fotikis became Orthodox without being baptized and is said tohave a criminal background.

Ambrose of Mathone is a self-admitted Jew and is also known to be without an orthodoxbaptism..

SO THE ARGUMENT'S OVER. If ou belong to the socalled resistors synod then you're also a heretic and your bishops are either uncanonical and not Orthodox or are Jews.

***   ***   ***
Dear X,
Christ is Risen!
God bless you.
Bishop Auxentios asked me to handle this matter as I sought fit, after it was passed on to him by Archbishop Chrysostomos. I will answer harshly but keeping in mind that this is all the product of disturbed and sick persons who are in a certain way pumped up by controversy at the fringes of the Church. Since we are marginalized by the ecumenists and modernists, we are there for these ill people to see and to attack. This is an extremely sad thing because they succeed with their loudness in drowning out what we aim at.
First you should point out to your friend that the St. Gregory Palamas Monastery does not have a website, which explains why his correspondent could not find answers to the "questions" to which he refers. The Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies has a website, but it is dedicated to our scholarly work and publications.
This latest nonsense has made its way around the Orthodox world for years. It contains what are in fact criminally libelous accusations if the cowards who are spreading them will simply put them in print and attach their names.
For the umpteenth time:
- Metropolitan Cyprian was a highly respected clergyman in the New Calendar Orthodox Church of Greece. The monastic community that he headed was considered exemplary. Out of conscience, he separated from the Hierarchy of that Church on account of its ecumenical activities, innovation, and what he saw as its deviations from Orthodox standards. He did so quietly, politely, and without condemning his former Hierarchs personally. He was received into the Old Calendar movement as a clergyman. He has also held to the very same ecclesiological confession since that time, despite the vagaries of the extremist old Calendarists, who came to deny Grace in the New Calendar Church of Greece and who have separated into factions and warring groups.
- Metropolitan Cyprian entered into the Old Calendar movement with the blessing of his Elder, the Blessed and renowned Elder Philotheos (Zervakos), who praised him in writing for his courageous move. No private charges were ever made against Metropolitan Cyprian, who was simply accused of "Old Calendarism" by the State Church of Greece when he left. Father Philotheos made it clear that any act of administrative revenge against Metropolitan Cyprian had no meaning and that, in accusing him of Old Calendarism, they would likewise have to accuse all of the Fathers of the Church who defended the Church Calendar.
- Neither Metropolitan Cyprian nor Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna ever belonged to the Synod of Archbishop Chrysostomos II of Athens, whose Synod was formed in 1985. Nor has Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna, who was a widower and university professor before becoming a monk, ever met Archbishop Chrysostomos II. Moreover, neither was ever summoned to any spiritual court to answer absurdly stupid charges from a Synod of Bishops to which neither, as I said, ever belonged and which has absolutely no authority to do so and who jeopardize their own credibility by claiming such authority. By the way, they also claim to have authority over all of Orthodoxy and all of the Orthodox Patriarchates, whom they have proclaimed to be outside the Church and without Grace! Incomprehensible.
_ Bishop Photii of Bulgaria was also married and an assistant professor at the University of Sofia, before becoming a monk, as have been many Orthodox hierarchs, including the late Patriarch Alexey of Moscow, whose wife attended his funeral. His Eminence, a superb scholar and a man of incredible scholarly and personal repute, was formed by the spiritual children of St. Seraphim of Sofia, Archimandrites Seraphim and Sergius (also both professors at the University of Sofia) and by the late Abbess Seraphima (the former Princess Olga of the Protection Convent in Sofia.
- Bishop Auxentios of Photiki, a convert to Orthodoxy and a former student at Princeton University of both Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna (who was teaching there while finishing his doctoral degree) and the late Father Georges Florovsky (who taught in the department of religion at Princeton), was baptized in Astoria, NY, at the Cathedral of St. Markella by the well-known Bishop Petros of Astoria and his brother, Archimandrite Niphon. At the time, Bishop Petros adhered to the very same ecclesiology as the Holy Synod in Resistance, though in 1985, having been independent for a number of years, he joined the Synod of Archbishop Chrysostomos II.
- Bishop Ambrose of Methone, whose father was a Scotsman and whose mother was indeed Jewish (though not a practicing Jew), comes from a very prominent and distinguished British family. He was baptized when he converted to the Orthodox Church.
You have heard the lies, now you have read the truth as we have made it known over and over. If my own retelling of the truth in the face of unrelenting lies seems to have a tone of impatience, my impatience is, quite frankly, simply an expression of my astonishment that liars are so persistent even when they are caught lying, and that those producing this nonsense are so consistently silly.
Those who have no real defense for their beliefs and simply refuse to admit that we are fully Orthodox in ours should simply remain quiet. Hitler was wrong in thinking that if you tell a lie long enough that people will believe it. If you tell a lie long enough, and especially when the truth has been told over and over in answer to your lies, people will in fact eventually conclude that you are quite simply a liar.
I personally see jealousy of our Synod of our Bishops behind a lot of what is said by these people who somehow get your attention. You should give them my statement and ignore them. You should also pray for them. They are sick.

There Is None That Watcheth Out For My Soul

This essay by Archbishop Chrysostomos can help the super-correct to understand us and helps to explain the Royal Path.


Evlogeite. As usual, externally compelling and intelligent, and not without some valid points (albeit validity in a typically curious and questionable context). From under the covers of theology and history, I must point out that there peep the following:

1) I have heard this refrain too often: "How dare the Church act without doing what I want. It must do so because it is motivated to reject the Royal Priesthood." Unfortunately, the idea of universalism in the priesthood deteriorates into Protestant-like chaos, when abused. It is as dangerous as it is essential and important. When Father Florovsky was asked about his claim that the people could even remove a Bishop, for example, he quickly said: "Only in times of intense piety and not without the final approval of the Church." This is a very important rejoinder.

2) World Orthodoxy is heretical because it is "clear" to the writer. He has no need for a Synod to declare this. Had such views prevailed in the Oecumenical Synods, the spirit of love and forgiveness, as well as extreme economy in some cases, would have impeded the unity that the Fathers of these Synods, guided by the Holy Spirit, sought to restore.

3) The claim is made that ecumenism is a heresy and is a hundred years old. Thus we do not need the judgment of the Church against it. This is a dangerous view, and especially since ecumenism, which is in fact older than that, was nonetheless not always as deviant as it is today. In its virulent form, it is still developing. We should not look at it as monolithic thing, even in opposing it.

As well, religious toleration is not a heresy. Too many of these firebrands, as demonstrated even more lucidly by what they say in private, lack tolerance and love and have confused ecclesiological opposition to religious syncretism with bigotry and self-elevation. As one woman told me recently, "Orthodoxy began its decline when the Emperor of Byzantium whom you criticize burned the last heretic in the Orthodox East. Our fires should be ready." (This is a reference to Alexios I Comnenos, the Byzantine Emperor who burned Basil the Physician, the Bogomil heretic, around 1118, if I recall correctly. This was one of only four or five instances of violence against heretics in Byzantium, which is something that St. Maximos the Confessor and other Fathers flatly condemn. It is vile transgression of the teachings of Christ.)

This is not an "orthodoxy" in which I believe.

4) We are considered heretics since our ecclesiology is never honestly presented and is reduced to simplistic ideas such as "sick" and "healthy" Churches, without providing our larger Patristic context. We are accused of giving the Mysteries to New Calendarists (which is not our policy), whom we consider to have valid Mysteries and Grace, by those who in fact give the Mysteries to New Calendarists, whom they consider to lack Grace! Nor do these people ever present a justification for their "judgments without synodal authority" from a Patristic standpoint. If they cite the Fathers, they do so by ignoring historical context and with a theological naivete covered by the fact that they can cite something. This is not thinking discourse.

5) Did St. Mark of Ephesus, in his day, act as though he constituted a synod and unilaterally condemn the unionists as heretics without Grace, or did he wall himself off and resist the unionists with the aim of restoring unity? And did he not do just that? The answer from history is quite clear. Moreover, he was dealing in the fifteenth century with a unionist illness that dated back to the thirteenth century.

6) Sectarian thinking is ultimately not compatible with order and with patience and trust in the Church. Ad hoc lay committees do not have the approbation of the Church. The Bishops, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, must act in a synod to adjudicate matters in the end. They constitute the authority of the Church.

That there are false synods and true ones has never impeded us from waiting for God's action. We have the right to protest, to cut ourselves off temporarily, and to organize a temporary ecclesiastical structure; however, we do not have the right to assume we that WE are the whole Church, whether in the name of the Royal Priesthood or some tiny group of people with putative "universal jurisdiction."

Our egos have to suffer, we must act humbly, and we must not make of a short time, in the scheme of things ecclesiastical, an irreversible ill in the Church and create an "Orthodoxy" of our liking and according to an authority that we do not have, whether as laymen or Churchmen.

And let me ask where, in any of this, one finds love for those in error and an expressed desire to restore them? This is all talk about "those who are correct" at the cost of those who are ill, whom these same super-correct radicals disdain. What is missing here is Christianity.

If I am in heresy for writing any of this, so, then, must be many of the great Fathers of the Church. Ego and the desire for power do not trump the power of the Church, the primacy of love, and God, however. So, I am not a heretic.

Least Among Your Brothers,

+ AC

Recent Articles on R0C0R Refugees Blog

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

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.

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!