MetPhilaret:Cristianismo y Comunismo

Foro en español y portugués para discutir los diversos aspectos de la Ortodoxia Tradicional.

Moderators: Maria, phpBB2 - Administrators

Posts: 145
Joined: Wed 28 March 2018 6:36 am
Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: RTOC

Re: Is the TOC-Kirykos Iconoclastic?

Postby jdigrande » Fri 29 June 2018 12:19 pm

One of Maria's ideas is not true. There are two groups in Romania. One of them is based in Slatiora, regards St.Glicherie as a saint and made a union with the Synod of Resistance in the 1980's. Bishop Kirykos has never united with them.

He united with the other Romanian group (with Bishop Victor Leu as one of their ordainers in the 1940's). They are not based in Slatiaora. And they approached Bishop Kirykos in 2007. They decided to unite with him. I personally know both groups in Romania and have visited them. One of their current bishops- Cassian- was a bishop in 2004 before uniting with Bishop Kirykos. He also spoke with my ROCIE bishop between 2004-2006 but decided to unite with Bishop Kirykos.

User avatar
Sr Member
Posts: 814
Joined: Fri 5 May 2017 8:39 pm
Faith: Genuine Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Inquiring
Location: United States

Re: Is the TOC-Kirykos Iconoclastic?

Postby Justice » Fri 29 June 2018 4:03 pm

Orthodox in michigan wrote:
Justice wrote:
Maria wrote:
We had a thread on this which became quite uncivil, so it was moved into the private Mod Forum.

If you go to Father Stephen's website at, you will see several encyclicals written by the GOC synod in which Monk Kirykos was addressed and urged to repent. He did not. Instead, he went to Romania and asked the Romanian Old Orthodox Bishops who received their orders from the SiR to help him establish a synod. This is exactly what Bishop Agafangel of Russia did to start his ROCOR group as he also asked the SiR to help him establish a synod.

I see. Thank you for this information Maria.

This was a topic of discussion where can I see it on the what fourm ?
I am new to finding out about the goc - mathew
I know very little about the split about them I also find it very hard to get a good view and the mind set of the spliting faction , they really went to the SIR looking for a bishop to help Concerate for them . Is this group full of masons?

The SIR ( The Holy Synod in Resistance) is a synod that was founded by Met. Cyprian of Oropos and Phili. Met. Cyprian taught that the New Calendarists and the the rest of World Orthodoxy were only "potentially" schismatic and were still members of the Church. This belief system was dubbed by the GOC as "Cyprianism". All True Orthodox churches including the GOC-K would later anathematize Cyprianism.

Sadly, in 2014, the GOC-K seemed to forget about the anathemas placed on the Cyprianites and decided to unite with them, not insisting they renounce their heretical views.
Last edited by Justice on Fri 29 June 2018 5:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Posts: 145
Joined: Wed 28 March 2018 6:36 am
Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: RTOC

Re: Is the TOC-Kirykos Iconoclastic?

Postby jdigrande » Tue 3 July 2018 4:18 pm

I read the posts related to this subject and after thinking about it for a while and reading the websites of both churches, i have some questions. but first of all the word "ikonoclast" denotes someone who advocates the destruction of ikons, removal of ikons from churches and homes and the persecution of people who possess ikons. It links these practices between the original ikonoclasts from 717-843 AD and the Protestant destruction of ikons or images during or after the Renaissance.

After reading Bishop Kirykos's website, I fail to see that he or his followers fall into this category.

Calling him and his followers "ikonoclasts" seems to be just another hallmark of modern times: the tendency to fall into hyperbole when confronted with someone or church one has a disagreement with. It is similar to calling Trump a "Nazi" or Bernie Sanders a "Soviet Communist." I see this tendency for hyperbole on Bishop Kirykos's website too. There is the characterization of some of the laity as members of the Mafia (without legal proof provided). He also changes the name of one of the members of the church to indicate he is related to Satan because of actions he deemed wrong.

Schism between family members usually also calls for this stark black and white definition of the opposition and makes any dialogue more difficult.

That is why on this site I refer to him as a Bishop. I refer to Auxentius as an Archbishop and the Pope Franics as a Pope in that like a member of the Chinese Army who is a captain, I will refer to him as a captain even though I do not belong to the Chinese Army or subscribe to the legal framework of the Chinese nation. For example I do not consider Archbishop Auxentios to be a valid bishop nevertheless I refer to him thus because there are those on this site who do consider him a valid bishop including the members of my church (RTOC).

My questions that are causing me confusion are:

1. When this original schism took place in the 1990's Bishop Kirykos was a member of the GOC. He was not considered an ikonoclastic heretic at the time by the GOC. Why not and when did the GOC under Arch. Andreas/Nicholas/Stephanos decide he was an Ikonoclast and why?

2. Has Bishop Kirykos destroyed ikons, had them removed from churches or advocated in public that any ikons should be destroyed or removed from churches? If so, where is the proof? Has he excommunicated or persecuted people in his own church for the possession of ikons of the Trinity and where is the proof?


There was a huge invasion of the Greece, the Balkans and Russia after 1453 by the Latins. Ikonography as a whole was transformed to the style of the West which began during the Renaissance. Theological academies were headed by Latins from Kiev to Athens. Publishing of Orthodox books was centered in Northern Italy. Uniate Churches were active all over the Orthodox world so much so that their priests were allowed to marry to subvert the Orthodox people. A saint like St. Thophan the Recluse published a book in the 19th century that borrowed heavily on the work of Francis De Sales (related to spiritual warfare). It took 300 years for the Russian Orthodox Church to canonize St. Gregory Palamas.

Photius Kontaglu started making ikons in Greece which were not related to the style of the Latin Renaissance in the mid 20th century. In fact the return to the style (which is intimately related to theology) of traditional Orthodox ikonography paradoxically returns at the height of ecumenism so much so that in many heretical Latin churches, one sees ikons in the traditional Orthodox sense today.

This 500 year invasion has caused immense spiritual trauma to the Orthodox world that has affected everyone on this site to the point of becoming a very small minority within a population of 7.8 billion people.

It is apparent to me that traditional Orthodox ikonography has always allowed God the Father and the Holy Spirit to be circumscribed within the human body or animal body (dove for the Holy Spirit). Some of the earliest ikons on Sinai which were pre-717 AD has the hand of God the Father blessing the saints from the upper right hand corner of the ikon.

On many ikons of the Trinity there is a triangle denoting the Trinity. This is a Latin-influenced addition. This ikon has been blessed to be in Orthodox churches during this traumatic 500 year invasion where ikonography was also taught in the academies controlled by the Latins. My opinion is that it remains a blessed ikon along with all the other Renaissance styled ikons of saints, the Theotokos and Christ but the return to classic Orthodox ikonography better represents the theology of the Church and must be promoted everywhere.

If a parish or bishop wants to replace any latin styled ikon in their church with a more traditional one and it is the consensus of the local church for this to happen, then Latin-influenced ikons must be preserved and given to members of that church who want them (the minority) in my opinion.

Having read Bishop Kirykos defense of his position on Latin styled ikons, I do not see him as an ikonoclast in any real sense but I could be wrong. I see the position of the GOC/Stephanos/Nicholas to be a rebuttal to the original position of the Gregorian Church in the 1990's. I do see the Gregorians as ikonoclasts.

And I see all of us as extremely traumatized refugees of this 500 year long Latin invasion. I encourage everyone to read all of these websites of these churches listed on this site to get different perspectives. And if one sees an enemy in any of them we must obey both Christ and Socrates:

"Love your enemies" and "Know your enemies."

And in the final analysis our greatest enemies are ourselves. I am the only one capable of eternally condemning myself to Hell because of my lack of repentance and sins. All others (including Bishop Kirykos and Stephanos et al) are my greatest friends in comparision.

User avatar
Posts: 3690
Joined: Sat 29 September 2012 10:03 pm

MetPhilaret:Cristianismo y Comunismo

Postby Barbara » Sat 14 July 2018 4:47 am


"Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky, 1903-1985)

Ahora examinemos la cuestión de la relación del Cristianismo con el Comunismo, más exactamente, con esa forma particular de comunismo que ha aparecido ahora, como, un intento de realizar las ideas del socialismo. Esta forma de comunismo surgió en la historia como un enemigo jurado y severo del Cristianismo. Por su parte, el Cristianismo se reconoce como absolutamente extraño y hostil al Comunismo, a su mismo espíritu, al total contenido de su ideología.

La historia de la Iglesia, durante los tiempos Apostólicos, nos dice que en aquella época tenía su propio Comunismo Cristiano, cuando los fieles tenían todo en común, como dice el Libro de los Hechos de los Apóstoles. Incluso ahora, este comunismo Cristiano existe en la forma de Monasticismo, que es considerado como la mejor forma de la vida ascética Cristiana. De tal manera, el compartir la propiedad desde el punto de vista Cristiano es, no solamente aceptable, es más que eso: es una manera o tipo brillante e idealmente noble de la interrelación Cristiana, ejemplos de lo cual existían y existen actualmente en la vida de la Iglesia Ortodoxa.

¡Qué gran diferencia entre este comunismo Cristiano y el Comunismo Soviético! El uno está tan lejos del otro, como el cielo de la tierra. El comunismo Cristiano no es una finalidad independiente en sí misma, hacia la cual se esfuerza el Cristianismo. No, es el resultado y nacimiento de un espíritu de amor lo que respiraba la Iglesia de la historia primitiva. Además de esto, el comunismo Cristiano era totalmente voluntario. En él nadie decía: "Da lo tuyo: nos pertenece" Al contrario, los Cristianos mismos se sacrificaban de tal modo que "nadie decía que algo de su propiedad era suyo" En lo que concierne al comunismo Socialista, el reparto de la propiedad es una finalidad en sí misma que necesita ser conseguida a cualquier precio, sin más consideraciones. El Comunismo alcanza su finalidad de una manera puramente coercitiva, no deteniéndose en los medios empleados, ni siquiera el golpear a los que no están de acuerdo... La base de este comunismo no es la libertad como en las comunidades Cristianas, sino coerción; nada de amor que se auto-sacrifica, sino la envidia y el odio...

En su lucha contra el Cristianismo, el comunismo Soviético llega a tales excesos que excluye incluso la justicia más elemental que está reconocida por todo el mundo. En su ideología de clase, el comunismo Soviético pisotea la justicia. El objeto de su trabajo no es la felicidad común de todos los ciudadanos del estado, sino solamente los intereses de una sola clase. Todo el resto de grupos estatales y sociales de ciudadanos son "echados por la borda," fuera del cuidado y protección del gobierno comunista. La clase en el poder no se preocupa por ellos.

Al hablar de su nuevo orden, de su estado 'libre, el comunismo promete constantemente una "dictadura del proletariado." Sin embargo, se hizo manifiesto hace tiempo que no hay signo alguno de esta prometida dictadura del proletariado, sino en lugar de ella, lo que hay es una dictadura burocrática sobre el proletariado. Aún más, no hay manifestación alguna de libertad política ordinaria bajo este sistema: ni libertad de Prensa, ni libertad de reunión, ni inviolabilidad del hogar. Solamente los que han vivido en la Unión Soviética saben el abatimiento e intensidad de la opresión que reina allí. Por encima de todo esto, impera un terror político tal como jamás se pudo experimentar antes: ejecuciones y crímenes, exilios y prisión en condiciones increiblemente rígidas. Esto es lo que el comunismo ha dado al pueblo Ruso, en lugar de la libertad prometida.

En su propaganda política, el comunismo proclama que está alcanzando la realización de libertad, igualdad (es decir: justicia) y hermandad. Ya hemos hablado de la primera y de la segunda. La idea de "hermandad" fue tomada de los Cristianos que se llamaban "hermano." El Apóstol Pedro dijo: "Honra a todos, ama a la hermandad" (1 Pedro 2:17). En la práctica, el comunismo cambió la palabra "hermano" por la palabra "camarada." Esto es muy significativo, ya que los camaradas pueden ser co-partícipes (pero no los hermanos) en cualquier actividad. Pero nadie puede hablar realmente de "hermandad" en ningún sitio, allí donde la lucha de clases, la envidia y el odio son predicádos.

Todas estas diferencias citadas entre el Cristianismo y el comunismo no agotan aún la misma esencia de la contradicción entre ellos. La diferencia fundamental entre comunismo y Cristianismo subyace más profunda aún, en la ideología religiosa de ambos. No es de extrañar, pues, que los comunistas luchen tan maliciosa y obstinadamente contra nuestra fe.

El comunismo es supuestamente un sistema ateo que renuncia a toda religión. En realidad, es una religión: una religión fanática, oscura e intolerante. El Cristianismo es una religión del Cielo; el comunismo, una religión de la tierra. El Cristianismo predica el amor para todos; el comunismo predica la lucha de clases y la guerra y está basado en el egoísmo. El Cristianismo es una religión de idealismo, fundada en la fe de la victoria de la verdad de Dios y de Su Amor. El comunismo es una religión de seco pragmatismo racional, que persigue la finalidad de crear un paraíso terreno (paraíso de saciedad animal y de reprobación espiritual). Es cosa significativa que, mientras se pone una cruz en la tumba de un Cristiano, la tumba de un comunista está marcada con una estaca roja. ¡Qué indicativo y simbólico para ambos! En el uno, fe en la victoria de la vida sobre la muerte y del bien sobre el mal. En el otro, oscuridad ignorante, lobreguez y vacuidad, sin alegría, ni alivio o esperanza para el futuro. Mientras que las reliquias sagradas de los santosascetas de la fe de Cristo florecen con incorruptibilidad y fragancia, el podrido cadáver frecuentemente embalsamado de Lenin es el mejor símbolo del comunismo."

Return to “Latinoamérica”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest