Suaiden wrote: I was wondering when someone would come out with something on my Synod! This is not an honest presentation. First, the resistance position was articulated in 1984. First off, Metropolitan Evloghios assisted in the consecration of Archbishop Chrysostomos in 1986. To my knowledge, that's it. And as far as I knew, the SiR already had two Bishops. They did not need us to begin with. Nor am I totally familiar with the circumstances that led to the decisive break in relations between the Western Synod (then headed in Lisbon, not Milan) and the SiR. But the claim that we "aided and abetted" Metropolitan Cyprian's "foray into schism" (from whom???) is unfounded. We've always helped those who have asked. We still do. That makes me biased? A single assistance of our Bishops in 1986? Interesting.
Dear Dcn. Joseph,
This is precisely why I said I prefer to stick to the Cyprianite ecclesiology, which is very straightforward and simple for me to understand, rather than delving into matters of history, which are not as clear. I simply cannot keep up with all the peoples, places, names and faces, along with the dates, since I did not live through these events. So I ask you to forgive any of my unintentional errors, and I'm glad we have your presence here to correct any misstatements on my part.
After doing some searching, it appears that you are correct, and that Cyprian did have Giovanni of Sardinia along with him to consecrate new bishops without the need of Evloghios of Milan.
Now, to address your individual points.
First, the resistance position was articulated in 1984. First off, Metropolitan Evloghios assisted in the consecration of Archbishop Chrysostomos in 1986. To my knowledge, that's it.
Well then, this begs the question. If Cyprian published an articulation of his ecclesiology in 1984, and Met. Evloghios of Milan assisted in the consecration of the Cyprianite bishop Chrysostomos of Etna in 1986, then doesn't this indicate that Met. Evloghios (current primate of your synod of Milan) had no qualms about Cyprian and his ecclesiology? Why would your current primate assist in the consecration of a bishop with Cyprian unless he accepted Cyprian's confession to be orthodox?
A while back I had read this article, titled:
Who Are the Cyprianites? How Did They Arise?
http://iasidnev.livejournal.com/145089.html
Wherein it states:
At some point during this time, a certain Bishop Eulogius of Milan (formerly of the "Lisbonite" Schism) was accepted into the "Synod of Those in Resistance," in which he assisted Bishop Cyprian in performing more consecrations. [12] Among the new bishops consecrated were Chrysostom (Gonzales) of Etna, Niphon (Kigundu) of Uganda, Auxentius (Chapman) of Photike, Photius (Siromachov) of Triaditsa, and Chrysostom (Alemangos) of Sydney.
This is likely one of the sources that I read which left me with the impression that Met. Evloghios of Milan assisted with the consecration of multiple bishops, rather than just the one bishop, Chrysostomos of Etna. This article actually says that Evloghios joined the Cyprianites, while you maintain that Evloghios merely assisted them in response to their request for help. Please do tell us if the narration in this article of how events transpired is incorrect.
And as far as I knew, the SiR already had two Bishops. They did not need us to begin with.
It appears you are correct, and I was mistaken on this point.
Nor am I totally familiar with the circumstances that led to the decisive break in relations between the Western Synod (then headed in Lisbon, not Milan) and the SiR.
You refer to a "break". So your primate was in communion with Cyprian in 1986, which is a couple years after he made known his ecclesiological opinions?
But the claim that we "aided and abetted" Metropolitan Cyprian's "foray into schism" (from whom???) is unfounded.
I think that anyone who joins with or assists Cyprian in any manner to expand his para-synagogue is aiding and abetting his schism and heresy. So I do believe your current primate aided and abetted Cyprian, by consecrating at least one bishop together with him.
We've always helped those who have asked. We still do.
But you just got done telling us that Cyprian had his own synod of bishops and did not require the assistance of the Western Synod. So what was the true purpose of Met. Evloghios consecrating a bishop with Cyprian?
That makes me biased? A single assistance of our Bishops in 1986? Interesting.
I believe it makes your whole synod biased toward Cyprianism, not just you. Obviously your current primate had no issues with Cyprian or his confession of faith, or he wouldn't have assisted him in consecrating the dastardly Chrysostomos of Etna.