Fr. Steven Allen: ROCOR, Met. Agathangel & SiR

[Jean-Serge]

Just a thought for those thinking the cyprianists have grace. To have grace they should belong to the church. Do they?

Historically cyprianists chirotonies emerged in 1979 when a group of bishops seceded from the Auxentian synod making bishops, among them Cyprian of Filii without the synod's approval. Such an act is clearly a creation of a parasynagogue and as stated by Saint Basil in his canon 1, parasynagogs, just like heretics, and schimatics are graceless. So the cyprianists are graceless for this simple reason.

Moreover, they add the teaching according to which grace subsists among heretic until they've been condemned by an ecumenical council. This is a heresy because it declares that the Church may be split or that a baptism can be true in 2 churches holding different views, while the Creed explicitely says : I confess only one baptism, i.e the baptism of a church holding the orthodox faith.

[Priest Siluan]

Just a thought for those thinking the cyprianists have grace. To have grace they should belong to the church. Do they?

Historically cyprianists chirotonies emerged in 1979 when a group of bishops seceded from the Auxentian synod making bishops, among them Cyprian of Filii without the synod's approval. Such an act is clearly a creation of a parasynagogue and as stated by Saint Basil in his canon 1, parasynagogs, just like heretics, and schimatics are graceless. So the cyprianists are graceless for this simple reason.

Moreover, they add the teaching according to which grace subsists among heretic until they've been condemned by an ecumenical council. This is a heresy because it declares that the Church may be split or that a baptism can be true in 2 churches holding different views, while the Creed explicitely says : I confess only one baptism, i.e the baptism of a church holding the orthodox faith.

Dear Jean-Serge:

I agree with you completely. Your post is really a good and clear synthesis to the correct understanding about what the Kyprianites and Kyprianism are.

[Priest Siluan]

BTW. I don't understand because some in GOC under Archbishop Chrysostomos II are so interested about the dialog with the Kyprianites, who have a wrong confession of faith... I lowly think it would be better to work for dialog and communion with GOC under Archbishop Makarios and HOCNA, because both groups have a correct confession of faith or or at least but "nearer".

[StephenG]

Given the history of the leading figures at HTM, Boston, I am puzzled about any enthusiasm for getting close to HOCNA?

[Pravoslavnik]

Jean Serge writes:

Code: Select all

   Moreover, they add the teaching according to which grace subsists among heretic until they've been condemned by an ecumenical council. This is a heresy because it declares that the Church may be split or that a baptism can be true in 2 churches holding different views, while the Creed explicitely says : I confess only one baptism, i.e the baptism of a church holding the orthodox faith.[/color][/i]


  In a formal, analytic sense, Jean Serge's argument here rests upon a mere semantic ruse.  To wit, he argues that the Cyprianite position implies that "the Church may be split or that a baptism can be true in 2 churches holding different views."  But when did the so-called "Cyprianites"--including the ROCOR-A remnant-- ever indicate that the "Church may be split," or that there are "2 churches holding different views?"  Why "2 churches"?  Rather, the Cyprianite position of St. Kyril of Kazan and others merely says that members of the Church should not, under certain circumstances, declare others within the Church to be outside of the Church in the absence of a proper ruling on the subject by a legitimate Church Council.

  Hence, it is those who presume to condemn and separate themselves through pride from other members of the Church who err regarding this issue of "Cyprianism."  Declaring the "Cyprianites" as a separate "church,"as Jean Serge does here, is mere circular reasoning.

[Jean-Serge]

Code: Select all

  In a formal, analytic sense, Jean Serge's argument here rests upon a mere semantic ruse.  To wit, he argues that the Cyprianite position implies that "the Church may be split or that a baptism can be true in 2 churches holding different views."  But when did the so-called "Cyprianites"--including the ROCOR-A remnant-- ever indicate that the "Church may be split," or that there are "2 churches holding different views?"  Why "2 churches"?  Rather, the Cyprianite position of St. Kyril of Kazan and others merely says that members of the Church should not, under certain circumstances, declare others within the Church to be outside of the Church in the absence of a proper ruling on the subject by a legitimate Church Council.

  Hence, it is those who presume to condemn and separate themselves through pride from other members of the Church who err regarding this issue of "Cyprianism."  Declaring the "Cyprianites" as a separate "church,"as Jean Serge does here, is mere circular reasoning.[/quote]

Everyone agrees the heresy must be condemned by a legitimate church council, but the council may be purely local : Marcionism was only condemned locally, Arianism first by a local council. Nestorius was first condemned by individuals who disapproved his assertions.

To come back to cyprianists, they think there is grace in world orthodoxy while world orthodoxy holds unorthodox beliefs regarding the nature of the church. For example, world orthodoxy believes some heretics are in the church, for example the monophysites (case of Antioch that has also a typikon to concelabrate with monophysites, or gives communion to catholics) , which makes world orthodoxy be heretic. Then acknowledging the baptism of heretic world orthodox the cyprianist break the rule of the Creed, "I believe in a single baptism" (I don't know the English formulation.)

[Priest Siluan]

Fr. Steven Allen: "ROCOR, Met. Agathangel & SiR"- PART 2: http://www.euphrosynoscafe.com/forum/vi ... f=2&t=9082