Dear Theophan,
1. Did the Romanian Old Calendarists who have an Orthodox ecclesiolgy fall away from the Church by going into Communion with Kyprianos' sect?
This is a diversion from what we are trying to establish, which is whether or not the synod of Kyprianos is heretical or not. Let's establish whether or not the synod of Kyprianos is Orthodox or not first, and only then should we move on to those who are in communion with him.
2.Did ROCOR fall away from the Church by entering in Communion with them, and even stating that they shared the same ecclesiolgy?
Another diversion. Do you want to talk about the Kyprianites and their peculiar ecclesiology or do you want to cloud the situation by bringing in all these other synods into the mix?
3.Is the belief that heretics have Grace until condemned by an Ecumenical council actually heresy or grave error?
Now we are beginning to focus on the matter at hand. Nevertheless, you have still not told us what constitutes a heresy as defined by the Church, so how can you be convinced the Kyprianites are heretics until you provide for us the Church's view of what constitutes a heresy?
In other words, according to your understanding of the teaching of the Church, what is the difference between a heresy and a "grave error"?
You have to define or draw a distinction between the two for us, first. Only then will it be possible to assess whether or not the Kyprianites fall into the former or latter category.
Certainly I find it hard to imagine that the Kyprianite Bishops do not know the truth that this is an idea that is historically indefensable
So are you in essence saying that the Kyprianites are fully aware that they are choosing an errant ecclesiology which has never been put forth by the Church? This is important, because the word heresy derives from the Greek word for choice, does it not?
So obviously heresy involves a willful rejection or opposition to revealed teachings of Holy Church. To speak errantly due to ignorance or simplicity or carelessness is not the same as willful and obstinate opposition to manifestly Divine Truths.
So if you have come to the acknowledgment that his teachings are unorthodox, the next logical questions ought to be:
1) what was his intent in putting forth this strange teaching of his 23 years ago, which is clearly diametrically opposed to the Anathema of 1983 issued just one year prior.
2) has Kyprianos been sufficiently made aware of the fact that his teachings are contrary to Orthodox doctrine
3) and if so, has he stubbornly and willfully maintained his false teachings in spite of the repeated objections and criticisms by Orthodox authorities?
Now let's not play games. Regarding the novel teaching that Kyprianos put forth in 1984 he made no secret that it was offered in opposition to and as an alternative to the Anathema proclaimed by the ROCOR synod one year prior in 1983.
For example, all one must do is read the very first line:
"Those who attack the Church of Christ by teaching that Christ's Church is divided into so-called "branches" which differ in doctrine and way of life..."
Of course Kyprianos deliberately seeks to oppose this Orthodox declaration.
Do not the ecumenist New Calendarists differ in doctrine and way of life than the true Orthodox Christians who piously and steadfastly uphold the traditions of the Fathers?
But of course they do. The ecumenists pray with Satan; they pray with Legion; they pray with Beelzebub; they pray with Barabbas.
The New Calendarists differ in way of life. They shorten the Holy Apostles Fast, they feast when the Church ought to be fasting, they are schismatics and heretics who persecute the True Orthodox.
So no one will deny that the New Calendarists and the True Orthodox Christians are divided from one another.
But Kyprianos says they are all part of the same Church.
So he has developed his own little "branch theory". Instead of his branches consisting of Orthodox, Papists and Anglicans, who differ in doctrine and way of life...
the branches of his novel conception of the "Church" rather consist of "Old Calendarist" resisters and "New Calendarist" ailing members.
So he simply teaches a novel variation of the two-lung theory.
According to the absurd two-lung theory, Orthodox and Papists are two lungs in the same body of the Church. The Orthodox are the healthy lung, and the Papists are the ailing or diseased lung.
Kyprianos teaches the same theory but has simply changed the parties. Instead of the Orthodox and the Papists being the two lungs, he treats the "resistors" as the healthy lung and the ailing or sick lung is represented by the ecumenist heretics, which he acknowledges to be so, because he speaks often of the "Pan-heresy of Ecumenism".
So he admits the ecumenists are "Pan-heretics", but then (effectively teaches) that they are simply a diseased lung in the same body of the Church.
No real difference than in the situation of the Papists, who are clearly heretics and schismatics, and are still treated as part of the body of Christ by apostate pseudo-Orthodoxy.
No one can with a straight face assert that Kyprianos came up with this novelty inadvertently.
"and who do not distinguish the priesthood and mysteries of the Church from those of the heretics..."
Kyprianos calls ecumenism a pan heresy, and considers ecumenists heretics, yet he fails to distinguish the priesthood and the mysteries of the Church from those heretics he walls off from.
Obviously the goal of Kyprianos from the very start was to speak perverse things, in order to draw away disciples after himself.
Faith and discernment are gifts from God.
Anyone who cannot see that the ecclesiological position put forth by Kyprianos in 1984 is diamterically opposed to the ROCOR Anathema of 1983 has neither considered them both or is simply not interested in the Truth.
Cyprian
