What is Wrong With Cyprianism?

[Justin Kissel]

Anastasios,

I'm curious, we seemed to agree somewhat on this thread--at least on some points. Have you changed your mind on any of those points, and if so, could you tell us why?

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Fr. George writes:

From the above italic portion, it is clear that the ecclesiology of Metropolitan Cyprian has been anathematized by at least the Russian Church Abroad.

I never considered that, how obvious and blantantly hypocritical of the ROCOR. For those who say the ROCOR has always been the way they are now, oh, I don't think so.

[Justin Kissel]

Noah

First, thank you for putting up with my confrontational style in my last post. Your civility, in the face of my emotionalism, is most edifying!

But again, what would that Ecumenical Council be? If the ROAC ecclesiology were to be used, then the ROAC synod WOULD be the Ecumenical Council. Doesnt this seem just a bit absurd?

Well, I don't think that ROAC is as closed-off as some people think they are. Being in America, and English-speaking, most Americans take Bp. Gregory's views (and the views of some of the American preists) and assume that they are the ROAC's views. In reality, I think that Bp. Gregory has a few views that are nothing more than opinions: and they are opinions that I think most ROAC bishops would disagree with. ROAC herself seems open to reconciliation with many groups; and don't forget that even Bp. Gregory has extended a hand (sort of) to a number of other groups, such as ROCiE.

In a way, I agree with you. It'd be strange if one group were what was considered "Ecumenical". On the other hand, there have been times in history where things seemed almost as dark. The times of St. Maximos the Confessor and St. Mark of Ephesus come to mind. I do not think that a ROAC council would ever be considered "Ecumenical," but I do think that a local ROAC council could be taken into consideration at a future pan-Orthodox council. Not every group or Church need be represented at a council for it to be considered pan-Orthodox, or even Ecumenical (the 2nd Ecumenical Council, for instance, was actually small, and had no representatives from the west). I do not have a hard time imagining the Church declaring a Council Ecumenical if traditionalists from the various local Churches came together at some point in the future.

Met. Cyprian seems to have in mind the idea that everyone, including world Orthodoxy, be involved in an "Ecumenical Council". I think even a council sans world Orthodoxy could be Ecumenical, given the right cirumstances, though. If anything, including members of world Orthodoxy might be detrimental to a council, and turn it into a robber synod where error would drown out truth. What I would like to see is a Local Council (not necessarily one declared Ecumenical, since "Local" Councils can have just as much weight if they are accepted throughout the Church as valid) as a first step. Perhaps with various Greek, Russian and other traditionalist groups.

I feel that it forces me to look at what I believe to be an act of grace on my life as something that was not.

I can understand that. I really can, since I'm going through those feelings myself

My reference here is to the attitude of each of the non-Cyprian synods towards each other as being 'graceless', or essentially lacking in some way important enough to prevent inter-communion.

Well, I think there is some level of agnosticism in most groups. It's not that they consider each other graceless, it's just that they have questions and concerns. If anything, a lot of the groups are rather vague as far as their relations with other traditionalist groups. I think the GOC (Chrysostom), for instance, has been trying to establish communion with certain of the other Greek Old Calendarists for years now, and they are possibly approaching a union (if I remember correctly). When I talked to Bp. Christodoulos (GOC) on the phone, he was trying to be very respectful of ROCOR, even though he had (and voiced) some concerns. He wasn't explicit though, and didn't launch into a diatribe; he suggested that we pray about the situation.

And in terms of a heretic being automatically excommunicated with his own acceptace of heresy, then it follows that a heretics ordinations are invalid, and if there have ever been secret or ignorant heresiarchs in the church, then who can ever know who is really 'of the church'.

Well, I think what OOD said is important. A bishop must affirm a heresy publically (and, I think, explicitly) for there to be a loss of grace. Before that, God does not hold us accountable (how could he hold us accountable? it's not like we can read minds. However, once the bishop has said things publically, then we have an obligation to do what we must do).

As I was commenting on Mor's post below, another thought occured to me. It is important to remember that a heresy need be condemned at a council (whether local or ecumenical). God's will (that something is a heresy) can be manifest in many ways, and not just via a council. And so, even if a number of Fathers and bishops declare something a heresy, and a council does not follow, that does not mean that the heresy hasn't been condemned. If the bishops are articulating/manifesting the will of God, then a council is a welcome but not totally necessary thing. Such a later council would merely confirm and magnify as Orthodox those actions taken by the first, brave bishops.

To be totally honest, I will be JUST recieving an Orthodox baptism this Saturday at a ROCOR monastery (as switching to a non-ecumenist synod as been a VERY long and VERY painful experience for my fiance and I that we almost didnt make it through) and the following Sunday I will be married. (Both of which I firmly believe will be valid Orthodox Mysteries, and I ask for your prayers whether you agree or not)

You will certainly be in the prayers of my wife and I, and I congratulate you on your marriage and baptism (I know that might sound strange after all I said, but I mean it). Please give my well wishes to your fiancee, and also please forgive me for being as confrontational as I have been. I realise that this must be a very very happy time for you, and I certainly do not want to ruin your memories (especially of marriage).

[Justin Kissel]

Mor Ephrem,

So if a bishop secretly (in his heart) rejects the teaching that Mary is the Theotokos, but doesn't reject it in public, but instead gives lip service to the Orthodox teaching, even if this is only for selfish reasons (e.g., keeping his office, since the outward manifestation of his true beliefs would get him kicked out), he is still Orthodox?

Personally speaking, I would say that we (the human aspect of the Church) cannot judge him as being heretical if he does not say or do anything heretical, and in that way he would be considered Orthodox. On the other hand, if he affirms (though does not publically state) an already-condemned heresy (such as Nestorianism), then he'd obviously be a heretic.

I would draw a distinction between privately holding to (and not mentioning) a heresy that has already been condemned, and privately holding to (and not mentioning) a heresy that has not been condemned. There seems to be some room when it comes to heresies that have not been condemned, so long as the person does not go about spreading the heresy and effecting others (which, it seems to me, is part of the answer as to why Origen is condemned for his universalism, and Gregory of Nyssa is not).

[Justin Kissel]

For the past couple months, I've found myself dwelling, again, on Met. Cyprian's ecclesiology. I suppose what really got me seriously thinking about these issues was when Seraphim Reeves starting asking certain questions about baptism, grace, world Orthodoxy, etc. During this time a number of things have happened or been said which crushed my pride--at least as it relates to this matter. Therefore, at this point, I would like to retract every word I've ever said about Met. Cyprian, those bishops in his synod, and his ecclesiology. I repent of every last syllable, and ask forgiveness of those I have sinned against.

I had thought about making a post like this about a week and a half ago, but did not do so because of some lingering confusion--I did not want to say something and then regret having said it. In the past week and a half, however, my thoughts have been confirmed in a number of ways, and from a number of different perspectives/people. I have decided to make a new thread for this, not because I think my voice is important, but simply because I have been more vocal than most about Met. Cyprian on this forum (if not the most vocal), and I thought it was therefore only fitting that my repentance be very vocal. The idea of a cyber-repentance is something that seems strange to me, but that's a whole other issue to grapple with. At the least, having said some rash and foolish things quite publically in the past, I also wanted to make my retraction very public, and not bury it at the end of some long thread in which I spent most of my time acting foolishly and speaking presumptuously.

[gphadraig]

Your action is, I think, an honest and courageous one. Only a fool is never wrong my parents told me. It gave me a little comfort because it felt I was wrong an awful lot of the time!

Looking back it would be interesting to have a more open and balanced debate on the ecclesiology of the Fili Synod, and how this relates to opinions expressed within ROCOR and the Church calendar movement in Greece and elsewhere over many years.

Again looking back it would be interesting unless it degenerates into what someone else referred to somewhere as 'a knock-a-bout' session.

Your action is welcome...............

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Justin,

I don’t take anything back that I said on Cyprianism.

While I love them, I feel no inclination to cater or patronize the heretics and the many who support them. I feel it is a complete betrayal of Christ. If everyone would first acknowledge Christ and His Holy Church there would be no discussions now. But instead people acknowledge the world and ITS teachers, and because of this they find themselves defending their ideas and behold, they are fighting the Church!

If you read carefully you will see Seraphim did not accept Cyprianism. He had his own theology which was more akin to the “fight from within” idea - but it was not really this either. And I had really hoped he would have answered my questions before he dropped the topic – I felt he didn’t answer because he couldn’t.

No I don’t take anything back. I stand by it and know this means not only now, but also on the Day of Judgment. If perhaps I have no other virtues, by the Mercy of God I will have this one in all my shame.