It seems Bishop Akakjie met with Archbishop Andronik of Syracuse in Paris. The two hierarchs officially prayed together and expressed hope for eucharistic communion between the two synods.
http://rocana.org/page/home.en/682
Archbishop Andronik and the ROCANA haven't repented of their Cyprianism. Perhaps Bishop Akakije is doing this to get back at Archbishop Tikhon of Omsk? In any case, Lord have mercy!
No, Bishop Akakije of the Serbian True Orthodox Church is not embracing Cyprianism. Bishop Akakije's position has long been that both what he calls Matthewitism and what he calls Cyprianism are extremes and should be rejected. Archbishop Andronik seems to feel the same. If fact, Archbishop Andronik may be starting to correct past mistakes. He issued an official statement that he has never embraced Cyprianism, that Bishop Stefan Sabelnik rejected it, and that he himself rejects it now in clear terms. Hopefully, all of these bishops will issue an even clearer rejection in the future, especially the enter into full communion (the STOC and those with Andronik).
http://rocana.org/page/home.en/638
Statement Of The ROCA Bishops (Diaspora District Of The Russian Orthodox Church)
As the episcopal consecrations of several of our Bishops were performed with the participation of Bishops from the Synod of Metropolitan Cyprian (Kutsumbas), we believe that it is necessary to clarify our position in regard to the ecclesiology of this hierarch.
We, as archpastors of Christ’s flock, never adhered to the teachings of Met. Cyprian, as expressed in his work “Ecclesiological Theses.” We do not accept his teachings, are not guided by them in our archpastoral work, and do not regard them as Orthodox.
With respect to the Churches of “World Orthodoxy,” we adhere to the traditional ecclesiology of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, which is foreign to both extremes.
Archbishop Andronik
Archbishop Sofroniy
Bishop Stefan (note below)
Bishop Andrei
Due to the state of his health, Bishop Stefan was unable to participate in composing this statement. His name has been included as a member of the Council of Bishops and also because the rejection of Met. Cyprian’s teachings was one of the conditions for the unification of the dioceses of Bishop Stefan and Archbishop Andronik.
http://rocana.org/page/home.ru/639
Заявление Архиереев РПЦЗ (Зарубежного Округа Русской Православной Церкви)
Поскольку хиротонии некоторых из наших архиереев были совершены при участии епископов из синода митр. Киприана, мы считаем нужным прояснить нашу позицию в отношении экклезиологии этого иерарха.
Мы, архипастыри стада Христова, никогда не придерживались учения митрополита Киприана, выраженного им в работе «Экклезиологические Тезисы». Мы не принимаем это его учение, им в своей архипастырской жизни не руководствуемся и не считаем православным.
По отношению к церквам «Мирового Православия» мы придерживаемся традиционной экклезиологии Русской Зарубежной Церкви, чуждой обеих крайностей.
Архиеп. Андроник
Архиеп. Софроний
Еп. Стефан
Еп. Андрей
По состоянию здоровья Вл. Стефан не имел возможности участвовать в составлении этого заявления. Его имя поставлено под ним, как члена Архиерейского Собора, и также потому, что неприятие учения митр. Киприана было одним из условий объединения епархий Вл. Стефана и Вл. Андроника.
Justice wrote:Archbishop Andronik and the ROCANA haven't repented of their Cyprianism. Perhaps Bishop Akakije is doing this to get back at Archbishop Tikhon of Omsk?
Andronik and the bishops with him issued a statement on the same website that they all reject Cyprianism. However, a priest under Sofrony praises Cyprian openly online. A further clarification would be welcome. Akakije has stated that both "Mathewitism" and "Cyprianism" should be rejected. There is no sign Akakije had changed positions on that.
d9popov wrote:Justice wrote:Archbishop Andronik and the ROCANA haven't repented of their Cyprianism. Perhaps Bishop Akakije is doing this to get back at Archbishop Tikhon of Omsk?
Andronik and the bishops with him issued a statement on the same website that they all reject Cyprianism. However, a priest under Sofrony praises Cyprian openly online. A further clarification would be welcome. Akakije has stated that both "Mathewitism" and "Cyprianism" should be rejected. There is no sign Akakije had changed positions on that.
If they condemn Cyprianism why do they not bring up the late Bishop Stefan's "Radicalized Orthodoxy" encyclical which goes against the 2008 RTOC decision to anathematize it. It seems hypocritical that the ROCANA bishops would condemn Cyprianism but forget that their hierarchy comes directly from Met Agafangel's synod: the same person who asked the Synod in Resistance for help consecrating bishops after the 2007 ROCOR union.
Justice wrote:If they condemn Cyprianism why do they not bring up the late Bishop Stefan's "Radicalized Orthodoxy" encyclical which goes against the 2008 RTOC decision to anathematize it. It seems hypocritical that the ROCANA bishops would condemn Cyprianism but forget that their hierarchy comes directly from Met Agafangel's synod: the same person who asked the Synod in Resistance for help consecrating bishops after the 2007 ROCOR union.
Synodal guilt by association? Even if what you describe from a decade ago is more than conjecture and actually toyed with Cyprianism, what is your point today in light of the statements that dpopov noted? One of the dangers of continually dredging the past is that you deny the reality of repentance. Bishops are human. They can make mistakes and even go down the wrong path. And not every correction or repentance is publicly recorded so that some light switch flipper can decide grace is on or off today. Hindsight is a marvelous way to judge others if we want to attribute omniscience to them. In the real world though, we might want to ask what standard we will hope to be judged by.
Bishop_Irineos wrote:Justice wrote:If they condemn Cyprianism why do they not bring up the late Bishop Stefan's "Radicalized Orthodoxy" encyclical which goes against the 2008 RTOC decision to anathematize it. It seems hypocritical that the ROCANA bishops would condemn Cyprianism but forget that their hierarchy comes directly from Met Agafangel's synod: the same person who asked the Synod in Resistance for help consecrating bishops after the 2007 ROCOR union.
Synodal guilt by association? Even if what you describe from a decade ago is more than conjecture and actually toyed with Cyprianism, what is your point today in light of the statements that dpopov noted? One of the dangers of continually dredging the past is that you deny the reality of repentance. Bishops are human. They can make mistakes and even go down the wrong path. And not every correction or repentance is publicly recorded so that some light switch flipper can decide grace is on or off today. Hindsight is a marvelous way to judge others if we want to attribute omniscience to them. In the real world though, we might want to ask what standard we will hope to be judged by.
I know I still have some work to do in the Repentance department and hopefully I'll get there soon, but seeing as how the Radicalized Orthodoxy publication was a main reason that forced the RTOC to separate from Bishop Stefan, why wouldn't it be one of the first things the'd address?
I apologize if I've offended anyone.
Justice wrote:Bishop_Irineos wrote:Justice wrote:If they condemn Cyprianism why do they not bring up the late Bishop Stefan's "Radicalized Orthodoxy" encyclical which goes against the 2008 RTOC decision to anathematize it. It seems hypocritical that the ROCANA bishops would condemn Cyprianism but forget that their hierarchy comes directly from Met Agafangel's synod: the same person who asked the Synod in Resistance for help consecrating bishops after the 2007 ROCOR union.
Synodal guilt by association? Even if what you describe from a decade ago is more than conjecture and actually toyed with Cyprianism, what is your point today in light of the statements that dpopov noted? One of the dangers of continually dredging the past is that you deny the reality of repentance. Bishops are human. They can make mistakes and even go down the wrong path. And not every correction or repentance is publicly recorded so that some light switch flipper can decide grace is on or off today. Hindsight is a marvelous way to judge others if we want to attribute omniscience to them. In the real world though, we might want to ask what standard we will hope to be judged by.
I know I still have some work to do in the Repentance department and hopefully I'll get there soon, but seeing as how the Radicalized Orthodoxy publication was a main reason that forced the RTOC to separate from Bishop Stefan, why wouldn't it be one of the first things the'd address?
I apologize if I've offended anyone.
I will offer you two suggestions, which I have no idea whether they hold any merit at all, but consider these two possibilities:
(1) They don’t consider themselves answerable to the RTOC and saw no need to answer the accusations of a group they were never under (referencing the two who took Bp Stefan in);
(2) They did address it directly with Bp. Stefan and were satisfied with his answer/repentance/explanations and considered it a pastoral matter not for public consumption beyond the statements issued.
Why should we consider ourselves entitled to an accounting on our terms? The answer starts with P