The good, the bad, and the ugly, or for whom the bell tolls

[jgress]

All right, that's enough with the personal attacks. This kind of talk is forbidden here. Let us focus on the issues that divide us, not on each other's personal characters or situations.

[Kybihetz21]

"Nothing is so offensive to God as divisions in the Church. Although we may have performed a thousand good deeds, we are subject to censure no less than those who have tortured His Body, if we rend the body of the Church. That is the reason we say all this, and remind you of all this, so that you would not be able to say at that last day: 'nobody told us, nobody explained, we did not know this, and certainly did not regard it as a sin.' And so I say as a witness, that to produce divisions in the church is no less an evil than to fall into heresy. Since everyone of you is mature and will answer for his deeds, I ask that you, placing all the blame on us, do not count yourselves blameless, and in such fashion deluding yourselves, harm yourselves in vain."

St. John Chrysostom

[Catherine5]

What I see needs to happen is a shift toward the "center" of the TOC groups.

Continuing my Afghan resistance parallel: the moderate more secular parties, who ended up having a brief reign during the American occupation of Afghanistan - the present president Hamid Karzai was a complete nobody picked from their ranks - who was it who won the day against the Soviets [read here the analogy: MP/bad elements of World Orthodoxy] ? It was the most flexible of the religious parties, not fanatics or internationalist ideologues, but common sense patriots and sincere religious believers who roughly would be placed in the center of the political/religious spectrum.

It's those people who are likely to come to power as soon as the Americans leave, whenever that day, God helping, arrives. It is THEY who will bring stability to the war-torn country, something the moderate faction has been worse than useless at achieving. People who compromise too much with the wrong people are never popular anywhere.

So the people that will ultimately win out will be those who upheld a fierce religious stance without waffling, but also those who were not so extreme that no one could relate to them [like our analogy here of the Matthewite ideology up til this revolutionary material has been released as mentioned in that new thread yesterday].

Obviously my analogy is not exact. But let's say for the sake of some parallels that the TOCs should learn in advance that the "moderate", which would translate here to Cyprianite parties, can secure State Dept backing, but ultimately they are not what the bulk of the people feel content with. Notice the State Dept did nothing or next to nothing to stop the MP from cruelly snatching the poor ROAC's Churches. Cyprianites are more what the State Dept can deal with. Just for one example, in his book, Orthodox Psychology, Archbishop Chrysostomos writes that he has been asked by the US State Dept to give seminars on Orthodoxy. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that.
Good to educate any officials, of course. But the State Dept always has had the reputation of being "soft" on almost every foreign policy issue. They were the weakest branch of the US govt about standing up to the Soviets, for example.
But what I mean is that the "moderate" stance doesn't actually end up working very well in situations of either individual or collective spiritual warfare. Both a person and a group have to take the firmest of stands against looming darkness, such as is personified by certain elements of governments considered to be Orthodox, for example. Look at the MP, yoked together with the Russian govt.

Let's examine this sad example. After all the sugary, obsequious talk for many years now by the MP-ROCOR Synod, their MP overlords didn't even trust them enough to hand over the administration of Patriarchal properties to Met Hilarion ! I was astounded that they appointed some Archbishop Justinian [-ius?] from a nowhere bishopric. It's a real slap in the face to ROCOR-MP. Here's yet one MORE piece of evidence that PLACATING the Russian bear or any bad force does not work! All those sappy smiles, handshakes, flowery speeches, flattering writeups, the campaign to promote Russian nationalism on their website now revving up has led to zero returns on their investment of masses of energy to persuade the MP officials that the Abroad Church is a reliable daughter of theirs.

It never, never works to theorize: "Well the devil can come in the door and I'll have some vegetable soup ready for him. Then he would treat me better and not bother me. Worse comes worst, I can always leave the leftovers out for the Domovoi [traditional Russian folklore house guardian spirits]".
A person or a whole Church or party has to say: "NO! I refuse the devil entrance to my property and even my entire city/group/country/Church. That is the only way to make the devil obey!

Placating evil will never work in any form or context.
Only when you point a sharp-edged saber at the Devil, will he see that you mean business.
All this "maybe someday the sick jurisdictions/people will recover" sounds kindly in theory but is like living in a bubble of self-delusion. The reality that it's not how one party/Church/group thinks, it's how the dark side thinks. If the devil is not invited inside the door, he will go around the house and search til he finds the big window of opportunity to climb through. That window is too much leniency in outlook, amorphous thought, no real principles laid down and fiercely adhered to.

Yet, at the other extreme, fanatics are unpopular always, because they do repel people.
My advice is for all TOC's to see this wisely and close ranks by gravitating toward the center of the TOC spectrum.
A united bloc will repel the devils. A porous front caused by all the chaos in the current situation creates other types of windows of infiltration for the devil to ruin the TOC movement altogether.
I'm glad this new evidence has come to light about the deliberate misleading of Matthewites.
Let's pray that they will quickly recover and rally around the more central parties as this Stavros guy emigrated to RTOC. Or GOC , ROCiE or ROAC, any like this.
I personally see THIS battle plan is the best recipe for success: All the parties who are adamant that the lovely homemade, nutritious vegetable soup should be shared with fellow souls from the forces of light who believe in fighting the devil rather than placating or pacifying him should band together in a very loose confederation.
The Cyprianite Churches should be welcomed warmly, not treated condescendingly in the remotest way. Hopefully they would see the big picture that it's sink or swim time and join in this confederation.

I have tried to portray the intense battlefield here as I see it. Someone else can maybe do a much better job. But overall, a problem that traditional Orthodox must remember is that especially American converts are unlikely to fathom the subtleties of ecclesiology. They are barely getting their feet wet.

It can perhaps help to paint a sketch for them in overall terms to make these very intricate TOC beliefs comprehensible. More would enthusiastically join if the ideas are presented clearly, without using the terminology familiar to priests, clergy and insiders. Just a suggestion to help, as I see a communication gap impeding a more rapid spread of TOC-ism. The aim should be clearcut: to attract flocks of healthy, fair-minded and emotionally- and mentally-poised parishioners in any country. Rather than a fringe of articulate but unpleasant ideological experts, like for example, Rasul Sayyaf in the Afghan resistance analoy - I mean analogy, that was a funny typo! This was a far-right resistance leader who was vastly unpopular; no one wanted to join his party because he tried with money to shift the people to Wahhabi extremism, but they wouldn't buy it. Most people are not stupid and know when they are being led somewhere too far off center from their feelings about how things reasonably should be.

However! The zeal of such groups like the Matthewites is valuable and could infuse the other TOC groups with some get up and go fire. All parts of the TOC spectrum have their talents, but why not try to capitalize on those in a unified way, rather than accentuate the discord by quarrels over relatively small items ?

[Cyprian]

I'm the person that actually wrote that paragraph above on our website, and what you are saying does not match my intent when I wrote that paragraph, and I can't allow you to misunderstand my intent, or misrepresent what I actually wrote, which I believe you are doing by going beyond the context and splicing two sentences together.

With all due respect, I did not splice two sentences together. I provided the entire article, in context, and omitted nothing. All I did was bold the two sentences that I found particularly scandalizing.

1) It's a scandal to non-Orthodox who investigate Orthodoxy to see divisions among Orthodox, especially among True Orthodox. It's something I, as a mission priest that actually goes around trying to start Orthodox Churches and convert heretics to it, encounter every week.

I do not deny that petty divisions amongst the Orthodox can be scandalous to those from without. But how many times must it be said? The HOCNA is not Orthodox, so in this case that example does not apply.

2) Another fact is that HOCNA and the GOC have had a series of informal meetings where the issues that divide the HOCNA and the GOC have been discussed, both canonical, and on some of the topics that you are always expressing concern over. In fact, some of our clergy have the same concerns as you have expressed about theological issues.

It is plainly evident that the HOCNA is not in any way, shape, or form moving in the direction of a genuine Orthodox confession. They are as stubborn and intransigent as ever. What is plainly evident is that your bishops are not rightly dividing the word of truth, but rather are deviating further and further away from Orthodoxy, and moving in the direction of the wrong-thinking of the HOCNA. That is the real reason why your bishops call the HOCNA "True Orthodox"--they share a similar thinking. Birds of a feather flock together.

Given 1 and 2, we have had informal meetings with HOCNA and even invited HOCNA clergy to come to Fr Thomas's elevation to the protopresbytery and we hope that such visits will bring a spirit of cooperation and investigation of the truth that will lead to a union IF we agree on the topics that divide us.

Either the HOCNA is Orthodox in its confession, or not! Why play games? I have no problem stating my thoughts with clarity. Why does your clergy dance around the issue? Do your bishops consider the HOCNA to be genuinely Orthodox in their confession at this present moment or not? Unless you can give me a simple and straightforward answer, this only serves to confirm why I have no confidence in the leaders of your jurisdiction. If your bishops do not deem the HOCNA to be truly Orthodox, then what business do they have releasing official declarations on the website declaring them so? If your bishops do consider the HOCNA to be Orthodox, than this just confirms what others and myself have been voicing our concerns about. That would make your bishops not Orthodox in their confession either.

You bolding my statement that "we pray such demonstrations..." is evidence of joint liturgical prayer is perplexing, since it is an expression of a wish after the fact. We did not invite the HOCNA clergy to vest and enter the altar and concelebrate.

I am sorry if I gave the impression that joint concelebration between the HOTCA and that of the HOCNA has taken place. What I wish to convey is that I agree with Jonathan that dialogue with heretics is not necessarily ecumenism--however, when things such as concelebrations, joint prayer, and calling heretics "True Orthodox" takes place under the seemingy harmless guise of "dialogue," that is when a problem arises. I did not mean to imply that your jurisdiction had engaged in all three of these actions as of yet. I just listed three types of actions which are considered unacceptable by the Orthodox Church. The sacred Canons forbid even joint-prayer with heretics in a private home, not to mention the inviting of schismatic and heretical clergy to an Orthodox liturgy, under the auspices of "signs of unity" and "brotherly support". Also, Orthodox clergy have no business referring to the HOCNA as "True Orthodox Christians" and a "True Orthodox Jurisdiction" in official declarations unless that is in fact the case. It is hateful, and not loving, to strengthen the delusions of heretics by flattering them with titles that in no way help them realize their errors, but in fact deny that they hold any errors at all. Calling them true Orthodox implies that they confess no errors, which is false.

Please don't try to make things out of things that don't exist. It's unproductive for the cause of furthering the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

If I could only get a straightforward answer to my inquiries, things would be plain for all to see, and we wouldn't have to go around in circles. I have asked multiple individuals multiple times now to explain certain discrepancies, but I always get the run around. Can someone from your jurisdiction just give me a straight answer? I will ask one more time. Your churches, both here in America and those of your sister synod in Greece, are adorned with numerous icons of the Holy Trinity, wherein the Father is depicted as the Ancient of Days. Is there not a very large one at St. Markella's? It is no secret that the HOCNA has categorically rejected these icons for many years now, making a point of not having these types of icons in their parishes. They have published official documents on several occasions outlining their reasons for the rejection of these icons. Obviously there is a gulf here. Your jursidiction accepts these icons as holy and venerable, while the HOCNA makes a point of teaching those who subscribe to their errors to reject them.

Can I get a simple answer regarding this? How can there be so-called signs of "unity" between the HOTCA and the HOCNA when both hold completely opposite views? One of the two jurisdictions must alter their opinion, for the better or the worse, or we have a simple case of Old-Calendarist ecumenism at work, where there are alleged "signs" of "True Orthodox" unity and "brotherly support" at the expense of the truth.

Can you ask your bishop to simply tell us whether or not he accepts these icons as holy and venerable, or not, and if so, how there can be any unity with another jurisdiction that for decades now has categorically rejected them?

Cyprian

[Cyprian]

What I see needs to happen is a shift toward the "center" of the TOC groups.

Christ is risen indeed!

Catherine, I know you mean well, but you are confused. You appear to be trying to liken the Orthodox Church to some political structure, where we observe the two warring parties constantly engaging in the art of compromise for the sake of political expediency. St. Mark of Ephesus teaches us that there can be no compromise in matters of the Orthodox Faith. Allow me to spell it out for you. The synod of Met. Vitaly officially condemned the false ecclesiology espoused by the Synod in Resistance as unorthodox, and alien to Orthodox tradition back in 2001.

The Resolution of the Pastoral Conference of the Canadian and American Clergy Regarding the Issue of Terminating Eucharistic Communion with Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Fili.
http://www.russianorthodoxchurchinexile.com/rescyp.html

More recently the ROAC in their 2008 SOBOR officially anathematized Cyprianite ecclesiology.

You can read about it here:
http://www.roacusa.org/SOBOR_2008_Protocols.pdf

Here is the heading contained in the protocols of their SOBOR:

1. Report on the new heresy of Metropolitan Cyprian of Fili and Oropos
   (Bishop Andrew).

According to a posting published on this forum, Rdr. Vladimir Moss has stated that the RTOC has now officially rejected Cyprianism as well, although my requests for documentation affirming this have gone unanswered. I would like to read this for myself.

The Matthewites haven't seemed to publish much in recent years, but it's no secret that they have never accepted this strange ecclesiology put forth by the the Synod in Resistance.

So now, we know for a fact that various synods have clearly staked out their positions. It is abundantly obvious that Met. Vitaly and those who remained with him, the ROAC, the RTOC, and the Matthewites all reject the heresies of Cyprian of Oropos and Fili. Who knows what some of the wavering Akakians think this week. Many of them do not have the courage to call a spade a spade. If you pressure them they will concede that the ecclesiology of the Cyprianites is an "error," but they are unwilling to label it a heresy.

Anyone who takes the time to learn of the the peculiar teachings of the Synod in Resistance, and compares them to the Anathema Against Ecumenism of 1983, issued by the ROCA under the presidency of Met. Philaret, can see that Cyprian of Oropos formulated his false teaching as a direct attack in opposition to that of the 1983 Anathema. Cyprian's ecclesiology is diametrically opposed to the ROCOR Anathema of 1983. It is diametrically opposed to Holy Writ as well. (cf. Romans 16:17-18)

How long halt ye between two opinions? You must make a choice! Accept one and reject the other. There is no compromise or middle ground between the two teachings. One is Orthodox and the other is contrary to Orthodoxy. If the ROCOR synods of Met. Philaret, Met. Vitaly, the ROAC, the RTOC, GOC of Greece (Matthewites), etc. confess the Orthodox truth regarding this matter, follow them, and if the Cyprianites speak the truth follow them.

But away with this Old-Calendarist ecumenism!

There is nothing "moderate" about the heresy of the Cyprianites! This is a deception of the devil whom these masquerading wolves pretending to be Orthodox shepherds serve.

[Catherine5]

EXCELLENT ROUNDUP, Cyprian.
That is so helpful to have it explained so well for me as well as all readers.

I completely agree, though I don't consider myself qualified to state that it's actual heresy, because I have no background in theology, nor am I a clergyman, obviously!
Of course Cyprianist compromise is a severe error, all of us agree on that minimum anyway.

I had not realized how it is in direct opposition to the 1983 Anathema. That's very significant. Nor did i realize about the 2001 condemnation. Really important, thank you.

I was trying to not ridicule Cyprianites. I don't want them to feel that we are so hostile to them that they have to have their hackles raised at us all the time. Besides, after reading such a good case as you presented here, there's no reason they can't suppress or tone down that doctrine and join the rest of us.
[Maybe I'm dreaming !]

There are many Churches or clergy and lay people who may have hastily fled the 2007 ROCOR-MP merger on the theory of "any port in a storm". They may not even be devout believers in the Cyprianite ideology. They may have selected SiR for example because it was a pre-established church or they knew the hierarchs. Perhaps now that the battles for the properties are, God willing, subsiding, some of these priests could consider bringing their flocks to a powerful bloc of TOC's - but first that has to come into existence.

That's the key!

I simply can't imagine that most of those in Cyprianite churches are THAT attached to their doctrine. Perhaps other motivations predominantly led them there: friends, clergy, their Brotherhood in the case of St Edwards in England, were joining, so they went along with their peer group.

Hmn, if we could get Met Agafangel or his successor to renounce Cyprianitism, it would be to the good of all of us.
Was he the one who was in favor of it? I'm trying to think back. In short, was Bishop Agafangel an enthusiastic proponent of it, or did he just go with a certain flow, not choosing so wisely with whom to ally ? How attached are he and ROCOR-A to Cyprianitism? Is it the cornerstone of their theology, or just a sideline, OR are they almost rotely propagating it to have commonality with their so called sister churches?

Is this an angle to explore to determine whether they could lured away from it/.
However, on the other side of the coin, I worry about that St Edward Brotherhood being lured back to Archbishop Mark. If so, it would prove the shallowness of that Cyprianite theory: too much compromising on doctrine leads to complete slide-back! I pray that monastery does not fall into his waiting arms. But one can almost see seeds of the writing up of a sobby statement lamenting their having sundered the unity of the ROCOR-MP, boo hoo, hurt that caring archpastor Met Hilarion. Hope the St Edward the Martyr Brotherhood thinks better of it and never falls for the campaign by the MP or its offshoots I bet is taking place to pressure or court them with alternate carrot and stick tactics.

This shows up a problem in general that probably the MP perceives the Cyprianite Churches as the weak links in the anti-MP movement, what they call a modern raskol. The Cyprianites have to be even more strongly on their guard therefore. Better to come in from the cold and join the rest of the groups so the MP cannot peck away at the shells of individual Churches!

[mmcxristidis]

Maybe you and Cyprian should get your own chat room together. BTW Catherine, what jurisdiction are you in , if I may ask. If Cyprian gives it his stamp of approval perhaps he will decide to join up and be baptized, then you could be his Godmother. Now that would be something great, wouldn't it !