John Romanides calls Traditionalists crypto-Augustinians

[Priest Siluan]

I agree with gggxgggx on this point. TOC of Cyprianos say that there is no grace in protestant churches and in the roman catholic church. But there is grace in the orthodox church and the orthodox church are all of the so called world orthodox churches that are not condemned by a competent synod, and by this synod are declared to be without grace. Until the heretics are officially condemned as heretics, the church has always treated them as bishops. Nestorius and the iconoclasts participated in the councils and were considered bishops. Of course you should not belong to these heretics when the publicly and bareheadedly defend heresy, but you do not have the right to judge them...only a synod has this right. So...I understand Cyprionos position.

Romanides is an excellent theologian, but on this point I sence that he is trying to justify his own decision to be in the state church of Greece.

Me, myself, have sympathy for Cyprianos position, but choose to belong to the Serbian Church, because I am still not sure that these so called world juridictions have offically declared a heresy.

Ah, I forgot a question. We don't know certainly if Met Kiprianos has a true chierotonia, and if he in fact had been ordered a Bishop at some time , since he was ordered without the consent of the Synod GOC and his Episcopal ordination was never recognized.

Also Met Kiprianos "recognized" the chierotonia of a Nestorian bishop (Italian Bishop) and he put on in communion with him. It is very well-known in Greece that synod of Met Kiprianos is not an authenticate synod GOC.

When we refer to Met Kiprianos we should say "Archimandrite" Kiprianos or simply "Monk" Kiprianos, because he has been deposed three times and maybe never (some people are sure of this) was bishop.

[romiosini]

Also Met Kiprianos "recognized" the chierotonia of a Nestorian bishop (Italian Bishop) and he put on in communion with him. It is very well-known in Greece that synod of Met Kiprianos is not an authenticate synod GOC.

When we refer to Met Kiprianos we should say "Archimandrite" Kiprianos or simply "Monk" Kiprianos, because he has been deposed three times and maybe never (some people are sure of this) was bishop.

Who is this Nestorian Bishop and what is his name? We all can say things, but is there some statement or proof that Metropolitan Cyprian himself recognized?

[Priest Siluan]

Metropolitan Giovanni of Sardinia (who was Nestorian Bishop and priest of the MP), with who Met Kiprianos forms his synod (also with Evlogy of Milan, now Metropolitan of the Synod of Milan), With Evlogy of Milan ordered Arch Chrysostomos of Etna and others. This is very well-known. It is also very well-known that the synod GOC under the Archbishop Auxentios deposed in 1979 to the eight archimandrites, who was ordered uncanonically by Metropolitan Kallistos of Corinth... one of those Archimandrites was Kyprianos Koutsoumbas of Oropos and Fili.

[gggxgggx]

I felt compelled to offer a few examples to show that Grace is present in World Orthodoxy...

1) Grace was present in the Roman Church before 1054...even though some of their hierarchs preached the filioque heresy...the fact that Grace was present can be seen from the fact that Saints who belonged to the 11th century Church of Rome are on the Orthodox calendar...

2) Met. Philaret in his sorrowful epistles addressed the bishops he wrote to as Bishops of the Church and even asked for their prayers...if they were outside of the Church and Graceless he would not have done this...

3) Fr. Seraphim Rose gave Communion to new calendarists...and wrote that it is almost as bad as ecumenism to state the new calendar Churches are Graceless...

4)The Mathewites broke Communion in the 70's with the ROCOR precisely because ROCOR refused to declare all of World Orthodoxy Graceless...

5) in the 70's the ROCOR bishops gave an order to commemerate in the Eucharist Fr. Dimitry Dudko and other true believers of the MP...if they viewed the Mp as absolutely out of the Church they could not have done this...and if they did not view the Mp as absolutely out of the Church, then how could they consider the Churches of World Orthodoxy as out of the Church?

6) Met. Vitaly wrote in 1998 an article and in it he addressed Fr. Justin Popavich of the Serbian Orthodox Church as a holy man...their is no holiness out of Orthodoxy of course...and St. Justin was part of the Serbian Church which was involved in ecumenism...so Vladyka Vitaly must have viewed the Serbian Church as possessing of God's Grace, if he stated Fr. Justin was a holy man...

7) Some may view the ROCOR anathema against ecumenism of 1983 as the point that World Orthodoxy became Graceless...but Vladyka Vitaly stated in 1984 that this anathema applies only to the ROCOR and said the other ORTHODOX Churches must deal with the problem of ecumenism-and no bishop protested against this evaluation of the anathema...so it was not an anathema against all of World Orthodoxy...further proof of this may be seen by the fact that the ROCOR bishops after the anathama never held a Council to decide how to receieve those from World Orthodoxy into their Church...if they viewed World Orthodoxy as out of the Church then they would have had to decide how to recieve these people into the Church...this never happened...

All this points to the fact that Grace is in the new calendar Churches...and that a bishop or priest is not automatically and instantly out of the Church if he preaches heresy...and that he still performs real Mysteries...

Further more, for those from ROCOR (V) or (L), if you claim that Met. Philaret or other bishops were wrong in their assesment of World Orthodoxy as possesing God's Grace...then you would have to say they held a false (heretical) belief concerning this...in which case according to your opinion they would themselves be out of the Church and Graceless...and furthermore, you would have to consider them as still oustide of the Church now (including those with Vladyka Vitaly who now view World Orthodoxy as Graceless) because they have never acknowledged before the Church that they were suposedly in heresy and fell away from the Church and they have never been recieved back into the Church through the means appropriate for those who have fallen away from the Church...I am sure no one will say this...but if you will not say this you must say that World Orthodoxy has God's Grace...and those who claim it does not have themselves fallen into the sin of "denying the Church or at least a part of it"...

[Nikodemus]

Your argument is consistent...put together with church history and the Church treatment of heretics during the Ecumenical Synods, there is a coherent view that is at the core of orthodox thinking...so I believe. Therefore you could argue that the extreme old calendarist position that uncondemned heretcs are graceless, is in itself a heterodox statement. It is little like donatism...that the bishop must be good morally to perform valid mystries.

[尼古拉前执事]

Sin and heresy are 2 different things, so the "Donatist" argument is not valid. Ecumenism is the acceptance of and communion with heretics, especially of already condemned heretics. Whether it be condemned in a local council or an Ecumenical council (like Monophysitism or Nestorianism) if it is condemned, we do not need another council to say that it isd still a heresy and to be no part of it.

[Nikodemus]

Then I ask a question:

To be a heretic you must defend heresy publicly. Can you show me one official statement of MP, SP, EP or any other that defend heresy? MP has rejected the Balaamand agreement. And even still, I find this agreement to be vague...but not a clear defence of heresy. Of course the Anticochean Patrairchate has gone too far...but others have not and if you ask them they would reject monophysitism. To pray with heretics are uncanonical...but it is not in itself a heresy.