Who's Who?

[gbmtmas]

Hi Everyone,

I've been lurking, watching the various discussions, and have seen a bunch of names get used, and am wondering "who's who" among the various names. Would someone or some folks please take a few moments and explain "who's who" if their feeling particularly kind this evening?

1) I know that Metropolitan Cyprian has a traditionalist synod, and he is in communion with ROCOR. Why is Metropolitan Cyprian's synod not considered Orthodox in the eyes of other traditionalist groups?

2) When the newly consecrated Bishop Peter of ROCOR was being discussed, somebody mentioned Metropolitan +Philaret and his being the last of the "Maximovitch" lineage. What is the "Maximovitch" lineage? The only "Maximovitch" I am familiar with is St. John Maximovitch. Was this comment a negative observation regarding Bishop Peter's "moderate" ecclesiology?

3) Who is Metropolitan Pavlos? What does his synod stand for, and who is he in communion with? Why are the more stricter traditionalists not in communion with him?

4) Is the HOCNA in communion with any other traditionalist group that has a presence in the US?

I think that's probably all I can think of for now. Thanks for any information.

Stephen

[Julianna]

#1 The Cyprian TOC commune's everybody and says all of World Orthodoxy's full of grace. Their only issue seems to be the calendar.

#2 Orthodoxyordeath'll answer this.

#3 Orthodoxyordeath'll answer this.

#4 Nobody's in communion with HOCNA.

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

1) Met. Cyprian was deposed by our Synod because back in '80's he declared he recognized Grace in the new-calendar churches. He has taken the position that he is "walled off" and that no decision of Grace can be taken until a general Council.

http://www.romanitas.ru/eng/CHRYSAUX.htm (sorry, another Vladimir Moss article)

2) I said this. It was not so much a negative comment as it was a simple observation. Metropolitan Philaret was the last bishop in the ROCOR who knew St. John Maximovitch and the last part of his circle of conservative bishops.

Back in the 60's when our synod (the Florenites) received its apostolic succesion from the ROCOR, it was St. John Maximovitch, Met. Philaret, and other conservatives who supported it. They were opposed by a more "liberal" group within the ROCOR.

3) Metropolitan PAVLOS is the Met. for North and South America for the Synod of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece (Florenites). I don't know that those who are "more conservative" are not in communion with him - there are many reason why we are not in communion with a host of groups and people, each case is different. For instance, we were in communion with the ROCOR until 1994, and broke communion when the ROCOR started communing with the Cyprianites. I would say that something changed within the ROCOR, not our Synod. If you have a specific case in mind, I'll be glad to try and help.

[Justin Kissel]

gbmtmas

Greetings You'll probably get varying--and contradictory--answers to all of your questions! Here's my contribution to the muddy waters:

1) I know that Metropolitan Cyprian has a traditionalist synod, and he is in communion with ROCOR. Why is Metropolitan Cyprian's synod not considered Orthodox in the eyes of other traditionalist groups?

Met. Cyprian is a moderate Old Calendarist who is a well-known, articulate expounder of the moderate Orthodox position (he also has a number of bishops who are extremely articulate and insightful.) Before joining him, ROCOR studied his background and beliefs, and it was found that: "The Synod of Metropolitan Cyprian adheres wholly to the exact same ecclesiological and dogmatic principals as our Russian Church Outside of Russia." This is perhaps a slight overstatement, and perhaps not. Either way, its essentially true.

Other traditionalists do not consider Met. Cyprian Orthodox because he believes that there is grace in the (State or National) Greek Church (and in certain other Churches). He has "walled himself off," so to speak, but doesn't claim that the people whom he has walled himself off from are without grace. Some traditionalists disagree, and have decided that certain groups (such as the State or National Greek Church) are without grace.

[gbmtmas]

[Savva24]

[quote="OrthodoxyOrDeath"]1) Met. Cyprian was deposed by our Synod because back in '80's he declared he recognized Grace in the new-calendar churches. He has taken the position that he is "walled off" and that no decision of Grace can be taken until a general Council.

I could never understand why certain groups do come to the conclusion to declare everyone graceless. Why not just worry about keeping yourself and flock well away and in resistance from the heresies like ROCOR and Metropoliatan Cyprian's Juristiction do. I wonder if the thought ever comes to the more extreme to worry about Christ's words concerning those who sin against the Holy Spirit. Perhaps jumping to the conclusion that some are graceless when there still could very well be Grace could be that very blaspheming against the Holy Sprit (the only unforgivable sin). What I mean is, just as the Pharasees denied where Grace was in Christ's miracles, and therefore blasphemed the Holy Spirit, imagine saying there is no Grace of God where there in actuality is in another Juristiction. Kind of scary, don't you think? Why is there even a need to go that far? I know one of OOD bishops who says that the reason his church decided to make that declaration was that they ''needed to draw the line somewhere''. I don't really think that answer is sufficient for such a serious move. The same bishop did also say that they commune New Calendarists ''out of economia''.

Anyway, I think the correct way to handle things in this turbulent time could be found in the testimoy of St. Maximus the Confessor. The below is taken from the St. John the Baptist ROCOR church's website:

On one occasion, Saint Maximus was called back to Constantinople, where the imperial grandees, Troilus and Sergius, again subjected him to interrogation. They began to accuse Saint Maximus of pride for esteeming himself as the only Orthodox who is being saved and for considering all others to be heretics who are perishing.

To this, the Saint replied: "When all the people in Babylon were worshipping the golden idol, the Three Holy Youths DID NOT CONDEMN ANYONE TO PERDITION. THEY DID NOT CONCERN THEMSELVES WITH WHAT OTHERS WERE DOING, BUT ONLY TOOK CARE FOR THEMSELVES, SO AS NOT TO FALL AWAY FROM TRUE PIETY. In precisely the same way, Daniel also, when cast into the den, did not condemn any of those who, in fulfilling the law of Darius, did not want to pray to God; but he bore in mind his duty, and desired rather to die than to sin and be tormented by his conscience for transgressing God's Law. God forbid that I, too, should condemn anyone, or say that I alone am being saved. However, I would sooner agree to die than, having apostatized in any way from the right faith, endure the torments of my conscience." Then Troilus and Sergius began to point out to Saint Maximus that already the whole Christian world recognized the Monothelite Patriarch of Constantinople as legitimate, that all the Eastern Patriarchs and their locum tenentes were in communion with him, and that the plenipotentiary representatives of the Roman Pope will serve with the Patriarch and commune with him. Thus, he is the only one remaining in the whole world who does not recognize the Patriarch.

The Saint answered: "If even the whole universe should begin to commune with the Patriarch, I will not commune with him. For I know from the writings of the holy Apostle Paul that the Holy Spirit will give over to anathema even the angels, if they should begin to preach any other gospel, introducing anything new."

I can't think of a better way to express my feelings than in the above example.

I really do not mean to attack anyone in particular (OOD). I am just being honest with what I believe. Please forgive me if I have offended you. As always, I am open to your corrections and opinions.

In Christ,

Nicholas (Savva23)

[bogoliubtsy]