THE CYPRIANITES, THE TIKHONITES AND BISHOP AGATHANGELUS
Code: Select all
The fall of ROCOR into heresy and schism on May 17, 2007 has produced a flurry of activity from the Cyprianites (especially Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna) and the Romanian and Bulgarian Old Calendarists that are in communion with them. Overtures appear to have been made to two groups who separated from ROCOR: the Tikhonites (so called from their leader, Metropolitan Tikhon of Omsk and Siberia), who separated over five years ago, and Bishop Agathangelus of Odessa, who separated on May 17.
The overtures to the former group would seem to be doomed since on November 7/20, 2005 Metropolitan Cyprian, having received Igumen George (Pukhaev) from the Tikhonites in 2003, consecrated him as Bishop of Alania, with his see in Tskhinval, Osetia. The Tikhonites are unlikely to take kindly to this “poaching”, especially since it took place on the canonical territory of the Russian Church, where they consider the Greek Old Calendarists to have no jurisdiction. Moreover, the Tikhonite ecclesiology in relation to the Moscow Patriarchate and World Orthodoxy is stricter than that of the Cyprianites.
At first sight, it would seem that the Cyprianites are unlikely to be more successful in relation to Bishop Agathangelus, who has issued a statement declaring his lack of interest in any union with non-Russian Churches. Moreover, he was a member of the compromised Lavrite Synod that, among other things, broke communion with the Cyprianites themselves in 2005. However, the very fact that Agathangelus remained for so long with the Lavrites when they had clearly embarked on a pro-MP, ecumenist course may have encouraged the Cyprianites to think that he embraces the same “moderate” (i.e. neither one thing nor the other) ecclesiology as themselves.
In any case, the Romanian Metropolitan Vlasie, and the Bulgarian Bishop Photius of Triaditsa, who are in communion with Metropolitan Cyprian, have offered to help Bishop Agathangelus to ordain bishops for his group, which would seem to indicate that the Cyprianite group of Churches is looking to Bishop Agathangelus as the best candidate for the title “last remaining true ROCOR bishop(s)”.
This probably explains the panicky, explosive reaction of the Cyprianite Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna on hearing that Bishop Agathangelus’ clergy in the USA had had informal talks with clergy of the True Orthodox Church of Greece (the so-called “Chrysostomites”) – by far the largest Greek Old Calendarist Church, comprising 70% of all the Greek Old Calendarists, which defrocked Metropolitan Cyprian in 1986 for communion with the new calendarists. The Cyprianite Chrysostomos, as is his wont, launched into a very fierce and slanderous attack against the True Orthodox Church of Greece. However, this did not stop the development of friendly relations between the “Agathangelites” and the “Chrysostomites”. Thus on May 25, 2007 Archbishop Chrysostom (Kiousis) of Athens and his Synod sent a letter to Bishop Agathangelus, in which they congratulated the “Agathangelites” for refusing to follow ROCOR into “ecclesiastical non-existence”. Fr. Victor Dobrov, speaking on behalf of the “Agathangelites”, said he was “very pleased” by this letter. But he stressed that the Chrysostomites, unlike the Cyprianites, had not offered to help to consecrate any bishops for their group, and that they were not in fact interested in consecrations.
On July 1 an anonymous “Greek Old Calendarist” (why anonymous?) returned to the attack against the Chrysostomites. Dismissing all non-Cyprianite accounts of the history of the Greek Old Calendarists, including that of the present writer, as “full of errors and omissions”, he proceeds to “set the record straight”. However, this “putting the record straight” is so short, so full of personal bile and so lacking in theological content or historical accuracy as to make any detailed refutation pointless.
One statement of his, however, does call for comment: “Though some might argue that the Cyprianites have a debatable ‘ecclesiology’, (but only in theory), our experience with them is that most of them conduct themselves as true Christians”. We have no wish to deny the possibility that the great majority of Cyprianites behave as true Christians (except, it would seem, when they tell lies about the True Orthodox Church of Greece!). But the phrase “debatable ‘ecclesiology (but only in theory)” requires further comment.
How can an ecclesiology be debatable “in theory” but not in practice?! An ecclesiology is by definition a theory, not a practice – or rather, it is a teaching, a teaching about the nature of the Church. As such, it is either true or false, whereas a practice is either good or bad, productive or unproductive, efficient or inefficient. Now the Cyprianite ecclesiology is that heretics and schismatics are “sick” members of the True Church. That includes, in their opinion, the Moscow Patriarchate, the new calendarists and “World Orthodoxy” in general. That teaching is false – as even the anonymous “Greek Old Calendarist” seems to acknowledge by calling it “debatable” and by refusing to discuss it in detail.
If the Cyprianite ecclesiology is false, then it is completely irrelevant how good or bad individual Cyprianites may be. Unfortunately, however, the Cyprianite arguments often seem to come down to a comparison between personalities. Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna and the anonymous “Greek Old Calendarist” both praise Metropolitan Cyprian to the skies, while condemning Chrysostomite hierarchs in equally personal terms. In fact, many have remarked that Cyprianism seems to be built, on the one hand, on a false ecclesiology of accepting the ecumenist heretics as Orthodox, and on the other hand, on an attitude of hero-worship, prosopolatria, in relation to their leader. This makes the charge of “papism” directed against Archbishop Chrysostom of Athens sound particularly hypocritical…
In an earlier article (“The Cyprianites and ROCOR”, Vernost’, 85, May, 2007) the present writer concluded: “If there is one lesson to be drawn from the fall of ROCA, it is that provided by St. Mark of Ephesus: there is no mid-point between truth and falsehood, no “moderate” position that can keep clear of the abyss of heresy while refusing to condemn and anathematize it and its leaders. The fall of ROCA has been the direct result of their rejection of their own anathema against ecumenism, under whose curse they have now fallen. The only condition for the continued survival of the anti-uniates is a return to humble obedience to that anathema and a firm rejection of those siren voices coming from the Cyprianites and elsewhere that preach acceptance of the enemies of God as one’s brothers in Christ.”
It also should be remembered that the Cyprianites, while being in schism from their own “Mother Church”, the True Orthodox Church of Greece, have only a superficial understanding of the situation in the Russian Church. This is proved by their Synod’s official statement of May 10/23, 2007, which in its ninth point declares that “the historical basis and occasion for the rift among the Russians (1917-) has been removed and no longer exists, it was quite different from the dispute which divided, and continues to divide – since it still exists and is, indeed, reinforced daily, – the Orthodox into ecumenists and resisters (1920, 1924-).”
This appears to be saying that the only real issue dividing Russian Orthodox Christians today is ecumenism, while the issue of sergianism “has been removed and no longer exists”. The present writer asked one of the Cyprianite bishops whether this was a correct interpretation. He conceded that this point was “not so well-phrased”, but tried to rescue the situation by saying that “the intent was the emphasise that, even if one takes the attitude that the Bolshevik regime has passed and that thus this motive for division has disappeared, there still remains the other prime motive, which is that which caused the division outside the range of communist influence, that is the issue of ecumenism”.
We shall have to wait for statements from other Cyprianite bishops – preferably from the whole Synod - to know whether this official statement of May 10/23 was imply “not so well-phrased” and should be reinterpreted in the way indicated above. Until then, however, we have to take the statement at its face value. And that means that, for the Cyprianites, sergianism is no longer an issue separating True Russian Christians from the Moscow Patriarchate.
But this is unacceptable for any True Russian Christian. The issue of sergianism remains as vital as ever. The MP, even after the fall of communism (if it has truly fallen, which seems extremely debatable), still remains a creation of Soviet power, and therefore extra-ecclesiastical and even anti-ecclesiastical in its origin. It supports the neo-Soviet regime of Putin, is headed by KGB agents and in general has not changed its attitude to the collective antichrist that gave it birth. It is, therefore, not only the question of ecumenism that divides all True Russian Christians from the Soviet church. In fact, sergianism is still more fundamental than ecumenism, for it was because of its sergianist submission to the Bolsheviks that the MP joined the ecumenical movement in 1961, and it is because of its continued sergianism to the neo-Soviet regime of Putin that it remains in the ecumenical movement now.
In view of this, those Russian groups who are being courted by the Cyprianites should consider the following questions: How can we benefit from union with a Church that officially accepts the Moscow Patriarchate as being within the True Church?
How can we benefit from union with a Church which conducts such a fierce, and fiercely personal, war against the True Orthodox Church of Greece, whose only major canonical (as opposed to personal) “sin”, in its eyes, lies in the TOC’s categorical rejection of World Orthodoxy as being outside the Church?
How can we benefit from union with a Church that regards the issues of communism and sergianism as being out-of-date, so that the only real issue that separates it from the Moscow Patriarchate is that of ecumenism?
Vladimir Moss.
June 22 / July 5, 2007.
