Benjamin, the foremost canonist of the 20 th century would disagree with you. Also you once said that schism was worse than heresy..How than do you justify the schism of Met Kallistos (who definitely did not believe that New Calendarists were part of the Church) and Met Kyprian?
Surely the Church was given the power to bind and loose?...If either the New Calendarists or the Florinites are part of the Church than definitely "Met" Kyprian isnt..
Archbishop Lazar was suspected by many if not most in the Catacomb Church of Russia of being an agent of the KGB or at the very least highly suspect. RTOC has an even weaker canonical foundation than the Milian synod who no one recognises. They are being promoted by Met Cyprian whom many in Greece believe to be a Freemason, who has a similarly weak if not weaker canonical foundation. Can you not see the purpose behind both these para-synagogues?
Theophan.
"The Dubious Orthodoxy of Metropolitan Cyprian's Group"
by Bishop GREGORY [Grabbe]
(Translated from Church News [in Russian], No. 5, Sept. - Oct. 1994,
pp. 2-4.)
The newspaper Pravoslavnaya Rus, in its issue number seventeen of the
present year, published the Decision of the Russian Orthodox Church
Abroad concerning the establishment of prayerful Eucharistic communion
with the group of Old Calendarists headed by Metropolitan Cyprian of
Oropos and Fili.[1]
In its concluding section the Decision elucidates the causes that
prompted the Sobor to take this step. However, in not one of its six
points does it mention that the Sobor of 1975 resolved not to have
communion with the Greek groups until they themselves had become united,
and the Synod, already presided over by Metropolitan Vitaly, reaffirmed
this wise decision in the spring of 1993, that is, a mere year and a
half ago. Everyone is aware that the Greek groups can in no wise boast
of having already achieved unity, yet the present Conciliar Decision
offers no explanation whatsoever for this abrogation by the Sobor of its
previous resolutions.
Thus, in the Decision it is stated,
"After deliberation and analysis of all aspects of these questions
[concerning the history and ideology of this group][2] the Council of
Bishops maintains that at the present time, when apostasy is spreading
and the so-called official representatives of Orthodoxy, such as the
Patriarchate of Constantinople and other patriarchates, are succumbing
to and embracing the position of the Modernists and Ecumenists, it is
very important for the True Orthodox to unite, make a stand together,
and oppose the betrayers of the Orthodoxy of the Holy Fathers. In this
regard, the Council of Bishops has decided:
"1) To establish communion in prayer and the Eucharist with the Greek
Old Calendarist Synod of Metropolitan Cyprian, as well as with HisGrace,
Bishop Photios of Triaditsa, who heads the Bulgarian Old Calendar
diocese."
Bishop Photios was consecrated for the Bulgarians by the self-same
Metropolitan Cyprian, and thus his legitimacy is dependent upon the
legitimacy of Metropolitan Cyprian.
It is of interest that our Sobor, while seeking union with the "True
Orthodox" Greek groups, made no effort whatsoever toward unity with the
far more numerous and decent group of Archbishop Chrysostom [Khiousis]
of Athens, who has a Sobor consisting of nineteen bishops.
The second point [of the decision] deals with informing the flockabroad
of this event.
In point number three it is stated, "During the deliberations, the
statements of those opposed to the union were also taken into account,
in which the question was raised concerning the canonicity of
Metropolitan Cyprian's group and their allegedly un-Orthodox teaching on
Grace."
Aside from his personal teaching on Grace (more on this below),
Metropolitan Cyprian has likewise been accused of preaching the heresy
of chiliasm.
Concerning the "canonicity" of this group enough has already been said
and written. But what then is their "allegedly un-Orthodox teaching on
Grace"?
Preparing the ground for possible union with the Church Abroad well in
advance, Metropolitan Cyprian issued a pamphlet entitled "An
Ecclesiological Thesis, or Exposition on the Doctrine of the Church, for
the Orthodox Opposed to the Heresy of Eccumenism."[3] It would seem
that, judging from the title of the pamphlet, nothing could be said
against such a program. The pamphlet is quite handsomely printed, even
to the point of using the old orthography [i.e., pre-Revolutionary]. It
was very widely distributed, and each member of the Bishop's Sobor
undoubtedly received a copy.
However, with great consternation and dismay one is forced to point out
that apparently the very members of the Bishops' Committee investigating
the Greek question themselves,[4] and all the members of the Bishops'
Sobor together, failed to pursue sufficiently what is called "reading
between the lines" of this pamphlet, which abounds in ancient texts and
is deftly put together, but which bears little relation to the
contemporary ecclesiastical situation.
Moreover, it is obvious that they took scant notice of the canonicity
(very doubtful) of Metropolitan Cyprian's group, for the subject is not
at all reflected in the text of the Sobor's Decision. Likewise evident
is the fact that the committee took no account whatsoever of the motives
behind our own previous resolutions.
Let us now attempt to determine precisely what sort of Orthodoxy
Metropolitan Cyprian does confess and whether or not one can actually
say with a clear conscience that both he and his synod adheres wholly
tothe exact same ecclesiological and dogmatic principles as our Russian
Church Outside Russia (point five of the Sobor's Decision).
In the chapter [of the pamphlet] entitled "The Church and Heresy," page
two, it says:
"Sinners and those who err in correctly understanding the Faith, yet who
have not been sentenced by ecclesiastical action, are simply considered
ailing members of the Church. The Mysteries of these unsentenced members
are valid as such, according to the Seventh Ecumenical Council, as, for
example, the President of the Council, Saint Tarasios, remarks: "[their]
ordination" "is from God."[5]
Later, in the third chapter, the author turns to the matter, "The
Division in the Church Over Ecumenism" - as he calls it.
It seems strange to hear from a bishop who proclaims his Orthodoxy the
idea that the Church can be "divided." The Holy Fathers have taught that
She always was, is, and shall be the indivisible Bride of Christ. One
can only fall away from Her or be reunited to Her through repentance.
Metropolitan Anthony [Khrapovitsky] especially emphasized to his
prieststhe necessity, after confession, of reading the ancient Prayer of
Absolution which contains the word, "reconcile and unite him to Thy holy
Church," thereby indicating that he who sins falls away from the Church.
Although private confession can heal personal moral falls, it in no wise
cures a public and obdurate inclination to heresy.
Metropolitan Cyprian correctly points out that the beginning of the
malady was the introduction of the Western calendar into the life of the
Church in 1924. But then later he advances an opinion which in no
wisecorresponds to the present ecclesiastical situation.
"The followers of the festal calendar innovation," says he, "have not
yet been specifically judged in a pan-Orthodox fashion, as provided for
by the Orthodox Church. As Saint Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain writes,
the violator of established precepts is considered sentenced, insofar as
he is judged by 'the second entity (which is the Council or Synod).'
Since 1924, the innovators have been awaiting judgment and shall be
judged on the basis of the decisions of the holy Councils, both
Ecumenical and local, and, to be sure, on the basis of the
ecclesiastical pronouncements of the sixteenth century against what were
then Papal proposals for changes in the festal calendar. In this
respect those who have walled themselves off from the innovators have
actually broken communion 'before conciliar or synodal verdict,' as is
allowed in the Fifteenth Canon of the First-and-Second Council. That is
to say, the innovators are still unsentenced. Consequently, [according
to the teaching of Metropolitan Cyprian],[6] their Mysteries are
valid.[Emphasis mine.][7]
Metropolitan Cyprian chooses a convenient quotation from this canon to
suit his purpose, but intentionally does not cite the subsequent text of
the canon concerning those who separate themselves from their presidents
before a synodical judgment in cases where the open preaching of heresy
is taking place:
"Such persons as these not only are not subject to canonical penalty for
walling themselves off from communion with the so-called bishop before
synodical clarification, but [on the contrary] they shall be deemed
worthy of due honor among the Orthodox. For not bishops, but false
bishops and false teachers have they condemned, and they have not
fragmented the Church's unity with schism, but from schisms and
divisions have they earnestly sought to deliver the Church. (Canon
Fifteen of the so-called First-Second Council)"
The adherents of Roman Catholicism in Russia have from of old cited the
fact that not one Ecumenical Council has ever condemned Roman
Catholicism and therefore it, they say, is not a heresy. Such an opinion
was quite widespread among our intelligentsia, and especially in
military circles.
Chapter Four is entitled "Repentance and Return." That which is
expounded therein concerning the principle of repentance is entirely
correct and in accord with the canons. Yet while offering us numerous
examples of repentance which took place at one or another Ecumenical
Council, Metropolitan Cyprian never so much as mentions the fact that
the New Calendarists/Ecumenists not only have no intention whatsoever of
repenting, but on the contrary, they persecute the True Orthodox in a
most cruel manner. We have before our eyes the example of how quite
recently they "strangled," one could say, Patriarch Diodoros of
Jerusalem, who was attempting to defend the Orthodoxy of the Holy
Fathers. Only a few months have now passed since they - by means of
threats of expulsion from their monasteries, and canonical sanctions -
have forced to repent before them that last bastion of Orthodoxy, the
Holy Mountain, which was defending the Church from the inroads of the
heresy of Ecumenism.
Metropolitan Cyprian sees no grounds for severing communion with the New
Calendarists/Ecumenists until such a time as it will be possible for a
future Ecumenical Council to judge them. But who could not be aware
(including the Metropolitan himself) that for almost twenty years now
the Ecumenists have been preparing the program for the future - and not
in the least Orthodox - "Eighth Ecumenical Council"? The Preconciliar
Committee has already on more than one occasion published its drafts for
the reports to be delivered at this future "Council." The issues to be
discussed at it include the unification of all Christians, the total
abolition of the fasts, married bishops, and second marriages for the
clergy.
Who, then, will be the president of this dishonorable assembly, which,
according to Metropolitan Cyprian's daydreams, is supposed to condemn
the Ecumenists/New Calendarists? Obviously that crypto-Roman Catholic,
the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. And those like unto him will prove
to be its members: the Patriarch of Alexandria, Parthenios (who has
officially declared Mohammed to be a great prophet and personally
considers him an Apostle!); the Patriarch of Antioch (who has already
issued a directive to his clergy granting them permission to
concelebrate with the heretical Monophysites); the Patriarch of Moscow
(who has signed both the Balamand Unia and the agreement concerning the
Monophysites, and who has even initiated a dialogue with the Jews "on
the highest possible level").[8]
I have been given the opportunity to acquaint myself with several
letters written by one of the bishops of Metropolitan Cyprian's group.
From these it is quite evident that he and his fellow bishops confess
their own personal, and in no wise Orthodox, doctrine concerning the
possibility of the Grace-filled activity of the Holy Spirit within
churches which have become manifestly heretical. ALL the New
Calendarists - without the least exception - are likewise very active
Ecumenists.[9] The Old Style Churches (Russian and Serbian) have for a
long time now also confessed this very same heresy.
But behold, this hierarch of Metropolitan Cyprian's group insists on the
opinion that, so he says, "the New Calendarists, besieged by the heresy
of Ecumenism and Innovation, have not been deprived of Grace,[10] or at
any rate, it is not within our competency to make such a pronouncement
on our part ... we are not speaking of union with Belial, but (only)
with those ailing in faith, several of whom are in need of spiritual
treatment ... in view of this, we do not totally break off
communion with them."[11] In another letter the same hierarch expresses
the thought - totally unacceptable and absurd from a dogmatic point of
view and from that of the Holy Fathers - that this group, while
recognizing that the Ecumenists have Grace, is only "walling itself off
from their errors."
In pronouncing its Decision concerning communion with Metropolitan
Cyprian's group, our Sobor, unfortunately, did not also call to mind the
text of that Decision taken formerly, under the presidency of
Metropolitan Philaret, anathematizing the heresy of Ecumenism. Among
others it contains such words as these "Therefore, to those who
knowingly have communion with these aforementioned heretics, or who
advocate, disseminate, or defend their new heresy of Ecumenism:
Anathema."[12]
Indeed, by not investigating the matter seriously and by forgetting
about this previously confirmed anathematizing of the New
Calendarists/Ecumenists (or perhaps not venturing to abrogate this
resolution), our Sobor, as frightful as it may be to admit, has fallen
under its own Anathema. Had it probed the net spread before it more
carefully, it would never have issued such a contradictory Decision.
Our previous Bishops' Sobors never raised the particular question
concerning whether or not the New Calendarists have Grace. But the fact
that formerly concelebrations with them were never permitted already
testifies with sufficient clarity that the Church Abroad considered them
to be without Grace.
Must we consider that our Synod has entered upon the path of betrayal of
the traditions of the Holy Fathers, or did it merely commit an error
owing to poor judgment which it is still not too late to correctat the
next session of the Sobor to be held in November in France?[13]
