Fr. Steven Allen on the theological trouble with Kyprianism

[Priest Siluan]

From a Fr. Steven Allen´s comment on NFTU

A few observations and a conclusion:

1. The ecclesiology of the Cyprianites is not simply a private opinion of the elder Met. Cyprian. It is a stated position of their synod, and it is their formal and only justification for being separate from the legitimate authority of the Greek GOC, that is, the Synod under Abp Chrysostomos. They do not deny this.

2. This ecclesiology was formally affirmed as the true Orthodox ecclesiology by the unfortunate ROCOR sobor of 1994, orchestrated by Abp Laurus and Abp Mark, which made the decision to enter into communion with the Cyprianites and thereby cut off ROCOR from the legitimate synod and the vast majority of the true Church of Greece. It is painfully obvious, in retrospect, that this was an integral step in Laurus's and Mark's long-term, assigned KGB op to destroy the ROCOR. Mark et al pushed for and obtained the union with Cyprian, fanned the miasma of his fuzzy ecclesiology through the ranks of the ROCOR's right wing to fuddle their minds and weaken their moral will, and then cynically dumped the unfortunate Met. Cyprian when he and his theory had served their purpose.

3. A key element of the ROCOR-A position is that, unlike those irregular, defrocked, disobedient, uncanonical, etc., etc. ROCiE, ROAC, and RTOC people, they were good churchmen who cooperatively and obediently accepted all of the acts and decisions of the ROCOR synods and sobors right up to the "union" (i.e. suicide) with the MP in 2007. This includes the acceptance of the 1994 affirmation of the Cyprianite ecclesiology.

4. The entire legitimacy of the existence of the Cyprianite group is based on this ecclesiology's not only being a permissible theologoumenon, but actually an article of faith so anciently accepted, so universally acknowledged, so obvious, that it justified Cyprian's refusal, on the basis of Apostolic Canon 34 and the 15th Canon of the 1st and 2nd Council, to re-unite with the other Florinite bishops in the early 1980's.

5. It is obvious, on the contrary, that the Cyprianite position - that formal and public heretics remain within the Church until being expelled by an ecumenical council of such strict and peculiar construction that it is rather difficult to demonstrate that any such council has ever taken place in the history of the Church - far from being the teaching of the Church, is an idiosyncratic and tortuous - albeit clever - theory created post facto in order to justify a schism. It is always expressed in erudite language, ingeniously quotes various Fathers, and is invariably printed on very fine stationery, but it remains, nonetheless, not true.

6. These are not matters of only secondary importance to the ROCOR-A, because the synod whose very existence is justified only by the claim that this odd theory is an accepted dogma of the catholic Church, are precisely the synod who provided the canonically required co-consecrators for the ROCOR-A bishops.

7. My conclusion is that the ROCOR-A people, if they really want to be serious about the Faith, and not just wallow in self-congratulatory, nostalgic dreaminess about the glories of ROCOR qua ROCOR, need to re-examine the 1994 decision, subject it seriously to an honest critique, and go where Truth leads.

http://news-nftu.blogspot.com/2010/06/a ... odox+News)

[joasia]

I think that it is time for the hierarchs(non-ecumenist-minded) to recognize their individual pride that lets them sling arrows at each other instead of remembering what Christ wants then to do. ALL of them have stepped out of the boundaries of the Canons, but want to justify their actions as canonical. I, as a laywoman, can see this. And it is very disappointing. There are many circumstances that effect their views and decisions and they are ALL somewhat blinded by subjective views.

I know of the history of the Greek Old Calendarists and the Russian divisions. And all | see is bad decisions. They all confess to uphold the truth of Christ's Church; the dogmas. So why are they all divided?? Pride.

Nothing good comes from those who are lead by pride. There should be no reason for their animosity against each other. That's why the Russians were conquered by the muslims. The Russians were fighting amongst themselves even though they were all under the same Church of the Orthodox faith. Divide and conquer. And that's the state we laymen have to endure under the decisions of the the hierarchs of our Churches. We have to suffer because they make their decisions with the pride in their souls.

I am sick and tired of it. One is not better than the other; we all have the same convictions, but we are lead by hierarchs that we support against another. But, the other has the same Orthodox belief. I'm referring to those who do not support ecumenism. So why are we non-ecumenists divided against each other? And don't bring up the arguement that a certain bishop acted against a Canon, because I will go back to remind that ALL our non-ecumenist hierarchs have made decisions that were against a Canon, in one way or another.

I think that the spiritual battle that counts now is the one that keeps us divided and leads us to believe that our Synod is the only true Orthodox faith. Against the ecumenists, we stand on the side of truth, but amongst ourselves, we are being divided by the evil one. Divide and conquer. I hope that someone, here, can understand where I'm coming from.

I'm just very disappointed with the hierarchs who are suppose to be there to protect us. But, all I see is that they have certainly not reached the state of theosis in which it is necessary to guide Christ's flock with truth and justice.

Joanna

[Priest Siluan]

Dear Joanna:

I agree with you, all of us are quite tired of divisions for pride. But, we cannot agree with the "eclessiology of the lukewarmness", which is taught by the Kyprianism and fellow, this eclessiology is that same one which had driven the ROCOR to its own fall, to the "Uniya" with the MP

[jgress]

In principle, I think you are right, Joanna, as long as your points about pride are qualified by Fr Siluan's observation that there really are some dogmatic differences among the True Orthodox or anti-ecumenist jurisdictions.

At the same time, I think one can go too far with this "we are all in error" line of thinking. After all, there must be some jurisdiction somewhere that is unambiguously the True Church, otherwise one could claim that the prophecy that the "gates of Hell" will not prevail against the Church has not been fulfilled. And if that jurisdiction is the true one, then logically the other jurisdictions must have fallen away from it, either through heresy or schism.

I chose to be baptized in my particular jurisdiction precisely because, having read the history of the True Orthodox Church, I decided that it was the canonical True Church of Greece. If I thought another jurisdiction was the canonical one, I would have joined that. If it was clear that there was no canonical jurisdiction, that somehow all had fallen away from each other, I would have had to conclude that the True Church could not be found among the True Orthodox Christians.

Note that I am NOT saying that, even within a true, canonical jurisdiction, there aren't hierarchs who have made mistakes. I can certainly think of several in the history of my own. But there are mistakes that lead to division and separation, and mistakes that do not, and in order to discern where the True Church lies, we have to be able to make such a distinction.