Fr. Steven Allen: ROCOR, Met. Agathangel & SiR

[Priest Siluan]

Thank you, Father Siluan, for posting these references on "Cyprianism" for me. It appears that Father Steven Allen's criticism of the old ROCOR (and, by extension, of the current ROCOR-A) is based upon the 1994 decision of the ROCOR Synod --led by ROCOR first hierarch Metropolitan Vitaly (Ustinov)--to enter into communion with the Old Calendarist Greek synod of Metropolitan Cyprian. Cyprian apparently opined that the issue of sacramental grace within modern ecumenist Orthodox Churches could only be ascertained by a legitimate Church council. I can certainly understand why the 1994 ROCOR decision to commune with Metropolitan Cyprian appears to conflict with the earlier ROCOR anathema of ecumenism promulgated by Metropolitan St. Philaret the New Confessor.

However, in this context, please allow me to post an excerpt from a 1929 epistle of the New Martyr Metropolitan Cyril of Kazan on a somewhat similar subject-- the issue of sacramental grace within the Sergianist churches of Soviet Russia:

Code: Select all

  [color=#FF0000] [i]I am not separating from anything holy, from anything that authentically belongs to the Church. I fear only to approach and cling to that which I recognize as sinful in its origin, and therefore I refrain from brotherly communion with Metropolitan Sergius and the Archpastors who are one in mind with him, since I have no other means of accusing a sinning brother. The many attempts known to me of personal written brotherly exhortations addressed to Metropolitan Sergius by the reposed Metropolitan Agathangelus, by Metroplitan tan Joseph and his two vicars, by Archbishop Seraphim of Uglich and Bishop Victor of Vyatka, have not been able to return Metropolitan Sergius to his proper place and to a fitting manner of action. To repeat this attempt of convincing by words would be useless. Therefore, I acknowledge it as a fulfillment of our archpastoral duty for those Archpastors and all who consider the establishment of the so-called "Temporary Patriarchal Synod" as wrong, to refrain from communion with Metropolitan Sergius and those Archpastors who are of one mind with him. [u]By thus refraining, for my part, I am not in the least affirming or suspecting any lack of grace in the sacred actions and Mysteries performed by Sergianists (may the Lord God preserve us all from such a thought!), but I only underline my unwillingness and refusal to participate in the sins of others.[/u][/i][/color]

   Is Metropolitan St. Cyril of Kazan's position on this issue of sacramental grace within potentially heretical jurisdictions not similar to that of Metropolitan Cyprian of Fili?  Do we really know with certainty that grace does NOT exist in so-called "ailing" factions of the Church-- the MP and/or New Calendarist Greek churches?  I ask this not as a rhetorical question, but as a question that I, myself, cannot adequately answer.[/quote]

Dear in Christ,

Of course, but it was in 1929, it is well-known Met. Kirill changed his "personal opinion" in 1937 for that "harder" one of Met. Joseph of Petrograd ("their Misteries are not Misteries, their priesthood is not priesthood"). It is the same situation such as if we would say that the "true ecclesiology" of GOC is that one of 1937, and not that one of 1935, 1950 and 1974, also it is interesting that this last one is the argument of the group of Met Kyprianos who are the only ones believing so among the Greek GOC groups.

[Suaidan]

Since I am neither ROCOR-A nor a Russian TOC member, nor Synod-in-Resistance nor Greek TOC member, I feel something should be said here for inaccurate statements. I think Fr Steven wrote this with a pastoral (if somewhat polemical) motive. That said, there are a lot of errors and incorrect assertions in it.

"Assertion 1. Agathangel of Odessa was the only anti-MP bishop who remained a loyal and obedient member of the Laurus synod until the bitter end of ROCOR as we knew it. He broke with them at the last minute because being absorbed into the Moscow Patriarchate was simply too much to swallow, unlike several of the ROCOR's prior anti-Orthodox and uncanonical acts, which, though distasteful – or perhaps not - were still within the realm of palatability for Bishop Agathangel."

This is simply untrue on the basis of what occurred. While Metropolitan Agafangel did not break communion with ROCOR formally, he had been rather loudly protesting the union since early 2005, two years before it occurred. Such documentation can easily be found on the Odessa Diocese's website, many which hinted he would break with ROCOR if they joined the MP. In actual fact he was under the impression he had the support of two other Bishops (Bps Daniel and Alypy). So he did not even really "break with the ROCOR-MP"-- he simply refused to sign a document he never believed in to begin with that turned them into the ROCOR-MP, and so they broke from him since they proactively joined an organization they were sworn not to join.

"On the basis of this distinction, he claims the mantle of succession. He was the only man left standing after the fight, so to speak, since the bishops of ROCOR who had providentially escaped the control of the fatally infiltrated New York synod before 2007 – such as Valentin of Suzdal, Metropolitan Vitaly, Lazarus (Zhurbenko), et al – and were subsequently declared schismatic, defrocked, etc., by that same New York synod already controlled by the pro-Soviet party, truly were, according to the obedient Bishop Agathangel, schismatic and defrocked."

There is a certain irony in these statements. In fact, then-Bishop Agafangel, if I remember correctly, was made Bishop by Metropolitan Valentine, and did always defend his consecrator. When Metropolitan Vitaly broke from the Synod, then Bishop Agafangel went with him, until ROCiE began to splinter shortly thereafter.

What Metropolitan Agafangel said on these other jurisdictions was simply that interdicts had been officially placed in ROCOR and these needed to be resolved. His personal view were that they were not meritorious and so in conscience he began to correct them, which scared many people for reasons we will get to shortly. Furthermore, he has not received any Bishops except in their existing rank from the Seraphimo-Gennadites (which was St Philaret's original position, but not later ROCOR's) nor RTOC, something which would be illogical if he doubted there was grace in their mysteries.

Finally, according to their own documents, the ROCOR-A is attempting to follow the policies not of Metropolitan Laurus, but of Metropolitan Vitaly.

Fr Steven completes his first argument: "Thus we have, according to the Agathangelite position, three sets of ROCOR bishops or former bishops as of May 2007: a. False bishops who perform invalid mysteries within the false churches of ROAC, RTOC, ROCiE, etc. b. True bishops who perform valid Mysteries within the true Church of the MP: Abp Mark, Abp Laurus, & Co. c. One true bishop who did not elect to join his beloved brother true bishops in their tragically imprudent submission to the true and grace-bearing Church of the MP: Bishop Agathangel."

This strikes me as a very inaccurate simplification. First, I am quite certain that Metr Agafangel has never said anything about the validity of the mysteries of the ROAC, ROCiE, et cetera; I was under the impression that the Synod in Resistance and the ROCOR-A were fully aware that there was a slight difference in understanding due to the nature of their respective state-Church situations. Second, Fr Steven is intentionally applying the "resistance" ecclesiology to Metropolitan Agafangel's views as though Metr Agafangel himself is its author. In fact, there was never an indication that Metr Agafangel subscribes to this position as a dogma or even that he is fully assured of grace in the Moscow Patriarchate. Third, the Synod in Resistance has not referred to the other jurisdictions of the TOC of Greece as graceless, so I am not sure why that would be implied-- by the ROCOR documents that the ROCOR-A has been overturning for the past two years? Fourth, the SiR did not reject any of the Russian TOC's until the latter rejected them: a proof of this can be found in the ROCiE case, where the SiR supported Metr Vitaly's actions until in fact the ROCiE rejected them. I would have to find the docs on that one; it was a case where a very nice "clean-up" job was done on the part of the ROCiE.

In fact, the ROCOR under Metropolitan Agafangel's correction of certain official statements such as the 1990 declaration on the catacomb Bishops indicates precisely the opposite of what Father Steven is claiming and furthermore upset opponents of the ROCOR-A in World Orthodoxy: http://rocorunity.blogspot.com/2009/03/ ... olicy.html

...

I think the above is sufficient proof that there are inaccuracies in this essay. I have in fact analyzed all three assertions. I have no interest in putting up the others, since I am not interested in telling Fr Steven I disagree, and besides, the text I wrote was originally part of a larger document that was more of a skeleton on policy for other more personal reasons. I just submit the above to point out that this is far from a perfect document to base policy on. It's a well-written polemic. But I don't believe it's accurate or helpful to dialogue between TOC bodies. If people want further citation they are welcome to ask. But I'd like to use this as an opportunity for all to analyze these matters on their own, and not so uncritically.

[Mark Templet]

Let's take a step back for a moment.

We all agree that ecumenism is heresy. It is so because by the definition of the membership criteria to belong to the WCC a jurisdiction has to submit to the branch theory, which we can all agree is utter rubbish. Now we know that the WO are involved in this activity to advance themselves in worldly ways and that they have betrayed the Church and the truth of Orthodoxy.

Now, I would put such heresy within the same bucket as Netsorianism, Arianism, Monophitism, and all the other condemned "isms." We would have to say that we can be confident that heretics lack Grace for one very simple and straightforward reason: because we believe in a merciful God. Because we have free will, and heresy is a choice, God does not make a heretic turn from his heresy. However, since receiving the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in an unworthy manner heaps judgment onto your head, would it not be merciful of God to remove His Grace from the heretics' Mysteries so that at least God is not participating in making things worse for the heretic?

When a bishop is about to be ordained by his brother bishops he swears an oath; he swears, "I accept what you accept; and I reject what you reject." It is consistent with Orthodox teaching that this means that at the moment that a bishop breaks that oath he are no longer a bishop and they have lost the Grace of their priesthood in all their sacramental actions. This means that before they are condemned by a council they are already deposed by God because they have broken with the ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH. The proceedings of a council are to formally display the attempted discipline and calling back of the person from their heretical and graceless position.

Conversely, it is a Western/Scholastic point of view that believes that once you are ordained you keep the Grace of the Holy Spirit no matter what unless some church-legal (papal) action is taken against you. This is not Orthodoxy!

If you personally don't want to condemn these people for pious reasons then that is fine. But we are talking about Holy Synods of bishops who are supposed to have spiritual discernment. They are supposed to be guided by the Holy Spirit into ALL truth. If they can't determine "balls and strikes" as it were, then how can the faithful know what is Orthodox or not? The WO people are God's to judge, I wouldn't even think about doing that. That is not what this is about. This is about spiritual discernment about sinful and heretical behavior and its incompatibility with Orthodoxy. We worship God in spirit and in TRUTH, not sincerity, or good will or open-mindedness -- TRUTH!

If we can't be sure that heretics don't have Grace then we might just as well be with them. For that matter, I might as well stop trying to scrap and struggle to bring Orthodoxy to my area, I could go join up with the GOA or even the Roman Catholics and have it made since they might have grace for all I know. Don't you see, at some point you have to drawn a black and white line and say THIS is the truth and nothing else is.

[jgress]

Thank you, Dcn Joseph. While I still believe Fr Steven's criticism of Cyprianite ecclesiology stands, it is important to qualify his claims about Met Agathangel's personal views of the other Greek and Russian TOC groups, as well as the MP, in the light of this information.

Of course, if Met Agafangel is genuinely indifferent towards the issue of grace in WO, one wonders why he chose to unite with a small Greek TOC Synod whose ecclesiology AND canonical situation are highly controversial, rather than the largest Synod of Abp Chrysostomos. I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude from this that his ecclesiology lies much closer to Met Cyprian's than to that of the majority of Greek TOC bishops, and that he didn't unite with the Chrysostomites precisely because he does not accept their ecclesiology. I would certainly grant Met Agathangel the right to defend himself against any unjust accusations, but at the same time I think it would help, not hinder, True Orthodox unity if he came clean about where he stood on ecclesiology, and if his ecclesiology is not the same as that of Met Cyprian, he needs to account for why he is with him and not with Abp Chrysostomos.

[Suaidan]

Of course, if Met Agafangel is genuinely indifferent towards the issue of grace in WO, one wonders why he chose to unite with a small Greek TOC Synod whose ecclesiology AND canonical situation are highly controversial, rather than the largest Synod of Abp Chrysostomos.

I don't think there's any real reason to wonder past the obvious-- he had been in communion with them and the Romanian/Bulgarian Old Calendarists for 13 years and they supported the traditionalists in ROCOR and not the modernists, polemics aside. I think that's sufficient explanation for any logical person.

I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude from this that his ecclesiology lies much closer to Met Cyprian's than to that of the majority of Greek TOC bishops, and that he didn't unite with the Chrysostomites precisely because he does not accept their ecclesiology.

Hmm. "Majority"? I would say perhaps "plurality" if we are being clear. Remember that the TOC-Chrysostomos is comprised of 11 Bishops as are the Synod in Resistance. I am not going to get into a comparison of the relative sizes of their Synods-- this is not even counting the other TOC groups. I believe the TOC-Chrysostomos has more parishes. But the SiR has the majority of Bulgarian and Romanian parishes in communion with her. I'm not judging by size-- I am just pointing out why this would not be so strange to stay in communion with the SiR if he was already in communion with them. It's not as if he chose a tiny faction to join with, though this seems to be the consistent representation. I simply do not have any evidence to support the assertion that any of the major Greek jurisdictions are tiny sects per se.

I would certainly grant Met Agathangel the right to defend himself against any unjust accusations, but at the same time I think it would help, not hinder, True Orthodox unity if he came clean about where he stood on ecclesiology, and if his ecclesiology is not the same as that of Met Cyprian, he needs to account for why he is with him and not with Abp Chrysostomos.

I fear for the state of True Orthodox ecclesiology when we define it in stark, black-and-white simple sentences like "we have grace and they don't" and don't take into account that what we are discussing is an ecclesiological opinion, and not a certainty, nor a whole ecclesiology, let alone the Orthodox one. I don't believe World Orthodoxy has grace but you'd be hard-pressed to get me to define it as part of my faith.

I believe the above is for me sufficient to not judge why he did not sever communion with the SiR. The simple answer is that he had no real reason to.

[Pravoslavnik]

Well, this discussion about the Cyprianites has been helpful for me, and I appreciate the references and insights of everyone on this thread. I was under the impression that the Cyprianites were of the same opinion as Metropolitan Cyril of Kazan (in 1929) and the old ROCOR under Metropolitan Vitaly (Ustinov)-- i.e., that we cannot know for certain whether there is grace in the Sergianist and world Orthodox churches.

Code: Select all

  If our own traditional hierarchs are not of one mind in this matter, who am I to judge such things rightly?  The dissolution of the old ROCOR-- especially since the mysterious ouster of our Metropolitan Vitaly in 2000-- and the shocking Act of Canonical Communion in 2007 have been most bewildering.  My own impression is that the fate of the ROCOR since 1990 has had more to do with Soviet/KGB machinations than with conflicting opinions about ecclesiology, but who really knows, other than the hierarchs of the MP-ROCOR?

[jgress]

Actually, Met Agathangel was out of communion with Met Cyprian after he left ROCOR in May 2007 until November of that year, since ROCOR had broken communion with the SiR already in 2006. Met Agathangel had a clean slate to work with, as it were, but chose to return to communion with the Cyprianites.

Moreover, his synod DID condemn the other Russian TO jurisdictions at a council in May of 2008. Other actions of his may contradict this condemnation, but he has never formally renounced them. For details, consult Vladimir Moss' article "The Cyprianite-Agathengelite Union" and "Quo Vadis, Agathangel?":

http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/a ... ite-union/
http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/a ... gathangel/

As to whether the gracelessness of ecumenist World Orthodoxy is part of my faith, I would say it is, insofar as I believe an anathema is an anathema, but I am nevertheless reluctant to call those who disagree with me heretics. It seems to me that there is still uncertainty in a lot of minds about this, and condescension is required. I happen to think that this uncertainty is due to ignorance of Orthodox ecclesiology, rather than the fact that there is no Orthodox ecclesiology; in other words, it is not that there is no right answer to this question, but at the present we can't reasonably expect everyone in the True Church to know the right answer. It is a matter of being patient for the time being, so that those who hold false views on this issue are not prematurely driven away from the True Church.

To do otherwise would be like saying that the ROCOR as a whole was heretical, because SOME of her members still believed the ecumenists were in the Church, and those who recognized the falsity of this opinion, like St Philaret, nevertheless remained in communion with the former. Or that the whole Orthodox Church fell into heresy in 1920, when the Ecumenical Patriarch published his notorious epistle "To the Churches of Christ, wherever they may be", which is now recognized as heretical by all in the True Church. Since no one broke communion with him then, if we were very strict we would have to say everyone fell away from the True Church at that point, since the EP was preaching heresy publicly, yet no one broke communion. But that assumes that everyone should have been expected to come to the right conclusion at once about the matter.

Do I think Cyprianism itself is a heresy? Although my Synod has condemned his teachings, they haven't to my knowledge anathematized it. I think I would agree with Vladimir Moss that it is better characterized as a violation of Apostolic Canon 46: “We order that any Bishop or Presbyter that has accepted any heretics’ Baptism or Sacrifice, to be deposed; for ‘what agreement hath Christ with Beliar? Or what part hath the believer with an infidel?’” Perhaps the True Church will formally anathematize it, but as far as I know anathemas don't have retroactive force, i.e. those who held the false opinion prior to the anathema don't automatically become condemned heretics, unless they continue to maintain the heresy after the condemnation.

I suppose I could be accused of flip-flopping on this matter: "If Cyprianism is un-Orthodox, as you claim, how is it not a heresy? On the other hand, if it is merely an 'opinion', i.e. a theologoumenon, why does it matter who believes it?" I think we need to make a three-way distinction: there are unambiguous dogmatic errors, i.e. heresies condemned by a competent Council (either Ecumenical or Local), for which there is can be no excuse of ignorance; there are true theologoumena, i.e. opinions that are not backed by a patristic consensus or conciliar decree, and therefore it really does not matter for one's salvation whether one accepts them or not; finally, there are dogmatic errors that have not been condemned by a Council, but which nevertheless contradict the patristic consensus, for which the excuse of ignorance may be legitimate for some. Those who know the Fathers are obligated to admonish the holders of such opinions, but should exercise discernment in deciding when and whether to break communion. Given the already fractured state of True Orthodoxy at the moment, I am inclined to postpone breaking communion, even when I recognize someone holding what is to me a heretical opinion. And it is not clear to me that Cyprianism is even really heretical. The same can't be said for Romanidean soteriology, which I do think is heretical, but in that case, again, I think it's a matter of allowing for others' ignorance in this matter.

However, even if we exercise some condescension and say the Cyprianites are not true heretics, I would not agree to establishing immediate communion with them, because I still think their ecclesiology is false, and bishops are under special obligation to preach the truth unambiguously. In other words, they have less excuse for ignorance than ordinary laymen. And while it is one thing to break communion, it is another thing to ESTABLISH communion with body that is already in schism, e.g. the SiR and the TOC of Chrysostomos. In dialog with separated jurisdictions, I would counsel being especially strict in dogmatic matters.