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

[jgress]

Well, Fr Joseph, the Cyprianites have clearly erred in matters of faith, with their innovative teachings on "sick" and "ailing" members of the Church. But for reasons of economy, to aid in reconciliation, we have refrained from anathematizing them. If you would prefer us just to anathematize them, as is our right, then maybe that's what we'll do.

[Suaidan]

Well, Fr Joseph, the Cyprianites have clearly erred in matters of faith, with their innovative teachings on "sick" and "ailing" members of the Church. But for reasons of economy, to aid in reconciliation, we have refrained from anathematizing them. If you would prefer us just to anathematize them, as is our right, then maybe that's what we'll do.

Since I still haven't seen the deposition document it would be useful, as if there is a charge of heresy it would be redundant, but would also place your argument in contradiction. In another place I've pointed out that the "sick" and "healthy" members of the Church argument is nullified by their clarification.

And if your Synod is going to treat people like they are already anathematized for the better part of a decade then yes, I would prefer it on paper. It doesn't mean I am going to agree with it, but at least it's calling a spade a spade, which is much more honest. If your Synod believes they are heretics it's not something that should be kept in secret, but something that should be done for the safety of souls. That's what an anathema is for, not for bludgeoning people with a false charge. At least then we can debate the value of the anathema. But the alternative is like shadow boxing. We are dealing with claims that are by and large invisible. If people believe a group is heretical, they should just say it. But if that's not the position of your Synod, it should not have been discussed for so long to begin with.

"You should stay away from them because they're bad and we want to call them heretical" is, at least to me, offensive to our intelligence and sounds an awful lot like gossip mongering.

[Mark Templet]

Here is a question, and I respectfully ask that it be addressed directly and with no more appeals to things in the past:

What if SiR, ROCOR(A), ROAC, GOC, ROCOR(V), RTOC, etc. all meet (or otherwise communicated) and agreed that collectively (even if by composition of all their individual anathema) that the WO are outside of the True Church, and therefore lack grace. Now most of us already accept that the WO have no grace, but if we teamed up and issued the full-force of the 1983 Anathema of ROCOR, would the SiR and ROCOR(A) finally be able to accept that a unifying council had condemned the WO as anathematized and graceless? Would we all be able to accept that from that point forward we at least all agree to the following:

1. Ecumenism is heresy.
2. The calendar change is heresy.
3. The WO, who are all involved or in communion with those involved in the above, are hereby anathematized and therefore have no grace of their sacraments.

That would be it. That would be the first step; nothing more.
Again, I challenge all to reply with nothing about what has happened in the past.

[Priest Siluan]

Here is a question, and I respectfully ask that it be addressed directly and with no more appeals to things in the past:

What if SiR, ROCOR(A), ROAC, GOC, ROCOR(V), RTOC, etc. all meet (or otherwise communicated) and agreed that collectively (even if by composition of all their individual anathema) that the WO are outside of the True Church, and therefore lack grace. Now most of us already accept that the WO have no grace, but if we teamed up and issued the full-force of the 1983 Anathema of ROCOR, would the SiR and ROCOR(A) finally be able to accept that a unifying council had condemned the WO as anathematized and graceless? Would we all be able to accept that from that point forward we at least all agree to the following:

1. Ecumenism is heresy.
2. The calendar change is heresy.
3. The WO, who are all involved or in communion with those involved in the above, are hereby anathematized and therefore have no grace of their sacraments.

That would be it. That would be the first step; nothing more.
Again, I challenge all to reply with nothing about what has happened in the past.

You are right, dear Father, the question is very very simple and easy... but there are many people who try to do it very difficult with a speech full with words, the pride is blinding to many ones Orthodoxy or Death! (there is not "middle grounds")

[Anastasios]

Impressive! Well, I guess I have little left to say then except I deny the TOC-Chrysostomos the right to depose those outside their jurisdiction, and that's that. Little confused, since I always thought that the Synod claimed the SiR were heretics, but I feel better now!

Dear Dcn Joseph,

Could you clarify how Archimandrite Cyprian, who joined the Synod under Archbishop Auxentios in 1969, was deposed by the Synod under Archbishop Auxentios (as a priest) in 1979, was reinstated as part of the en-masse reconciliation of the 1979 factions under Archbishop Auxentios in 1984, and was re-deposed by the same Synod* (including all of the bishops of the Kallistite faction two which he had previously belonged, save for those who had died, and his co-consecrator Metropolitan Giovanni) in 1987 after continuing to remain aloof from the rest of the GOC bishops, was not subject to the jurisdiction of the TOC-Chrysostomos?

At what point did Archimandrite/Metropolitan Cyprian stop being subject to the Holy Synod of the GOC of Greece?

As I see it, the only other option would be to suggest that the Synod under Archbishop Chrysosotmos II is somehow not the same Synod, because the deposition of Archbishop Auxentios by 17 of the bishops of the GOC was somehow invalid, and it was canonical for Archbishop Auxentios to set up a counter-Synod. That would be quite a difficult position to justify, but if you want to start a thread on it, it might prove interesting discussion.

In Christ,
Fr Anastasios

[Anastasios]

I was wondering when someone would come out with something on my Synod!

This is not an honest presentation. First, the resistance position was articulated in 1984. First off, Metropolitan Evloghios assisted in the consecration of Archbishop Chrysostomos in 1986. To my knowledge, that's it. And as far as I knew, the SiR already had two Bishops. They did not need us to begin with. Nor am I totally familiar with the circumstances that led to the decisive break in relations between the Western Synod (then headed in Lisbon, not Milan) and the SiR. But the claim that we "aided and abetted" Metropolitan Cyprian's "foray into schism" (from whom???) is unfounded. We've always helped those who have asked. We still do.

That makes me biased? A single assistance of our Bishops in 1986? Interesting.

If you review the archives of Orthodox Tradition, it appears that they considered or at least presented Met Evloghios as part of their Synod. If I can find the issue I will scan it, but they are hard to come by, and I only have some of them. Ultimately, that is really not relevant now though, I think we'd both agree. Mostly of historical curiosity.

I wonder what Archbishop Auxentios thought when those to whom he granted autonomy, his Western European bishops, decided to co-consecrate with a bishop who lived some 30 miles away from him in Fili, who I suppose according to what I assume is your theory was still somehow part of his Synod (since he was restored as part of the 1984 reunion and not deposed again after that, according to my knowledge)? I'm sure when he gave the Western bishops autonomy, he didn't expect them to come back in to Greece and help someone else consecrate. In fact, the Synod was still united with Auxentios as Archbishop and Chrysostomos II was not elected yet, so that means that in effect, when Met. Cyprian and Met. Evloghios consecrated Bishop Chrystomos of Etna together, both were still nominally in communion with the Archbishop? Does that make any sense?

[Priest Siluan]

Could you clarify how Archimandrite Cyprian, who joined the Synod under Archbishop Auxentios in 1969, was deposed by the Synod under Archbishop Auxentios (as a priest) in 1979, was reinstated as part of the en-masse reconciliation of the 1979 factions under Archbishop Auxentios in 1984, and was re-deposed by the same Synod* (including all of the bishops of the Kallistite faction two which he had previously belonged, save for those who had died, and his co-consecrator Metropolitan Giovanni) in 1987 after continuing to remain aloof from the rest of the GOC bishops, was not subject to the jurisdiction of the TOC-Chrysostomos?

At what point did Archimandrite/Metropolitan Cyprian stop being subject to the Holy Synod of the GOC of Greece?

Dear Father, it is a very interesting point and a very important one, maybe as important as that other one about ecclesiology: The matter about the uncanonical origin of the "SIR", I have many original documents about it, beginning with the multiple depositions of former Archimandrite (or current monk) Kyprianos Koutsoumbas