Was ROCOR's 1994 Sobor Legitimate?

[Priest Siluan]

Was ROCOR's 1994 Sobor Legitimate? - Protopresbyter Victor Melehov

https://www.dropbox.com/s/h650q5poajzpj ... nglish.pdf

[Maria]

Very interesting.

The following is a brief summary from the download:

According to this article dated March 29, 2013, the 1994 ROCOR Sober was a deception that obscured the true 1983 ROCOR Sober, which declared Ecumenism to be a heresy. Thus the false 1994 ROCOR Sober not only questioned and cast serious doubt on the godly 1983 ROCOR Sober, but also this false Sober paved the way for reunion with the MP. This is also one reason why World Orthodoxy today denies that Ecumenism is a heresy.

At the 1994 ROCOR Sober, the ecclesiology of the Synod in Resistance known as Cyprianism was espoused which recognized the MP as merely ailing due to its Ecumenism and Sergianism, contrary to the 1983 ROCOR Sober under Metropolitan Philaret which found the MP to be in heresy, which is spiritual death, not a mere ailment. As Father Victor Melehov states, "By definition, the ROCOR Sobor's Anathema of 1983 against Ecumenism must include Cyprianism," since the 1983 Sober ruled: "To those who knowingly have communion with these aforementioned heretics ... anathema."

[jgress]

I'm not a Cyprianite, but I don't think their position is that Ecumenism is not a heresy. Rather, it is that heretics, including Ecumenists, are not actually cut off from the Church until an Ecumenical or Pan-Orthodox Council says so. ROCOR in 1983 correctly stated that Ecumenism is a heresy, but the Cyprianites, and their ROCOR fellow travelers in 1994, claimed that the ROCOR Sobor itself did not have authority to cut heretics off from the Church. This seems also to have been the position of Metropolitan Vitaly in his famous 1986 Nativity Encyclical.

In fact, ROCOR synodically re-affirmed the anathema against Ecumenism as recently as 1998, according to V Moss.

Of course, the mainstream GOC position that heretics may be separated from the Church even before a Pan-Orthodox conciliar decision makes more sense. On the other hand, if one insists that ROCOR formally adopted heresy in 1994, then we'd have to claim that apostolic succession ceased in that year, so that, e.g. the RTOC, which only split off from ROCOR in 2001, does not have valid apostolic succession, and thence neither does the STOC under Bishop Akakije.

[Priest Siluan]

Of course, the mainstream GOC position that heretics may be separated from the Church even before a Pan-Orthodox conciliar decision makes more sense. On the other hand, if one insists that ROCOR formally adopted heresy in 1994, then we'd have to claim that apostolic succession ceased in that year, so that, e.g. the RTOC, which only split off from ROCOR in 2001, does not have valid apostolic succession, and thence neither does the STOC under Bishop Akakije.

Well, dear in Christ, Jonathan, I think that is not exactly the point of Fr. Victor, but he is just trying to afirm that the acceptance of the heretic ecclesiology of Met. Kyprianos was the beginning of the falling of ROCOR, because this posicion later will lead ROCOR to accept the Stalin-created MP as its "Mother Church"

[Maria]

I'm not a Cyprianite, but I don't think their position is that Ecumenism is not a heresy. Rather, it is that heretics, including Ecumenists, are not actually cut off from the Church until an Ecumenical or Pan-Orthodox Council says so.

The Cyprianite view that Ecumenists are not actually cut off from the Church until an Ecumenical or Pan-Orthodox Council anathematizes those heretics is also the position of many members in World Orthodoxy. Thus, even if we True Orthodox were to convince members of World Orthodoxy that Ecumenism is a heresy (not a small task), they would retort, "This heresy of Ecumenism has not yet been anathematized by a valid Ecumenical Council." Then they would add, "Even if an Orthodox Ecumenical Council were to be held, members of True Orthodoxy would not attend."

Of course, with the MP and the EP involved in Ecumenism, how would such an "Ecumenical Council" ever manage to condemn Ecumenism? For True Orthodox to even consider even attending such a farce would be inconceivable.

[jgress]

Of course, the mainstream GOC position that heretics may be separated from the Church even before a Pan-Orthodox conciliar decision makes more sense. On the other hand, if one insists that ROCOR formally adopted heresy in 1994, then we'd have to claim that apostolic succession ceased in that year, so that, e.g. the RTOC, which only split off from ROCOR in 2001, does not have valid apostolic succession, and thence neither does the STOC under Bishop Akakije.

Well, dear in Christ, Jonathan, I think that is not exactly the point of Fr. Victor, but he is just trying to afirm that the acceptance of the heretic ecclesiology of Met. Kyprianos was the beginning of the falling of ROCOR, because this posicion later will lead ROCOR to accept the Stalin-created MP as its "Mother Church"

I would agree with that.

[Despotovac]

GOC consider metropolitan Hrisostomos as its founder. Although he did not left even one bishop after his death, they believe that they had apostolic succession from him, and his confessing of fait. Metropolitan Hrisostomos of Florina (Kavuridis) for 13 years (1937-1950) had wrong teaching that New calendarists have Grace ( teaching of Cyprianists). Of course, he abandon that wrong teaching, so we consider him, as entire GOC, as Orthodox. ROCOR keep this wrong teaching twice less; 7 years (1994- 2001) and then abandon it. So one cannot say that Hrisostomos of Florina that is GOC, deprive himself of apostolic succession, because he give up wrong teaching while he was still alive. Equally, ROCOR - Vitaly and with it RTOC abnegate it wrong teaching from ROCOR's 1994 Sobor.