Help HOLY TRINITY ORTHODOX CHURCH in Oxnard

[Benjamin W. C. Waterhouse]

Fr. James Thornton is not a racist..

http://www.amren.com/ar/1996/08/index.html

Let people decide for themselves.

Theophan.

He is almost as conservative as me ;)

In Him
SB

[Benjamin W. C. Waterhouse]

Cyprian has clearly demonstrated how the 1983 Anathema aganist Ecumenism goes totally aganist Met Kyprian's ecclesiolgy.

Not to me he hasn't...

Since when has Fili bareheaded advocated the Anglican Protestatnt Branch Theory of Church unity, for example?

In Him
SB

[GOCTheophan]

Cyprian has clearly demonstrated how the 1983 Anathema aganist Ecumenism goes totally aganist Met Kyprian's ecclesiolgy.

Not to me he hasn't...

Since when has Fili bareheaded advocated the Anglican Protestatnt Branch Theory of Church unity, for example?

In Him
SB

Please read carefully what Cyprian has written below.

So if you have come to the acknowledgment that his teachings are unorthodox, the next logical questions ought to be:

1) what was his intent in putting forth this strange teaching of his 23 years ago, which is clearly diametrically opposed to the Anathema of 1983 issued just one year prior.

2) has Kyprianos been sufficiently made aware of the fact that his teachings are contrary to Orthodox doctrine

3) and if so, has he stubbornly and willfully maintained his false teachings in spite of the repeated objections and criticisms by Orthodox authorities?

Now let's not play games. Regarding the novel teaching that Kyprianos put forth in 1984 he made no secret that it was offered in opposition to and as an alternative to the Anathema proclaimed by the ROCOR synod one year prior in 1983.

For example, all one must do is read the very first line:

"Those who attack the Church of Christ by teaching that Christ's Church is divided into so-called "branches" which differ in doctrine and way of life..."

Of course Kyprianos deliberately seeks to oppose this Orthodox declaration.

Do not the ecumenist New Calendarists differ in doctrine and way of life than the true Orthodox Christians who piously and steadfastly uphold the traditions of the Fathers?

But of course they do. The ecumenists pray with Satan; they pray with Legion; they pray with Beelzebub; they pray with Barabbas.

The New Calendarists differ in way of life. They shorten the Holy Apostles Fast, they feast when the Church ought to be fasting, they are schismatics and heretics who persecute the True Orthodox.

So no one will deny that the New Calendarists and the True Orthodox Christians are divided from one another.

But Kyprianos says they are all part of the same Church.

So he has developed his own little "branch theory". Instead of his branches consisting of Orthodox, Papists and Anglicans, who differ in doctrine and way of life...

the branches of his novel conception of the "Church" rather consist of "Old Calendarist" resisters and "New Calendarist" ailing members.

So he simply teaches a novel variation of the two-lung theory.

According to the absurd two-lung theory, Orthodox and Papists are two lungs in the same body of the Church. The Orthodox are the healthy lung, and the Papists are the ailing or diseased lung.

Kyprianos teaches the same theory but has simply changed the parties. Instead of the Orthodox and the Papists being the two lungs, he treats the "resistors" as the healthy lung and the ailing or sick lung is represented by the ecumenist heretics, which he acknowledges to be so, because he speaks often of the "Pan-heresy of Ecumenism".

So he admits the ecumenists are "Pan-heretics", but then (effectively teaches) that they are simply a diseased lung in the same body of the Church.

No real difference than in the situation of the Papists, who are clearly heretics and schismatics, and are still treated as part of the body of Christ by apostate pseudo-Orthodoxy.

No one can with a straight face assert that Kyprianos came up with this novelty inadvertently.

"and who do not distinguish the priesthood and mysteries of the Church from those of the heretics..."

Kyprianos calls ecumenism a pan heresy, and considers ecumenists heretics, yet he fails to distinguish the priesthood and the mysteries of the Church from those heretics he walls off from.

Obviously the goal of Kyprianos from the very start was to speak perverse things, in order to draw away disciples after himself.

Faith and discernment are gifts from God.

Anyone who cannot see that the ecclesiological position put forth by Kyprianos in 1984 is diamterically opposed to the ROCOR Anathema of 1983 has neither considered them both or is simply not interested in the Truth.

Cyprian

[GOCTheophan]

Fr. James Thornton is not a racist..

http://www.amren.com/ar/1996/08/index.html

Let people decide for themselves.

Theophan.

He is almost as conservative as me

In Him
SB

Look im hardly a liberal BUT read what he has written more carefully. Go through that magazine.

I believe that Deacon Nicolai has had some contact with him. Maybe he can clear things up.

Theophan.

[Benjamin W. C. Waterhouse]

Cyprians quote

Please read carefully what Cyprian has written below...

A ridiculous babel of false assertians, circular arguments and deliberate misreadings of statements...

Gnat straining is the most charitable answer. From a man far from the life of the Church. You live the Church day by day, in sobriety with your Bishop, the Clergy and the People. Sitting in a room, as a neophyte layman, doing it by books only leads you into a dead scholastic legalism; far far apart from the truth.

In Him
SB

[GOCTheophan]

Cyprians quote

Please read carefully what Cyprian has written below...

A ridiculous babel of false assertians, circular arguments and deliberate misreadings of statements...

In Him
SB

Maybe it is expressed in stronger language but that expresses the belief of Bishop Gregory Grabbe of Blessed Memory that ROCOR by entering into Communion with twice (thrice?) defrocked Archimandrite Cyprian fell under its own Anathema of 1983.

Where are the false assertations? I cannot see any. Please point them out...Who is the Papal Reader? How do you justify the schism of Metropolitian Kallistos on grounds not of the Faith if schism is worse than heresy?

We know from Church history that local synods have indeed Anathemised heretics and that those anathemas were considered valid by the Church without an Ecumenical council to confirm them. If someone started talking about created Grace would you consider him Orthodox? Your Bishops are far more being stupid. They know all this. So what is there agenda?

Christ gave is Church the power to bind and loose. That power will remain with it until His coming. If there is no authority to anathemize heretics present in the Church today as Met Kyprian states than the Church has ceased to exist...perish that thought.

Cyprian lives near Seattle on the northeast coast of the United States. The nearest parish of the Synod that he feels closest too is in New York I believe. Many, many miles away. His situation is a difficult one and I therefore dont think its appropriate to attack someone for doing all that they can do under the circumstances.

Theophan.

[GOCTheophan]

Cyprian has clearly demonstrated how the 1983 Anathema aganist Ecumenism goes totally aganist Met Kyprian's ecclesiolgy.

Since when has Fili bareheaded advocated the Anglican Protestatnt Branch Theory of Church unity, for example?

In Him
SB

Okay if you cannot accept Cyprian's explanation of how Fili falls under the Anathema of 1983 please examine this one put out by those who spent 6 years in Communion with them (I pray God that it will not take you that long to understand the seriousness of the mistake that you have made).

Theophan.

The Conclusion Concerning the Ecclesiology of Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Fili.

On the basis of having studied the ecclesiological teachings of Metropolitan Cyprian, which are set forth in the book "Ecclesiological Thesis, or the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church for the Orthodox, Resisting the Heresy of Ecumenism" (pub. Monastery of Sts. Cyprian and Justina, Fili, Attica, Greece, 1993), Metropolitan Cyprian’s report at the 6th Orthodox Conference "The Heresy of Ecumenism and the Patristic Position of the Orthodox" (23 February 1998), and also a host of publications and declarations of other hierarchs of the Synod of the Resistors, we have arrived at the following conclusions:

1. Metropolitan Cyrpian and his Synod, while recognizing ecumenist world Orthodoxy to be heretical, nevertheless, considers it to be a part of the Church of Christ, thus contradicting the teaching and tradition of the Church, which clearly bears witness in Conciliar decrees and the writings of the Holy Fathers to the effect that heretics are fallen away from the Church.

2. Metropolitan Cyrprian replaces the concept of "heretics" with a description of those who are essentially in error in their judgments concerning the Orthodox. Thus, in regard to ecumenist-heretics, he writes: "Persons in error concerning the correct understanding of the faith -- and thereby sinning, but not yet judged by an ecclesiastical court -- are ailing members of the Church" ("Ecclesiological Theses," ch. 1, 4; pp. 2, 7). Calling for a walling-off from these ailing members, Metropolitan Cyprian, nonetheless, considers them to be within the Church. However, to permit membership in the Church outside an Orthodox confession of faith is by no means possible; hence, "those ailing in the faith" cannot be members of the Church, which is also confirmed by the teachings of the Holy Fathers. "Without a doubt," says the venerable John Cassian the Roman, "he who does not confess the faith of the Church is outside the Church." The same is confirmed also by Patriarch Jeremias II of Constantinople: "Members of the Church of Christ are wholly devoted to the truth, and those not wholly devoted to the truth are not members of the Church of Christ." And St. Cyprian of Carthage teaches: "Just as the devil is not Christ, although he deceives in His name, so also such a one cannot be accounted a Christian as does not abide in the truth of His Gospel and Faith." In agreement with all the Fathers, the Great Hierarch Gregory the Theologian, in his Second Epistle Against Apollinarius, also teaches: "Avoid those holding to another doctrine and consider them alien to God and to the Universal Church." The Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs Concerning the Orthodox Faith states: "We believe that all amongst us are members of the catholic Church, even the faithful themselves, i.e., those who unconditionally confess the pure faith of Christ the Saviour." And St. Gregory Palamas also explains: "Those who are of the Church of Christ, the same are of the truth; and those who are not of the truth, the same are also not of the Church of Christ..."

Metropolitan Cyprian declares in his thesis that "the Orthodox have become divided into two parts: those who are ailing in the faith and those who are healthy..." (Ch. 3, p. 4), but then he immediately goes on to speak of "restoring to Orthodoxy" those ailing in the faith (Ch. 3, p. 5), whereby he clearly falls into a doctrinal contradiction, for how is it possible "to receive into Orthodoxy" those who already are Orthodox?!

1. Metropolitan Cyrpian makes a statement concerning the division of the Church by reason of ecumenism, by drawing an analogy between the present state of the Church and Her state during the time of the iconoclastic heresy. In his ecclesiology, he attempts to compare the present-day new-calendarists and ecumenists with the iconoclasts, whom the Fathers of the VII-th Oecumenical Council united to the Church through repentance and the renouncing of their heresy. Likewise, Metropolitan Cyprian refers to the VII-th Oecumenical Council, the Acts of which employ the expressions "severance," "divisions," etc. He reaches a totally unfounded conclusion, that the iconoclasts, prior to their having been judged by the Council, were not yet heretics, as such; and that their mysteries were therefore recognized as being valid. However, concerning the iconoclasts who were joined to Orthodoxy, neither did the Oecumenical Council consider them as having belonged previously to the Church, nor did they themselves make any pretences as to their comprising Her. Here are the testimonies of the joining iconoclasts themselves. Basil, Bp. of Ancyra: "To the extent of my ability, I investigated the question of icons, and with complete conviction turned to the Holy Catholic Church." Theodore, Bp. of Myra in Lycia: "...I pray God and your holiness to join me, a sinner, to the Holy Catholic Church, as well." John, the most-God-pleasing Locum Tenens of the Apostolic Throne in the East said: "Heresy separates every man from the Church." The Holy Council stated: "that is obvious."

But Metropolitan Cyprian, in his ecclesiology, changes the terminology: "they were received into Orthodoxy," thereby inferring an unthinkable distinction between the Church and Orthodoxy, which is impossible.

The Church, as the Body of Christ, cannot be divided. Such a phenomenon is ontologically impossible, inasmuch as the Lord Jesus Christ cannot have several bodies. Those divisions mentioned at the Council, and in the writings of the Holy Fathers, relate exclusively to a temporary division between Christians, like those arising during times of troubles when heresies are being spread, and when, initially, it can be difficult to discern just who is who. St. Basil the Great compared an occasion like this to a night-battle when, in the darkness, it is not immediately possible to discern friend from foe.

In the Church there can be no division; there can only be a falling away from Her. The Catechism of Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitski) states the same concerning this: "Question: Is it possible to grant that there once took place, or that there will take place, a division within the Church, or a separation of Churches? Answer: In no case: heretics and schismatics fell away from the one indivisible Church at various times and thereby ceased to be members of the Church, but the Church, as such, cannot lose her unity" (Experience of Christian Catechism. Pub. Australo-New Zealand Ep. 1989, p. 65). In its Epistle of 18 November/ 1 December 1962, the ROCOR Sobor of Bishops likewise confessed: "We cannot accept their (the ecumenists’) point of view, that the Church has become divided. We believe in One, Exclusive Church, the Head of Which is Christ. As there is one Head, so also is there one Body – the Church. If a house is divided within itself, then it cannot stand. Thus, also, the Church, having become divided, would cease to be the Church. There can only be a falling-away from the Church – a departure from Her of individuals -- or of entire groups who are not of like mind with Her." In accordance with this confession, the 18/31 December, 1931, Declaration of the ROCOR Synod of Bishops states: "Preserving the Faith in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, the Synod of Bishops confesses that this Church has never been divided."

1. Contradicting the decrees of the Church, Metropolitan Cyprian declares that "the new-calendarists have not yet been condemned, to this day" and that he recognizes "their Mysteries" to be "valid" (Ch. 3, p. 5). But the Gregorian paschalion and the Gregorian menologian were thrice condemned by Local Councils of the Church of Constantinople: in 1583, in 1587 and in1593, with the Eastern Patriarchs taking part. For example, the 1593 conciliar definition of the Church states: "Whosoever does not follow the customs of the Church, but desires to follow the Gregorian menologion and paschalion, is subject to anathema, to being excommunicated from the Church and from the entire assembly of the faithful." Patriarch Cyril’s 1756 Encyclical declares: "he who accepts the Gregorian menologion will be separated from God."

2. The unification Council that Metropolitan Cyprian is hoping for can unite only these "separated Orthodox." But heretics do not belong to the Church and can return into the Bosom of the Church of Christ only through being united to Her. Metropolitan Cyprian sets forth a false theory of uniting those of unlike mind, at the same time making the very convening of said Council dependent upon this unnatural union.

In this fashion, Metropolitan Cyprian’s doctrine, being the fundamental position of the Synod of Resistors, contradicts the Patristic traditions of the Church. He declares that he is not in communion with heretical ecumenist churches. Meanwhile, however, he and his Synod fail to sever themselves from these churches spiritually, considering themselves to be the "healthy" part of the one Church at the same time as the heretical, ecumenist and new-calendarist churches are the "ailing" part. Thus, Metropolitan Cyprian’s Synod, despite the absence of communion in the mysteries, finds itself, de facto, in a total "healthy-ailing" union with heretical world "Orthodoxy." This "Orthodox" crypto-ecumenism, so to speak, even as open ecumenism, falls under the 1983 anathema against the heresy of ecumenism, which was proclaimed by the ROCOR Synod of Bishops under presidency of the third First Hierarch of the Church Abroad, Metropolitan Philaret. (This anathema was subsequently confirmed by the ROCOR Sobor of Bishops in 1998):

"and to those who have communion with these heretics, or who aid and abet them, or who defend their new heresy of ecumenism, supposing that to be brotherly love and the uniting of separated Christians: Anathema!"

Thus, by appending our signatures hereunto, we ratify the 2nd Point of the Declaration of the Synod of Bishops of our Church, No. 7/01/M, on 26 October/8 November, 2001, wherein is announced:

"(In accordance with the decree of the 1974 ROCOR Sobor Of Bishops) The termination of the 1994 ROCOR Sobor’s rashly-established eucharistic communion with the Synod of the Resistors under the Presidency of Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Fili on account of his unorthodox teaching concerning the Church (regarding ailing and healthy members of the Church in the realm of "the correct understanding of the faith") and the recognition of the Mysteries of the new-calendarists as being valid" (see Met. Cyprian "Ecclesiological Thesis," pp. 2 and 5).

• Metropolitan Vitaly
  (signature)
• Archbishop Varnava (in agreement with the resolution)
  (signature)
• Bishop Sergii
  (signature)
• Bishop Vladimir
  (signature)
• Bishop Varfolomei (in agreement with the resolution)
  (signature)

Protopresbyter Victor Melehov,
Archpriest Sergii Petrov,
Archpriest Joseph Sunderland,
Archpriest Spyridon Schneider,
Priest Anatolii Trepachko,
Priest Andrew Kencis,
Priest Nikita Orlov,
Hieromonk Damian (Hansen),
Priest Mikhail Marcinowski,
Priest Yevgenii Santalov,
Abbess Eugenia (agrees with the Resolution),
Deacon Mark Smith

Holy Transfiguration skete,
Mansonville, Canada
Not to me he hasn't...