Old Calendar Ecumenism?

[Cyprian]

Kyprianism is indeed old-calendar ecumenism. I will say it again: One cannot subscribe to both the anathema proclaimed by the ROCA synod in 1983 and also to the unorthodox ecclesiology espoused by the Cyprianites. They are diametrically opposed! All that is required to recognize this is to juxtapose the 1983 ROCA anathema with the points outlined in Cyprian's 1984 "ecclesiological position paper".

ROCA 1983 Anathema Against Ecumenism:

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

This is precisely what Cyprian teaches. He teaches that the new-calendarist ecumenists and the old-calendarist "resisters" are divided and walled-off from one another, on account of different doctrines and ways of life--yet according to his error, both remain in the Church. The synod under the presidency of Met. Philaret declares these ecumenists (including Cyprian) to be anathema, or cut-off.

More than a decade later, the subsequent ROCA synod revealed their double-mindedness when they on the one hand claimed: "The Synod of Metropolitan Cyprian adheres wholly to the exact same ecclesiological and dogmatic principles as our Russian Church Outside of Russia," and then on the other hand made a pretense of upholding the Anathema of 1983. After 1994 the synod spoke with a forked tongue, trying to confess two officially stated ecclesiologies which are diametrically opposed. Those who claim ROCOR did not fall until May of 2007 are incorrect. The ROCOR synod fell away from the truth back in 1994, when they officially accepted the heretical Cyprianite ecclesiology as their own. Bp. Gregory Grabbe understood this, and was said to have exclaimed that they had "fallen under their own anathema."

Many in ROCOR did not flee until several years later, and simply do not want to admit that they remained in communion with a synod that was officially espousing an unorthodox ecclesiology, so they attempt to use some subsequent act several years later as justification for their departure. The Agafangelites did not leave until May 2007, so it is no surprise that they went straight into the arms of the Cyprianites. After all, if Agafangel truly had proper discernment, and recognized Cyprianism to be heretical, he would have had reason to leave many years earlier. So the Agafangelites cannot be taken seriously. They are old-calendar ecumenists, just like the Cyprianites.

It's obvious that Cyprian formulated his 1984 position deliberately, in direct opposition to the orthodox ecclesiological position outlined in the ROCA Anathema promulgated the previous year. According to the Anathema of 1983, Cyprian's unorthodox teaching is an "attack on the Church of Christ".

...who do not distinguish the priesthood and mysteries of the Church from those of the heretics, but say that the baptism and eucharist of heretics is effectual for salvation;

Isn't this precisely what Cyprian maintains? He fails to distinguish the priesthood and mysteries of the Church from those of the heretics. He claims that the new-calendarist ecumenists maintain a valid priesthood and mysteries, in spite of their "pan-heresy," until such time as they are formally sentenced and expelled.

Cyprian cites the 15th Canon of the twice-held council under St. Photios the Great as justification for his walling off from the new-calendarist ecumenists.

So it is impossible for Cyprian to deny that the new-calendarists are heretics, for the only justification that the 15th canon cites for severing communion from one's president is HERESY condemned by councils or the fathers, preached openly with bared-head in the Church. So Cyprian must acknowledge that they are heretics, or otherwise abandon his justification of his walling off based upon this canon.

The language of the canon couldn't be any clearer. Those who have severed communion from these "so-called bishops" prior to synodal clarification, are deemed worthy of due honor, "For not bishops, but false bishops and false teachers have they condemned."

"so-called bishops"
false (pseudo) bishops
false (pseudo) teachers

This is completely in accordance with sacred Scripture, which says: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them." (Rom 16.17)

Cyprian does this. He marks out those schismatic new-calendarists who caused "divisions" with the calendar change, who also cause offences contrary to the Orthodox doctrine handed down to us, when they engage in what Cyprian calls, "the heresy of our age," the "pan-heresy of ecumenism". Then he avoids them, just as the Apostle Paul instructs.

But then he contravenes the teaching of the very next verse, which reads: "For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple." (Rom 16.18)

What could be any clearer? They serve NOT our Lord Jesus Christ. They are pseudo-bishops, pseudo-teachers, and mere "so-called bishops," just as the canon explains.

Cyprian teaches that they are still bishops, still members of the Church, and they still dispense salvific mysteries. That's not what the Scriptures, the councils, canons, or the judgments of the fathers teach.

Seventh Œcumenical Synod:

“John, the Right Reverend Legate of the Apostolic Throne of the East, said: ‘Heresy separates every man from the Church.’ The Holy Synod declared: ‘This is abundantly clear.’

"They who are of the Church, are of the truth; and they who are not of the truth, are not of the Church of Christ." --St. Gregory Palamas

Are the ecumenists of the truth? Of course not. If they were of the truth, then there would be no reason or justification for separating from them. They are not of the truth, and therefore, as St. Gregory says, they are not of the Church of Christ. They are of the synagogue of Antichrist, the World Council of Churches.

Cyprianism is indeed heretical, there is no question of that. They should be shunned, along with those groups which maintain communion with them, and not be labeled as a true orthodox.

[Cyprian]

The fact is the WO have broken away from the unanimity of the Fathers and the holy hierarchs who have come before them, this much is not in dispute among us. What we do NEED to do is unify our stance on this. True Orthodox Ecumenism is not only good but compulsory if we are to follow the instructions of the Holy Fathers. We absolutely need to meet together, all of us, Matthewites to HOCNA, Greek to Russian, and get ourselves squared away on a unified position.

The HOCNA officially espouses heretical views. No true Orthodox should unite with the HOCNA until they agree to abandon their heresies. HOCNA is not a "true Orthodox" synod.

[jgress]

I see it was pointless to try to separate the debate over Cyprianism from the debate over TO dialog in general.

Cyprian, I think you have a point. Bp Gregory Grabbe as you note famously believed that ROCA had fallen under its own anathema when it united with the Cyprianites.

I think the interpretation of Cyprianism as anything but a heresy can only work if we suppose that it is simply an argument over when heresy becomes "officially" adopted. The Cyprianites argue that it is only "official" when the heresy is condemned by a Unifying Council. They refrain from concelebrating with new calendarists and active participants in the WCC, because they recognize that ecumenism is a heresy and they mustn't have communion with heretics. In that case, the idea that they do have grace is indeed just an "opinion" as Dcn Joseph believes, since they would not be arguing that heretics don't have the grace of sacraments, but that there is some kind of distinction between "official" and "unofficial" heretics, "condemned" and "uncondemned", and that in this way one . The idea is something like this: "We know ecumenism is heretical, so to be sure we are not condemning ourselves, we refrain from concelebrating with ecumenists; but we don't believe we can say for sure the ecumenists themselves are heretics and outside the Church until a lawful, i.e. Unifying, council has anathematized them." Of course I don't believe in the validity of this argument, but I'm saying that if one is charitable, one can interpret the Cyprianite position thus.

However, to the extent the Cyprianites justify their position with innovative ecclesiological concepts like "sick" and "healthy" members of the Church, i.e. a Church in which there can exist dogmatic differences, then it becomes heresy. The fact that the TOC under Abp Chrysostomos has not come out and called them heretics themselves, or TOC members like Vladimir Moss (until recently, and even now not unreservedly), I think is largely a matter of diplomacy. Because there is just enough room for doubt that the Cyprianites are formal heretics, as I explain above, we are giving them the benefit of this doubt as long as there seems a possibility of them repenting and join the fold of the TOC. Far from throwing the label heretic at them, we are studiously avoiding the "h" word, which is becoming harder and harder to do as the SiR adopts ever more absurd justifications for their ecclesiological position (including casting doubts on the authority of the ROCA 1983 anathema and even the sixteenth century anathemas against the Papal calendar, both typical arguments of the conservative New Calendarists, but relatively new among the Cyprianites).

Lest you begin to accuse us of being complicit in the Cyprianite heresy by this studied silence, you can find older examples of where the Fathers were as cautious and charitable as possible about approaching adherents of a newly arisen heresy, in order to draw back as many as possible to the Truth before the heresy becomes utterly intransigent. Thus, St Basil the Great, in order to draw away the Macedonian Pneumatomachists from their heresy, did not insist that they call the Holy Spirit "God" before admitting them to communion, but only that they confess that the Holy Spirit was "not created". Of course, the two mean the same, but in case some of the Macedonians were merely sticklers over language (since speaking of the Spirit as God was strictly speaking not found in Scripture), it was sufficient to say that the Spirit was uncreated in order to convince St Basil that they were Orthodox.

[Suaidan]

I see it was pointless to try to separate the debate over Cyprianism from the debate over TO dialog in general.

Cyprian, I think you have a point. Bp Gregory Grabbe as you note famously believed that ROCA had fallen under its own anathema when it united with the Cyprianites.

I think the interpretation of Cyprianism as anything but a heresy can only work if we suppose that it is simply an argument over when heresy becomes "officially" adopted. The Cyprianites argue that it is only "official" when the heresy is condemned by a Unifying Council. They refrain from concelebrating with new calendarists and active participants in the WCC, because they recognize that ecumenism is a heresy and they mustn't have communion with heretics. In that case, the idea that they do have grace is indeed just an "opinion" as Dcn Joseph believes, since they would not be arguing that heretics don't have the grace of sacraments, but that there is some kind of distinction between "official" and "unofficial" heretics, "condemned" and "uncondemned", and that in this way one . The idea is something like this: "We know ecumenism is heretical, so to be sure we are not condemning ourselves, we refrain from concelebrating with ecumenists; but we don't believe we can say for sure the ecumenists themselves are heretics and outside the Church until a lawful, i.e. Unifying, council has anathematized them." Of course I don't believe in the validity of this argument, but I'm saying that if one is charitable, one can interpret the Cyprianite position thus.

However, to the extent the Cyprianites justify their position with innovative ecclesiological concepts like "sick" and "healthy" members of the Church, i.e. a Church in which there can exist dogmatic differences, then it becomes heresy. The fact that the TOC under Abp Chrysostomos has not come out and called them heretics themselves, or TOC members like Vladimir Moss (until recently, and even now not unreservedly), I think is largely a matter of diplomacy....

Since the terms "sick" and "healthy" were clarified in a mutual dialogue to mean "uncondemned heretics" versus "Orthodox Christians", this is not relevant. My argument is not a theoretical one but one based on the words of both parties.

Lest you begin to accuse us of being complicit in the Cyprianite heresy by this studied silence, you can find older examples of where the Fathers were as cautious and charitable as possible about approaching adherents of a newly arisen heresy....

This is most interesting. So it's not officially a condemned heresy, but it's still a heresy, so important to distance themselves from him. So, to condemn the Cyprianites without the strength of an official condemnation, you sound like you are applying their argument towards the World Orthodox to them.

[jgress]

As you can see from the SiR's own wording of their "renunciation" of the terms "sick" and "healthy", they in no way admitted their error, but rather continued to affirm that their teaching was Orthodox:

6.8. It is proposed that we “retract the expression ‘ailing members of the Church’ in the case of heretics.”
12
• Although we believe that this ecclesiological phrase, which appears in official texts of our Synod in Resistance, with reference to as yet uncondemned heretics, has been misunderstood, we could in the future, for the sake of peace, refrain from using it.

The whole point is that "uncondemned heretics" is not an Orthodox concept. You're either Orthodox or a heretic. The very notion of "uncondemned heretic" implies that a heretic can still be a member of the Church. But this is not true: as soon as a heretic consciously adopts his heresy, he is expelled from the Church by God. Only later, after he preaches his heresy publicly, can the Church discern that he has been expelled and so formally anathematize him. What is sometimes uncertain is when God also deprives a heretical priest or bishop of the grace of the Holy Spirit, by which he can consecrate the Holy Gifts, administer the sacrament of confession, and perform other mysteries of the Church. The Cyprianites have affirmed that in fact we do know for certain when this occurs: after anathematization by a unifying council. Moreover, they have backed up this unhistorical theory of councils with an innovative ecclesiology which holds that one can remain in the Church and yet hold heretical beliefs.

I take your point about the implications of our cautious attitude to the Cyprianites. I'm just saying if you accuse us of being guilty of the Cyprianite heresy because we have so far refrained from calling it a heresy out right, you could just as well accuse St Basil of being a Pneumatomachist because for a certain period he refrained from calling the Holy Spirit God and requiring his communicants to do so as well.

[Suaidan]

As you can see from the SiR's own wording of their "renunciation" of the terms "sick" and "healthy", they in no way admitted their error, but rather continued to affirm that their teaching was Orthodox:

6.8. It is proposed that we “retract the expression ‘ailing members of the Church’ in the case of heretics.”
12
• Although we believe that this ecclesiological phrase, which appears in official texts of our Synod in Resistance, with reference to as yet uncondemned heretics, has been misunderstood, we could in the future, for the sake of peace, refrain from using it.

The whole point is that "uncondemned heretics" is not an Orthodox concept. You're either Orthodox or a heretic. The very notion of "uncondemned heretic" implies that a heretic can still be a member of the Church. But this is not true: as soon as a heretic consciously adopts his heresy, he is expelled from the Church by God. Only later, after he preaches his heresy publicly, can the Church discern that he has been expelled and so formally anathematize him.

Unless we hold to "ecclesia suplet", as Fr Steven kindly corrected me, you are therefore saying even innocent Orthodox parties who commune from the hand of a secret uncondemned heretic receive no grace? Just trying to understand.

[Suaidan]

Many in ROCOR did not flee until several years later, and simply do not want to admit that they remained in communion with a synod that was officially espousing an unorthodox ecclesiology, so they attempt to use some subsequent act several years later as justification for their departure. The Agafangelites did not leave until May 2007, so it is no surprise that they went straight into the arms of the Cyprianites. After all, if Agafangel truly had proper discernment, and recognized Cyprianism to be heretical, he would have had reason to leave many years earlier. So the Agafangelites cannot be taken seriously. They are old-calendar ecumenists, just like the Cyprianites.

Ugh! I despise this kind of arrogance. "If Agafangel truly had proper discernment"? Give me a break. The man arguably pastors the largest Russian TOC body outside the Russian state but some anonymous guy who is busy complaining about Harry Potter books on the E-cafe knows better (doesn't say what church he's part of) and we are supposed to trust your discernment?

We don't even know who you are.