jgress wrote: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.
Not according to the SiR's documentation: http://www.synodinresistance.org/Admini ... ddress.pdf
That's from June of 2007.
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/
While those articles are of interest in furthering a polemical point, there are no details and no citations actually expressing what you are saying: that the ROCOR-A condemned the other Synods in May of 2008. That said, I will grant your point anyway (since in a measured fashion, they did, heavily influenced by certain parties within the same), because it's not relevant. The point is the ROCOR-A's position seems to have changed substantially on the matter-- it is far from simple contradiction. The writings of Metropolitan Agafangel and his brother Bishops over the past year bespeak a deep sorrow for the division in ROCOR and the FROC that they seem quite intent on correcting. As we speak, there is a ROCOR-A conference going on in Odessa with members of the ROAC. My own priest in Russia (when I was there) is in fact involved in those discussions, recognizing the depth of the division, but still working to see what common ground they can find.
In Russia, they don't act so partisan, probably because the World Orthodox have so much more power against the True Orthodox that it is so much more important that they learn to work together, even at a grass-roots level, just for the sake of survival. It's something I work to promote here, but I do so with the full knowledge that many people will superficially subscribe to the idea of building unity with the underhanded design of building empires of sand, a system which I see no reason to perpetuate and which has lasted far too long in the West.
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.
I think that there is something else to this that I don't totally ascribe to. In the first place, one has to be in agreement in the competent authority of the Church (or in some cases the Bishop) in question to issue the anathema. There is a deep spiritual reality that of course puts aside the legal formality of the anathema. But many would argue that said legal formality is still required to make the spiritual effect concrete. Otherwise we end up issuing anathemas in a void.
That said, I am glad you are reluctant to call St Augustine a heretic, since he argued that in fact schismatics and heretics have grace at their outset, which acts to their destruction. And that is my point: one can believe a person is a heretic, outside the Church, and that grace can still (possibly) be there, to no good effect for the heretical body overall. If the question is solely whether the SiR believe in the presence of grace in World Orthodoxy, I would say they have no errors from a technical standpoint.
THAT SAID: Where I believe they are mistaken is in the idea that World Orthodoxy can heal itself and represent itself at a unifying council as a logical dogmatic conclusion. I see no reason to believe in such premises for a unifying council to occur, nor that, barring some strange course of circumstances, WO Bishops are received in by any method other than their repentance.
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.
I doubt this would surprise you but I do not agree with the above. If the unvarnished truth is the first premise, it sounds like what is really being said is that in fact a few, non-ignorant individuals know the "right" answer and the rest of the True Church doesn't. Unless nobody knows who those "right" individuals are except God, then we are dancing dangerously close to Gnosticism. The things we refer to in the Church as mysteries are such because of the presence of the God whose knowledge surpasses all our understanding. Ecclesiology on the other hand, like almost all dogmatic issues in the Church, is comparatively straightforward. My point in bringing up the question of grace in heresy is a tiny piece of the large field we call "ecclesiology" and so my issue was the fact that when we say things like "this calls Metropolitan or Bishop A's ecclesiology into question" it isn't intellectually honest.
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.
Well those are historical matters, not ecclesiological ones. The question "do heretics have grace" is an ecclesiological question. In the first case, there is uncertainty over "who is a heretic": if this was perfectly clear, it would mean that all the Florinite consecrations were invalid, because it could have been determined that the World Orthodox were heretics and the ROCOR was in communion with heresy. The second case does in fact bring up an ecclesiological question: does the Ecumenical Patriarch have the right to issue statements changing the practice of the entire Church on his own? Orthodox ecclesiological teachings on the nature of the Episcopate would teach otherwise; ergo, that's a no. Furthermore, the canon specifically censures Metropolitans who preach heresy, thus it would have only been incumbent on the Bishops of the Patriarchate to leave.
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've heard it argued (though I don't agree) that the canonical condemnation for ecumenism (the canon above) is enough to not issue more anathemas against ecumenists, but I've never heard that applied to "Cyprianism". A moment to review the canon, please... well, I would say that that says little about the theories of the SiR, whose condemnations of official Orthodox practice is often well known when it alters the common form of services. The problem again remains that from an official standpoint the World Orthodox have disrupted very little in the "great Churches". But again, I have never heard of SiR people receiving in World Orthodox and then simply blessing them to return to World Orthodoxy. It's possible, but it would seem a contradiction of the practice I've seen of them, and I've never heard it.
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.
Well, although it seems you would break communion with all three, I would hold that most of the ideas (if not all) of them are in fact theologumena and thus irrelevant, since the question is do these opinions destroy Orthodox faith and practice? And I would say, based on what I have seen, they do not. At times they can create an abnormal zeal (of a slightly different type than I have seen of some zealots of True Orthodoxy) and that zeal needs to be pastorally tempered. But are the SiR in fact preaching an alien faith or focusing on an often ignored aspect of ecclesiology that Metropolitan Chrysostom himself focused on in many of his writings? (I am NOT going to get into the discussions on "what was his position when he died"-- I believe that belittles the wealth of his writings.)
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.
I am far less forgiving to that soteriology because it is truly novelty in the guise of antiquity. None of the Fathers believe the misrepresentations of the renovationists, and I find it dangerous because the teaching of the renovationists changes the understanding of salvation itself-- something that can't be said for the SiR position. The oversimplification of that soteriology reduces the will to repent and takes people away from the Orthodox understanding of salvation piecemeal.
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.
I believe you mean that you think their ecclesiological position on grace in the mysteries of World Orthodoxy is false? Or do you mean their whole ecclesiology? I know it sounds like nit picking. It's not. My point is that too often among True Orthodox we speed down the path of a disagreement and turn it into a full blown battle against some shadow-heresy.
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.
The determination of the canonical rights and authority of a Bishop is not a dogmatic matter? If I may digress, in the end, what bothers me most about (and please don't take this personally) the claims of members of the TOC of Chrysostomos when discussing Metr Cyprian is this implicit assumption that they had the right to depose Metr Cyprian (who wasn't in their Synod to begin with) and "how dare the ROCOR claim he wasn't validly deposed". I agree with ROCOR on that! I think the deposition was false and looked like a ridiculous overstepping of boundaries because it was one. And I personally believe that's why people like Father Gregory of Colorado were encouraged, because the logic was "the enemy of the enemy is my friend", when in fact Gregory was just trying to get himself made a Bishop (which he successfully did, using the SiR as his favorite polemical targets along with the Matthewites).
I believe that if there wasn't always some jockeying for leadership among ambitious people half of the fights in the TOC-- all their jurisdictions-- wouldn't exist. My experience has taught me that. And so many of the "zealots" are either ambitious people with an agenda, or people who ended up caught in the web of people with an ambitious agenda.
I'm probably just going to be quiet from here on in. I apologize to all for any offense I caused.