What is Wrong With Cyprianism?

[尼古拉前执事]

BTW: If having your hierarchs ebrace a heresy is enough to revoke grace from all of their sacraments given to their faithful, and they are all to be considered immediately outside of the church, what was the point of any of the ecumenical councils? Why would the church fathers expell those already expelled? And why on earth would they have a council (synod) with those outside of the church? It sounds to me that they were all "rabid ecumenists"!

The councils were just to confirm and clarify that these heretics were outside the Church. The heretics separated themselves from the Church upon teaching their heresy as the Church fathers say. The canons also say that we are obligated to remove ourselves from bishops that teach heresy or else we become heretics ourselves!

You may wish to read the thread called, What's wrong with Cyprianism? at http://www.euphrosynoscafe.com/forum/vi ... php?t=1078 which deals with this exact topic.

[Noah]

That still does not address why such councils would INCLUDE the excommunicated in their synods. If removing yourself from and refusing to have contact with heretical bishops who were by their heresy automatically removed from the church was necessary, and to do otherwise would deprive you of grace and remove yourself from the church, then you can count such saints as St. Cyril of Alexandria as not Orthodox, as he had the audacity to let an already excommunicated graceless heretic be a member of one of the Ecumenical Councils, and even addressed him with all the honors fitting of an Orthodox heirarch!

Am I to assume then that were the ROAC were around then, they would not be in communion with such saints?

Noah

[Justin Kissel]

Noah,

Don't forget the Met. Cyprian himself described a pulling away on the part of some bishops in ROCOR. It's not just crazy (or more likely, sane) ROAC people who have issues with Met. Cyprian. We've discussed the issue quite a bit on the forum. I know going back through old threads can be a drag, so if you don't want to do that I'm sure we can summarize what issues we think there are. Could you try to go back first and read through the older threads using the Search feature though? This might also help in that, instead of going into page upon page of the same info, you can maybe spot something that needs clarification or correction and we can take the discussion from there.

[Noah]

Mr. Kissel,

It doesnt matter. This obsessive legalism about church canons and Tradition that leads one to believe whole churches can be automatically excommunicated without a synod actualizing such a condemnation is not of the Orthodox mindset, but the Roman Catholic one. I stand by my previous point that under current conditions, saints like Cyril of Alexandria would be considered heretics. And someone like Blessed Augustine who actually DID say some questionable things, well I would imagine that he would most definately be considered not Orthodox as well. How many other doctrinal disagreements are there in the Fathers? And there are wrong parties in most of them, so do we re-examine the Holy Fathers and expell the ones who goofed from time to time? Metropolitan Cyprian is not at the heart of the issue, the legalism and the absolute exactitude most of the Traditionalists in their judgements of everyone else is. Metropolitan Cyprian is just a clear example of this (in my opinion). This foolishness has forced the legalists into a mindset wherein various Traditionalist faithful will one day get mailings from another synod telling them that because of an error on the part of one of their heirarchs, they have all been expelled from the church and need to repent This mindset has no room at all for ecumenical synods to define Orthodoxy and heresy in a given situation, because it is all automatic. So who needs the concept and Tradition of the Ecumenical Council anyway?! It's just a formality to expell the already expelled This is not the Tradition of our Fathers.

Noah

[尼古拉前执事]

We do not need a council for the things already spelled out in previous councils. The councils were for new heresy. Monophysitism, etc, has already been condemned.

[fserafim]

Christ is Risen!

<<This obsessive legalism about church canons and Tradition that leads one to believe whole churches can be automatically excommunicated without a synod actualizing such a condemnation is not of the Orthodox mindset, but the Roman Catholic one>>

One of the problems facing us today is legalism. This equally applies to confession where people are concerned about results, achievement etc.. God's justice is not human justice - Thanks be to God! I wonder at the mercy of God in this situation. Yet He continues to work miracles through sinners and accepts our sins and in return gives us His Most precious Body and Blood. No I do not recognize Monophytism or Ecumenism, but I am slow or maybe reluctant to condemn othesr based on the letter of the law - what Elder Mikhail of Varlaam called Bukhvar.

Fr Serafim

[Noah]

We do not need a council for the things already spelled out in previous councils. The councils were for new heresy. Monophysitism, etc, has already been condemned.

Nicholas,

You mischaracterize the situation. It seems to me that you are implying that there are councils who have condemned certain things as heresy that now ROCOR, the Matthewites, World Orthodoxy, ROCiE, HOCNA, GOC, etc., etc., etc., are GUILTY of, excepting only the Valentinian synod. That ecumenism is a heresy is not questioned by traditionalists, that it has already been condemned in councils as it is practised now IS questioned. Ecumenism is not a term I have ever run across in the canons.

I am NOT defending it, as I do believe what it is does violate canons, but to assert that it has already itself been condemned is rubbish. Are you saying that the Church has not condemned heresies that have grown from anti-cononical thinking and acting? Are you asserting that heresies in the past did not violate any of the canons before it? The implication is that you are asserting the above, which is absurd. ALL heresies are so because they violate the Tradition of the Church, that doesnt mean that the councils were not needed, or strictly a formality. It is the violation that necessitates the council, NOT otherwise. Ecumenism needs to be formally condemned in an Ecumenical Council. And Ecumenical is not defined here as Met. Valentine's synod!