Fr. Steven Allen: ROCOR, Met. Agathangel & SiR

[Mark Templet]

We, who have found refuge under Vladyka Agafangel, need to cling dearly to our so-called "cyprianism" with all our might. It appears from this discussion that it is the only thing protecting us from the super-correct disease.

Joanna,
I would also like to challenge you to DEFINE "super-correct disease." Someone is either right or wrong in this situation, how is anyone "super-correct?"

[jgress]

I agree with what you say, Dcn Joseph, for the most part. As Moss points out, if Cyprianism had been a heresy from the outset, then technically ROCOR would have gone into schism and heresy in 1994, not 2007, which would be problematic for any Russian TO group that traced its origins to post-1994 ROCOR, i.e. all except ROAC. What I am getting from his recent critiques of the Cyprianite position, in which he has begun to accuse them of actual heresy, is that a position which could be seen as merely misguided and constituting at most a violation of the canons against recognition of heretical sacraments, is becoming, with the increasingly tortuous arguments used to defend it, an actual deviation from Orthodox ecclesiological dogma, i.e. a heresy.

Allow me to clarify. If you say only that the new calendarists have grace, while recognizing that the new calendar is anathema and that ecumenism is a heresy, you are indeed only guilty of an opinion about the presence of sacramental in a heretical body. This is certainly on the face of it a violation of the 46th Apostolic Canon, but you aren't saying that the new calendar is not anathema or that ecumenism is not a heresy.

But if you start arguing that the new calendarists have grace because your understanding of what constitutes the boundaries of the Church is different from what the Fathers teach, then you are starting to preach heresy. I admit it may be hard to see when the one turns into the other. When Met Cyprian started talking about "sick" and "healthy" members of the Church, many in the TOC could see that this was an incorrect understanding of the relationship of the ecumenist heretics to the Orthodox, but since the SiR also acknowledged that ecumenism was a heresy and that they did not concelebrate with ecumenists it was hard to see the SiR themselves as actual heretics.

But in their recent correspondence with the TOC, when they started to suggest that a union of TO groups could be formed despite ecclesiological differences, it becomes clearer that their understanding of the new calendarists as grace-bearing but "sick" members of the Church, and their understanding of acceptable terms of union were related by an essentially heretical understanding of the Church as a body that can accommodate dogmatic differences within herself.

This is not to say that in history there haven't been differences of opinion within the Church, but we must also admit that whenever dogmatic differences did appear, the Fathers at once strove to extirpate the innovation, and when that didn't work, they separated from the innovators.

[Mark Templet]

:mrgreen: Awesome post jgress

[Suaidan]

I agree with what you say, Dcn Joseph, for the most part. As Moss points out, if Cyprianism had been a heresy from the outset, then technically ROCOR would have gone into schism and heresy in 1994, not 2007, which would be problematic for any Russian TO group that traced its origins to post-1994 ROCOR, i.e. all except ROAC. What I am getting from his recent critiques of the Cyprianite position, in which he has begun to accuse them of actual heresy, is that a position which could be seen as merely misguided and constituting at most a violation of the canons against recognition of heretical sacraments, is becoming, with the increasingly tortuous arguments used to defend it, an actual deviation from Orthodox ecclesiological dogma, i.e. a heresy.

I do not believe it's a violation of the canons. That said, I must point out that Moss is anything but consistent when it comes to recent TOC history, because he rephrases things based on his current understanding of individuals in whatever church he is under. Remember Moss' open letter where he argued that not joining RTOC would cause the TOC-Chrysostomos to be schismatic? The same man argued that he wished RTOC had been started by anyone else but Lazarus and Benjamin. The same person who now speaks well of the ROCiE groups first argued they were mistreating Metropolitan Vitaly. First he argued ROAC didn't have a strong enough position against the SiR, then later.... the list goes on and on. Moss writes excellent historical works but his works on recent history are invariably biased to whatever side he chooses.

Allow me to clarify. If you say only that the new calendarists have grace, while recognizing that the new calendar is anathema and that ecumenism is a heresy, you are indeed only guilty of an opinion about the presence of sacramental in a heretical body. This is certainly on the face of it a violation of the 46th Apostolic Canon, but you aren't saying that the new calendar is not anathema or that ecumenism is not a heresy.

I skipped over this previously because I didn't think anyone would take it seriously. The canon is referring to accepting into communion those who have been baptized by heretics. If you are therefore stating that the New Calendarists are heretics under the canon, ALL of the TOC's with the exception of the Matthewites have fallen under the anathema at one point or another. This has nothing to do with an opinion on grace but who, practically, can be received into the Church.

But if you start arguing that the new calendarists have grace because your understanding of what constitutes the boundaries of the Church is different from what the Fathers teach, then you are starting to preach heresy. I admit it may be hard to see when the one turns into the other. When Met Cyprian started talking about "sick" and "healthy" members of the Church, many in the TOC could see that this was an incorrect understanding of the relationship of the ecumenist heretics to the Orthodox, but since the SiR also acknowledged that ecumenism was a heresy and that they did not concelebrate with ecumenists it was hard to see the SiR themselves as actual heretics.

Are you therefore saying they are "potential" heretics? They seem to attempt to systematize the teaching of Metropolitan Chrysosotom of Florina, which he based on St Nikodemos' commentaries on the canons.

But in their recent correspondence with the TOC, when they started to suggest that a union of TO groups could be formed despite ecclesiological differences, it becomes clearer that their understanding of the new calendarists as grace-bearing but "sick" members of the Church, and their understanding of acceptable terms of union were related by an essentially heretical understanding of the Church as a body that can accommodate dogmatic differences within herself.

Now here is where I was very grateful that the SiR put up the documents of both sides (as Archbishop Chrysostomos told me later, in advance of any attempts at misrepresentation on the part of the TOC-Chrysostomos.) They can be found here.

http://www.synodinresistance.org/pdfs/2 ... alogue.pdf

If we look at the response to the ten-point request from the TOC-Chrysostomos we find that in fact my argument is correct, that they are basing virtually all those ecclesiological positions on Metr Chrysostom of Florina, and the very term you are referring to-- "'sick members' of the Church"-- is in fact a reference to uncondemned heretics. This is an important point, because often people who attack the positions of the SiR like to say that they believe the Church is composed of Orthodox and heretics (pt 6.8. )

Furthermore, the SiR clarifies that all the Old Calendarists together in effect constitute the local Church. Indeed, claiming "their understanding of acceptable terms of union were related by an essentially heretical understanding of the Church as a body that can accommodate dogmatic differences within herself" is begging the question. Since it still must be demonstrated that the SiR is heretical (and it has not been as far as I can see), to claim that their heresy leads to a heterodox understanding of the boundaries of the Church which must be cleared up which is why there can be no further discussion obviates the need for a dialogue to begin with.

To put it this way: the TOCC claims that the SiR is heretical. Years later, the SiR decides to meet in council with them to determine what is the heresy, if any, in question, so that they can effect a reunion. So the TOCC claims no further dialogue can be made because of their faulty understanding of union because of their heresy. The SiR walks away shaking their heads.

The point is that unless the real heresy in question is determined (and it hasn't been) you can't make the assumptive claim that they are heretics anyway so we can't discuss the matter with them. You must be able to definitively prove they are heretics first. Indeed, I've heard folks in the TOCC, the TOCM, and others bandy around the term "heretics and schismatics" as though the SiR were like some subordinate part of them that broke off and became heretics. It's just not the reality of the situation.

It sounds nice, but it's not true.

Besides the distastefully arrogant tone that belies one side of the argument in the linked discussions, we can see that this isn't really what happened here. In many cases, the TOCC demonstrated either real or studied ignorance of the SiR positions (such as on communing New Calendarists, something which, as we know, the TOCC has no business imposing on the SiR anyway) which made the dialogue look kind of bizarre, as if the TOCC really believed that the SiR was the caricature of them that they had presented over the years.

This is not to say that in history there haven't been differences of opinion within the Church, but we must also admit that whenever dogmatic differences did appear, the Fathers at once strove to extirpate the innovation, and when that didn't work, they separated from the innovators.

I still do not see the SiR position as a "dogmatic innovation" (which no one has yet successfully proven; to the opposite, some who call it a heresy often usually hide behind obscure wording for fear that they may themselves be misrepresenting the truth) but a determination on how to handle a disciplinary matter within the Church (how the Church deals with uncondemned heretics). When the Russian Church introduced the triple method of reception and when the Greek Church began to use the Latin sign of the cross, it would be very difficult to say that these were "dogmatic innovations" because they weren't. If you are referring to the New Calendarists as the innovators, I am sure an SiR person would point out that their Synod took many proactive and traditional steps to keep such innovators out of their midst, they've done a better job than some other TOC's.

[Mark Templet]

All that being the case:
Suppose I said that prior to coming to Earth, Christ was first incarnated on Europa, one of Jupiter's moons.

Am I a heretic? Where is the Ecumenical Council to condemn me? How could anyone ever be condemned of heresy again?
I mean, folks, at some point we have to say that the WO have walked off the reservation, we can't wait for a new Emperor to come and call a Council where we could condemn them.

[Cyprian]

However, from what you say, Pravo, you don't appear to be a genuine Cyprianite. On the other hand, Fr Steven's other point is that even before 1994, when ROCOR had no official ecclesiology, their lack of decision was itself dangerous.

Why wouldn't the Anathema Against Ecumenism of 1983 be accepted as the official position of ROCOR on ecclesiology? That is, until the synod under the presidency of Met. Vitaly officially reversed the position in 1994.

The process in fact began in 1986 when Met Vitaly proclaimed in his Nativity epistle that the 1983 anathema only had local validity, and that it was up to the ecumenist jurisdictions to accept or reject the anathema.

Courtesy of a post on another forum by Fr. Alexander Lebedeff:

April 1984 -- Archbishop Vitaly of Montreal and Canada publishes his
article "The 1983 Sobor of Bishops" in Orthodox Observer , No. 58
(April 1984) and also as "The Council of Bishops of 1983" in
Pravoslavnaia Rus' (Orthodox Russia), No. 10, May 15/28, 1984. In this
widely-published article, he explains:

"As a local Church [the ROCOR] has the right to summon its regular
Councils and to enforce its resolutions, which are thereupon fully
obligatory for all of its children, scattered throughout the world.
Time will tell whether or not the other local Churches will adopt our
resolution on ecumenism as the acts of the Ten Local Councils were, in
their time, entered into the Book of the Canons of the Holy Apostles,
the Sacred Ecumenical Councils, and the Holy Fathers of the Universal
Church...By proclaiming this anathema, we have protected our flock
from this apocalyptic temptation and, at the same time, have
reluctantly put before the conscience of all the local Churches a
serious issue, which sooner or later they must resolve in one way or
the other. The future spiritual fate of the universal Orthodox Church
depends on the resolution of this problem. The anathema we have
proclaimed is de jure ["by right"] a manifestation of a purely local
character of the Russian Church Abroad, but de facto ["effectively"]
it has immense significance for the history of the universal
Church..."

[Cyprian]

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.

The ROCOR did anathematize Cyprianism in 1983--not by name, but certainly in concept. The Cyprianites are simply old-calendar ecumenists, and the Anathema of 1983 condemns the false teachings of the ecumenists. Whether you consider the ROCOR synod in 1983 under the presidency of Met. Philaret to constitute "the True Church" or not, is unknown to me, but Cyprianism was anathematized by the ROCOR in 1983. Sadly, Cyprianism was later embraced by the ROCOR in the summer of 1994.

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?"

Is not a theologoumenon a permissible theological opinion? The Cyprianite ecclesiology is incompatible with Orthodoxy, hence it is not permissible, and cannot be considered a theologoumenon.

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.

All that is needed is a couple of warnings. If they have been warned, and they do not amend their heretical opinions, it is incumbent upon the Orthodox to flee their communion.

And it is not clear to me that Cyprianism is even really heretical.

What is it that you require to be convinced? One cannot even begin to persuade you until you decide what evidence you will accept and what evidence you will ignore.

However, even if we exercise some condescension and say the Cyprianites are not true heretics,

Either they are or they are not. The only condescension that could possibly be exercised is how loudly and openly the fact is proclaimed. But make no mistake, their clergy have indeed embraced heresy, in more ways than one.

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.

Bishops ought not promote the indoctrination of children into the world of magic and the occult, either. That is what the Harry Potter series is aimed at doing: initiating children into the world of magic, witchcraft, sorcery, the occult, and secret societies such as Freemasonry.