What is Wrong With Cyprianism?

Anastasios · Post by **Anastasios** » Mon 11 August 2003 10:23 pm

No, ROCOR is in communion with Met. Cyprian---it is the ROCiE people (ie the Mansoville schismatics) who are not.

anastasios

Justin Kissel · Post by **Justin Kissel** » Mon 18 August 2003 5:09 pm

I recently started reading the book The Blessed Surgeon, and the following is what Bishop (Saint?) Luke told to his flock regarding the "Living Church" (which he refers to as a "boar") just in case he was sent into exile:

I command you to fulfill my will firmly and steadily: stick to the path I have shown to you. If your temples are taken away from you and given to the wild board who has ascended on the Heavenly spot of our Catholic Church, resign yourselves; but do not be tempted by the appearance of the divine service and do not consider profanation of the divine service performed by the boar to be the divine service at all. Go to those temples where only worthy priests, who have not submitted to the board, are serving. If all the temples are occupied by the board, consider yourselves to be excommunivated from the temples by God and cast into the hunger of not hearing God's Word. Don't communicate with the boar and his servants and don't demean yourselves by altercations with them.

Do not oppose the authorities put over us by God for our sins; humbly obey them. By the power of the apostolic succession given to me by our Lord Jesus Christ, I command you to abide by my will. I threaten anyone who gives up and joins in prayer with the boar with God's anger and condemation. - Archdeacon Visiliy Marushchak, The Blessed Surgeon: The Life of Saint Luke, Archbishop of Simferopol, (Divine Ascent Press, 2001), pp. 47-48

And indeed, he was sent into exile, and the Churches in that area (Tashkent) remained empty after the Living Church took over. I don't bring this quote up because I think it's an exact model that we must follow, I just thought it was interesting.

尼古拉前执事 · Mon 18 August 2003 5:21 pm

I am not positive, but he is saying that the official churches may not truly be the True Church of Christ because the boar has taken over if even it appears to be the same?

Justin Kissel · Post by **Justin Kissel** » Mon 18 August 2003 5:59 pm

He was loyal to Patriarch Tikhon, but knew that the Living Church would try to move in if he was exiled. He was saying that if that happened (if he was exiled), and it was a Living Church bishop and clergy that moved in, that they were to refuse to attend their churches, and that if they couldn't find a priest loyal to Tikhon, that the people (then) under him were suppose to just stay at home and pray in mourning as that was better than attending a Living Church service.

Justin Kissel · Post by **Justin Kissel** » Mon 18 August 2003 7:35 pm

I've been reading more of this book tonight and it's very interesting (not unrelated somewhat in some of the "concerns" regarding ROCOR). E.g., Bishop Luke had to travel to Samarkand to be ordained bishop, where he was ordained by 2 exiled bishops; Bp. Tikhon was perfectly fine with this. Bishop Luke also ordained priests in all sorts of places that he got sent in exile. I doubt it was "canonically correct" to do this (I think you have to have the permission of the local bishop to ordain a priest in an area not your own), but this didn't matter. What mattered was the survival of the Church, not a strict following of canons.

Julianna · Post by **Julianna** » Tue 19 August 2003 8:42 am

Living Church=World Orthodoxy

Justin Kissel · Post by **Justin Kissel** » Tue 19 August 2003 8:29 pm

Tonight I read...

"There was some unpleasant moments in his church life: his former spiritual teacher, Mikhail Andreev, became deeply opposed to him over the following incident.

An exiled bishop had attached himself to the 'Living Church' and liturgized a few times in the Church of St. Sergius. The church was considered 'defiled' by Archpriest Mikhail Andreev, who had been in exile with Bishop Luke. So he insisted that Bishop Luke perform a service of purification for the church. The bishop did not consider this necessary. He regarded it as excessive, a false zeal and fanaticism which would only cause problems in the Church at such a critical period. Possessed by this immature zeal, confusing nonessential with essential--a zeal which has created so many problems for the Church in her long history--Fr. Michael proceeded to his own schism. He left his bishop and created 'his own' church. He served liturgies in his home with a small group of followers.

...Not only did Fr. Michael renounce Bishop Luke, but he also became his most vicious enemy. He started to write denunciations and complaints to the Patriarchal locum tenes, Met. Sergey. For two years he struggled for the dismissal of Bishop Luke from the episcopacy.

Obviously, it was difficult fo the bishop to endure the intrigues from a brother who had accompanied him in exile and persecutions. But Bishop Luke calmly faced the accusations of his former colleague. As one of his parishioners said, 'His Eminence always used to say that we should not judge anyone.' And referring to Fr. Michael, he told his parishioners after a Divine Liturgy: 'My brethren, today I did not pray for you, but for our brother. I want to emphasize: don't ever judge the clergy. It would be better for you to crticize the whole world, than one clergyman!'" - Archdeacon Vasiliy Marushchak, The Blessed Surgeon: The Life of Saint Luke, Archbishop of Simferopol, (Divine Ascent Press, 2001), pp. 75-76