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

[Anastasios]

You all are doing a very good job of showing us how and why ROCOR had departed from Orthodoxy long before 2001-2007. Very few of those who left it in the last decade or two are willing to admit that it might have been graceless even before they were ordained there, yet this is what you are all showing us; they had no clear ecclesiology because they had already made excuses for too long for their remaining in communion with world-orthodoxy, (Those who commune with the uncommunicable become themselves uncommunicable). Yes, some like Metropolitan Philaret tried to change it, but even he was unwilling to pay the price for his 'personal faith' by separating from his fellow hierarchs who were pro-MP/WO. This all creates a dilemma for continuing Rocorites and Florinites; since they all count their apostolic lineage from ROCOR, they assume and are bound to try to prove that ROCOR had the grace of God in its mysteries at least up until they left it. What I see are many people striving to have the same faith that the GOC of Abp. Matthew, and now Met. Kirykos and the Pan-Orthodox Synod with him, have always had, yet trying to do it within groups who have long held that there is grace in the State Church/world orthodoxy/MP and/or that they are only 'potentially in schism'.

Dear Fr Mark,

Your post provides a chance for me to clear up a few questions:

1) When did ROCOR leave the Church, then?
2) How could there still be a Church in the 16th century, when the hierarchy of the Church in Cyprus and the islands communed with Roman Catholics? I refer to the situation as described in Eustratios Argenti by Timothy Ware. Did those bishops lose grace instantly, and then all the other bishops lost grace for communing with them? I'm trying to understand when the Matthewite position has born out in history before the 20th century with this line of question.
3) How could the bishops in Romania that Met. Kyrikos entered communion with be Orthodox bishops, when they were ordained by Victor Leu, who concelebrated with the other Romanian bishops, whom your Synod does not believe have apostolic succession? Is it your contention that there could be an Orthodox bishop concelebrating with heretical bishops, but that because he has an Orthodox confession, that means he is ok? Wouldn't that mean that the Orthodox bishops in ROCOR who consecrated the GOC hierarchy (even if you discount Theophilus, which I wouldn't, Leonty was definitely Orthodox) were able to transmit apostolic succession and the true faith?

If any of my questions are unclear or based on false premises please let me know.

Thanks,

Fr Anastasios

[Suaidan]

Hey there, Evlogite!

Dear Dcn Joseph,

Could you clarify how Archimandrite Cyprian, who joined the Synod under Archbishop Auxentios in 1969, was deposed by the Synod under Archbishop Auxentios (as a priest) in 1979,

They deposed him as a priest within two months of his being made a Bishop? (He was made a Bishop in February of 1979) Interesting. When exactly did they do that?

was reinstated as part of the en-masse reconciliation of the 1979 factions under Archbishop Auxentios in 1984, and was re-deposed by the same Synod* (including all of the bishops of the Kallistite faction two which he had previously belonged, save for those who had died, and his co-consecrator Metropolitan Giovanni) in 1987 after continuing to remain aloof from the rest of the GOC bishops, was not subject to the jurisdiction of the TOC-Chrysostomos?

Not the same Synod in 1987, because the Synod had at that point split in two. And the first hierarch of the Kallistos faction was himself reposed by the time of the reunion (if I remember correctly, Metr Cyprian had argued at first that he was preserving the original part of the Kallistite faction). In any case, if he never considered himself deposed at the outset I imagine he felt vindicated, but probably

At what point did Archimandrite/Metropolitan Cyprian stop being subject to the Holy Synod of the GOC of Greece?

I would probably argue that he (a) was never consecrated a Bishop in the Auxentios Synod and (b) was never part of the Auxentios Synod as a Bishop so (c) he couldn't be deposed by the Synod of Archbishop Chrysostomos.

As I see it, the only other option would be to suggest that the Synod under Archbishop Chrysosotmos II is somehow not the same Synod, because the deposition of Archbishop Auxentios by 17 of the bishops of the GOC was somehow invalid, and it was canonical for Archbishop Auxentios to set up a counter-Synod. That would be quite a difficult position to justify, but if you want to start a thread on it, it might prove interesting discussion.

Well, I wouldn't want to start a thread on it, but I don't see how difficult this position would be to justify. The Makarians and the HOCNA both held variations on that very argument.

That there were serious canonical anomalies in the deposition of the first-hierarch were well known, even if they've long been forgotten. Secondly, the first hierarch was not alone in being deposed: FIVE Bishops were deposed at once, meaning it was 12-5 (12-7 if you count that the Archbishop of Athens gets three votes on Synod-- as a side note the five Bishops of the Autonomous Western Metropolia under the Synod all sided with Archbishop Auxentios. Unless these Bishops deposed themselves, the 17 is a difficult number to justify and I would like to see the documentation.) Moss even notes that Abp Auxentios' deposition is unique because it was a rare case that 12 Bishops in True Orthodoxy actually got together to depose a Bishop. The problem is that they didn't depose one Bishop. They deposed four Bishops and the Synod's Primate, as even Moss himself notes. The composition of the council took place without any notification of the first-hierarch (meaning it falls under the condemnation for sedition). It elected a Bishop who separated from the Archbishop and the rest of the Synod years before, to the Archbishopric of Athens (meaning it chose a candidate under condemnation for separation from the Synodical president-- to become the Synodical president!!) And that's not even touching the witnesses, the testimony, et cetera.

When ROAC deposed Lurye, Bp Andrei wisely said "it was canonically not perfect, but it was the best that we could do. The Synod is like a court". And that was a unified Synod acting against a priest. This was a deeply divided TOC of Greece. It would be a serious mistake to pretend they did everything with care. They didn't. Both sides were politicized and hostile towards each other. And canons were broken on both sides.

So who was right? In my opinion, the Synod was uncanonically divided, and both sides in their believed themselves to be right. From my safe distance I say it was something that needed resolution, and sadly, no apologies were issued to Abp Auxentios until after his death in 1994.

[Suaidan]

I was wondering when someone would come out with something on my Synod!

This is not an honest presentation. First, the resistance position was articulated in 1984. First off, Metropolitan Evloghios assisted in the consecration of Archbishop Chrysostomos in 1986. To my knowledge, that's it. And as far as I knew, the SiR already had two Bishops. They did not need us to begin with. Nor am I totally familiar with the circumstances that led to the decisive break in relations between the Western Synod (then headed in Lisbon, not Milan) and the SiR. But the claim that we "aided and abetted" Metropolitan Cyprian's "foray into schism" (from whom???) is unfounded. We've always helped those who have asked. We still do.

That makes me biased? A single assistance of our Bishops in 1986? Interesting.

If you review the archives of Orthodox Tradition, it appears that they considered or at least presented Met Evloghios as part of their Synod. If I can find the issue I will scan it, but they are hard to come by, and I only have some of them. Ultimately, that is really not relevant now though, I think we'd both agree. Mostly of historical curiosity.

I wonder what Archbishop Auxentios thought when those to whom he granted autonomy, his Western European bishops, decided to co-consecrate with a bishop who lived some 30 miles away from him in Fili, who I suppose according to what I assume is your theory was still somehow part of his Synod (since he was restored as part of the 1984 reunion and not deposed again after that, according to my knowledge)? I'm sure when he gave the Western bishops autonomy, he didn't expect them to come back in to Greece and help someone else consecrate. In fact, the Synod was still united with Auxentios as Archbishop and Chrysostomos II was not elected yet, so that means that in effect, when Met. Cyprian and Met. Evloghios consecrated Bishop Chrystomos of Etna together, both were still nominally in communion with the Archbishop? Does that make any sense?

No, I thought Cyprian declared himself separate in 1984, as I understood it. Further, the Westerners didn't assist with the consecration of Abp Chrysostomos of Etna until 1986 (Abp Chrysostom was elected head of the new Synod in January of '86), and Abp Auxentios was allegedly deposed in 1985. I don't get your drift because I think we are (I am?) confused about the dates in question you are referring to.

[Ekklisiastikos]

I do not believe it's a violation of the canons. [...] 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).

There are pretty enough well written articles in Greek, no blame to anyone for not being translated . So, don't be so sure about that.

Furthermore, the SiR clarifies that all the Old Calendarists together in effect constitute the local Church.

This is not correct. They teach that the old calendarists, aka the non-innovationists (the "akainotomito pleroma") and the New Calendarists (the ailing members) both constitute the local Orthodox Church of Greece. Only one word on this by st. Isidoros of Pilousion, who gives a definiton of "what is the Church" : "Church is the congregation of those who hold the true faith and have an excellent life" (Το άθροισμα των αγίων, το εξ' ορθής πίστεως και πολιτείας αρίστης συγκεκροτημένον, καλείται Εκκλησία) (MPG 78, 685 A)
Since they have such a "heretical understanding of the boundaries of the Church", YES their "position is a "dogmatic innovation and YES they are "potentional heretics".

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. )

This is not correct too. We dare you to find in the writings of Metr. Chrysostomos of Florina the terms "sick members", "uncondemned heretics", "ailing church", "not a schism but a simple devision ", "not heretics but false institutions" etc..
Have in mind these major points :
a) Conserning the writings and the thinking of Metr. Chrysostomos: The new calendarists of his times have "nothing in common" with those of our days. (the lifting of the anathemas, the concelebrations, communion with monophysites etc) This was in 1950's and now we are in 2010's.
b) The new calendarist bishops and former brothers of Metr. Chrysostomos (along with Chrysostomos Papadopoulos) kept deceiving him by promising for a Panorthodox Synod to examine the matter of the calendar, and that is what Metr. Chrysostmos have been waiting until his death. Albeit, this didn't avert him from characterizing the new calendarists as schismatics and their mysteries void of grase. The 1950 encyclical was his last official written document and he didnt changed his mind until his repose. Our Church stays firm to this up to day. This makes the encyclical of 1974 useless and superfluous. So the claim of Cyprianos that he was opposite to this encyclical is only excuses since our Church (not individual bishops) hasn't changed its beliefs through the years (1935, 1950, 1969..!, 1974, 1979, 1984) The then priestmonk Cyprianos knew very well from the very beginning where he entered and what the beliefs our Synod. According to him he entered into a Church (he writes in 1972) and he departed from a ecclesiastical synodal institution (he wrote in 1986). No comments.
c) The distinction among the heretics to condemned and uncondemned is unacceptable by the holy fathers (nowhere and never found in their writings). There is nothing new under the sun when it comes to ecumensim and new calendarists. The all same things again and again for the fathers and the Church. We the Genuine Orthodox consider Ecumensim an already condemned heresy! When its individual and partial teachings are already condemned by local and ecumenical counsils then isn't the whole ("olon") teaching (named by us as Ecumenism-Syncretism) already condemned ??? Which sunod condemned "Catholicism"... and "papacy" ? But the synod of grate Photios and other local synods in fact did condemned Catholicism by condemning its teachings (filiokve, primacy etc) !
The aforementioned terms ( "sick members", "uncondemned heretics", "ailing church", "false institutions" etc) first appeared in the works of a theologian named Aristotelis Delibasis. Cyprianos wanted a theological foundation for his schism and Delibasis' teaching fitted perfect for his "seating on the fence" situation . And he accepted it formally and publicly only after his schism. So, the "hide behind obscure wording" must be charged to SiR.
The non-greeks miss the undeniable truth which was, is and will be that Cyprianos' desire for being consecrated a bishop leaded his actions and beliefs.

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 truth is that cyprianites didn't want a real and formal dialogue from the very begging but friendly talks ! We will publish an interview of Bp. Photios to Ekklisiastikos where he states that when our synod asked for a formal procedure of the talks they steped back asking only for friendly talks. Later when they asked union despite the differences ( the so called "appeal for a magnanimous waiver".....) knowing that something like that wouldn't be accepted they forced Archbishop Chrysostomos to announce the formal end of the dialogue. And only afterwards they wrote in their announcement: " why, one might wonder, has it not advanced to a formal dialogue, so as to bring the ministry of reconciliation to its fulfillment?" No comments again..!

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.)

Our synod is not famous of "misrepresentations" of any kind ! They are keen on misrepresenting the fathers systematically (especially St. Theodoros of Stoudion), something already proven by others and soon by Ekklisiastikos. The truth is they asked from our synod not to publish anything of their exchanges. And then, voila! they published "all" the documents (according to them)..! no comments again

There are still a lot of others things to mention. Many thanks to all of you for this truly edifying thread (something rare among TOC conversations) Special thanks to jgress and Mark Templet !

[Suaidan]

There are pretty enough well written articles in Greek, no blame to anyone for not being translated . So, don't be so sure about that.

Well, that's fine if we could link to them. If we could access them. If we could have a citation. We live in an age where computers translate texts and almost every Synod has clergy members who read multiple languages.

There is nothing that we can't access, so if you could pass on some of the articles that would be great. As well, I'd really like to see the deposition of Metr Cyprian.

Ekklesiastikos, you have access to more Synodal documents than others. I will answer the other points in a minute, and I apologize for what I was told (I don't believe the TOC-Chrysostomos was trying to mislead anyone with the union documents. That's what I was told by someone in the SiR; those were not my words.) So I will ask you:

Is the official position of the TOC under Archbishop Chrysostomos that the Synod in Resistance are heretics-- or not?

[Ekklisiastikos]

if you could pass on some of the articles that would be great.

It's a matter of policy! If the synod agrees (and gives us the documents not only for reading) we proceed on publishing.

Is the official position of the TOC under Archbishop Chrysostomos that the Synod in Resistance are heretics-- or not?

So far officially "not" ! and we wonder why Maybe they are waiting for a formal dialogue

[Mark Templet]

Hello Father Anastasios!

1) When did ROCOR leave the Church, then?

May, 2007. And ROAC (and others) was trying to correct them all the way until the end. That is when they joined themselves to ecumenism, sergianism, and placed themselves in communion with the New Calendarists.

2) How could there still be a Church in the 16th century, when the hierarchy of the Church in Cyprus and the islands communed with Roman Catholics? I refer to the situation as described in Eustratios Argenti by Timothy Ware. Did those bishops lose grace instantly, and then all the other bishops lost grace for communing with them? I'm trying to understand when the Matthewite position has born out in history before the 20th century with this line of question.

All I could say is that those clergy who did commune with Roman Catholics should have been brought up on spiritual charges for violating Apostolic Canon XLV and LXV. Obviously, those who remained in communion with them who were unaware of their actions would not be held responsible while they where in their ignorance.

3) How could the bishops in Romania that Met. Kyrikos entered communion with be Orthodox bishops, when they were ordained by Victor Leu, who concelebrated with the other Romanian bishops, whom your Synod does not believe have apostolic succession? Is it your contention that there could be an Orthodox bishop concelebrating with heretical bishops, but that because he has an Orthodox confession, that means he is ok? Wouldn't that mean that the Orthodox bishops in ROCOR who consecrated the GOC hierarchy (even if you discount Theophilus, which I wouldn't, Leonty was definitely Orthodox) were able to transmit apostolic succession and the true faith?

Not being fully familiar with that situation I am unqualified to comment.