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

[Cyprian]

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.

Greetings Fr. Mark.

Is this the official position of your synod, or merely your own opinion? The ROAC Sobor of bishops that gathered in Jan 2008 condemned the novel teachings of Cyprian. The ROCOR synod officially accepted and promulgated this false ecclesiology at the start of the summer in 1994. Does your synod maintain that the entire ROCOR synod preached heresy with bared-head starting in 1994, yet remained in the Church until May of 2007? With all due respect, I believe you are mistaken. The ROCOR did not join themselves to ecumenism in May of 2007. The ROCOR joined herself to ecumenism in 1994. The Cyprianites are ecumenists, as even your own sobor declared in 2008. Here are a few excerpts from the ROAC sobor:

To our great disappointment, however, the Church Abroad has now embarked upon a ‘new course’ of rapprochement with ‘ecumenical Orthodoxy’ (the Serbian
Patriarchate), has strengthened the bonds of friendship with the ecumenist synod of Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Fili...

and...

Having heard the report of His Grace Bishop Andrew of Pavlovskoye, and having examined the unorthodox and crypto-ecumenistic teaching of Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos, the Sobor of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church…

furthermore the ROAC sobor also stated...

The teaching of the Greek Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos we recognize to be impious sophistry, which secretly introduces into the minds of the faithful the
pernicious heresy of ecumenism, and we condemn it. All those who share in this teaching of Cyprian’s are under the anathema that was pronounced in 1983 by the Sobor of Bishops of the ROCOR, and by the True Orthodox Churches of Greece, against the heresy of ecumenism.

Your Sobor stated that all those who share in the teaching of Cyprian are under anathema. Clearly the ROCOR shared the teaching of Cyprian subsequent to June 1994. So how is it the ROCOR was not under anathema in 1994, as Bp. Gregory Grabbe stated, but only in 2007?

Another quote from the ROAC sobor:

His Grace Vladyka Gregory (Grabbe) correctly pointed out that in accepting the teaching of Cyprian, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia had fallen under its own anathema against ecumenism of 1983.

So how is it that the ROCOR fell under their own anathema in 1994, but remained part of the Church until 2007?

Synod of Bishops
of the Russian Orthodox Church
Outside of Russia

EXTRACT FROM THE MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL OF BISHOPS OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH OUTSIDE OF RUSSIA

On 28 June/11 July 1994, the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia addressed the question of the possibility of entering into communion in prayer and the Eucharist with the group of Old Calendarist Greeks headed by Metropolitan Cyprian

Circumstances of the case: A petition from the synod of Metropolitan Cyprian on this matter was received by the Synod of Bishops in 1993, but was not acted upon. Soon after, a new request was received asking that the matter be reexamined. On 21 July/3 August 1993, the Synod of Bishops appointed a committee to study this question and present a report to the Synod of Bishops. In connection with this, the Council has heard the following:

1) The report of the committee, which consisted of their Graces, Archbishop Laurus and Bishops Daniel and Metrophanes, who studied the question of the existing divisions within the Greek Old Calendarist Church;
2) A short history of the Greek Old Calendarist Church from its beginnings to the present day.
3) During the deliberations, attention was also given to statements of those opposed to the union, in which questions were raised as to the canonicity of Metropolitan Cyprians group and their allegedly un-Orthodox teaching on grace. The remarks of private individuals were also heard concerning this question;
4) In addition, petitions from the Romanian Old Calendarists and the Bulgarian Bishop Photius, and from several private individuals, all urging the reception of the group of Metropolitan Cyprian into communion in prayer, were heard;
5) During the deliberation of all the questions outlined above, it was established that:
a) The Synod of Metropolitan Cyprian adheres wholly to the exact same ecclesiological and dogmatic principles as our Russian Church Outside of Russia. This is set forth in detail in their pamphlet, "An Exposition of the Doctrine Concerning the Church, for Orthodox Opposed to the Heresy of Ecumenism"
b) In 1986, the Synod of Archbishop Chrysostom II tried and deposed Metropolitan Cyprian in abstentia for allegedly holding to heretical teaching and for refusing to unite himself to their synod. But as the history of the Old Calendarist divisions shows, Metropolitan Cyprian had never entered the synod of Archbishop Chrysostom II, which was only formed in late 1985, but was a member of the synod of Metropolitan Callistus from 1979. Beginning in 1984, after the retirement of Metropolitan Callistus in 1983, Metropolitan Cyprian has headed the synod of the former. Metropolitan Cyprian was never a part of the synod of Archbishop Chrysostom and had never submitted to his authority, the latter therefore lack the competence to discipline him.

After deliberation and analysis of all aspects of these questions, the Council of Bishops holds that at the present time, when apostasy is spreading and many official representatives of Orthodoxy, such as the Patriarchate of Constantinople and other patriarchates, are succumbing to and embracing the position of the modernists and ecumenists, it is very important for the true Orthodox to unite, stand together and oppose the betrayers of the Orthodoxy of the holy fathers. In connection with this, the Council of Bishops has decided:

1) To establish communion in prayer and the Eucharist with the Greek Old Calendarist synod of Metropolitan Cyprian, as well as with His Grace, Bishop Photius of Triaditsa, who heads the Bulgarian Old Calendarist diocese.
2) All parties refrain from interfering in each others’ internal ecclesiastical affairs. If any questions arise which require deliberation, it is essential to take counsel together.

RESOLVED: 1) To communicate the above cited decision to Metropolitan Cyprian and Bishop Photius.
2) To inform our clergy and flock of the Council’s decision through publication in church periodicals.
See, also, "Orthodox Life," Vol. XLIV, No. 4, pp. 49-50.

[Cyprian]

But before you can say that "he aided and abetted schism and heresy", first you must prove he (Metr Cyprian) was guilty of schism and heresy. What was the standing order that demonstrated either case? Who issued it?

How can one even attempt to prove to you that Cyprian is guilty of heresy until you tell us which evidence you are prepared to accept, and which you will reject? First tell me that which you are willing to accept as evidence, and I will see if I can supply it.

I have emailed with Abp Chrysostomos of Etna on and off in the last year, and have spoken to him at his monastery by phone. See, this is what I am talking about. I wouldn't refer to any Bishop of any TOC as "dastardly".

This is why I have not spent much time engaging you on this topic. No sense in beating the air. I don't consider the Cyprianites to be a TOC in any sense. I believe the Cyprianites are ecumenist heretics; mere actors masquerading as TOC bishops, "speaking perverse things" and disseminating "damnable heresies" and "doctrines of devils," in order to draw away disciples after themselves and make merchandise of them. It is manifest that there is no grace abiding in their synod, but rather an alien spirit.

I am sure the Archbishop has his character flaws but he is no more or less "dastardly" than any other Bishop I've spoken to. He's a bit more of a stickler than many others I've spoken to but I wouldn't describe him as "underhanded" or "treacherous" or "cowardly". He strikes me as a decent Bishop, quite intelligent, and a serious monk. Unless you have AT LEAST some evidence that's a needless swipe.

The evidence is plain for all who have eyes to see. The so-called "Abp. Chrysostomos of Etna" disseminates doctrines of devils, promoting magic, sorcery, witchcraft, and all other manner of the occult. He is not even fit to be called a Christian, let alone a bishop of the Church.

[Cyprian]

I am not sure completely about met. Evlogy together met. Kyprianos consecrated all of those bishops, but I am sure completely that Chrysostomos of Etna was not the only one, I remember to have seen a picture of the consecration of a African black man by Evlogy and Kyprianos.

Thank you, father. This is probably the "Niphon (Kigundu) of Uganda" mentioned in the article.

[Suaidan]

How can one even attempt to prove to you that Cyprian is guilty of heresy until you tell us which evidence you are prepared to accept, and which you will reject? First tell me that which you are willing to accept as evidence, and I will see if I can supply it.

We can start with a trial and deposition for heresy. After we have that we can check if the trial and deposition were done canonically. That's the proof any Orthodox Christian requires when we begin talking about people's theories. To see if I can make this clearer, I don't have to wait for a trial when I see the Ecumenical Patriarch concelebrating (in any limited sense) with the Pope of Rome. It's time to walk. By contrast, we are specifically talking about essays and writings. In actual practice, Metr Cyprian has acted like an Orthodox Bishop, taught his followers to flee World Orthodoxy, et cetera. So you must demonstrate, in such a case, that AMONG the TRUE BISHOPS, Metropolitan Cyprian has been formally deposed or at least tried for heresy.

This is why I have not spent much time engaging you on this topic. No sense in beating the air. I don't consider the Cyprianites to be a TOC in any sense. I believe the Cyprianites are ecumenist heretics; mere actors masquerading as TOC bishops, "speaking perverse things" and disseminating "damnable heresies" and "doctrines of devils," in order to draw away disciples after themselves and make merchandise of them. It is manifest that there is no grace abiding in their synod, but rather an alien spirit.

Well, then, there is no convincing you they aren't. I am perplexed that you claim it's "manifest" that they have no grace (an impressive claim, lacking a formal condemnation.)

Last I checked, you still haven't stated your jurisdiction, whereas Metr Cyprian has been open with his views. Rather dastardly of you, I think.

The evidence is plain for all who have eyes to see. The so-called "Abp. Chrysostomos of Etna" disseminates doctrines of devils, promoting magic, sorcery, witchcraft, and all other manner of the occult. He is not even fit to be called a Christian, let alone a bishop of the Church.

This is a HUGE exaggeration of his endorsement of the Harry Potter books, and sadly the number of TOC people he probably spoke for is disappointing. Less of a bother is the depth of the "spiritual content" of the books, rather than instead a sort of submission to the "spirit of the age", which I see among many TOC Bishops (and lower clergy), sadly. That said, I was under the impression the hailing of those ridiculous books was not Abp Chrysostomos, but Bp Akakios.

[Suaidan]

This is likely one of the sources that I read which left me with the impression that Met. Evloghios of Milan assisted with the consecration of multiple bishops, rather than just the one bishop, Chrysostomos of Etna.

I am not sure completely about met. Evlogy together met. Kyprianos consecrated all of those bishops, but I am sure completely that Chrysostomos of Etna was not the only one, I remember to have seen a picture of the consecration of a African black man by Evlogy and Kyprianos.

Blagoslovite:

It would be good to see that picture if you have it. I will research it. I was aware at one point the Milan Synod did have an African mission. Perhaps this was the source of their contention. I don't know.

[Priest Siluan]

Blagoslovite:

It would be good to see that picture if you have it. I will research it. I was aware at one point the Milan Synod did have an African mission. Perhaps this was the source of their contention. I don't know.

Dear Father Deacon Joseph:

Bog blagoslovite!

I have not that picture now, I tried to find it but I tried to find that picture but I have not still been able to, I will do my best. If I remember well, it is an old picture (eighties years?) where are metropolitans or bishops Evlogy (with black Klobuk) and Kyprianos with the newly consecrated bishop. I saw that picture many years ago on an old website of the Milan Synod.

[Cyprian]

We can start with a trial and deposition for heresy. After we have that we can check if the trial and deposition were done canonically.

First of all, it is simply not necessary for a trial and condemnation to take place in the name of every individual who presumes to preach heresy.

St. Philaret of New York: ‘The anathema pronounced by the Church is a cutting off from Her of him who has in reality already ceased being part of Her’ (Sermons, vol. 1, p. 115).

Secondly, Kyprianos and his novel teaching are condemned and anathematized by the 1983 Anathema issued by the ROCOR Sobor. This is not merely the private opinion of my anonymous self, but the opinion of Bp. Gregory Grabbe, chancellor of the ROCA for several decades.

More recently ROAC condemned Cyprian's teaching, and gave him over to anathema:

ROAC Sobor, 2008

The teaching of the Greek Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos we recognize to be impious sophistry, which secretly introduces into the minds of the faithful the
pernicious heresy of ecumenism, and we condemn it. All those who share in this teaching of Cyprian’s are under the anathema that was pronounced in 1983 by the Sobor of Bishops of the ROCOR, and by the True Orthodox Churches of Greece, against the heresy of ecumenism.

If all those who share in Cyprian's teaching are under anathema, it only stands that the bishops of ROAC consider the author of this heresy to fall under this self-same anathema.

That's the proof any Orthodox Christian requires when we begin talking about people's theories. To see if I can make this clearer, I don't have to wait for a trial when I see the Ecumenical Patriarch concelebrating (in any limited sense) with the Pope of Rome. It's time to walk. By contrast, we are specifically talking about essays and writings.

Likewise, I don't have to wait for any trial when I see Kyprianite bishops promoting the satanical Harry Potter books as Christian-oriented literature. It's time to flee, flee, flee, as from snake's poison.

In actual practice, Metr Cyprian has acted like an Orthodox Bishop,

Sneaking off under cover of darkness in the middle of the night, without the knowledge of his primate, to get secretly consecrated in a coup, joining a para-synagogue? This is how an Orthodox bishop should act? That is only the tip of the iceberg. Time fails us to recount all the other scandalous acts this disobedient monk has embarked upon.

...taught his followers to flee World Orthodoxy, et cetera.

At least in his early days, he brought more confusion upon his followers by communing new-calendarists. Teaching his followers to flee heretics is harmful, not helpful, when he goes on to tell them the people they are fleeing are orthodox and still lawful clergy in the Church. This is illogical and nonsensical.

So you must demonstrate, in such a case, that AMONG the TRUE BISHOPS, Metropolitan Cyprian has been formally deposed or at least tried for heresy.

How am I to know whom you will accept to be true bishops? You used to be in ROAC. Do you no longer consider them to be true bishops?

Well, then, there is no convincing you they aren't. I am perplexed that you claim it's "manifest" that they have no grace (an impressive claim, lacking a formal condemnation.)

Cyprian has been deposed several times, has he not? Didn't the new-calendarists depose him, and correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the GOC of Greece (which people call Matthewite) depose him, and didn't the synod headed by Auxentius also depose him, and perhaps the synod headed by Chrysostomos (Kioussis), and who knows who else? Perhaps the "Callistites" deposed him too. I really can't keep track of all the times he's been deposed, and neither do I know whom you will recognize as having the validity to depose him. It's all academic at this point, since Kyprianos placed himself under anathema when he first started promulgating his cacodox teaching.

Last I checked, you still haven't stated your jurisdiction, whereas Metr Cyprian has been open with his views. Rather dastardly of you, I think.

That's none of your business, and not relevant to the subject under consideration. You are only resorting to this ad hominem diversion because you have no leg to stand on in our discussion of the present subject.

This is a HUGE exaggeration of his endorsement of the Harry Potter books,

The Harry Potter series was written for the express purpose of drawing people (especially young naive children) into the world of magic, sorcery, witchcraft, wizardry, alchemy, astrology, witchcraft, kabbalah, freemasonry, theosophy, and all other manner of the occult, all of which has been condemned by the Church.

...That said, I was under the impression the hailing of those ridiculous books was not Abp Chrysostomos, but Bp Akakios.

The article was written by Auxentius of Photiki, however, Chrysostomos of Etna added his assent by publishing the article in his official CTOS periodical. Is not the Kyprianite reader John Granger, who wrote some damaging books defending Harry Potter, under him as well? A third Kyprianite bishop has referenced the article by Auxentius in a positive light, so there is no sense in the Kyprianites denying that they are promoters of Harry Potter. They know full well what they are doing, and are without excuse.