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

[Suaidan]

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.

On such a small list, with such a specific niche (True Orthodox Christians), I have no reason to trust your motives. That I spent considerable time explaining the wrong of your anonymity on another post, over an hour ago:

http://www.euphrosynoscafe.com/forum/vi ... =28#p49592

We have no idea who you are, and you have skipped one post dealing with your identity to answer another where you can brush it off in a sentence.

No, it is not only my business. It's all of our business. If you are going to presume to speak as a True Orthodox Christian, you owe it to us to tell us to which jurisdiction do you belong.

I will be more than glad to answer every point, as I have until the self-willed nature of your writing reared its head again, when you can admit to what Church you belong (and don't try "the Orthodox Church", since that can also mean world Orthodoxy, in your post you apparently accept New Calendarist depositions so maybe my guess about your being an infiltrator is true?), so that we may know you are part of the true Church. Everything else I had to say on the matter I wrote in the post above.

I have lived my Orthodox life answering for my words, my jurisdiction, and my mistakes when I have made them. Only the dastardly (your words) would hide behind a mask for such a long period.

[jgress]

Cyprian, the problem I have with saying ROCOR fell into schism and heresy, and, if I follow you correctly, lost grace, already in 1994 is that, whether or not Cyprianism is in fact a heresy, you cannot find any True Orthodox body at the time that came to that conclusion about the 1994 union (later on "Archbishop" Gregory of Denver came to this conclusion, but I don't think he has much authority here). Bp Gregory Grabbe indeed came to the conclusion at the time that ROCOR fell under the 1983 anathema because of the union with Met Cyprian, but I don't think even he believed ROCOR lost grace then, though he left the ROCOR Synod then and died in the FROC.

Let me try to illustrate this problem with another example. So, ecumenism was anathematized in 1983. At that point for certain all the churches in the WCC, all those churches that had officially adopted the ecumenist heresy in one way or other, had lost grace. That doesn't mean ecumenism wasn't a heresy before 1983; of course it was. But I don't think one is justified in saying that the ecumenist churches (I'm not speaking only of the new calendar churches at this point) automatically fell from grace, say, as soon as they joined the WCC. You might be able to argue that those churches that joined the WCC fell under whatever anathemas had already been pronounced by the Church against the various heresies represented at the WCC, and I think you can with even more certainty say that the EP fell under the anti-Papal anathemas of 1054 when she "lifted" them in 1965, but even then, I don't think you can say for sure they lost grace, until ecumenism itself was explicitly condemned by ROCA. Now, I don't want this to turn into a debate over when the EP lost grace precisely, but I want to illustrate the idea that there can be more than one step from preaching heresy to losing grace.

Perhaps an even more appropriate comparison is what happened in 1924 in Greece itself. I think the Matthewite position is that grace was lost in that year, because the State Church did fall under the anathemas of 1583 etc then. Now you don't need to call a new council to tell you the Papal calendar is anathema, so the True Orthodox did not need to wait to separate from the innovating bishops. But, I think it did take the explicit anathematization of the new calendarist church in 1935 to say conclusively that the State Church was now in schism and devoid of grace. That seems to be the main difference between Matthewite and Florinite ecclesiology, at least judging by practice: Matthewites (at least of the Kirykite variety) seem to hold that grace is lost instantly upon preaching a heresy, or falling under a previously issued anathema. You could say that they believe that one separates from a heretic precisely because that heretic has lost grace. The "mainstream" Florinite position seems rather to be that one separates from a heretic because he is, well, a heretic, and that only later, when a synod of truly Orthodox bishops can be convened, is the anathema against the heretics officially pronounced, and loss of grace officially declared.

So, on the one hand I agree that the Cyprianite position on grace among the new calendarists and ecumenists, which is in itself merely a wrong but in my mind permissible opinion, is to a certain extent justified by them on heretical grounds, i.e. the teaching that the Church can accommodate dogmatic differences within herself. On the other hand, I don't think it is up to you or any individual to pronounce anathemas and loss of grace, although I certainly grant you the right to call it a heresy, provided you can prove that it is one. Now you quote the ROAC which recently declared them anathema. To the extent the ROAC is a canonical synod that decision has authority, but it only proves that the SiR lost grace in 2008. Since I am not sure of the status of ROAC, I am still waiting for my own synod to pronounce the anathema to say for certain they have been cut off. So my position is the SiR still has grace. And certainly I think the ROCOR had grace after the 1994 union, wrong though it was, and continued to have grace until 2007, when she, the ROCOR(L) I mean, joined herself to an already schismatic and graceless jurisdiction, the MP.

[Mark Templet]

Greetings, Dear Cyrpian,

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

I agree with your summation of the case against ROCOR, and I of course and not speaking in an official capacity. What makes this whole thing complicated is that SiR itself broke off communion with ROCOR prior to their joining the MP. So, during that brief period of time when they were not in communion with SiR and not in the MP yet, what was their status? To my knowledge our ROAC synod has never made an official pronouncement as to when the ROCOR lost grace. I know that we accepted clergy in rank, and did not baptize people who came into ROAC having had their sacraments performed prior to May 2007. So, at best it makes for a fuzzy situation.

I actually tend to agree with you that they entered into heretical territory in 1994 with SiR as a prelude to joining the MP and WO, but I have never seen or heard that stated out-right like that by ROAC. I was going off of our actions prior to the ROCOR-MP union. In the 2003 official letter from ROAC to ROCOR it is clear that our Synod didn't consider the ROCOR to be in heresy until they were joining in prayer with ALEXI II.
http://www.roacusa.org/28.html

The Anitchrist designs all of these things to be purposefully hard to determine; allowing the weak to be lead astray more easily. The only thing that gives me solace is that ROAC has a crystal clear confession of Orthodoxy and that is what lead me to them and keeps me going.

[mmcxristidis]

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.

On such a small list, with such a specific niche (True Orthodox Christians), I have no reason to trust your motives. That I spent considerable time explaining the wrong of your anonymity on another post, over an hour ago:

http://www.euphrosynoscafe.com/forum/vi ... =28#p49592

We have no idea who you are, and you have skipped one post dealing with your identity to answer another where you can brush it off in a sentence.

No, it is not only my business. It's all of our business. If you are going to presume to speak as a True Orthodox Christian, you owe it to us to tell us to which jurisdiction do you belong.

I will be more than glad to answer every point, as I have until the self-willed nature of your writing reared its head again, when you can admit to what Church you belong (and don't try "the Orthodox Church", since that can also mean world Orthodoxy, in your post you apparently accept New Calendarist depositions so maybe my guess about your being an infiltrator is true?), so that we may know you are part of the true Church. Everything else I had to say on the matter I wrote in the post above.

I have lived my Orthodox life answering for my words, my jurisdiction, and my mistakes when I have made them. Only the dastardly (your words) would hide behind a mask for such a long period.

Save your breath Fr. Joseph, this Cyprian character won't answer your questions about his true identity no matter how many times he's asked. I believe it has already been determined in the past ( by his own admission) that he is un-baptized or is even a catechumen with any jurisdiction. The man is well read and articulate but can't be taken seriously if he refuses to make his identity known. He's just a un-baptized Orthodox theologian wannabee. I wonder how long he plans on keeping up this charade. I believe there is a canon prohibiting the unbaptized from teaching others the faith, is there not ?

[Cyprian]

Cyprian, the problem I have with saying ROCOR fell into schism and heresy, and, if I follow you correctly, lost grace, already in 1994 is that, whether or not Cyprianism is in fact a heresy...

Greetings Jonathan,

A profitable and blessed fast to you and yours.

Cyprianism is indeed a heresy. If one has trouble recognizing this, it stands that he will have a hard time believing ROCOR fell away from the truth in 1994. It is far more important for us to place our focus on identifying Cyprianism for the heresy that it is, rather than cluttering our mind with difficult questions such as the exact moment that grace departs.

...you cannot find any True Orthodox body at the time that came to that conclusion about the 1994 union (later on "Archbishop" Gregory of Denver came to this conclusion, but I don't think he has much authority here).

Regarding your point that no True Orthodox body came to any immediate conclusion about the 1994 union: Whom did you have in mind?

The so-called "Matthewites" have never recognized Cyprian's heretical ecclesiology, nor did they recognize the Auxentiite synod that Kyprianos was a member of. It also seems that the GOC synod (Matthewites) ceased recognizing the ROCOR after they severed communion with them in 1976. So it does not seem likely that the Matthewites would feel compelled to make any formal statement about the union since they did not recognize any of the parties or ecclesiologies involved.

As for the so-called "Kiousites"--they had already deposed Kyprianos and condemned his false teaching many years back. It's quite obvious to everyone that the Kiousite synod has not recognized Cyprianos or his false teaching from the beginning.

That covers the two main factions claiming to represent the GOC of Greece. So how about the Russians?

Once again: whom did you have in mind? There was no ROCOR-V back in 1994, since Met. Vitaly had not yet freed himself from the treacherous elements in ROCOR. The FROC was in its infancy, and after not receiving justice at the hands of the ROCA, Abp. Lazarus and Bp. Valentine resorted to forming a THCA and consecrating new bishops on their own. It should also be noted that the FROC did register their objections regarding the ROCA's acceptance of Kyprianism during this chaotic time. Naturally, these objections of Kyprianism are what led Bp. Gregory Grabbe to feel comfortable about joining the FROC. Obviously Bp. Gregory would not have joined the FROC if he believed them to be supporters of this heresy.

Bp Gregory Grabbe indeed came to the conclusion at the time that ROCOR fell under the 1983 anathema because of the union with Met Cyprian, but I don't think even he believed ROCOR lost grace then, though he left the ROCOR Synod then and died in the FROC.

You don't say? You allege that Bp. Gregory Grabbe declared the ROCA had fallen under her own anathema, and yet still believed that she retained grace? Sounds exactly like the Kyprianism the bishop was condemning, does it not? Are you really trying to convince us that Bp. Gregory believed someone could be under anathema and have grace at the same time? Are you alleging that Bp. Gregory Grabbe was a Kyprianite?

Let me try to illustrate this problem with another example. So, ecumenism was anathematized in 1983. At that point for certain all the churches in the WCC, all those churches that had officially adopted the ecumenist heresy in one way or other, had lost grace. That doesn't mean ecumenism wasn't a heresy before 1983; of course it was. But I don't think one is justified in saying that the ecumenist churches (I'm not speaking only of the new calendar churches at this point) automatically fell from grace, say, as soon as they joined the WCC. You might be able to argue that those churches that joined the WCC fell under whatever anathemas had already been pronounced by the Church against the various heresies represented at the WCC, and I think you can with even more certainty say that the EP fell under the anti-Papal anathemas of 1054 when she "lifted" them in 1965, but even then, I don't think you can say for sure they lost grace, until ecumenism itself was explicitly condemned by ROCA. Now, I don't want this to turn into a debate over when the EP lost grace precisely, but I want to illustrate the idea that there can be more than one step from preaching heresy to losing grace.

Allow me to quote from the ROAC Sobor of 2008. (The emphases are mine):

Following the holy and God-bearing Fathers of the Church and the whole of
Church Tradition, we believe and confess that heretics condemn themselves by
their own stubborn adherence to their heresy, and incur the condemnation of the
holy Councils and of the Church’s anathema, and immediately deprive themselves
of the saving grace of the Holy Spirit, tearing themselves off from the body of the
Church of God.

If you would like to demonstrate from the teachings of the holy Fathers how the ROAC is mistaken, by all means...

So, on the one hand I agree that the Cyprianite position on grace among the new calendarists and ecumenists, which is in itself merely a wrong but in my mind permissible opinion,

This is your primary error.

On the other hand, I don't think it is up to you or any individual to pronounce anathemas and loss of grace...

No worries! I was not the first, nor am I the last, to proclaim Kyprianism to be anathema and the Synod of Kyprianos devoid of grace---I have merely added my small and insignificant voice to the din. The ROCA synod of 1983 officially pronounced the heretical concept of Kyprianism to be anathema (preemptively) when I was but an adolescent. I do not claim to be innovative in my condemnation of the Cyprianites.

...although I certainly grant you the right to call it a heresy, provided you can prove that it is one.

What evidence are you prepared to accept? Until you tell us which evidence you are prepared to accept, and which you will reject, how can I satisfy your demand for proof?

Now you quote the ROAC which recently declared them anathema. To the extent the ROAC is a canonical synod that decision has authority, but it only proves that the SiR lost grace in 2008.

Well, then! What excuse remains for you to deny that Kyprianism is a condemned heresy? You are still claiming that Cyprianism is a "permissible opinion," even though his errant teaching has been condemned by ROCA in 1983, by ROCOR-V in 2001, and by both the ROAC and RTOC in 2008, not to mention it has always been rejected and condemned since day one by the TOC's of Greece. It seems that as time goes on you are the one who is individually putting forth your own personal opinion, which is that this teaching is "permissible".

Since I am not sure of the status of ROAC, I am still waiting for my own synod to pronounce the anathema to say for certain they have been cut off.

Your sister synod in Greece cut-off Cyprianos and condemned his false ecclesiology when you were but five years old. What more do you require?

So my position is the SiR still has grace.

You're entitled to your own personal opinion, if you so choose to think wrongly. But what is far more interesting to me is, what saith your bishop? That is what I would really like to know. Does your bishop proclaim the Synod in Resistance to be grace-bearing? He already seems to insinuate as much when it comes to HOCNA. So let's hear his opinion of the Cyprianites. Does your bishop approve of the Kyprianite unabashed promotion of the satanic Harry Potter series? Does your bishop teach you that the theory of Evolution is just a theologoumena? Does your bishop consider it acceptable to depict the Beginningless Father as the Ancient of days in icons, or not? This is what I would like to know, and it seems that people are afraid to answer.

And certainly I think the ROCOR had grace after the 1994 union, wrong though it was, and continued to have grace until 2007, when she, the ROCOR(L) I mean, joined herself to an already schismatic and graceless jurisdiction, the MP.

The Kyprianites were schismatic and graceless in 1994. So the ROCOR joined herself to an already schismatic and graceless body, the Cyprianites, back in 1994. Do you see wherein the problem lies in your thinking? You are cluttering your mind with rationalistic arguments over the precise moment grace departs, and missing the forest for the trees, which is that the Cyprianites are graceless heretics. If his teaching was heretical in 2008, his teaching was heretical in 1994, and if it was heretical in 1994, it was heretical in 1984, and 1904, and 404, etc. It always was heretical and always will remain heretical, since it is contradictory to the revealed teachings of the Church.

[mmcxristidis]

Cyprian wrote : "You're entitled to your own personal opinion, if you so choose to think wrongly. But what is far more interesting to me is, what saith your bishop? That is what I would really like to know. Does your bishop proclaim the Synod in Resistance to be grace-bearing?

Mr."Cyprian", That's a good question, but what would be far more interesting to me, and I'm sure a number of others, is what saith YOUR bishop ? Are YOU under any bishop yet. Have YOU been baptized yet ? If so, please tell us all about it, if not then why don't you just quit acting like you are a member of any Orthodox synod, shut up, and come back when you can answer these questions.
As always, I'm sure you will ignore answering any questions about who you really are.

[joasia]

What it comes down to is reviewing the words and actions of the hierarchs, of the old calendar Greeks and non-MP. All of them have made mistakes. They have ALL broken one Canon or another at one point in time due to circumstance or mis-information or personal weakness. It's human error. Let's not cover up the evidence for the sake of our consciences because it's under our bishop. I've made that mistake before. The history of the Orthodox Church has plenty of examples. The question is...where is it heading?

We, as the flock, look to them to keep the faith. And we have to be honest within ourselves and accept the fact that there is a problem. There's no progress when we fling accusations at each other. I would hope that the clergy here, would be making an active effort in resolving any questions about their jurisdictions.

But, when heresies are openly preached by the hierarchs and/or clergy, then there is a big problem. In my heart, I don't need to wait for a Council to condemn them because I know what Christ teaches. They are automatically condemned because of their heretical teachings.

So, I would consider what heresies are preached more so than what Canons are broken, unless the breaking of the Canon is directly due to incorporating an heresy. If the Canon is broken because of the above issues I mentioned, then I would consider it a poor decision on the part of the hierarch due to lack of discernment. It's not the first time an hierarch has made an erroneous decision, and some of them were saints or became so after years of living in repentence because of their errors.

I wait for the day when the last Tsar will appear, who will be fervent in faith and strong in will. He will clean out the House of God and replace them with true faithful bishops and clergy.