Is the STOC embracing Cyprianism?

This forum is for polite discussions among the various True Orthodox Christians. Only confirmed members of TOC jurisdictions are permitted. However, TOC inquirers and catechumen may be admitted at the administrator's discretion. Private discussions should take place in DM's or via email. Formerly "Intra-TOC Private Discussions."


User avatar
Maria
Archon
Posts: 8428
Joined: Fri 11 June 2004 8:39 pm
Faith: True Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOC
Location: USA

Re: Is the STOC embracing Cyprianism?

Post by Maria »

d9popov wrote:
Maria wrote:

...
There are documents showing that St. Matthew received the three repenting bishop through
confession and absolution.

...
I have been in continuous contact with Father Stephen since he received me into the GOC
on February 28, 2015. It was Father Stephan who told me that Archimandrite Matthew received
the repenting three Greek Bishops through the Holy Mystery of Confession thus restoring them
to True Orthodoxy.

The overall problem is that there is a gap between what is claimed (a lot is claimed) and the documentation that is cited (not a lot of original documents are cited). Father Stephan's book does not seem to be based on a reading of the original Greek texts. I believe that he admits this. Everyone is willing to look at the evidence for such claims. Could someone please provide such evidence?

We follow Tradition, both oral and written. A lot of our faith is based on the oral instruction of Christ and the Apostles.

Regarding the life of St. Matthew, there is an excellent one that you may consider reading.

http://www.churchgoc.org/The%20Life%20o ... fessor.pdf

I have talked with several groups of True Orthodox who descend from St. Matthew's line of bishops. All have agreed that St. Matthew received the three repenting bishops with a correct confession of faith and absolution. Their first steps in joining the TOC and establishing the GOC as a Synod was to issue a correct confession of faith that was written and signed by them.

In fact, when my husband and I were received by Father Stephen Fraser in February of 2015, we were required to read and sign a correct confession of faith before we were received by holy chrismation. That is part of our heritage as True Orthodox. We also received a copy of this declaration and a certificate of Chrismation.

However, when we were received by Baptism into the Kallinikos Synod on December 4, 2011, we were not asked to sign a confession of faith, nor were we given a baptismal certificate. When we learned about the pending union between the Kallinikos Synod and the SiR in 2013, this bothered us, so we inquired into the Metropolia under Met. John LoBue of New Jersey. Once again, neither certificates of chrismation nor a declaration of faith were issued when we were received by chrismation by a priest of the Metropolia in February of 2014. Within five months, when certain irregularities were noted and when questions about Met. John LoBue's consecration could not be documented, then we called and asked Father Stephen for help in finding the True Orthodox Church. Father Stephen told us to take our time and to do careful research before making any more changes. Since we had already investigated HOCNA, HOTCA, and the Metropolia, we studied the RTOC, the STOC, the ROAC, and the ROCOR-A churches. It was at this time that I researched and created the thread on the True Orthodox Churches here at E Cafe. Father warned us about Monk Kirikos and the other groups of bishops who had schismed from the GOC originally founded by St. Matthew.

Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me a sinner.

d9popov
Member
Posts: 211
Joined: Fri 9 June 2017 8:29 pm

Re: Is the STOC embracing Cyprianism?

Post by d9popov »

d9popov wrote:

Andronik and the bishops with him issued a statement on the same website that they all reject Cyprianism. However, a priest under Sofrony praises Cyprian openly online. A further clarification would be welcome.

A further statement has been issued, http://rocana.org/page/home.en/691

One problem with the statement below is that the "union of 2014" did not really reject Cyprianism. I still hope that they will issue a better rejection of Cyprianism, especially intercommunion with ecumenists, as the the Cyprianites, Agafangelites, and Kallinikites practice it today.

Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. Dioceses of Syracuse-St. Nicholas and Ottawa-Canada

JOINT STATEMENT OF THE DELEGATIONS OF THE STOC AND THE ROCA

On the results of the discussion of 9-10 November 2018

Discussions were held in Paris, 9-10 November 2018, between delegations of representatives of the Russian True Orthodox Church (RTOC), (that part of the church which is no longer subordinate to the Synod of Archbishop Tikhon of Omsk and Siberia and is temporarily under the omophor of the Serbian True Orthodox Church) and the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCA) under the chairmanship of Archbishop Andronik (church groups that are no longer subordinate to the Synod of Metropolitan Agafangel). Bishop Akakije, the leader of the Serbian True Orthodox Church (STOC) was present as a mediator. The purpose of the negotiations was to examine the possibility of establishing Eucharistic communion between our Churches.

It should be noted that both of the parties in these discussions, among other reasons, have separated themselves from their hierarchy because of the latter's isolationist policies and consistent refusal to undertake any steps toward establishing the unity that is desired by all.

At the beginning of the meeting, the bishops related their biographies to each other. Then both delegations had the opportunity to ask questions of the opposite side. Members of the delegation of Abp. Andronik asked Bp. Akakije to explain the practice of re-baptizing those who join his jurisdiction from the Belgrade Patriarchate. Bp. Akakije related that when he was a hieromonk in the Greek GOC Synod of Archbishop Chrysostomos, in accordance with the practice of that synod, he was obliged to accept through re-baptism those who had not been baptized with three immersions. In the Belgrade Patriarchate very few baptize correctly through a triple immersion. Bp. Akakije in his jurisdiction currently adheres to a more reasonable pastoral approach when receiving converts from the official churches.

A question was also asked about the circumstances of the episcopal consecration of Bp. Akakije. Bp. Akakije accepted consecration from the Synod of the RTOC, without the blessing of the Greek GOC Synod, to which he belonged as a hieromonk. Bp. Akakije explained that he had to take this step, because the continued presence of the Serbian True Orthodox Church under the Greek omophor impeded the church's missionary activity in Serbia. The Greeks had for many years refused to consecrate a bishop for the Serbian Church. In addition, the Serbian Church has been an autocephalous church from the time of St. Sava and the Synod in Athens did not have the right to keep the Serbian diocese under its subordination.

All of the participants in the discussions recognize the canonicity and authenticity of the episcopal consecrations of the STOC and of the ROCA. The Synod of Met. Agafangel had earlier declared the RTOC, who consecrated Bp. Akakije, to not be a canonical church. At that time Abp. Andronik and Abp. Sofroniy belonged to the Synod of Met. Agafangel and had signed this decision. They both now recognize the fallacy of that decision, regret having affixed their signatures to it, and disavow the decision.

They also acknowledge the error of the 2007 refusal of the Provisional Supreme Ecclesiastical Authority (PSEA), under then Bp. Agafangel, to enter into talks with the RTOC Synod on the issue of unification and the future joint consecration of bishops for the ROCA. As we know, Bp. Agafangel refused the RTOC proposal to join their Synod and began to create his own jurisdiction, turning to the Synod in Resistance to perform consecrations. This deepened the divisions in the Russian Church and had as a consequence the adoption of the above-mentioned decision that the RTOC was "without grace."

Bishop Akakije recognizes the consecrations of Met. Agafangel's group as canonical. He had previously viewed these consecrations as not canonical, because he considered the source of these consecrations, the Synod in Resistance, to be a schismatic group that had been defrocked of episcopal rank by the Greek GOC Synod led by Archbishop Chrysostomos II. At this time, Bp. Akakije is of the view that the non-canonical position of Met. Agafangel's group has been corrected through the union of the Synod in Resistance with the Greek GOC in 2014.

The ROCA delegation asked about the canonical position of the group of priests in Omsk. After the death of Bp. Stefan (Sabelnik), the Omsk priests, with his blessing, began to commemorate Bp. Akakije. Bp. Akakije explained that he agreed to be commemorated by priests in Russia and in Ukraine, because Bp. Stefan had provided his blessing for this. Bp. Akakije does not wish to extend his jurisdiction onto the canonical territory of the Russian Church. He considers the current commemoration to be temporary while the canonical status of the Omsk group is resolved.

Clerics in Russia and Ukraine who commemorate Bp. Akakije are considered to be clerics (as they were previously) of the RTOC, who retain their previous unity with the ROCA. The commemoration of a STOC Bishop is temporary and does not imply the transfer of RTOC parishes and communities to the STOC. In view of these circumstances, the current state of affairs is permissible.

Both parties agree that our common canonical basis is Decree No. 362 issued by Patriarch Tikhon. Although the authors of Decree No. 362 intended a territorial principle to be the basis for organizing Church Districts, under our current circumstances and due to the loss of episcopal authority after the union of the majority of the ROCOR episcopate with the MP, Church Districts can be structured on the principle of personal trust in the bishop. Clergy and laity have the right to determine how they should be organized and to which bishop to turn to arrange their church life, and it does not matter on which territory this bishop carries out his ministry.

All of the participants agreed that church life should be based on conciliarity. It is dangerous when a small group of hierarchs decides all questions behind closed doors and imposes their decisions on the whole Church. This is the practice in the Synod of the RTOC and in the Synod of Met. Agafangel. The ROCA representatives shared their experience; in the Diaspora District meetings of the Council of Bishops are held with the participation of the District Council, which consists of representatives of the clergy and laity. Council decisions are then confirmed by the bishops.

The STOC representatives raised the issue of Bp. Iriney. The delegation of Abp. Andronik explained that they are in communion with Bp. Iriney and his clergy but that he does not belong to the Council of Bishops of the Diaspora District chaired by Abp. Andronik. In the same fashion, Abp. Sofroniy and Bp. Iriney do not share a common administrative structure.

Bp. Iriney's diocese includes parishes in Izhevsk, which were accepted by Met. Agafangel from the Moscow Patriarchia as "parishes of the Moscow Patriarchia under the omophor of the ROCA." This formulation confuses the faithful and prompts questions on their part. One of Abp. Andronik's clerics even left his jurisdiction because the Archbishop was in communion with the Izhevsk priests. The participants in the discussions agreed that positioning themselves as "parishes of the Moscow Patriarchia under the omophor of the ROCA" is unacceptable for us, since this de facto legitimizes the Moscow Patriarchia created by Stalin in 1943. We suggest that the Izhevsk priests abandon this name and its associated ecclesiology.

The question was raised about the relationship of Abp. Andronik's group with Bp. Dionisiy (Alferov). Neither Abp. Andronik nor Abp. Sofroniy have any connections with him.

The well-known letter of the Omsk clerics (dated 02 May 2018) and Bp. Andrei's response to the letter were also discussed. These personal discussions served to clarify the positions of both parties. The letter noted the fact that Abp. Sofroniy spoke about the murdered Fr. Pavel Adelheim, who belonged to the Moscow Patriarchia, as of a saint. Abp. Sofroniy explained that the late Fr. Pavel had discussed joining his diocese and that only the death of Fr. Pavel had prevented this from happening. Abp. Sofroniy conceded that he had spoken imprudently about Fr. Pavel as of a Holy Martyr and that this had disconcerted some members of the Church.

The ecclesiology of Metropolitan Cyprian (Kutsumbas) was also a subject of discussion. This issue has lost its relevance after the unification of the Synod in Resistance with the Synod of Archbishop Kallinikos. Both parties in these discussions do not accept the teachings of Met. Cyprian as orthodox. To this point, the hierarchs of Abp. Andronik's group, in an August 2018 statement, declared that they adhere to the traditional ecclesiology of the ROCA and reject the teachings of Met. Cyprian.

The outcome of these discussions in Paris was the general conviction that there are no serious obstacles to our unity, which should be an expression of our shared convictions and spirit. All of the participants expressed a desire to establish Eucharistic communion between our Churches, but this will require careful preparation. All of the parties stand ready to undertake the work needed to achieve this unity.

Bishop Akakije

Archbishop Andronik

Archbishop Sofroniy

Bishop Andrei

Priest Romaric

Abbess Efrosynia (Nikolic)

Nun Evfrosinia (Molchanov)

Vitaliy Shumilo

George Lukin

User avatar
Maria
Archon
Posts: 8428
Joined: Fri 11 June 2004 8:39 pm
Faith: True Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOC
Location: USA

Re: Is the STOC embracing Cyprianism?

Post by Maria »

Thank you, d9popov

That statement of unity between the schismatic RTOC and the STOC is very confusing.
They seem to agree to disagree for the sake of unity. This is a false unity just as was the Kallinikos-SiR union of 2014.

Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me a sinner.

User avatar
Jean-Serge
Protoposter
Posts: 1381
Joined: Fri 1 April 2005 11:04 am
Location: Paris (France)
Contact:

Re: Is the STOC embracing Cyprianism?

Post by Jean-Serge »

Some key elements indicate that the communion STOC - ROCANA professes a hidden cyprianism, cyprianism being here understood in a broad meaning:

  • STOC Akakije took under its omophor a group of priest of Omsk that had cyprianists views : they claimed in 2004 or 2005 that the Moscow Patriarchate still had real mysteries

I asked Bishop Andrei to receive a copy of "The well-known letter of the Omsk clerics (dated 02 May 2018) and Bp. Andrei's response to the letter were also discussed." in order to understand how was finally the opinion of these priests. He refused to provie them because it is a private letter. Fine, but why is it calle "well-known letter" and why is it kept secret if it was used during this meeting to clarify ecclesiological positions ?

  • ROCANA clears states that their ecclesiological position is the following one

Accordingly, the ecclesiology of the ROCA in regard to World Orthodoxy can be formulated as follows:

The churches of World Orthodoxy are on a path of apostasy, which inevitably will lead them to falling away from the Church – the body of Christ. We have no communion with the churches of World Orthodoxy because we do not wish to participate in their apostasy.
The falling away from the Church of such a large structure as World Orthodoxy is a process that cannot be completed instantly. It doesn’t occur everywhere at the same pace: faster in some instances, slower in others.
To what extent this process has already concluded is known only to God. The question of whether Grace is present or absent in the churches of World Orthodoxy resides at the level of personal opinion, not in the realm of the Church’s compulsory teachings.

Source : https://auroca.org/%d1%81%d1%80%d0%b0%d ... %b8%d0%b0/

It is as if ROCOR never had an anathema against ecumenism that clearly states the conditions that make you anathema i.e outside the church, an consequently without mysteries. So, among them, you could believe that Constantinople has mysteries. But if so, COnstantnople is necessary the church. What a non sense.

Priidite, poklonimsja i pripadem ko Hristu.

someguy
Jr Member
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue 10 April 2018 7:34 am

Re: Is the STOC embracing Cyprianism?

Post by someguy »

Jean-Serge wrote: Tue 16 January 2024 12:00 pm

It is as if ROCOR never had an anathema against ecumenism that clearly states the conditions that make you anathema i.e outside the church, an consequently without mysteries. So, among them, you could believe that Constantinople has mysteries. But if so, COnstantnople is necessary the church. What a non sense.

Are there not fewer and fewer traditional clerics that preach mainstream "orthodoxy" is graceless?

It seems to be a growing trend which will see many back peddling.

Similar to several years ago when one side said it was the mark and the other side said look at what happened to all those old believers who died by the thousands who didn't take anything during other "pandemics"...

Again similar to when TFNs and number plates on cars were introduced or barcodes or credit cards etc and many called out prematurely that was the mark and so on.

My advice is to be sober minded and not the jump to conclusions straight away but also not to jump straight in either and try whatever new toy appears.

User avatar
Suaidan
Sr Member
Posts: 685
Joined: Thu 8 April 2004 2:31 pm
Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Autonomous Metropolia of the Americas
Location: Northeast PA

Re: Is the STOC embracing Cyprianism?

Post by Suaidan »

I'm not sure, but I think the number of Traditional Orthodox saying WO is graceless is increasing, not decreasing. What is also increasing is the number of WO admitting WO is heretical without following it through to its full conclusions.

Fr Joseph Suaidan (Suaiden, same guy)

User avatar
Barbara
Protoposter
Posts: 3983
Joined: Sat 29 September 2012 6:03 pm

Re: Is the STOC embracing Cyprianism?

Post by Barbara »

Where do you notice that trend taking place, if any place in particular ?

Post Reply