Concerning Kirikos, the Holy Trinity Icon, and his schismatic faction

[Orthodox in Michigan]

Thank you for a complete answer I was wondering about that for some time.

[Orthodox in Michigan]

Note: There are two groups in Romania. One of them is based in Slatiora, regards St.Glicherie as a saint and made a union with the Synod of Resistance in the 1980's. Bishop Kirykos has never united with them.

He united with the other Romanian group (with Bishop Victor Leu as one of their ordainers in the 1940's). They are not based in Slatiaora. And they approached Bishop Kirykos in 2007. They decided to unite with him. I personally know both groups in Romania and have visited them. One of their current bishops- Cassian- was a bishop in 2004 before uniting with Bishop Kirykos. He also spoke with my ROCIE bishop between 2004-2006 but decided to unite with Bishop Kirykos.

Thanks for that clarification. The sources I talked with did not know that there were two groups in Romania. It is sad that Bishop Cassian decided to unite with Monk Kirykos. I was also told that Monk Kirykos was alone, as none of the other GOC bishops wanted to join his schism, until Bishop Cassian joined with him.

This romanian group under bishop cassian were they are they recognized as a true orthodox church?

Also what happens if they unite with a schismatic group do they enter schism or does the group they unite with become grace filled ?

Can schism be wiped out with a correct confession of faith?

I think i heard the church abroad lost grace when they united with the synod in restance and accepted their same beleif o not declaring the new calendar mysteries without grace.

[Maria]

Since the Romanian bishops accepted the theological heresies of the deposed bishop Kirikos when they joined with him, it would mean that they have entered into the schism and the heresies of Monk Kirikos. If the Romanians were truly True Orthodox, they would have demanded the repentance of Monk Kirikos, instead the Romanians accepted Monk Kirikos as a True Orthodox Bishop, and vice versa. There was no sign of repentance from Monk Kirikos. Instead, he is in charge of this newly created synod.

When Archbishop Kallinikos and his synod accepted the Synod in Resistance without any public display of repentance from their Cyprianism, and since Bishop Auxentios of the Diocese of Etna and Portland continues boldly to profess Cyprianism without any condemnation from the Kallinikos Synod, this means that the Kallinikos Synod has likewise fallen into heresy. Otherwise, why would the ROAC and the RTOC under Archbishop Tikhon have protested this false union so loudly, and why would have Vladimir Moss written against it too?

[Maria]

Both schism and heresy can be wiped out with a correct confession of faith and absolution.

This happens at chrismation or when a person is received by confession of faith and absolution.

For example, when the three repenting bishops from world orthodoxy were received by Saint Matthew the New Confessor of Greece back in 1935, these three bishops made a correct confession of faith and were given absolution by St. Matthew. Furthermore, two of these repenting bishops who had been consecrated by true believing bishops before 1924 laid hands on the third repenting bishop who had been ordained by apostate bishops. Only after this was done was St. Matthew consecrated a bishop by those three.

There was no evidence that the Romanians received Monk Kirikos with a correct confession of faith and absolution. Monk Kirikos has never renounced his heresies and repented of his schism. Instead he leads this new schismatic faction.

[Maria]

Three posts have been moved into this thread.

In Christ,
Maria

[Cyprian]

As far as who is portrayed on the Trinity ikon: God the Father or the Ancient of Days and when exactly when it entered into Orthodoxy, it is still being debated.

Seeing how there are images existing of the Father both in the East and the West long prior to the schism, it only seems to be a matter of debate due to ignorance of theology and the history of iconography.

When you say "God the Father or the Ancient of Days," you seem to be implying that the Father is not the Ancient of Days. The teaching of the Church is that the appellation "Ancient of Days" applies to the Godhead―the Divinity, and is therefore in no way exclusive to the Son. (cf. St. Dionysius the Areopagite: On Divine Names)

Both the Father and the Son have long been designated and depicted as the Ancient of Days in the Church. Images of the Trinity go back to the earliest centuries of the Church.

Dogmatic Sarcophagus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogmatic_Sarcophagus

"The Dogmatic Sarcophagus, also known as the "Trinity Sarcophagus" is an early Christian sarcophagus dating to 320–350, now in the Vatican Museums (Vatican 104)"

"Three similar figures, representing the Trinity, are involved in the creation of Eve, whose much smaller figure is cut off at lower right. To her right, Adam lies on the ground"

I have observed factions who reject or disparage images of the Father attempting to convince others that the Son is exclusively the Ancient of Days, as if this appellation does not apply equally to the Father as well. They readily supply quotes where the Church refers to the Son as the Ancient of Days, but deliberately pass over or ignore the many citations from Scripture, the Holy Fathers, and the services of the Church that refer to the Father as the Ancient of Days.

This serves to show that whomever argues that the Son is exclusively the Ancient of Days, and that this cannot be applied to the Father as well, is either ignorant of the theology of the Church, and the writings of the Fathers, or they are disingenuous, choosing to ignore the evidence that does not suit their particular bias.

Select Works of S. Ephrem the Syrian:

"He put on old age; as a venerable old man did He judge those iniquitous persons who were effeminate in sin. The Being that waxeth not old put on old age to teach by parables concerning His Son and His Beloved. By the mask of old age He shewed His Fatherhood to teach that He hath a Son, the Son of Man, Whom Daniel saw standing before the Ancient of Days, Who did away with mortal kings, and made Himself a King in the Son of the King Immortal. If it had been One only that was sitting, then had there been one seat; but for this reason he saw not one seat, but seats. He shewed that there was an Assessor with Him, and a Son to the Ancient of Days."

St. Epiphanius of Cyprus - Panarion:

"This Father, Son and Holy Spirit has always vouchsafed to appear in visions to his saints, as each was able to receive [the vision] in accordance with the gift which had been <given> him by the Godhead. This gift was granted to each of those who were deemed worthy, sometimes to see the Father as each was able, <sometimes> to hear his voice as well as he could. When he said by the mouth of Isaiah, “My beloved servant shall understand,” this is the voice of the Father. And when Daniel saw “the Ancient of Days,” this is a vision of the Father."

St. John Chrysostom - Commentary on the Psalms (Psalm 110):

"Thus, too, Daniel sees all creation in attendance, both angels and archangels, by contrast with the Son of Man coming on the clouds and advancing to the Ancient of Days. If our speaking in these terms is a problem for some, however, let them hear that he is seated at his right hand, and be free of the problem. I mean, as we do not claim he is greater than the Father for having the most honorable seat at his right hand, so you for your part do not say he is inferior and less honorable, but of equal status and honor. This, in fact, is indicated by the sharing of the seat."

St. Augustine - On the Trinity:

"33. I do not know in what manner these men understand that the Ancient of Days appeared to Daniel, from whom the Son of man, which He deigned to be for our sakes, is understood to have received the kingdom; namely, from Him who says to Him in the Psalms, "Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten Thee; ask of me, and I shall give Thee the heathen for Thine inheritance; and who has "put all things under His feet." If, however, both the Father giving the kingdom, and the Son receiving it, appeared to Daniel in bodily form, how can those men say that the Father never appeared to the prophets, and, therefore, that He only ought to be understood to be invisible whom no man has seen, nor can see? For Daniel has told us thus: "I beheld," he says, "till the thrones were set, and the Ancient of Days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of His head like the pure wool: His throne was like the fiery flame, and His wheels as burning fire; a fiery stream issued and came forth from before Him: thousand thousands ministered unto Him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened," etc. And a little after, "I saw," he says, "in the night visions, and behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him. And there was given Him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him: His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom that which shall not be destroyed." Behold the Father giving, and the Son receiving, an eternal kingdom; and both are in the sight of him who prophesies, in a visible form. It is not, therefore, unsuitably believed that God the Father also was wont to appear in that manner to mortals.

St. Gregory Palamas - Homily Fourteen:

"He Whose kingdom is eternal and without end is God. But the Child to be born also had David as His father, therefore He was also man. He was both God and man, Son of man and Son of God. As man He received the inalienable kingdom from God the Father, as Daniel saw and announced beforehand: “I beheld till the thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of days did sit, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and his kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, which shall not be taken by any other king"

St. Symeon of Thessalonica:

"And they depict these things and dress them up contrary to piety, which is opposed to holy icons, as the canon from the sixth ecclesiastical council establishes. For it prohibits depicting things that do not benefit simpler folk.
And that which is contrary to canon law is not pure. And the Fathers do not practice this. But moreover, they produce some things as if in a drama, contrary to divine law. For contrary to the canons, they put men at crossroads and on platforms, as if they were representing iconically things pertaining to the Annunciation of the Virgin and Mother of God, and the crucifixion of the Savior, etc. And one models on behalf of the Virgin, and they call that man Mary; another is called the angel, and another the Ancient of Days, on whom they put white hair for a beard. For since the Latins don’t hold shaving them to be effeminate and contrary to natural law they put on fake ones, hence showing they contrive things as they see fit. For if the prophets saw that God has a beard, iconically speaking, we too have beards in honor of nature and according to what God intended. So they act contrary to what God intended, shaving to the disgrace of nature, especially priests and monks, who defend this bodily vanity. Moreover, they portray the Ancient of Days holding onto a winged dove in place of the Holy Spirit, thereby showing that they follow their own devices.

For if they believe the Spirit proceeds also from the Son, why don’t they portray the Son sitting together with the Ancient of Days, so that both dispatch the dove? But instead, they should also send the Son to the one they call Mary. For the Spirit was not incarnated, even though it hovered over the Virgin. Yet all these things are contrary to reason, alien to Church tradition, and designed to insult the mysteries and Christian piety."

St. Dimitri of Rostov:

"If someone portrays God the Father in the form of a most honorable old man, so it was in reality, when the prophet Daniel and the prophet Isaiah saw the "Ancient of Days", "sitting him on the throne high exaltation, and Seraphim are round about him"

Dionysius of Fourna - The Painters Manual, compiled on Mt. Athos, Greece from 1730-1734 from ancient sources

“The painting of holy images we take over not only from the holy fathers, but also from the holy Apostles and even from the person of Christ our only God… We therefore depict Christ on an icon as a man, since he came into the world and had dealings with men, becoming in the end a man like us except in sin. Likewise we also depict the Timeless Father as an old man, as Daniel saw him clearly…”

St. Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain:

“We must note that since the present Council [the Seventh] in the letter it is sending to the church of the Alexandrians pronounces blissful, or blesses, those who know and admit and recognize, and consequently also iconize and honor the visions and theophaniae of the Prophets, just as God Himself formed these and impressed them upon their mind, but anathematizes on the contrary those who refuse to accept and admit the pictorial representations of such visions before the incarnation of the divine Logos (p. 905 of Vol. II of the Conciliar Records) it is to be inferred that even the beginningless Father ought to have His picture painted just as He appeared to Daniel the prophet as the Ancient of Days.

Letters of Fr. Seraphim Rose (1961-1982)

279.
Oct. 23/Nov. 5, 1979
Apostle James the Brother of the Lord

"Dear Father Neketas...

Fr. Lev accuses “the heretical teaching that the Ancient of Days (Dn. ch. 7) was God the Father” (p. 23). Father, in the past you have already printed enough of such categorical statements that find “heresy” in every corner; it is really time for them to stop. Prophetic images such as the “Ancient of Days” are of such a character that often a hard-and-fast identification is not even possible or necessary, let alone being made into a “dogma” so that misidentification of it is a “heresy.” It happens that some Fathers have indeed identified the Ancient of Days as God the Father, while others identify this image as God the Son. Specifically, St. John Chrysostom in his commentary on Daniel (ch. 7), noting that it is One “like the Son of Man” Who comes to the Ancient of Days, states that Daniel was thus “the first and only one to see the Father and the Son.”Is he then a heretic? The use of such language in this case is just name-calling and vain boasting over ones supposed “correct interpretation” of Scripture."

[jdigrande]

Thanks for the information. I have never considered the Ancient of Days to be the exclusively for either the Father or the Son.

Joseph