In considering the
recent union between the synod of the GTOC under Archbishop Kallinikos and the
Synod in Resistance (Cyprianites), or for that matter, the possible union of
any of the Greek synods since the wholesale apostasy of the Greek Church in
1924, and the subsequent emergence of the many competing True Orthodox synods,
one might consider that a miraculous event has transpired. If, on the other hand, all that has occurred
was a merger between a True Orthodox synod and a heretical synod, we have
witnessed a tragedy, or another apostasy.
As the saying goes; adding clean water to polluted water does not
cleanse the polluted water. It merely
pollutes the clean water.
In considering the
example given to us by the Holy Fathers of the Church, when making any
decisions, a church council always looks to past decisions in order to make
decisions for the present and future.
The Great Ecumenical Councils (sobors) of the Holy Church would always
begin their meetings by ratifying the decisions of the previous sobors. In this manner, the decisions made by the
present sobor would not contradict any previous decisions, unless it intentionally
wished to reject a decision that was clearly contradictory (i.e., heretical) to
all previous sobors. In this manner, the
bishops are able to maintain their sobornost, and be guided by the Holy
Spirit. It stands to reason that Sobors,
where bishops knowingly ignore the decisions of previous sobors in order to
achieve their own desired goals, risk alienating themselves from the guidance
of the Holy Spirit.
A most recent example
of this would be the ROCOR Sobor of 1994.
By ignoring the decision of the ROCOR Sobor of 1983, where the bishops
of ROCOR condemned Ecumenism as a heresy, the bishops of the 1994 Sobor not
only departed from the tradition of the Holy Fathers, but also brought their
own 1983 anathema upon themselves (according to Bishop Gregory Grabbe). The 1994 Sobor adopted the heretical ecclesiology
of the Greek Synod in Resistance (Cyprianism) as its own ecclesiology. This event led directly to the apostasy of
ROCOR in 2007, when it united with the Moscow Patriarchate.
Setting aside the
personal intrigues and desired outcomes driving individual bishops toward
self-serving decisions, let us view the decisions made in the recent union of
the GTOC and the Cyprianites, and past decisions, which were ignored.
The decisions made by
the TGOC regarding the Synod in Resistance, first under Archbishop Auxentios
and later upheld by Archbishop Chrysostom, were quite clear and direct. On July 5, 1974, in a special encyclical, the
Synod of the True Orthodox Church of Greece, under the presidency of Archbishop
Auxentios (Pastras) of Athens, reaffirmed the traditional Confession of Faith
of 1935, and declared all New-Calendarists (Ecumenists) to be schismatics,
their Sacraments to be without Grace, and in order to be received into the
Orthodox Church, such people must first be chrismated.
Of course, the evil
one only awaits such challenges. By 1977,
Archimandrite Cyprian (Kutsumbasos), along with the present Archbishop
Kallinikos, and several other clergy were uncanonically consecrated bishops
without the knowledge of the synod to which they belonged at that time.
Not accepting his
synod’s punishment for his disobedience and heretical confession of faith,
Metropolitan Cyprian remained alone. To
further annoy his Orthodox detractors, on August 27, 1984, he concelebrated in
his own monastery with the new-calendar Patriarch of Alexandria, Nicholas
VI. For this, he was defrocked by his
synod.
In 1986, under the
tenure of Archbishop Chrysostom (Kuisis), seeing that Cyprian of Oropos had not
repented, and that his heresy had begun to grow, the Synod of the TGOC once
again declared him and the members of his synod to be defrocked for their
heretical teaching concerning the Church, and for allowing the modernists,
schismatics, and ecumenist-New-Calendarists to receive holy communion. (“Because he has fallen from the Orthodox
Faith, and accepted the false and unholy faith of the Ecumenists, namely that
the schismatic New Calendarists continue to belong to the Holy Catholic and
Apostolic Church, which is the only treasure-house and the giver of Grace.”)
As we know, the
Cyprianites continued with their false teachings, attracting and infecting
others worldwide up until the present time.
With the election of
Metropolitan Kallinikos to replace the reposed Archbishop Chrysostom, talks of
union with the Cyprianites began to escalate in earnest. Already after the date for union was
established, Metropolitan Chrysostom (Gonzales) of Aetna, CA, the chief
Cyprianite in the USA, announced in a letter (Feb. 02, 2014) that no one plans
to criticize or repent concerning Metropolitan Cyprian’s confession of faith or
ecclesiology. He also stated “nothing of
Metropolitan’s spiritual legacy will be rescinded or forgotten.” The Cyprianite
Metropolitan Cyprian (the new) of Oropos also made a similar declaration.
Today, the union and
euphoric concelebration has been accomplished.
Pictures were taken, and the relatively new Archbishop of Athens,
Kallinikos, has been able to demonstrate to the world his prominence, honor and
respect, as demonstrated by the many bishops bowing to him homage and
adoration. Since then, a few months have
passed. In spite of the convincing
rhetoric aimed at appeasing the faithful, when one reviews the joint document
signed by the TGOC and the Synod in Resistance, nowhere can one find where the
bishops of the Synod in Resistance beg forgiveness for ignoring past decisions
of the TGOC Synod. Nowhere can one find the
Cyprianite repentance of its heretical ecclesiology. Nowhere do the Cyprianites abandon their
heretical ecclesiology. Similarly,
nowhere does the TGOC Synod rescind its past decisions regarding Cyprianism.
Through this union, all
that becomes quickly evident is Archbishop Kallinikos’ TGOC Synod ignoring the
decisions of the TGOC under the tenure of his predecessors. Meanwhile, the new Archbishop’s TGOC Synod
convenes to making a contrary decision. What is most alarming and grievous, is
that through ignoring the past decisions of their own synod, the TGOC Synod has
accepted the heretical ecclesiology of the Cyprianites. In this case, silence must mean
agreement. In contrast to this silence,
the Cyprianites boldly pronounce adherence to their heretical ecclesiology.
Unfortunately, within only
a few decades, we see history repeating itself.
For just as the ROCOR Synod of 1994 fell under its own Anathema of 1983,
so too has the TGOC Synod of 2014 fallen under its own condemnation of 1977 and
1986, and ironically by the hands of the same Cyprianites.
Of course, this
unfortunate event might be viewed as a problem within the Church of Greece, and
the Church of Russia must stand by as a sorrowful witness. However, the Russian Church does not remain
directly unaffected.
The course of events
officially initiated in 1994, when ROCOR accepted the heretical ecclesiology of
the Synod in Resistance (Cyprianism), undoubtedly determined ROCOR’s fate. By 2007, ROCOR capitulated to the Moscow
Patriarchate, its self-proclaimed “Mother Church.” Prior to this capitulation (2001),
Metropolitan Vitaly, seeing the disaster planned by his false-brethren bishops
of ROCOR, separated himself from them and reestablished the course set by his
predecessors, the holy Metropolitans Philaret, Anastasy, and Anthony. Metropolitan Vitaly could not recognize the
Moscow Patriarchate as the Church of Christ, not to mention a “Mother
Church.” Certain other bishops,
including the future bishops of the RTOC, also followed his example. Bishop Agafangel, on the other hand, signed
all of the documents leading to the union of the ROCOR with the Moscow
Patriarchate. It was not until the 11th
hour, literally the final days before the actual union, when Bishop Agafangel
decided not to follow Metropolitan Laurus into apostasy. It must be noted that Bishop Agafangel left
Metropolitan Laurus not for matters of faith, as did Metropolitan Vitaly and
those who followed his example. At the
time (and to date), Bishop Agafangel recognized the Moscow Patriarchate as the
Mother Church. He only disagreed
regarding the timing of the event. He
felt that it was much too early to unite with the MP.
Having made his
“stand”, Bishop Agafangel then began to collect all the ROCOR clergy who also
remained until the 11th hour, hoping that Laurus’ betrayal would
never take place. Regarding the clergy
that left at an earlier date (i.e., those who had the foresight of events to
come, as did Metropolitan Vitaly), Bishop Agafangel rejected their confession
of faith as premature, self-serving, and schismatic. B. Agafangel declared that he would continue
the legacy of the ROCOR of Met. Laurus before his union with the MP. In other words, he would adhere to the
Cyprianite ecclesiology accepted in 1994, and reject the Anathema against
Ecumenism. After announcing himself
metropolitan of his own synod, ROCOR(A), the new Metropolitan Agafangel (as
recorded in the minutes) declared that his synod is of one mind with the synod
of Cyprian. This was an official,
deliberate decision, and proclamation.
In establishing his
new ROCOR(A), Bishop Agafangel rejected the validity of every hierarch of the
Russian Church who left the ROCOR prior to his own “enlightenment” to envision
such a need. He considered all such
bishops to be schismatic. Apparently, he
thought the same of Metropolitan Vitaly.
Bishop Agafangel, soon
to maneuver his way into becoming Metropolitan of his own “ROCOR,” reached an
agreement with the Synod in Resistance to create his own synod without the
participation of any existing bishop of the Russian Church. He proceeded to consecrate a new synod, which
he would call ROCOR. Each of his new
bishops would be consecrated with the presence and concelebration of a bishop
from the Greek Synod in Resistance (i.e., a true Cyprianite). Thus, this proves that from the very beginning,
Bishop Agafangel was a conscious Cyprianite with a heretical ecclesiology.
Now, if one were to
take into account the decisions of the TGOC Synod under A. Auxentios, and then later
under A. Chrysostom, and add to this the 1983 ROCOR Anathema against Ecumenism,
then it stands to reason that each of Met. Agafangel’s bishops is at the very
least uncanonical.
Through such actions,
it becomes apparent that the history of apostasy has at least repeated, if not
compounded, itself again. In accepting
the legacy of Metropolitan Laurus prior to his union with the MP, Bishop
Agafangel has rejected the legacy of the true ROCOR, that of the Metropolitans
Vitaly, Philaret, Anastasy and Anthony.
He has knowingly accepted the legacy of apostasy. As we shall see through the statements below,
such a position is not new for the self-proclaimed Metropolitan.
Let us consider the
decision of the ROCOR under the Holy Hierarch Metropolitan Philaret in 1971:
The
decision of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad of 15/28
September 1971 reads:
"On
the question of the baptism of heretics who accept Orthodoxy, the following decree
was adopted: The Holy Church has believed from time immemorial that there can
be only one true baptism, namely that which is performed in her bosom: 'One
Lord, one faith, one baptism.' (Eph. 4:5) In the Symbol of Faith there is also
confessed 'one baptism,' and the 46th Canon of the Holy Apostles directs: 'A
bishop or a presbyter who has accepted (i.e., acknowledges) the baptism or the
sacrifice of heretics, we command to be deposed.'
"However
when the zeal of some heretics in their struggle against the Church diminished
and when the question arose about a massive conversion to Orthodoxy, the
Church, to facilitate their conversion, received them into her bosom by another
rite. St Basil the Great in his First Canon, which was included in the canons
of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, points to the existence of different practices
for receiving heretics in different lands. He explains that any separation from
the Church deprives one of grace and writes about the dissidents: 'Even though
the departure began through schism, however, those departing from the Church
already lacked the grace of the Holy Spirit. The granting of grace has ceased because
the lawful succession has been cut. Those who left first were consecrated by
the Fathers and through the laying on of their hands had the spiritual gifts.
But, they became laymen and had no power to baptize nor to ordain and could not
transmit to others the grace of the Holy Spirit from which they themselves fell
away. Therefore, the ancients ruled regarding those that were coming from
schismatics to the Church as having been baptized by laymen, to be cleansed by
the true baptism of the Church.' However, 'for the edification of many' St.
Basil does not object to other rites for receiving the dissident Cathars in
Asia. About the Encratites he writes, that 'this could be a hindrance to the
general good order' and a different rite could be used, explaining this: 'But I
am afraid of putting an impediment to the saved, while I would raise fears in
them concerning their baptism.'
"Thus,
St Basil the Great, and by his words the Ecumenical Council, while establishing
the principle that outside the Holy Orthodox Church there is no valid baptism,
allows through pastoral condescension, called economy, the reception of
some heretics and dissidents without a new baptism. On the basis of this
principle the Ecumenical Councils allowed the reception of heretics by different
rites, in response to the weakening of their hostility against the Orthodox
Church.
"The
Kormchaya Kniga gives an explanation for this by Timothy of Alexandria.
On the question 'Why do we not baptize heretics converting to the Catholic
Church?' his response is: 'If this were so, a person would not quickly turn
from heresy, not wanting to be shamed by receiving baptism (i.e., second
baptism). However, the Holy Spirit would come through the laying on of hands
and the prayer of the presbyter, as is witnessed in the Acts of the Apostles.'
"With
regard to Roman Catholics and those Protestants who claim to have preserved
baptism as a sacrament (for example, the Lutherans). In Russia since the time
of Peter I the practice was introduced of receiving them without baptism,
through a renunciation of heresy and the chrismation of Protestants and
unconfirmed Catholics. Before Peter, Catholics were baptized in Russia. In
Greece, the practice has also varied, but after almost 300 years after a
certain interruption, the practice of baptizing converts from Catholicism and
Protestantism was reintroduced. Those received by any other way have
(sometimes) not been recognized in Greece as Orthodox. In many cases such
children of our Russian Church were not even admitted to Holy Communion.
"Having
in view this circumstance and also the current growth of the ecumenist heresy,
which attempts to completely erase any difference between Orthodoxy and any
heresy - so that the Moscow Patriarchate, notwithstanding the holy canons, has even
issued a decree permitting Roman Catholics to receive communion (in certain
cases) - the Sobor of Bishops acknowledges the need to introduce a stricter
practice, i.e., to baptize all heretics who come to the Church, and only
because of special necessity and with permission of the bishop it is allowed,
under the application of economy or pastoral condescension, to use a
different method with respect to certain persons, i.e., the reception of Roman
Catholics, and Protestants who perform baptism in the name of the Holy Trinity,
by means of repudiation of heresy and Chrismation" ("Church
Life," July-December 1971, pp. 52-54).
Already in 1994, the
young Bishop Agafangel already rejects this decision. He wrote the following:
“…the
Grace of the Holy Spirit, the Grace of the Sacraments, resides also with the
Catholics, Monophysites, and in part, with Old Believers and Protestants who
have not violated the formula in performing the sacraments (baptism). The Orthodox Church does not re-baptize those
who come from these heresies, but receives them through repentance. Catholics and Monophysites are not chrismated
a second time. The Sacrament of Marriage
is also accepted. In the Moscow
Patriarchate, there are six Sacraments which have been preserved and are recognized
as valid – baptism, chrismation, the priesthood, marriage, unction,
repentance.”
(Bishop
Aganfangel Pashkovsky, Vestnik TOC, No. 2, 1994, pg. 30)
It is clear that from
an early age, Bishop Agafangel was driven to divert the path of our Holy Church. Having been raised in Soviet society, he
sought ordination in the Moscow Patriarchate.
Having been denied there, he petitioned ROCOR for the priesthood. Although he received that which he desired,
he never acquired the spirit of ROCOR.
He betrayed the ideals and mission of the Russian Orthodox Church, both
abroad and in the catacombs.
In the celebratory
euphoria of uniting with the Cyprianites, the new Archbishop of the TGOC, Kallinikos,
lost sight of the tainted baggage the Cyprianites brought with them through the
back door (i.e., their own defrocked and Grace-less lack of apostolic
succession, as well as Agafangel’s heretical ecclesiology and uncanonical status).
In this manner, Metropolitan
Agafangel only reaffirms the schism and heresy of the Cyprianites, adding to it
Soviet Sergianism and Ecumenism. Just as
the TGOC Synod of Archbishop Chrysostom was surprised and grieved in 1994 to
learn that the ROCOR declared its ecclesiology to be that of the Cyprianites,
so too now, the RTOC Synod is surprised and grieved to witness the fall of the
TGOC Synod to the heretical ecclesiology of the Cyprianites and the apostasy
and schism of the Agafangelites.
Protopresbyter
Victor Melehov
No comments:
Post a Comment