о. Андрей Сиднев (iasidnev) wrote,
о. Андрей Сиднев

Who Are the Cyprianites? How Did They Arise?

Приведу еще статью Ставро Марку на английском языке о Киприановском расколе.

Who Are the Cyprianites? How Did They Arise?

In 1984, BISHOP Cyprian (Koutsoumbas) of Orope and Fili (formerly of the Callistite Schism) broke with his former colleagues and formed his own Synod, the "Synod of Those in Resistance," otherwise known as the "Cyprianite" Synod. While still a member of the "Callistite" Synod, Bishop Cyprian was castigated by a new calendar periodical, because, though he claimed to be an old calendarist bishop, "he accepted hundreds of new calendarists at his monastery and churches," and because "he has joint prayers with them," "gives them the mysteries and divine Communion," and "allows those who come to confession to him to receive the immaculate mysteries in new calendar churches." [1] When Bishop Cyprian was charged again for not giving a sufficient reply to these accusations, and in addition, when the title of "Ecumenist" was bestowed on him, [2] his reply was that these charges are "purely personal attacks". [3]

The monks of Holy Transfiguration Monastery [4] make the following assessment concerning Bishop Cyprian's creation of his own "Synod of Those in Resistance" after separating from the Callistite Synod:

Bishop Cyprian justified his separation [from the other Callistite hierarchs] in 1984 by asserting that it was a matter of faith; that is, he taught that the new calendar State Church, though ailing, had not yet been condemned by a Church Council, and therefore still had full canonical status. He rested his argument on the 1937 private letter of Metropolitan Chrysostom [5] while ignoring both the Encyclical of 1935, which had been issued by the entire hierarchy of the True Orthodox Christians, [6] and Metropolitan Chrysostom's later Encyclical of 1950, [7] not to mention the encyclical of 1974, [8] issued by Archbishop Auxentius's Synod (to which authority the then Archimandrite Cyprian was subject). Bishop Cyprian has maintained that Metropolitan Chrysostom's 1950 encyclical was not a true expression of his confession, but made under duress and with the hope that it would appease the Matthewite bishops. [9] Here, however, it should be noted that the Encyclical of 1950 expressed not merely the view of Metropolitan Chrysostom, but of the entire [Florinite] Synod...

Furthermore, in making this claim concerning Metropolitan Chrysostom's Encyclical of 1950, Bishop Cyprian ignores certain other elements. Metropolitan Chrysostom of Florina had spoken his convictions in clear conscience and had maintained them with integrity. Nothing less could be expected from a man of his stature. Since he was a man of such stature, it is not entirely honest to dismiss so lightly the formal synodical and official Encyclical of 1950 in which Metropolitan Chrysostom repudiated and disavowed everything said and written by him previously. In this encyclical, he affirmed that the new calendarists must be received by chrismation and that their mysteries are invalid...

Bishop Cyprian also ignores the earlier encyclical of 1935. In addition, Metropolitan Callistus, one of the bishops who illegally consecrated Archimandrite Cyprian as a bishop, had always expressed the same view taken by the Matthewite bishops (i.e., that sacramental grace had departed from the State Church the instant it had changed the calendar in 1924).

In connection with this, in his publication "Agios Kyprianos" (July 1983, p.210), Bishop Cyprian complained that Metropolitan Callistus, who consecrated him to the episcopate, "proceeded to publish and circulate a booklet entitled Apologia and an open letter entitled Epistle of Confession.... without previous consultation [emphasis in original] with the other members of our Sacred Synod." Concerning these two publications of Metropolitan Callistus, Bishop Cyprian wrote that the views expressed therein are "without witness, unproven, anti-patristic, and hence un-Orthodox."

Yet Metropolitan Callistus's confession of faith was known to all, both young and old, and it never changed throughout the years. Neither was it a "personal" matter, as Bishop Cyprian might have said, but rather was proclaimed publicly by Metropolitan Callistus, both in writing and from the ambo: there was—he said openly and consistently—no sanctifying grace in the new calendar State Church. For example, describing the events of 1924, he wrote the following:

Dismissing, disdaining, and trampling upon a multitude of sacred laws, this fellow, Chrysostom Papadopoulos, accepted the new calendar of renovation, innovation, and of modernism, and stripping himself naked of divine grace, clothed himself with the so-called new calendar of the astronomers of the most impious Pope, at the behest of Satan. [10]

Later, in the same book he records the following remarks made to an elderly new calendarist:

The priests of the new calendar do not have the grace of the All-holy Spirit, and whatever [prayers] they read are all invalid and bereft of divine grace. This is why they do not have the power to loose the sins of another. They themselves are under the anathema and curse of the Ecumenical Councils and of the Holy Fathers, and because of this they have no grace of the Holy Spirit whatsoever, nor any authority, because they are under the power of the devil, since they do his works. [11]

Whether one agrees with it or not, the fact remains that this theme is repeated again and again throughout this book, and in every other document that Metropolitan Callistus composed or signed. Simply, this was and is the Matthewite confession of faith, and Metropolitan Callistus espoused it to the end of his life.

If, therefore, Metropolitan Callistus's credo was un-Orthodox, it was un-Orthodox from the very day he was consecrated in 1948 by Bishop Matthew of Bresthena. Why, then, did Bishop Cyprian accept in 1979 to be consecrated secretly and uncanonically by such an "un-Orthodox" bishop?

Also, given Bishop Cyprian's theological position, one wonders why he, while still an archimandrite, continued to remain in the Synod of Archbishop Auxentius after it published its 1974 Encyclical (which re-affirmed the Synodal Encyclical of 1935 and Metropolitan Chrysostom's Encyclical of 1950). Certainly, one cannot use the holy canons to justify the presence of two genuine Churches of Christ in one place, that is, both an old and a new calendar Synod of Greece. According to the canons, one cannot maintain that the Archbishop of the State Church is still the canonical Archbishop of Athens and all Greece, and yet not be in submission to him.

The only other Callistite bishop that agreed to follow Bishop Cyprian (Koutsoumbas) of Orope and Fili into schism was a certain Bishop John (Bascio) of Sardinia. Regarding this bishop, Father Theodoret, editor of the periodical "Hagiorites" (in Greek), wrote the following in a letter in August, 1985:

John of Sardinia... was a Capuchin monk [who] became a priest under the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate, without first being baptized, however. Later he abandoned Moscow and was consecrated bishop by the heretical Nestorians! Subsequently, he thought of the True Orthodox Christians of Greece, and approached the Callistites. From here on, his new ministry begins... Allow me to explain myself.
When the Callistites decided to receive [John of Sardinia] into their bosom, they desired—naturally—to baptize him, since he was lacking Orthodox baptism. This, however, was not at all pleasing to kyr Cyprian, who desired that he should be received without baptism! Since his co-workers disagreed with him, he did not attend the baptismal service.
Now, according to the sacred canons, John could in no wise be permitted to serve even as a deacon, since he had apostatized and joined the heretical Nestorians.
It is with this bishop, twice-consecrated by heretics and by schismatics, that Cyprian now co-operates, and with whom he has formed his "Sacred Synod of Those in Resistance."

Bishops Cyprian (Koutsoumbas) of Orope and Fili and John (Bascio) of Sardinia proceeded to consecrate new bishops to form their self-styled "Synod of Those in Resistance". Unfortunately, many of the newly-consecrated bishops for the Cyprianite Synod were of similar ill repute as their consecrators. Among the first Cyprianite bishops to be consecrated were Chrysostom (Marlasis) of Christianoupolis, Ambrose (Baird) of Methone, Michael (Pirenta) of Nora, and Symeon (Minihofer) of Lampasake. This latter bishop, among others, has a very interesting history. Born Helmut Clemens Kyrillus Symeon Minihofer-Windisch, he was ordained and consecrated by bishops of the so-called "American Orthodox Catholic Church"—a Roman Catholic organization of Brazilian origin, in schism from the Vatican. In 1978, he was elected as "Patriarch" Cyril of the "American Orthodox Catholic Church", though he resided in Switzerland. "Patriarch" Cyril resigned from his position in 1985, and was accepted into the "Synod of Those in Resistance" under Bishop Cyprian, who installed him as Symeon, the titular bishop of Lampsake.

At some point during this time, a certain Bishop Eulogius of Milan (formerly of the "Lisbonite" Schism) was accepted into the "Synod of Those in Resistance," in which he assisted Bishop Cyprian in performing more consecrations. [12] Among the new bishops consecrated were Chrysostom (Gonzales) of Etna, Niphon (Kigundu) of Uganda, Auxentius (Chapman) of Photike, Photius (Siromachov) of Triaditsa, and Chrysostom (Alemangos) of Sydney. Unfortunately, all of these bishops have the same typical defects as their consecrators: they are either unacceptable on canonical grounds or confess an ecclesiology that is contrary to the teachings of the Orthodox Church.

An example of the uncanonicity of certain bishops accepted into the Cyprianite Synod, is demonstrated in the case regarding the African bishop and clergy that were received into the "Synod of Those in Resistance" during the 1980s, and for whom a new scandalous bishop was consecrated at the hands of Bishops Cyprian and Eulogius. This misfortunate situation is elaborated in an article titled, "Orthodox Mission in Tropical Africa," originally published in "Missionalia," the journal of the Southern African Missiological Society:

Metropolitan Nicholas [of Uganda] was elected Patriarch [of Alexandria] in 1968, and his successor as Metropolitan [of Uganda] was Nicodemus, who ordained several new priests. The seminary site was blessed during his time.

[Metropolitan Nicodemus] was succeeded in 1972 by Metropolitan Frumentius, who died in March 1981. There was little development during his time, and in fact there were some reverses, as Bishop George Gathuna (one of the original priests ordained by Daniel Alexander) was defrocked by the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate [of Alexandria]. He nevertheless continued to act as a bishop, and went into schism. He and his group became affiliated to a schismatic Old Calendarist group in Greece.

The leader of the Old Calendarist group, Cyprian of Fili, then consecrated a Bishop [Niphon] Kigundu, who became the leader when [George] Gathuna died in 1986. Kigundu, however, was himself defrocked by the Old Calendrists when they found that he had secretly married, contrary to the canons. Most of the priests ordained by Gathuna and Kigundu after the schism have returned to the [Patriarchate of Alexandria]. Some of them have been reordained". [13]

Another Cyprianite bishop of questionable canonicity is Chrysostom (Alemangos) of Sydney. He was deposed as an archimandrite of the new calendar Archdiocese of Australia (under the Ecumenical Patriarchate), and sought to be consecrated by schismatics. This act was carried out by a "Free Greek" bishop, a "Free Serb" bishop, and a third bishop tracing linage from the infamous "Self-Ordained" Ukrainian hierarchy. Bishop Chryostom (Alemangos) of Sydney was then received into the "Synod of Those in Resistance", after which he began to operate two parishes in the Sydney Metropolitan area: one serving according to the traditional Orthodox Church Calendar, while the other uncanonically following the new Renovationist Calendar. Bishop Chrysostom justified this violation of canonical order as an act of "pastoral discretion," and although he was accused by both old and new calendarists alike, the "Synod of Those in Resistance" did not make any public statements against Bishop Chrysostom's uncanonical practices.

The origins of Bishop Photius (Siromachov) of Triaditsa—the Cyprianite exarch in Bulgaria—are also worthy of note. During the late 1980s, the traditional Orthodox Christians of Bulgaria—having no hierarchy of their own—requested to enter under the Acacian Synod of Archbishop Chrysostom (Kiousis). However, one of the leading members of the Bulgarian Old Calendarists at this time—Abbess Seraphima (Liven)—was accused of holding heretical teachings. Abbess Seraphima had openly proclaimed that the New Calendarists, Roman Catholics and other heretics supposedly possess a "tied" form of grace in their Mysteries. The Synod of Archbishop Chrysostom (Kiousis) asked Abbess Seraphima to repent of her false teachings on "tied grace" and to confess that heretics do not possess any grace whatsoever in their "Mysteries", as a condition before she could be accepted into the Kiousite Synod. Abbess Seraphima (Liven), however, refused to repent of her heretical teachings, and rather sought refuge in the "Synod of Those in Resistance" under Bishop Cyprian (Koutsoumbas). The Cyprianites received both her and her flock, and consecrated her spiritual son—Rossen Siromachov—as bishop Photius of Triaditsa. Abbess Seraphima is reported to continue to preach her blasphemies against the Holy Spirit. For this reason, among others, a number of traditional Orthodox parishes in Bulgaria have fled from that organization and have sought refuge in other traditional Synods with a more sound ecclesiology.

Regarding the Cyprianite Bishops Chrysostom (Gonzales) of Etna, and Auxentius (Chapman) of Photike, their un-Orthodox and simply illogical theories—which reflect those of Bishop Cyprian himself—are thoroughly examined and exposed in the following, written by the monks of Holy Transfiguration Monastery:

Bishop Cyprian's jurisdiction has published many capably written articles, books, and other materials against Ecumenism. However, of all the old calendar jurisdictions, Bishop Cyprian's certainly has some of the most unusual—and perhaps most self-contradictory—views on ecclesiology, and it may be worth our while to examine them at some length...

The publication "The Old Calendar Orthodox Church of Greece", printed under the auspices of Bishops Chrysostom and Auxentius (both located in Etna, California and under the jurisdiction of Bishop Cyprian), deals with their particular views on ecclesiology. The section which addresses this question, "Addendum II: An Ecclesiological Position Paper," is marked by considerable ambiguity of definitions and terminology. Throughout the book, the authors state that the Church of Greece is "divided" over the calendar issue (some seventy years now). Nonetheless, the authors claim, this is not a schism.

But in Greek "schism" means a division or cleavage. Schism is defined by Saint Basil as a dispute over ecclesiastical rule and leadership, and insubordination to the legal bishop. (The Saint calls this the establishment of a parasynagogue, that is, an unlawful assembly.) The conditions in the Greek Church certainly conform to this definition of schism. The authors, however, state that the Church is divided yet there is no schism. In other words, the Church is divided yet there is no division. Since there exist separate hierarchies in the same region, and since there is no concelebration and no unity of administration manifesting the unity of Christ, a schism exists. Any other statement is a mere playing with words, and, as we mentioned above, lacks canonical support.

Another point that is unclear in the "Addendum" is the question: Who constitutes the Church? The Fifteenth Canon of the First-and-Second Council is quoted to justify Bishop Cyprian's action in establishing a church structure separated from the State Church. Here we append the entire text of the canon:


The rules laid down with reference to Presbyters and Bishops and Metropolitans are still more applicable to Patriarchs. So that in case any Presbyter or Bishop or Metropolitan dares to secede from communion with his own Patriarch and does not mention his name as is ordered and appointed in the divine Mystagogy, but before a synodical arraignment and [the Patriarch's] full condemnation, he creates a schism, the holy Council has decreed that this person be alienated from every priestly function, if only he be proven to have transgressed in this. These rules, therefore, have been sealed and ordered concerning those who on the pretext of some accusations against their own presidents stand apart, creating a schism, and severing the unity of the Church. But as for those who on account of some heresy condemned by Holy Councils or Fathers, sever themselves from communion with their president, that is, because he publicly preaches heresy and with bared head teaches it in the Church, such persons as these not only are not subject to canonical penalty for walling themselves off from communion with the so-called Bishop before synodal clarification, but [on the contrary] they shall be deemed worthy of due honor among the Orthodox. For not Bishops, but false bishops and false teachers have they condemned, and they have not fragmented the Church's unity with schism, but from schisms and divisions have they earnestly sought to deliver the Church.

According to the canon, one is justified in separating from one's bishop or walling oneself off from communion with him if he openly preaches "some heresy condemned by Holy Councils or Fathers." Then one preserves the unity of the Church (the unity of true faith and teaching, i.e., unity in the Truth, Christ Himself) by separating from these "false bishops and false teachers." Obviously a schism would then exist. However, the canon emphasizes that those who separate from an heretical bishop are not the ones who are creating a schism (even though they are apparently rending asunder the Church's external structure). Rather, they are separating themselves from a bishop who separated himself from the truth (a schism in the inner and true invisible unity of the Church), and by doing so, they are remaining in union with the truth, for the innovating bishops are false bishops, that is, outside the Church of Christ and bereft of spiritual authority.

The sentiments expressed by the authors of "The Old Calendar Orthodox Church of Greece" are certainly not in accord with this canon which they quote in order to justify their church policy. They separate from the new calendar bishops, yet they will not call them false bishops; the Church is divided, yet they say there is no schism; there is a "falling away from the faith" and teaching of heretical doctrines, yet there is no heresy; there are two bishops in one diocese, yet both are valid; we are the Church, yet they are also; etc. It appears to be a case of wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

Incredibly, in spite of the fact that his bishops in America cite Canon XV, mentioned above, to defend their separation from the new calendarists ("on account of some heresy condemned by holy Councils or Fathers," as the canon states), Bishop Cyprian maintains that "there has been no conciliar decision condemning in the new calendar State Church for heresy!" [14]

Which of the two is it?

And what of the three Pan-Orthodox Synods (in 1583, 1587, and 1593) and the numerous local Councils and Holy Synods of local Churches which condemned and anathematized the new calendar? [15] Even Archbishop Chrysostom Papadopoulos—who adopted the new calendar—acknowledged, together with all the other local churches, the legitimacy of the Pan-Orthodox Councils, and tried to avoid coming under their anathemas, using an excuse the fact that he had not changed the Paschalion. In addition, the decrees of the Seven Ecumenical Councils and the Synodicon of Orthodoxy have most certainly synodically and officially condemned the teachings subsequently espoused by the "Orthodox" ecumenists of our day as, for example, in their "Agreed Statement" with the Monophysites. The State Church of Greece—the nation in which Bishop Cyprian resides—is, like all the other "official" Churches, in full communion with the Patriarchate of Antioch, which is presently under the condemnation of the last four Ecumenical Councils and of the Synodicon of Orthodoxy, since it is now in communion with the Monophysites. [16]

Bishop Cyprian accuses the traditional Orthodox Christians of the greatest blasphemy against the Holy Spirit because of their denial of the validity of the mysteries of those involved in innovation and Ecumenism. Thus, he justifies his non-communion with them and hurls epithets against them. [17] But then, what of the undeniable fact that it was the new calendar bishops who first adopted this position vis-à-vis the traditional Orthodox Christians in 1926? Are, then, both the old and new calendar hierarchies of Greece guilty of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, according to Bishop Cyprian? If they are, where does this leave Bishop Cyprian, who derives his priesthood from the one, and his episcopacy from the other?

It seems as though the Synod of Bishop Cyprian wants to believe that this is still 1937—a time, that is, when there is much uncertainty as to which direction the State Church of Greece and the other jurisdictions of "World Orthodoxy" would take. This, however, is not 1937, but the final years of the twentieth century, when "World Orthodoxy's" official statements, acts, encyclicals, and ecumenistic resolutions have made it all too clear that this body finds itself clearly outside the official and canonical boundaries of the Orthodox Faith, as defined by the Holy Ecumenical and Local Councils.

Recently, Bishop Cyprian's jurisdiction has joined in communion with the Russian Church Abroad, in spite of some resistance from within this Russian jurisdiction, which itself [claims to be] in communion with the Patriarchates of Jerusalem and Serbia (both full and organic members of the World Council of Churches).

Regarding the union between the "Synod of Those in Resistiance" and the Russian Church Abroad, Vladimir Moss, in his book titled, "The Orthodox Church at the Crossroads" (Birmingham, 1999), wrote the following:

In July, 1994 a union took place between four [traditionalist jurisdictions]: the ROCA [i.e., the "Russian Orthodox Church Abroad"], the Romanian Old Calendarists under Metropolitan Blaise, the Bulgarian Old Calendarists under Bishop Photius of Triaditsa and the Greek Old Calendarists under Metropolitan Cyprian of Orope and Fili (the “Cyprianites”). Any reversal of the process of fragmentation among the [traditionalist jurisdictions] could only be accounted a positive sign. In this case, however, union was achieved at the price of the ROCA officially rejecting the validity of the Florinites’ defrocking of Metropolitan Cyprian [in 1979] and accepting his very controversial ecclesiology as her own. This ecclesiology recognized that the churches of ecumenist “World Orthodoxy” still had grace, justifying this on the grounds of a completely unacceptable theory of the relationship between the Seven Ecumenical Councils and the heretics of their day. Thus the “Third Way” between Orthodoxy and heresy that Metropolitan Cyprian was preaching, and which he had succeeded in having accepted by three other Churches, threatened to become yet another of the diplomatic compromises with which Orthodox history is scattered and which have always failed in the longer term.

From the start, there were many critics of the union among conservative members of the ROCA in Russia and America. Even the two most senior ROCA bishops, Metropolitan Vitaly and Archbishop Anthony of Los Angeles, were reported to be against it. Thus in his Nativity epistle for 1995/96 Metropolitan Vitaly contradicted the Cyprianite ecclesiology he had signed up to, saying that he personally believed that the Moscow Patriarchate did not have the grace of sacraments. [18] And in December, 1996, he wrote flatly that the Moscow Patriarchate was "the Church of the evil-doers, the Church of the Antichrist", which "has completely sealed its irrevocable falling away from the body of the Church of Christ". [19] Again, although the Romanian Old Calendarists have been in communion with the Cyprianites for several years and have not protested their ecclesiology [except for one bishop, Cosmas of Moldavia, who protested against Cyprianism and broke communion from the jurisdiction of Metropolitan Blaise in 1991], their own practice of chrismating new calendarists who come to them suggests that they hold to a stricter ecclesiology. [20]

Another hierarch of the Russian Church Abroad that was antagonistic towards union with the "Cyprianites" was Bishop Gregory (Grabbe), the secretary and canonist of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. For more information, read Bishop Gregory's article: "The Dubious Orthodoxy of Metropolitan Cyprian's Group," which first appeared in "Church News" [in Russian], Sept-Oct, 1994, pp. 2-3.


[1] "Orthodoxos Typos", January 20, 1984, p. 3 (in Greek).

[2] Ibid., March 16, 1984, p. 3 (in Greek).

[3] The entire text of the epistle is in his monastery's periodical, "Agios Kyprianos", February-March,1984, pp. 288-291 (in Greek).

[4] All information attributed to the monks of Holy Transfiguration Monastery is taken from the book titled, "The Struggle Against Ecumenism", HOCNA, Boston, Massachusetts, 1998, pp. 113-120.

[5] For more information on Metropolitan Chrysostom's letters of 1937, see the article on the "Florinites."

[6] See the "Pastoral Encyclical of 1935," signed by all the hierarchs of the True Orthodox Church of Greece.

[7] For more information on Metropolitan Chrysostom's Encyclical of 1950, see the article on the "Florinites."

[8] For more information on the Encyclical of 1974, issued by the Synod of Archbishop Auxentius, see the article on the "Acacians."

[9] It is possible that this assertion made by Bishop Cyprian is true. While Bishop Matthew of Bresthena (later Archbishop of Athens) was alive, Metropolitan Chrysostom of Florina refused to deny his unorthodox views on the supposed grace-filled mysteries of the new calendarists, even though Bishop Matthew had pleaded and begged Metropolitan Chrysostom to return to the original Synodal confession. However, exactly twelve days after the repose of Archbishop Matthew, Metropolitan Chrysostom had a sudden change of mind, and returned to the original confession that Archbishop Matthew had always upheld. Consequently, this persuaded a large number of Matthewite laymen to join the Florinite Synod. However, only two years later, in 1952, Metropolitan Chrysostom returned to his previous wavering attitude towards the new calendarists, thus weakening the ecclesiology of his Synod. See "Apantiki Pragmateia", "Herald of the Genuine Orthodox," Athens, Greece, 1983, pp. 37-45 (in Greek).

[10] Metropolitan Callistus (Makris), "The History of the Sacred Monasteries of the Holy Supreme Commanders Michael and Gabriel, and of the Annunciation of the Theotokos", Athikia, Corinth, 1972, p. 24 (in Greek).

[11] Ibid., p. 163.

[12] For more information concerning Bishop Eulogius of Milan, see the article on the "Lisbonites."

[13] Hayes, Stephen, Interview with Bishop Macarius of Riruta, Nov. 1995

[14] For a thorough examination of Metropolitan Cyprian's self-contradictory claims, see the article entitled, "The Dubious Orthodoxy of Metropolitan Cyprian's Group" by Bishop Gregory (Grabbe)—a hierarch of the Russian Church Abroad.

[15] The Pan-Orthodox Councils that condemned the new calendar convened in Constantinople in 1583, 1587 and 1593; the Holy Synod of the Great Church in 1902 and 1904; the Holy Synods of Russia, of Jerusalem, of Greece, and of Romania, each independently, in 1903; the Holy Synod of Greece again in 1919; and the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Alexandria in 1924; not to mention the condemnations of the new calendar issued by Patriarch Dositheus of Jerusalem (1670), Ecumenical Patriarch Agathangelus (1827), and Ecumenical Patriarch Anthimus IV (1895).

[16] In addition, the Synodicon of Orthodoxy (see the Triodion, the Sunday of Orthodoxy) has the following clause: "To those who reject the definitions which were promulgated for the establishment of the true doctrines of the Church of God by the Holy Fathers Athanasius, Cyril, Ambrose, Amphilochius, and the God-proclaiming Leo, the most holy Archbishop of Old Rome, and by all the others, and furthermore, who do not embrace the acts of the Ecumenical Councils, especially those of the fourth, I say, and of the sixth, Anathema! (thrice)."

[17] See, for example, "Our Ecclesiological Position" in the periodical "Agios Kyprianos" (November, 1984), and "Orthodox Resistance and Witness" (January-March, 1987), both published by the Monastery of Sts Cyprian and Justina, Fili, Attica (in Greek).

[18] "Pravoslavnij Vestnik," January-February, 1996 (in Russian).

[19] Metropolitan Vitaly: "Letter to Archbishop Mark of Germany and Great Britain," November 29 / December 12, 1996 (in Russian).

[20] Moss, Vladimir: Archimandrite Cyprian, secretary of the Romanian Synod, personal communication, August, 1994.
  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 1 comment