You are on page 1of 12

Stavros Markou:

Who Are the Cyprianites? How Did They Arise?



.
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:
CANON XV
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--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.
Footnotes:
[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.

You might also like