.

.

After my death our beloved Church abroad will break three ways ... first the Greeks will leave us as they were never a part of us ... then those who live for this world and its glory will go to Moscow ... what will remain will be those souls faithful to Christ and His Church. ~St. Philaret of NY






Request for Dialogue

in Romanian
√ I have a request from a Romanian for someone to talk to from our jurisdiction who can speak Romanian.  He says he does not understand the machine translations. joannahigginbotham@live.com

Renovationism from the Right

This copy incorporates some of the changes made in the 2003 rewrite, because some of those changes are truly for the good and for the better by adding useful appropriate information or by editing out Herman Podmoshensky's personal animosities towards certain ROCOR hierarchs, and other of his errors in perception. Text added in from the rewrite is colored 'midnight' blue.

NOT of This WORLD
by Monk Damascene Christensen 
Chapter 64 
Renovationism from the Right

"Traditionalism is not the same thing
 as real traditional outlook.
--Rene Guenon

Fanaticism limits a man's understanding,
but true faith gives him freedom.
--St. Macarius of Optina


The super-correct view of grace—or rather gracelessness—caused many problems for the Russian Church Abroad ... our bishops refuse to declare other Churches without grace...



The chief danger to the Church today is not lack of strictness.  It is something much deeper -- the loss of the savor of Orthodoxy, a movement in which the super-correct themselves are participating...


Read More... X 
Prevention and Treatment for the Super-Correct Disease...X 

Sticky

√ The Youth Alexander
This true account is not on the subject of Remnant ROCOR, but it so moved me I copied it for the Newcomer's page.  It took me a month to do it - maybe you will be glad to read it?
[Anyone care to help with or contribute to the Newcomer's page?]

Kontakion to St. Philaret

Kontakion to St. Philaret the New Confessor

tone 4

The hierarchs of Christ today stand in the assembly of the saints,
and with the angelic choirs pray to God for us;
together with them also the hierarch of the Lord Philaret,
a canon of faith and icon of meekness,
who appeared to his flock as a teacher of continence,
having acquired by humility things lofty and by poverty riches,
he intercedeth for our souls.

Suaiden slips – admits he is paid



http://www.euphrosynoscafe.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9046&start=84

Joseph Suaiden slips and admits he's being paid.  
  Something unexplainable about many narcissists is that all along in their fakery they are offering us clues to what are their real intentions and plottings.  They somehow have to brag about it, even if at the same time they are keeping it a secret.  In this Euphrosynos Cafe conversation Suaiden admits he is being paid the "big bucks (ha ha ha)".  Yes, he has to pretend this is a joke – ha ha – that he is just kidding.   What a strange sense of humor you have, Mr. Suaiden.   (My! Granny, what a big nose you have!)


First entry is by Cyprian in black type.
Suaiden is in Pepto-Bismal type.





Imported Image 7.tiffby Cyprian » Fri 23 July 2010 9:30 pm
Suaiden wrote:
I was wondering when someone would come out with something on my Synod! This is not an honest presentation. First, the resistance position was articulated in 1984. First off, Metropolitan Evloghios assisted in the consecration of Archbishop Chrysostomos in 1986. To my knowledge, that's it. And as far as I knew, the SiR already had two Bishops. They did not need us to begin with. Nor am I totally familiar with the circumstances that led to the decisive break in relations between the Western Synod (then headed in Lisbon, not Milan) and the SiR. But the claim that we "aided and abetted" Metropolitan Cyprian's "foray into schism" (from whom???) is unfounded. We've always helped those who have asked. We still do. That makes me biased? A single assistance of our Bishops in 1986? Interesting.


Dear Dcn. Joseph,

This is precisely why I said I prefer to stick to the Cyprianite ecclesiology, which is very straightforward and simple for me to understand, rather than delving into matters of history, which are not as clear. I simply cannot keep up with all the peoples, places, names and faces, along with the dates, since I did not live through these events. So I ask you to forgive any of my unintentional errors, and I'm glad we have your presence here to correct any misstatements on my part.

After doing some searching, it appears that you are correct, and that Cyprian did have Giovanni of Sardinia along with him to consecrate new bishops without the need of Evloghios of Milan.

Now, to address your individual points.

First, the resistance position was articulated in 1984. First off, Metropolitan Evloghios assisted in the consecration of Archbishop Chrysostomos in 1986. To my knowledge, that's it.


Well then, this begs the question. If Cyprian published an articulation of his ecclesiology in 1984, and Met. Evloghios of Milan assisted in the consecration of the Cyprianite bishop Chrysostomos of Etna in 1986, then doesn't this indicate that Met. Evloghios (current primate of your synod of Milan) had no qualms about Cyprian and his ecclesiology? Why would your current primate assist in the consecration of a bishop with Cyprian unless he accepted Cyprian's confession to be orthodox?

A while back I had read this article, titled: 

Who Are the Cyprianites? How Did They Arise?

Wherein it states:

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. 

This is likely one of the sources that I read which left me with the impression that Met. Evloghios of Milan assisted with the consecration of multiple bishops, rather than just the one bishop, Chrysostomos of Etna. This article actually says that Evloghios joined the Cyprianites, while you maintain that Evloghios merely assisted them in response to their request for help. Please do tell us if the narration in this article of how events transpired is incorrect.

And as far as I knew, the SiR already had two Bishops. They did not need us to begin with.


It appears you are correct, and I was mistaken on this point.

Nor am I totally familiar with the circumstances that led to the decisive break in relations between the Western Synod (then headed in Lisbon, not Milan) and the SiR.


You refer to a "break". So your primate was in communion with Cyprian in 1986, which is a couple years after he made known his ecclesiological opinions?

But the claim that we "aided and abetted" Metropolitan Cyprian's "foray into schism" (from whom???) is unfounded.


I think that anyone who joins with or assists Cyprian in any manner to expand his para-synagogue is aiding and abetting his schism and heresy. So I do believe your current primate aided and abetted Cyprian, by consecrating at least one bishop together with him. 

We've always helped those who have asked. We still do.


But you just got done telling us that Cyprian had his own synod of bishops and did not require the assistance of the Western Synod. So what was the true purpose of Met. Evloghios consecrating a bishop with Cyprian?

That makes me biased? A single assistance of our Bishops in 1986? Interesting.


I believe it makes your whole synod biased toward Cyprianism, not just you. Obviously your current primate had no issues with Cyprian or his confession of faith, or he wouldn't have assisted him in consecrating the dastardly Chrysostomos of Etna.
Imported Image 8.tiff
Member

Posts: 222
Joined: Sat 12 November 2005 11:40 am
Location: near Seattle, WA
Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: none






Imported Image 9.tiffby Suaiden » Fri 23 July 2010 10:10 pm
Cyprian wrote:
Dear Dcn. Joseph,

This is precisely why I said I prefer to stick to the Cyprianite ecclesiology, which is very straightforward and simple for me to understand, rather than delving into matters of history, which are not as clear. I simply cannot keep up with all the peoples, places, names and faces, along with the dates, since I did not live through these events. So I ask you to forgive any of my unintentional errors, and I'm glad we have your presence here to correct any misstatements on my part.


No problem Imported Image 10.tiff

After doing some searching, it appears that you are correct, and that Cyprian did have Giovanni of Sardinia along with him to consecrate new bishops without the need of Evloghios of Milan.


That does not mean he was not there-- but the idea that "Milan created the SiR" is a little far-fetched.

Now, to address your individual points.


And to answer your points. Imported Image 11.tiff

Well then, this begs the question. If Cyprian published an articulation of his ecclesiology in 1984, and Met. Evloghios of Milan assisted in the consecration of the Cyprianite bishop Chrysostomos of Etna in 1986, then doesn't this indicate that Met. Evloghios (current primate of your synod of Milan) had no qualms about Cyprian and his ecclesiology? Why would your current primate assist in the consecration of a bishop with Cyprian unless he accepted Cyprian's confession to be orthodox?


I've never seen Metropolitan Evloghios say that he affirmed or condemned the resistance ecclesiology, so I assume he considered him to be Orthodox.

A while back I had read this article, titled

Who Are the Cyprianites? How Did They Arise?
***
Wherein it states:

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

This is likely one of the sources that I read which left me with the impression that Met. Evloghios of Milan assisted with the consecration of multiple bishops, rather than just the one bishop, Chrysostomos of Etna. This article actually says that Evloghios joined the Cyprianites, while you maintain that Evloghios merely assisted them in response to their request for help. Please do tell us if the narration in this article of how events transpired is incorrect.


Well, that's a good question! Considering the article is dripping with inaccuracies in other areas, I see no reason to doubt that this is an overstated narration. I understood that Abp Chrysostomos was made a Bishop with then-Bishop Evloghios' assistance, and that was that; the rest of the Synod was consecrated by the three Bishops.

It appears you are correct, and I was mistaken on this point.


That's why they pay me the big bucks.  


You refer to a "break". So your primate was in communion with Cyprian in 1986, which is a couple years after he made known his ecclesiological opinions?


I am frankly not sure. I am sure that our Primate considered himself in communion with Archbishop Auxentios. In my studies of our Synod's history (but I don't discount the possibility that I missed something) I have (a) never seen any document that indicated that then-Bishop Evloghios separated from the Western Synod (b) nor seen any document that indicated that the Western Synod recognized any Greek Primate but Abp Auxentios until 1994. I am not saying that's not the case, but I am saying that no testimony from any Bishop I have spoken to confirms anything but that both those premises were fiction. 

The break is a reference to their state of mutual condemnation over a couple of decades (which Metropolitan Evloghios apologized for after Metropolitan Cyprian fell into a coma).


I think that anyone who joins with or assists Cyprian in any manner to expand his para-synagogue is aiding and abetting his schism and heresy.


Bully for you! That's really not my problem. I don't think Metropolitan Evloghios had in his head the desire to expand a para-synagogue, but to assist Orthodox Bishops who asked for help. Was he right or wrong? In 1986? I just would say those were confusing times. But before you can say that "he aided and abetted schism and heresy", first you must prove he (Metr Cyprian) was guilty of schism and heresy. What was the standing order that demonstrated either case? Who issued it?

Before we go and argue that this proves Metropolitan Evloghios was secretly favoring Metr Cyprian, consider the events of the past two years, when Metropolitan Anghelos of Avlona requested assistance in making Bishops. He almost joined the SiR, but came instead to us, probably due to our record of respecting the autonomy of dioceses. This led the SiR to issue a heartfelt condemnation of our Synod, for doing almost the same thing we did for them years before.

Go figure.


But you just got done telling us that Cyprian had his own synod of bishops and did not require the assistance of the Western Synod. So what was the true purpose of Met. Evloghios consecrating a bishop with Cyprian?


At the time? He probably just asked.

I believe it makes your whole synod biased toward Cyprianism, not just you. Obviously your current primate had no issues with Cyprian or his confession of faith, or he wouldn't have assisted him in consecrating the dastardly Chrysostomos of Etna.


Dastardly?

Main Entry: das·tard·ly
Pronunciation: \-lē\
Function: adjective
Date: 1542
1 : cowardly
2 : characterized by underhandedness or treachery
synonyms see cowardly

I have emailed with Abp Chrysostomos of Etna on and off in the last year, and have spoken to him at his monastery by phone. See, this is what I am talking about. I wouldn't refer to any Bishop of any TOC as "dastardly". I am sure the Archbishop has his character flaws but he is no more or less "dastardly" than any other Bishop I've spoken to. He's a bit more of a stickler than many others I've spoken to but I wouldn't describe him as "underhanded" or "treacherous" or "cowardly". He strikes me as a decent Bishop, quite intelligent, and a serious monk. Unless you have AT LEAST some evidence that's a needless swipe.

   Deacon Joseph Suaiden and Family
   St Eulalia Orthodox Mission (Holy Synod of Milan)
Imported Image 13.tiff
Member

Posts: 288
Joined: Thu 8 April 2004 6:31 pm
Location: Yonkers, New York
Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Holy Synod of Milan
   •




So who do we think it is who is paying Suaiden and what is his assignment?  Go back a few posts in this conversation and we see his assignment is to promote the Milan synod (which we believe is a KGB front) and to push an old calendar ecumenism movement among the schismatics and vigante jurisdictions calling themselves "true" Orthodox.  The prize catch would be if he can get ROCA to join in the folly – surely he'd get a big bonus for that, maybe given a comfortable retirement...  In this post here Suaiden is also taking an opportunity to butter up +AC.  Watch what comes in the future.