THE CYPRIANITE-AGATHANGELITE UNION

Written by Vladimir Moss In November, 2007 Bishop Agathangelus of Odessa entered into communion with the !prianite" #!nod of $ree% Old b! &etropolitan !prian of 'ili( )*he alendarists headed

!prianites claim that there has never

been a brea% in communion between them and Bishop Agathangelus, but this is not strictl! true, since the +avrite #!nod, of which Bishop Agathangelus was then a member, bro%e communion with the !prianites in 200,(- *hen,

earl! in .ecember, Bishop Agathangelus consecrated two further bishops for his /urisdiction with the help of the !prianite Bishops Ambrose of &ethone

and $eorge of Alania )#outh Ossetia- in Odessa0 Androni% )1otliarov- for New 2or%, and #ophron! )&usien%o- for #t( 3etersburg( #o the Agathangelite" #!nod, than%s to the !prianites, now has three dioceses0

one each for the 4%raine, 5ussia and North America(

#ome are hailing this e6pansion of the Agathangelite #!nod as the resurrection of 5O O5"( .oes this title correspond to the truth about the Agathangelite #!nod7 It would correspond to the truth onl! if0 )8- the confession of faith of this #!nod were purel! Orthodo6, )2- its apostolic succession were undoubted, and )9- it were the onl! #!nod that could reasonabl! argue that it was the continuer of 5O O5"( I believe that the Agathangelite #!nod fails to pass this test on all three counts( +et us loo% at each in turn0: 1. The Confession of the Agathangelite Synod is not purely Orthodox. 5ecentl! I put the following ;uestion to Bishop Ambrose of &ethone0

 an we ta%e it that Bishop Agathangelus shares !our ecclesiolog! in all respects7 In particular, does he, li%e !our #!nod, regard the &oscow 3atriarchate as having grace7" <is repl! )the bishop was spea%ing onl! in his own name, not for the whole !prianite #!nod- was0 So far as I know, and so

far as I have discussed [it] with him, yes.

In other words, Bishop Agathangelus recogni=es the &oscow 3atriarchate and the whole of >orld Orthodo6! to be grace:filled( &oreover, he embraces the false !prianite ecclesiolog! that heretics such as 3atriarchs Ale6is and hurch( One?s immediate

Bartholomew are sic%" members of the *rue

reaction is0 has Agathangelus learned nothing from the fall of &etropolitan +aurus7 Or rather, does he consider it a fall" at all, since +aurus, according to his and the his &other !prianites? understanding, is simpl! returning to union with

hurch", the &oscow 3atriarchate7 .oes he not understand that !prianites,

it was precisel! when 5O O5 entered into communion with the

in 8@@A, that the #!nod began negotiations with the &oscow 3atriarchate and began its rapid descent into union with heres!7

'or further elucidation of the confession of the Agathangelite: !prianites, we should turn to the section on the !prianite website that begins with the

words0 2et more historic pages in the chronicle of the Orthodo6 5esistance" )B-( <ere we find the following phrases )often repeated more than once-0

a( CBishop Agathangelus?

hurchD is full! conscious that it constitutes the hurch Abroad, since it

continuation of the original 5ussian Orthodo6

continues to preserve the latter?s Historical Heritage"( Now wh! spea% about the historical heritage of 5O O5, and not its confession of faith7 3robabl! because the confession of faith of 5O O5 in recent !ears has been far from clear, wavering between two different positions( In 8@E9 5O O5 under &etropolitan 3hilaret anathemati=ed ecumenism and the ecumenists, thereb! une;uivocall! aligning itself with the *rue Orthodo6 hurches that confess that there is no grace in >orld Orthodo6!( <owever, in 8@@A 5O O5 !prianites, thereb! reversing that position and confessing that entered into communion with the reaffirmed the anathema of 8@E9( But then in October, 2000 it not onl! reverted to !prianism, but went a

thereis grace in >orld Orthodo6!( In 8@@E 5O O5 temporaril! reverted to its former position when it

fatal step further b! petitioning to be received into the &oscow 3atriarchate via the #erbian patriarch( 'rom that moment 5O O5 must be considered to have fallen in faith, and onl! those bishops who unambiguousl! separated themselves from the false council of 2000 can be considered to be Orthodo6( Bishop Agathangelus did not separate himself for another si6 and a half !ears, and even condemned those who did separate, thereb! revealing that for the whole of that period his s!mpathies were with those who wanted union with >orld Orthodo6!( Now Bishop Ambrose assures me that Bishop Agathangelus has repented of his anti:Orthodo6 statements in that period( <owever, we have seen no publicl! e6pressed repentance on the part of Bishop Agathangelus( Or does he believe that the false council of 2000 is part of the historical heritage" of 5O O5, which he has supposedl! preserved7 If he thin%s that, then he is not Orthodo6F b( In !our person," said the Acting 3resident of the !prianite #!nod to

Agathangelus, we behold <ol! 5ussia, from the times of #t( Gladimir the Hnlightener to the luminous cloud of the <ol! New &art!rs of Orthodo6!( >e embrace this <ol! 5ussia with a hol! %iss of love("

+eaving aside the over:e6alted tone of this speech, we are entitled to as%0 how can Bishop Agathangelus represent the luminous cloud" of the <ol! New &art!rs of 5ussia if he does not agree with their confession of faith7 'or the overwhelming ma/orit! of those mart!rs confessed that the &3 is heretical and gracelessF &oreover, how can he represent the anti:sergianism of the New &art!rs when, as Archbishop *i%hon of Oms% has pointed out, he commemorates the neo:#oviet authorities of the 4%raine )and presumabl!, in his 5ussian diocese, of 5ussia, too-7

c( CBishop Agathangelus?D $od:given decision to struggle, li%e another #t( &ar% of Hphesus, against this false union and for the preservation of the Historical Heritage of the original 5ussian Orthodo6 hurch

Abroad"( But how can the Agathangelite: !prianites invo%e #t( &ar% of Hphesus, when the latter was far more uncompromising in relation to the heretics of his da! than the! are7 onsider what #t( &ar% said on

the da! of his death about his relations with the uniate patriarch of onstantinople0 I am absolutel! convinced that the farther I stand from him and those li%e him, the nearer I am to $od and all the saintsI and to the degree that I separate m!self from them am I in union with the *ruth and with the <ol! 'athers, the *heologians of the hurchI

and I am li%ewise convinced that those who count themselves with them stand far awa! from the *ruth and from the blessed *eachers of the hurchF" *he Agathangelite: !prianites, on the other hand, have

never used such language about the uniate patriarchs Ale6is, Bartholomew and others( *he! condemn those who condemn the

heretics as graceless, and themselves deliberatel! stand closer to the heretics, sa!ing that the! have grace, even that the! are the &other hurch"(

d( In !our luminous person, we /o!full! behold the Heritage of #t( *i%hon, 3atriarch of &oscow, the <ol! 5ussian New &art!rs, #t( John of #hanghai and #an 'rancisco, and also of the most saintl! &etropolitan 3hilaret, that illustrious anti-ecumenist." 2es, &etropolitan 3hilaret was indeed an illustrious anti:ecumenist K and he rejected the y!rianite ecclesiology( *his is evident not onl! from his anathema against the ecumenists, which the !prianites are alwa!s silent about, but also

from private letters he wrote declaring the &3 and the new calendarists to be without grace( #o is it not h!pocritical of the Agathangelite: !prianites to invo%e the authorit! of a hol! hierarch who re/ected their ecclesiolog!7 Or will the! now sign up to the 8@E9 anathema7(((

2. The Apostolic Succession of the A !th!n elite S"no# is #ou$tful for two reasons0 first, because their !prianite co:consecrators? #!nod was

formed in schism from the main body of the Greek Old Calendarists under Archbishop Chrysostom (Kiousis) of Athens, and secondly, because, as indicated abo e, A!athan!elus has not yet publicly renounced the false and heretical council of "### $ and heretics do not ha e apostolic succession%

3. There are other Synods having an equal, or greater claim to %continue& of ROCOR' K that is, 5OA , 5O iH and 5*O ( >ithout going into a detailed analysis of the canonicity of these &ynods, 'e kno' that they

e the

all re(ect the M) as !raceless, 'hich A!athan!elus does not% *herefore they, and not A!athan!elus, are in accord 'ith the confession of faith of the last t'o first+hierarchs of ,OCO,, Metropolitans )hilaret and Vitaly%

-ishop A!athan!elus. claim to be the sole canonical successor of ,OCO, is founded on nothin! stron!er than the fact that he 'as the last to separate from the /a rite &ynod% -ut is that anythin! to be proud of0 1s it not rather somethin! to be ashamed of0 After all, the 2oly Canons $ in particular, the 34th anon of the 'irst:and:#econd ouncil of onstantinople K do not praise

procrastination in matters of the faith, but rather praise those 'ho separate immediately that heres! is proclaimed( And in the case of 5O O5 that too% place, not in "##5, as -ishop A!athan!elus likes to think, but in "###, if not in 36678

-ishop A!athan!elus. position is similar to that of a person 'ho critici9es those 'ho (ump off a hea ily listin! ship that has been holed belo' the 'aterline, and himself :(umps; only 'hen the 'ater has reached his neck8 And yet his position is still 'orse% <or he claims that the ship he (umped off, ,OCO,+M), and 'hich is no' at the bottom of the ocean of this sinful 'orld, is in fact floatin! ma(estically on the surface 'ith Christ 2imself at its helm= 1f that is 'hat he belie es, then 'e are entitled to ask> 'hy did he (ump in the first place0 And still more pertinently> 'ill he not be tempted at some time in the future to return to that ship, becomin! one of those 'ho, :ha in! thrust a'ay a !ood conscience concernin! the faith, ha e made ship'reck8; (1 *imothy 3%36)

December 1/14, 2007.