Commentary on Metropolitan Agafangel defending the teaching of Metropolitan Cyprian

Alexey Rodionov | September 10, 2025

 

Late last night on the website “Internet Sobor” were published the “Ecclesiological Theses” of Metropolitan Cyprian (Koutsoumbas), his most well-known and most criticized text. And this morning also appeared the text “Metropolitan Agafangel: On the Nonexistent Heresy of ‘Cyprianism’”, in which the ecclesiology of Metropolitan Cyprian (Koutsoumbas) is defended. Both texts are short, but quite representatively display the thinking of their authors. I am publishing the latter text on my page in its entirety:

[English translation - https://orthodoxmiscellany.blogspot.com/2025/09/on-non-existent-heresy-of-cyprianism_10.html]

Both Metropolitan Cyprian (Koutsoumbas) together with [Metropolitan] Agafangel (Pashkovsky), who aligned himself with him, and their opponents are united in the belief that Ecumenism is heresy. Moreover, ecumenists are considered not only those who personally participate in ecumenical contacts, but also all those who are in prayerful communion with them and recognize their authority. But where they diverge is in regard to the moment when the ecumenist-heretics fall away from the Church. While Cyprian (Koutsoumbas) adheres to an approach that can be reduced to legal positivism (in this case “ex sententia” — “by sentence”), his opponents, consciously or unconsciously, appeal to the norms of natural law (that is, “ex lege” — “by force of the law itself” or “ipso facto” — “by the very fact”).

- The logic of natural law as applied to ecclesiastical realities: truth and falsehood, the Church and heresy, exist objectively, independently of the decisions of human institutions. If a person has fallen into heresy, the very fact of this falling away terminates his belonging to the Church. An ecclesiastical decree here is secondary: it does not create a new status but merely confirms an already occurred spiritual rupture. The theological nuance: emphasis on the ontology of the Church (the Body of Christ — a living organism; one who has fallen away from it — already a dead member).

- The logic of positive law as applied to ecclesiastical realities: a fact has force only when it is recognized and formalized by an authorized body. Heresy in and of itself does not yet "remove" a person from the Church — this must be confirmed by a Council or a court. Thus, everything is “legally valid” only after official condemnation. The theological nuance: emphasis on the institutional nature of the Church (hierarchy, council, canonical court as bearers of authority).

Personally, I am somewhat more inclined toward the first approach, but I cannot fail to note that Orthodox theology is a very complex and often contradictory matter, and one can easily become confused in it; therefore, in any case, it is beneficial to await the judgment of an authoritative Church Council. The only problem is that the Church hierarchy is by no means quick to acknowledge its own “blunders.” Moreover, throughout all times, the majority of the Church faithful never even attempted to study any sort of dogmatic law, and thus they unwittingly confessed various heresies. In fact, people have always been excommunicated not for the mere fact of holding some heresy, but rather for their refusal to renounce it. And this must by no means be forgotten....

 

Russian source: https://rocor-observer.livejournal.com/296590.html