On the Non-Existent Heresy of “Cyprianism”

Metropolitan Agafangel, First Hierarch of the Russian Church Abroad

September 10, 2025

The general internal characteristic that distinguishes this Heavenly Church from the earthly one is that, whereas in the earthly Church good coexists with evil and the tares grow together with the wheat, in the Heavenly Church only what is good, pure, and holy will be gathered from all the nations of the earth. All that is evil, defiled, and unclean, accumulated over the entire course of world history, will be separated from it and poured out, as it were, into one foul reservoir, the uncleanness of which will in no way touch this wondrous habitation of blessed beings alone.

- Archbishop Averky (Taushev). Commentary on a group of verses from Revelation 21.

In his Theses, Metropolitan Cyprian laments, first and foremost, the adoption of the new calendar by the official Church of Greece in 1924. He writes that since the new calendar has not been condemned by a full Council of the Church of Greece, such a Council ought to be convened; and until it takes place, we regard the new calendarists as "ailing members of the Church," awaiting their repentance and return, while having no prayerful or Eucharistic communion with them. The entire publication is, practically speaking, devoted to the Church of Greece—its problems and the hope for its unity. Similar sentiments existed among us in ROCOR, when all hoped that the Moscow Patriarchate, once freed from the power of communism, would repent and return to patristic Orthodoxy.

When, 40 years ago, Metropolitan Cyprian wrote these Theses, there was still hope for the convening of a Local Council of the Church of Greece, just as there was also such hope among us, the Russians, for the convening of a Local Council of our Church, which would sum up the entire turbulent and dreadful period in the life of both the Church and our entire Homeland. Today, this hope, unfortunately, no longer exists.

It should be noted that the earthly Church consists only of “ailing members,” for all people are sinful (except for the very Founder of the Church and His Most Pure Mother). Therefore, it is more of a heresy to assert that there can be no ailing members in the Church — such a claim directly contradicts Holy Scripture: the Lord came not to save the righteous and call them to repentance, but sinners (cf. Matt. 9:13; Mark 2:17; Luke 5:32). If this were not so, then the Church itself would be unnecessary. However, in this case, we are speaking of a particular kind of “ailing members” — those ailing with heresy, that is, with false doctrine.

The new calendar, adopted by the Papists, was, in the very year of its appearance (1582), rejected by the Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremias II, and was subsequently condemned under the same Patriarch by three Pan-Orthodox Councils: those of 1583 and 1587 (Councils of Constantinople, with the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Jerusalem also present), and the Council of 1593 (with participation of four Patriarchs — including the Patriarch of Antioch), "as a pernicious papal innovation."

But there was no condemnation of the new calendar by an Ecumenical Council, nor by a Council of the Church of Greece — this is what Metropolitan Cyprian points out; and, being concerned for the Church of Greece, hoping that some part of it might return to the patristic Tradition, he draws attention to the necessity of convening a Church Council of the Church of Greece on this matter.

Speaking of the heresy of the new calendar, of other heresies, and of the “members” ailing from these heresies, Metropolitan Cyprian, of course, refers exclusively to heresies not condemned by Councils, of which there are many (thus, among us Russians, there exist heresies not condemned by the fullness of the Russian Church — such as Sergianism, modernism, name-worshipping, tsar-worshipping, globalism, humanism, syncretism, intercommunion, ethnophyletism, and others — even ecumenism, unfortunately, has not been condemned by the Russian Church on a Church-wide scale), and this troubles many; but due to the absence of conciliar condemnation, some of these are present and continue to persist even among the faithful. There are, unfortunately, more than enough such kinds of “ailing members” among us. Until these heresies are condemned by a Council, we are compelled to tolerate them as private opinions. Though the sacraments performed by such clergy may be valid (for those who, with pure faith and conscience, approach them unsuspectingly), these sacraments can be salvific only within the enclosure of the Church. There is no salvation outside the Church.

Of course, when it comes to heresies already condemned by Councils, there can be absolutely no discussions whatsoever; and, in accordance with Canon 15 (second part) of the First-Second Council, it is the direct duty of a bishop, clergyman, and even layman to denounce such a heretic, and, if he does not repent of his heresy, to seek a decision from the ecclesiastical authority for his expulsion beyond the enclosure of the Church.

Unfortunately, in our days there exists a sorrowful practice, which has nothing to do with Orthodoxy, whereby anyone can declare anything a heresy, and on that basis criticize those whom he dislikes, while presenting himself as a “true confessor.” In this same manner, the enemies of ROCOR use against us the so-called heresy of “Cyprianism,” which, in reality, does not even exist. Thus, in our times, biased individuals far removed from Orthodoxy can easily be recognized by their unhealthy attitude toward so-called “Cyprianism.”

It should be advised for everyone who is genuinely confused or concerned about “Cyprianism” to examine this matter carefully.

Russian source: 

http://internetsobor.org/index.php/stati/avtorskaya-kolonka/mitropolit-agafangel-o-nesushchestvuyushchej-eresi-kiprianizma