Epislte to Cyprianites

[Ekklisiastikos]

Dear brothers in Crist,
this is an epislte to Cyprianites written by the editorial committee of the website http://www.ekklisiastikos.com as a responce to their announcement on the cessation of the informal dialogue between their community and the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece.
.
http://www.ekklisiastikos.com/2009/08/e ... nites.html
.
.

[Priest Siluan]

Between GOC and the Kyprianites could not have any dialogue, since each other have a great and irreparable ecclesiological differences. I believe that GOC-CII has been enough accelerated and clumsy trying to attempt a dialogue with them.

GOC-CII could have dialogue with any other "part of GOC" as HOCNA, GOC-Makarios or the Matthewites, due the ecclesiological differences with them are few (and in some case they have not any one) In the only way that a TOC could have a dialogue with the Kyprianites is that one if they repent from their false doctrines.

[Ekklisiastikos]

I believe that GOC-CII has been enough accelerated and clumsy trying to attempt a dialogue with them

.
The truth is that Cyprianites were those who expressed the desire for a dialog with "GOC-CII".
The Church couldn't turn its back on them.

[Ian]

Between GOC and the Kyprianites could not have any dialogue, since each other have a great and irreparable ecclesiological differences. I believe that GOC-CII has been enough accelerated and clumsy trying to attempt a dialogue with them.

GOC-CII could have dialogue with any other "part of GOC" as HOCNA, GOC-Makarios or the Matthewites, due the ecclesiological differences with them are few (and in some case they have not any one) In the only way that a TOC could have a dialogue with the Kyprianites is that one if they repent from their false doctrines.

Vladimir Moss is part of GOC-CII, no? Hasn't he written The New Soteriology /i, among others, attempting to refute what is an entirely different economy of salvation? To see how sharply they conflict, see the footnote on pp. 47-48:

In the mystery of the Cross, says Metropolitan [St.] Philaret, is expressed “the crucifying love of the Father, the crucified love of the Son, the love of the Holy Spirit triumphant in the power of the Cross. For God so loved the world”. Metropolitan Anthony’s comment on these words is dismissive: “this is a most unpersuasive sophism, a mere juggling of words. What sort of love is it that crucifies? Who needs it?” (The Dogma of Redemption, p. 6).

Moreover, I see "Cyprianites" all in communion with eachother. Whereas "non-Cyprianites" have no offical communion amongst themselves, even when they claim "ecclesiological differences with them are few (and in some case they have not any one)."

[jgress]

Between GOC and the Kyprianites could not have any dialogue, since each other have a great and irreparable ecclesiological differences. I believe that GOC-CII has been enough accelerated and clumsy trying to attempt a dialogue with them.

GOC-CII could have dialogue with any other "part of GOC" as HOCNA, GOC-Makarios or the Matthewites, due the ecclesiological differences with them are few (and in some case they have not any one) In the only way that a TOC could have a dialogue with the Kyprianites is that one if they repent from their false doctrines.

Vladimir Moss is part of GOC-CII, no? Hasn't he written The New Soteriology /i, among others, attempting to refute what is an entirely different economy of salvation? To see how sharply they conflict, see the footnote on pp. 47-48:

In the mystery of the Cross, says Metropolitan [St.] Philaret, is expressed “the crucifying love of the Father, the crucified love of the Son, the love of the Holy Spirit triumphant in the power of the Cross. For God so loved the world”. Metropolitan Anthony’s comment on these words is dismissive: “this is a most unpersuasive sophism, a mere juggling of words. What sort of love is it that crucifies? Who needs it?” (The Dogma of Redemption, p. 6).

Moreover, I see "Cyprianites" all in communion with eachother. Whereas "non-Cyprianites" have no offical communion amongst themselves, even when they claim "ecclesiological differences with them are few (and in some case they have not any one)."

I don't think the debate over soteriology has anything to do with the dialog with the Cyprianites.