HOCNA's encyclical Feb 26/Mar 11, 2018 condemns Cyprianism

[Maria]

I have placed this encyclical into the Intra-TOC Polemics as this encyclical attacks Dr. Auxentios of the Diocese of Etna and Portland as well as the Synod under Kallinikos. Dr. Auxentios has in the past complained bitterly whenever someone, especially Dr. Vladimir Moss, has attacked him.

This HOCNA encyclical is a must read. I would quote parts of it, but the pdf google drive prevents one from performing a cut and paste. This prevents me from doing a scholarly comparison with the documents from the SiR and the Kallinikos Synod that were published during the union and afterwards.

One important fact: HOCNA has now put a stop to intercommunion between HOCNA and the Kallinikos Synod.
I did not know that this was still occurring, but two hierarchs under Archbishop Kallinikos did mention this intercommunion back in 2012.

It is obvious that HOCNA is lamenting the loss of nearly half of its parishioners and parishes to the Kallinikos Synod.
Perhaps this is an attempt to gain them back.

[Justice]

The parishioners who left were very wise not to accept the two major heresies that HOCNA accepted and therefore, I must applaud them for it. Though weirdly enough, the former HOCNA members seem to be completely numb to the Cyprianite union.

So if we think about it, the GOC-K accepted both the name-worshipping and awake sleeper heresies without even knowing it! I've always thought Cyprianism was the only true heresy the GOC-K accepted back in 2014.

[Maria]

The parishioners who left were very wise not to accept the two major heresies that HOCNA accepted and therefore, I must applaud them for it. Though weirdly enough, the former HOCNA members seem to be completely numb to the Cyprianite union.

So if we think about it, the GOC-K accepted both the name-worshipping and awake sleeper heresies without even knowing it! I've always thought Cyprianism was the only true heresy the GOC-K accepted back in 2014.

Yes, by the act of intercommunion between HOCNA and the churches of HOTCA, the church hierarchs were affirming the three heresies of Name-Worshiping, Awake Sleeper, and Cyprianism. Perhaps there was no clergy concelebrations, but the laity was offered and did accept intercommunion. When I was with the Kallinikos Synod, two hierarchs told me that I could receive communion in the HOCNA parishes, which I did not do. However, they told me not to say a word if I did receive communion at the local HOCNA parish. That really bothered me.

[Maria]

For some further discussion on the history of Cyprianism, please visit:

http://www.euphrosynoscafe.com/forum/vi ... 344#p72338

[Maria]

For some further discussion on the history of Cyprianism, please visit:

http://www.euphrosynoscafe.com/forum/vi ... 344#p72338

An excerpt from that discussion:

Read the alarming HOCNA encyclical. There is a lot of truth in it. Then read what is quoted below.
Is not what Met. Chrysostomos wrote almost identical with Cyprianism?
Therefore, is not Met. Chrysostomos actually the author of Cyprianism?
Was not Archbishop Cyprian of the Synod in Resistance (SiR) highly influenced by Met. Chrysostomos,
And did not his followers promote the canonization of Met. Chrysostomos, even
writing his official life for the glorification that followed by the Synod under Archbishop Kallinikos and the SiR?

• * 1937: In June, a letter to Monk Mark (Chaniotis) is composed by
  Metropolitans Germanos of Demetrias and Chrysostom of Florina, in
  which they claim the calendar innovation is a curable error. And since it
  does not directly affect any dogma, the State Church is not actually
  schismatic, but rather only "potentially schismatic" until a Pan-Orthodox
  Synod decides her fate. And until she is judged by such a Synod, her
  mysteries retain sanctifying grace. This belief goes counter to their
  encyclical of 1935. To be consistent, they both should have immediately
  returned to the new calendar Church. (ibid, Fraser, p. 10).