What is Wrong With Cyprianism?

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Anastasios,

Then Bishop Chrysostomos was "walled off", in the legitimate sense of the term, with two other bishops precisly because of the upheavals you mention in that time. They did not start alternate synods or make any other moves against the synod - they simply wanted to be isolated from the turmoil.

He was not "installed out of the blue". Maybe in the limited few sentences you have read which are used to describe these complex events it may seem "out of the blue". Bishop Petros was one of the bishops walled off, and they kept very close contact with the synod during this troublesome time. Bishop Chrysostomos was elected archbishop because he was recognized as somebody who was worthy of that position and could help straighten things out. And he did with the help of the Lord.

The fact that Auxentios's renegade "synod" did ordain a known homosexual to be "bishop", that those three bishops came to nothing, and that none of them appeared before the Holy Synod to answer of the chages against them is proof enough against any idea that they were legitimate after that point.

But this thread is not titled, "What is wrong with the 'Florenites' " ( you can start that if you like), so I would like to point out that you have not addressed my point.

[Justin Kissel]

away

...I see that alot of you take it very seriously, to the point that they seem to think some people are deprived of Grace because of the Church they go to

It's a matter of grace for me. I do not say that salvation is totally impossible (as though God is not capable of having such done) outside the body of Christ.... yet, the body of Christ is the ark of salvation, and is the only place with grace-filled mysteries and grace-bestowing virtues. The only place that we can make an "effort of faith" that we know ends in our salvation is exactly inside the Church. So... if someone claims that the group that I am in is outside the Church, or is heading towards leaving, that's something I'm going to investigate. I try not to get too worried over these type of things--though I apparently get more concerned than I realise sometimes. You just go about your spiritual life as best you can, and deal with each thing as it comes.

Now a question: ... So, can the various good people here tell me thier opinions about where I stand within the Church? Am I in a heretical Church? Is my Church deprived of Grace according to certain standards?

I'm not good, so I can't answer those questions In all honesty, I think this is something that you either need to talk with an experienced (pastorally capable) priest, or find out for yourself. These types of questions are very divisive, and that includes the ability to divide yourself into various factions. It's sometimes very hard to come to terms with some of what you might hear in such discussions, it's hard to reconcile apparent contradictions, and it's hard to see how the apparently cold and harsh discussions are better than those churches which some people discuss negatively. So, the best advice this bad guy can give is, when you're ready, just start reading a bit more, praying more, asking questions more, and see where it leads

What about reading books by Theologions and others who are connected with "World Orthodoxy". What is meant by world Orthodoxy anyway?

I mean by "world Orthodoxy" essentially those who embrace ecumenism. I don't think there's anything wrong with reading books from such theologians, I think you just have to read with a critical eye (as we should with almost all books untested by centuries of Orthodox use). I've read quite a good bit of edifying stuff from world Orthodox sources.

Sorry for my writing style that is not too elegant, sorry if I offend anyone.

That's okay we all have our own (potentionally improvable) style such as do you notice how I tend to go on and on with run on sentences and never seem to stop even though it would probably be a good place to stop but I don't stop I just keep going and normally I throw in all sorts of christianese about epistemology and ecclesiology and before you know it it's just a jumbled mess and the subject at the end of the sentence is totally different than what it was at the beginning of the sentence but I just keep going! :mrgreen:

Justin

[Anastasios]

OOD,

No, I am not basing my reaction on a few lines but on the book The Struggle Against Ecumenism by Holy Transfiguration Monastery. Could you point me to something written against this book by your Synod?

I find it curious that Bp Stephanos of your Synod in 1994 went to Archbishop Auxentius's funeral and begged forgiveness for rising up against him. Do you think there were other reasons?

anastasios

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Anastasios,

Bp Stephanos asked forgiveness? Were you there? And if he did, what does that prove? Could it be an extrapolation or exploitation of the facts on the part of some enemy of the Church supporting their own views? Wouldn't HTM have some bias here at all? What does the HTM say regading the fact that Auxentios would not meet with the Holy Synod to explain his himself? I would think a person wrongly accused would rush to such a chance, much less three chances. I would also say that someone with the love of God in their hearts would strive to prevent divisions. So why would he not meet them?

I know that depending on how you read the above I may sound agitated, but I’m not at all, so don’t take offense. I have seen enough and read enough to know that the only so-called facts anybody can really know, are those facts which speak for themselves, and those facts which are witnessed first hand. That’s why when you told me several months ago you were embarking on this project creating an “old-calendarist roadmap”, I was disappointed, because nobody could ever create such a thing and have it excepted by anyone except the party they are catering to.

An excellent example is the situation at HTM, the authors of your book. There are some fairly credible witnesses who say there is a named sex offender at that monastery. Then there are counter arguments which also seem credible in their own light. Regardless if anyone decides to write a book, who is ever going to say this is a “fact”, or that is a “fact” about matters of personal experience? There are many who use the infamous “sexual immorality” phrase to stigmatize someone. My opinion? I don’t have one. But if you ask me if the Lamians are schismatics I will say with certainty that they are, because there has not been one claim of heresy against our synod, that is a fact.

And if you ask me about the Cyprianites, I will say that besides what the Holy Fathers say, the points I made two posts ago, which you have not responded, speak for themselves.

What we have are a bunch of upstarts, new-calendarism being the mother of all upstarts.

[Julianna]

How can one be a heretic, in communion with (commune and be communed by) heretics, concelebrate with heretics and teach heresy bald faced and still have grace in their mysteries? Saints often declared others to be without grace before a council was called.

The councils only verified that yes the heretics are heretics and thus devoid of grace because of their heresy.

ROCOR is in communion with Cyprian. ROCOR is also in imperfect communion with Jerusalem and probably full communion with Serbia. ROCOR communicates New Calendarists. So if you disagree with Cyprianism, how can you justify being in ROCOR?

anastasios

Exactly.

[Julianna]

How can you agree with Cyprian and still be in ROCOR (since Cyprian believes we must avoid communion with world Orthodoxy at all costs, something ROCOR obviously doesn't agree with)?

How can you disagree with Cyprian and still be in ROCOR (since they are in communion with one another and supposedly have the same ecclesiology)?

Exactly. Isn't it nice when we'll all agree?

[Anastasios]

Julianna, Paradosis, and Anastasios agree........................!