From what I can gather of the 1986 condemnation, Met Cyprian was not accused of "Cyprianism", but rather of Ecumenism. I.e. they hadn't identified Cyprianism itself as a heresy distinct from Ecumenism. I don't completely understand the accusation, since Met Cyprian never became an ecumenist as is commonly understood, i.e. someone who believed the Catholics, Protestants and Monophysites to be part of the Church. I assume what they meant was that, as Met Cyprian affirmed as a matter of faith that the Ecumenists were still in the Church, possessing sacramental Grace, until a condemnation by an Ecumenical or Pan-Orthodox synod, that itself was an expression of Ecumenism. In other words, he affirmed that heretics could still be in the Church, which is what the new calendarist Ecumenists proclaim with respect to the Papists and Protestants.
From what I've been learning about the dialog between the GOC and the SiR, the main ecclesiological point of contention was the Cyprianite teaching that heretics were definitely inside the Church. This position they've abandoned. What was not a point of contention was the idea that heretics might temporarily retain sacramental Grace after falling into heresy, until such a time as the Church definitively expelled the heretics from the Church and from grace. I understand this to mean that some difference of opinion on the authority of local synods to expel heretics is still permitted, though to be honest I'm not entirely clear on these distinctions. Anastasios seems to know more about what's going on than I do.
