What is Wrong With Cyprianism?

[Anastasios]

Cyprian's consecration by Kallinikos is a question of hearsay. Cyprianities say that Auxentius asked that Kallinikos consecrate Cyprian and the others. Then when the other synodal bishops discovered the fact, Auxentius backtracked. I tend to believe the Cyprianite line of reasoning though because the bishops under Auxentius rebelled against him three times, finally choosing Chrysostomos II as Arhchbishop.

That being said, it is strange to me that some assert that Cyprian could have been deposed by Arch. Chrysostomos II when he was never under his Synod? Chrysostomos II was not even under the Auxentian Synod at the time of Cyrpian's consecration.

Could someone please explain the allegation that Chrysostomos was of dubious moral character? I have heard such rumours but do not know the extent to which the are true.

anastasios

[Daniel]

According to the Time lineby Dormition Skete: GOC removes Auxentios in Oct ‘85; Enthrones Chrysostomos II Jan ‘86; Cyprian deposed Nov. ‘86.

If you see the GOC as the legitimate Synod of Old-Calender bishops in Greece, then I would think they, even given Cyprian’s quasi-independent (though unlawfull) synod, have the authority to depose him.

[Seraphim Reeves]

I don't see how Cyprian could not be under the authority of the GOC, since his supposed independence was self appointed in the first place. That seems to me to be like saying "you can't arrest me RCMP, because I've declared the square km around my house to be "Seraphimnia", a sovereign state under my juristiction"...even if the Canadian gov't had never recognized my succession! In short, I'd be a crackpot claiming a non-existant autonomy for myself, and they'd be in all rights able to arrest me if I broke any laws.

Seraphim

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

If Cyprian has the truth and is opposed by the Synod, then nobody can depose him since he is not deposed by God, but rather he is enlightened by the Holy Spirit. If on the other hand, he does not have the truth and is leading people to communion with heresy, then he has already been deposed by God, the Synod is making it official.

EDIT: This distinction needs to be made or someone will accuse the GOC or being deposed by the new-calendarists in the '30's

But the main problem lay, which Seraphim pointed out in different terms, is that to be a Cyprianite, one would have to admit that Wordly Orthodoxy was the true Church and not the GOC, in which case, where does Cyprian get his Apostolic succession?

You see, either Cyprian gets his Apostolic Succession from the GOC, making the GOC the true Church (or in the ecumenist language, "a true church") or Cyprian was never a Bishop at all. So again, as Seraphim pointed out, he is subject to being deposed.

So in either case, he is not a bishop, or one would have to at least admit that the GOC was the Church, leaving that person with the idea that "the Church" is made up of new-calendarists, Monophysites, Cyprianites, and the GOC - quite a mix. But then again, ecumenists, for as much as they think the Church is this big ambiguous mix, ironically enough also think that their little "sandboxes" are separate from all the people they commune with - they don't realize a communion is one big beach, and they confess that Bartholomew comes over in his white poka-dot swim trunks and plays with them each Sunday.

[away]

I dont know, i dont even understand what you are all talking about, but does anyone think there is an end to this? Is ther some kind of solution or is it more of a hobby? (i refer to the lively discussion). But seriously, Im being lighthearted because i give these questions no thought and yet 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 (or i might be misunderstanding this idea out of my ignorence). This may well be true for all I know, i dont want to put any sort of opinion forward, since I have barely even begun to understand the complexities of these questions that are new to me, although I have always known they exist.

Now a question: I was baptised into the Serbian Church. At the time, it was the part of the Serbian Church that was outside of Serbia, I think it was called the "free Church". I understand the two Churches are now back together. I still go to this Church for Liturgy and confession and The Mysteries. 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? How many positions can one choose from according to how strict we want to be with regard to ecuminism? I dont really want to support that, you see. But I wonder where I am at sometimes. What about reading books by Theologions and others who are connected with "World Orthodoxy". What is meant by world Orthodoxy anyway?

I want you all to know that these are serious questions, I am not making fun, I honestly have no idea, and I am interested in learning from those who know alot about it, any information that I may not know, but should.

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

[Anastasios]

According to the Time lineby Dormition Skete: GOC removes Auxentios in Oct ‘85; Enthrones Chrysostomos II Jan ‘86; Cyprian deposed Nov. ‘86.

If you see the GOC as the legitimate Synod of Old-Calender bishops in Greece, then I would think they, even given Cyprian’s quasi-independent (though unlawfull) synod, have the authority to depose him.

See, I am not sure if I believe that the GOC had the right to depose Auxentios. That was the third time they had risen up against him and it seemed to be for reasons that had already been settled (the ordination of the homosexual, which Auxentios swore he did not know about that inclination of the candidate, and which he later deposed him for anyway, and which candidate later died, making it a moot point anyway).

anastasios

[Anastasios]

I don't see how Cyprian could not be under the authority of the GOC, since his supposed independence was self appointed in the first place. That seems to me to be like saying "you can't arrest me RCMP, because I've declared the square km around my house to be "Seraphimnia", a sovereign state under my juristiction"...even if the Canadian gov't had never recognized my succession! In short, I'd be a crackpot claiming a non-existant autonomy for myself, and they'd be in all rights able to arrest me if I broke any laws.

Seraphim

1) Cyprian argues that Archbishop Auxentius's Synod fell apart effectively in 1979, due to the fight over whether to consecrate him and the other eight bishops. He claims Auxentius asked for him to be consecrated but then backtracked when it ticked off the other bishops. In other words, Cyprian claims that Auxentius "played him". Hence Cyprian went on his own, as the vindicated party. Do I totally buy that argument? Not sure, but given the confusion in the 1980's Auxentian Synod, it could be true.

2) I don't believe that the Synod of Chrystostomos II can in be considered the same GOC as that of Auxentius, because Auxentius's body continued on after the schism, and because I find it strange that the anti-Auxentians installed someone who was "walled off" himself (the exact claim they make about Cyprian--you can't be on your own!), namely Chrysostomos II, and installed him out of the blue. Smells fishy to me.

3) Out of personal curiosity, how in the world does Chrysostomos II get the "II" anyway? Was there another Chrystostomos of Athens? Because if not, Chrysostomos of Florina never claimed the title Archbishop of Athens so I wonder how that came about.

anastasios