Discussion and criticism of GOC-K & SiR Union

[Jean-Serge]

Actually that is not the essence of Cyprianism.

On which former cyprianist documents are you supporting this idea? Could you share them with us? Cyprianists used to have many of these documents on line but now, they are mostly gone. It is difficult as a consequence to find the sources. Myself, I read them more then 6 years ago, and never stored them. I only remember that I thought cyprianism was presented as their official doctrine, and their motive of separation with other old calendar churches.. So, documents are welcome, even for a purely historical perspective.

[Isaakos]

Why don't you as

Did the GOC recognize Metropolitan Cyprian as a priest after his deposition? Yes or No?

Why don't you ask GOC-K bishops directly?

We already have the answer from the document YOU provided. I will ask you again, did the GOC recognize Metropolitan Cyprian as a priest of the GOC after his deposition. Even better, did they recognize his episcopacy by degrading him in the first place? For a person who insists that everyone else be clear you certainly like to answer vaguely
When it suits you.

Did the synod of 1986 acknowledge cyprian as a bishop by the very fact that they deposed him? Did he retain a place within the church?

[Jean-Serge]

You are making an interpretation of the document. You could contact Met. Agafangel... So you will have no problem of contacting a GOC-K bishop. What are you waiting for? Answer first yourself how can someone be a schismatic (as you regard Cyprian of Fili in this time) and at the same time remain a priest.

[Isaakos]

You are making an interpretation of the document. You could contact Met. Agafangel... So you will have no problem of contacting a GOC-K bishop. What are you waiting for? Answer first yourself how can someone be a schismatic (as you regard Cyprian of Fili in this time) and at the same time remain a priest.

Did the GOC in 1986 say Metropolitan Cyprian was a priest of their synod?

"

• Then, the Holy Synod unanimously held the accused guilty, that they violated the holy rules of the Church based on the 34th rule of the 6th holy Ecumenical Synod condemning: The actions of the bishops mentioned above, Cyprian and Ioanni and the other prelates who were ordained by them, the Holy Rules of the Church, such as the 34th Rule of the 6th Holy Ecumenical Synod are foreseeing and condemning: The crime of conspiracy, faction and always blocks out the laws, many of which are prohibited in the Church of God... if any cleric or monk are found to conspire or to belong in certain groups or want to destroy bishops or other clergy, will be dropped to a low degree ." The sixth rule of the Synod of Gangra states: someone who worships the Church, despises the Church and wants to officiate separately from their elders , without the permission and the opinion of the Bishop, let him be anathema", the 5th rule of Antiochia mentions: if a Presbyter or a deacon despises his bishop and excommunicates himself from the Church, the latter would try to convince him and turned to the Bishop and if he does not want to be convinced, nor to obey and called a second time without treatment he cannot receive the honour. If he remains noisy and disturbs the Church through the power returned to him (see the 10th and 11th of Kathargeni) 13th of the AB session, which mentions' Bishop if someone makes a crime under the pretext against the respective Metropolitan, to remove himself from the society and not to mention his name, as defined in the Divine Mystagogy but it is evident that the created schism, appointed by the Holy Synod of the whole priesthood alienated. And these were sealed and designated on pretexts such crimes of their departing presidents and made ​​schism and joined the Church of the dissociated" etc, and imposed them the penalty of defrocking, removing their rank and making them priests.

  This decision was communicated to the absent Metropolitan of Attiki and Megaridos, Mr Antonios, who agreed with the entire agreement and that he countersigned it.

  The Holy Synod

  The Archbishop of Athens CHRISOSTOMOS"

So they stripped the Bishops of their ranks as Bishops and made them priests, but they can't be stripped of a rank unless they have it, meaning they recognized the episcopal consecrations of 1979 AND you can't be a priest unless you are in the church. Therefore Metropolitan Cyprian was guilty of schismatic activity (for which he was deposed, not anathematized).

Case closed. The GOC recognized him as a priest.

[Jean-Serge]

So they stripped the Bishops of their ranks as Bishops and made them priests, but they can't be stripped of a rank unless they have it, meaning they recognized the episcopal consecrations of 1979 AND you can't be a priest unless you are in the church. Therefore Metropolitan Cyprian was guilty of schismatic activity (for which he was deposed, not anathematized).

Case closed. The GOC recognized him as a priest.

You have shot yourself in the foot. You are claiming that Cyprian was guilty of schismatic activity and at the same time was a priest. There are no holy orders or mysteries or priesthood outside the church among heresies, schisms and parasynagogues, unless you adhere of a sort of new ecclesiological teaching ecumenictico-cyprianist claiming the opposite.

Case closed. The GOC recognized him as a priest.

The priest is only a delegate of a bishop. So, he was recognised priest under which bishop, please?

Extract of canon 1 of Saint Basil to be compared with the new eccelsiology advocated by my opponent:

because the beginning, true enough, of the separation resulted through a schism, but those who seceded from the Church had not the grace of the Holy Spirit upon them; for the impartation thereof ceased with the interruption of the service.For although the ones who were the first to depart had been ordained by the Fathers and with the imposition of their hands they had obtained the gracious gift of the Spirit, yet after breaking away they became laymen, and had no authority either to baptize or to ordain anyone, nor could they impart the grace of the Spirit to others, after they themselves had forfeited it.

Answer: how can a schismatic retain his priesthood?

[Isaakos]

This in no way follows. Define the act of deposition. What does it accomplish and what is its goal? Also consider the synodical ruling it is not I who have determined anything, but the synod of 1986
Which called him a priest and recognized his former episcopacy. It is YOU who must come to terms with this, not me, because I have never denied it.

So how are we to understand these issues? Quite simply that the disposition of the person who commit these acts plays a huge part.

Again, Explain how st. Meletius of Antioch Was accepted into communion with saints Basil and Gregory and all of Asia Minor when his ordination was from heretics andand therefore, laymen.

Explain how Pope John VIII communed with both St. Photius the great AND the filioquism Franks of the 9th century, because Pope John wanted to implement the anathema against those who add to the creed slowly so as not to alienate people. I suppose st photius was therefore in communion with heretics and schismatic, since he communed with Pope John who communed with those who had been anathematized for adding to the creed and violating the canons?

Explain how St. Cyril of Alexandria allowed the mbera of Patriarch John of Sntiochs synod to commemorate Theodore of Mopsuestia, the father of Nestorianism. I suppose St Cyril was heretical for communing with those who commemorated a man who had taught heretically (though perhaps not intentionally) on certain points of Christology?

Explain how the Patriarch of Constantinople ceased commemorating the pope in 1014, yet the other Patriarcha continued until 1054? I suppose the Patriarch of Constantinople was heretical for communing those who communed with the Pope, and who didn't STOP until 40 years later?

Your nice and neat world where you can rationalize everything is not really in accord with history Jean. History is messy, but we deal with it, get over ourselves and move on. We have gotten over it, the former SiR is home, the controversial teachings are dead and the communion is solidly based on an explicitly Orthodox confession of faith. It is over. We stand on solid ground.

[Jean-Serge]

Again, Explain how st. Meletius of Antioch Was accepted into communion with saints Basil and Gregory and all of Asia Minor when his ordination was from heretics andand therefore, laymen.

Absolutely false, this is cyprianist propaganda, read the original sources by Theodoret of Cyr, that I have already indicated in this link here

Explain how Pope John VIII communed with both St. Photius the great AND the filioquism Franks of the 9th century, because Pope John wanted to implement the anathema against those who add to the creed slowly so as not to alienate people. I suppose st photius was therefore in communion with heretics and schismatic, since he communed with Pope John who communed with those who had been anathematized for adding to the creed and violating the canons?

There was, as reported by Saint Maximus, an orthodox understanding of filioque i.e Spirit sent to the world by the Son.

Explain how St. Cyril of Alexandria allowed the mbera of Patriarch John of Sntiochs synod to commemorate Theodore of Mopsuestia, the father of Nestorianism. I suppose St Cyril was heretical for communing with those who commemorated a man who had taught heretically (though perhaps not intentionally) on certain points of Christology?

Explain how the Patriarch of Constantinople ceased commemorating the pope in 1014, yet the other Patriarcha continued until 1054? I suppose the Patriarch of Constantinople was heretical for communing those who communed with the Pope, and who didn't STOP until 40 years later?

The time to assess the heresy can be long and variable depending on communications, translations etc, which explains communion can be broken in some place, continue in others.