Is Cyprianism creeping into the GOC-K?

[Justice]

I heard that his grace Bishop Auxentios of Etna and Portland is silencing people who oppose Cyprianism, does this mean anything?

[Maria]

Dear Justice,

This topic by its very nature must be moved into Intra-TOC polemics, as it will certainly generate some heated discussions.

Please be careful where you place your threads and comments.

In Christ,
Maria
Administrator

[Maria]

If you have read any of Dr. Auxentios' essays and encyclicals over at his website, then you will know that he will not tolerate any anti-Cyprianite statements.

If you visit his diocesan website, you might still find his controversial statements and sermons in the Archives (see upper right 2015 and 2016). http://www.dep.church/news.html

• Note especially - http://www.dep.church/downloads/Statement.pdf
  This sermon and others have been critiqued in separate threads within Intra-TOC Polemics

Once I learned that Dr. Auxentios was considered part of the Kallinikies as part of the March 2014 union, I left the Kallinikites. Some reasons: not only did Dr. Auxentios approve of the Harry Potter Series, but he also likes Fullbright Scholars, of which he is one. Both Fullbright and Rhodes Scholars are part of Freemasonry and the Illuminati, as these groups fund and train these scholars in socialism.

There is also this questionable statement of Dr. Auxentios, in which he notes that many within ROCA felt that the union of the MP with ROCOR-MP was premature and unwise. Note also that he uses the term "reunion" however, the Sergianist MP and ROCOR were never in union as devout Russian Hierarchs broke with the Sergianists MP in the Soviet Union and started their own synod first in Serbia, and then in New York, which became The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCA) also known as The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR).

http://www.dep.church/downloads/Letterf ... entios.pdf

• Within the Synod in Resistance, we and the communities with us in America maintained full communion with the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (from which our Church, now united again, received its Episcopacy), from 1994 until 2007 and the tragedy of its reunion—prematurely and unwisely, in the view of many—with the Moscow Patriarchate, when we broke communion with it.

The red font used is my emphasis. Why would the bishop make this comment "prematurely and unwisely" if he were not endorsing it. Otherwise, it would have been best for him to remain silent on the issue. Instead, he makes it known that many agree that the decision of the ROCOR-MP to join the MP was done "prematurely and unwisely" as if there were no Sergianism at all. Has the MP ever renounced its Sergianism or its Ecumenism?

[Justice]

Thank you Maria, I would leave the GOC-K but theres no other TOC around in my area. There's only a ROCIE that might not even be considered True Orthodox.

[Barbara]

Great explanation, Maria.

I was particularly interested in the reminder about the Fulbright and Rhodes scholars being part of the Illuminati/Freemason system.
I had read this, but hadn't thought of it recently. It explains REALLY A LOT to me, even about my friends.

By the way, I didn't know that Bp Dr. Auxentios was a Fulbright scholar. To which country ? Maybe the UK ?

[Maria]

Not only the RTOC, but also the ROAC have firmly rejected Cyprianism. By the way, the first True Orthodox Church to reject Cyprianism was the Genuine Church of Greece founded by St. Matthew the New Confessor of Greece when Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina and his followers had first fallen into this heresy back in June of 1937. In fact, it was the Cyprianites, former SiR members now in the GOC-K, who pushed for the recent canonization in May 2016 of Metropolitan Chrysostomos by the GOC-K to justify their stance on this heresy. This Chrysostomos first accepted public priestly absolution from St. Matthew when he first joined the GOC of St. Matthew in 1935, and then later this same Chrysostomos rejected his own position as bishop, only later to reaffirm his position of bishop, alone, by himself. The scandal that Met. Chrysostomos caused by his many flipflops should have precluded his canonization. However, the GOC-K asserts that he was canonized based on certain miracles and his fragrant remains -- miracles which can be fabricated.

Below, please carefully read this flowery and deceitful GOC-K (SiR) document on the canonization of Met. Chrysostomos. Note that this SiR document very carefully avoids any direct mention of St. Matthew the New Confessor of Greece, the Founder of the GOC, nor of St. Matthew's reprimands of Met. Chrysostomos in 1937 for his heresy (later to be called Cyprianism). In fact, this biography dares to honor Met. Chrysosotoms for his stance of not condemning the EP for its innovations, brutal beatings and imprisonments of True Christians, and the forced implementation of the heretical New Calendar.
http://www.dep.church/downloads/St.Chrysostomos.pdf

The quote below shows the "loving" compromising spirit of Met. Chrysostomos. However, it is not loving to lead people into heresy and compromise.

One of these Bishops [St. Matthew the New], proclaiming that the New Calendarists were heretics, without Grace,
and outside the Orthodox Church, by virtue of their innovations—a position that St. Chrysostomos in particular would not endorse without reservations ...

Fr. Stephen Fraser discusses the development of the Cyprian-Chrysostomos heresy in his book: Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece (GOC): A brief history and Commentary. Father Stephen's first copyrighted edition (2005) was posted online at:
http://www.svetosavskasrbija.com/sites/ ... ce_goc.pdf

Father Stephen's second edition (copyrighted 2013) can be ordered directly from him at

• Holy Trinity Orthodox Church
  5814 W. Shangri La Road
  Glendale, Arizona 85304

Dr. Vladimir Moss wrote an analysis of Dr. Auxentios' Cyprianism back in 2015, slightly more than a year after the March 2014 union between the Cyprianites (SiR) and the Kallinikites (GOC-K). Whereupon, Dr. Auxentios of Etna and Portland became very upset and wrote at least two encyclicals rebuking Dr. Vladimir. Dr. Auxentios of Etna and Portland has also rebuked anyone else who has attacked him for his strongly-held Cyprianist beliefs.

Father Siloan of the RTOC kindly forwarded this article to me a few days ago.

http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/a ... jan-horse/

BISHOP AUXENTIOS, GTOCS TROJAN HORSE

Code: Select all

 “Beware of Greeks bearing gifts,” said Virgil, thinking of the famous story from Homer’s Iliad of how the city of Troy was betrayed by the gift of a giant wooden horse. Once the horse was received inside the gates of Troy, soldiers jumped out of it during the night and captured the city… The True Orthodox Church of Greece (GTOC) could be compared to the city of Troy, and its union with the Greek Old Calendarist Cyprianites – to the Trojan horse, a gift that GTOC has hailed as a gift from God, but which may well turn out to be a very damaging trap.

 The trap is revealed by the Cyprianite Bishop Auxentios of Etna and Portland, who, helped by his spiritual father, the retired Metropolitan Chrysostomos (emeritus professor, as we are yet again reminded), has published a statement that proclaims something that very many have known for a long time but which GTOC has assiduously tried to conceal: that these two bishops, at any rate, have neither repented of their Cyprianism nor have any intention of hiding the fact.

 The statement is written in the very distinctive Cyprianite style – over-long, flowery and self-indulgent. But we shall cut to the quick, ignoring the rights and wrongs of Bishop Auxentios’ quarrel with an anonymous Greek critic, and highlighting the following sentences:

 1. “Little more than a year ago, the two major canonical groups of Old Calendarists in Greece and in this country united…” This is false. One of the canonical groups in question – GTOC – was canonical; the other – the Cyprianites – was not. In 1984 the Cyprianites separated from GTOC accusing GTOC of having a false ecclesiology. In 1986 GTOC defrocked Metropolitan Cyprian, accusing him of schism and other things. In this situation, there is no way in which both these groups could be called canonical – and they certainly did not consider each other to be so.

 2. “As for the Consecration of Metropolitan Cyprian the Elder of Oropos and Phyle, there has never been any question about its validity. One point alone rather clearly underscores this fact: He was one of the co-Consecrators of His Beatitude, Archbishop Κallinikos, now the First Hierarch of the Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece.” Not true. From February 20 to 23, 1979, Metropolitan Callistus of Corinth, together with Metropolitan Anthony of Megara, ordained eight archimandrites to the episcopate, who were, in order of ordination: Cyprian (Koutsoubas) of Fili and Orope, Maximus (Tsitsibakos) of Magnesia, Callinicus (Sarantopoulos) of Achaia, Matthew (Langis) of Oinoe, Germanus (Athanasiou) of Aiolia, Calliopius (Giannakoulopoulos) of Pentapolis, Mercurius (Kaloskamis) of Knossos and Callinicus (Karaphyllakis) of the Twelve Islands. During the services, Archbishop Auxentius was commemorated; but they had not informed him! It was only on February 27 that they called Auxentius and asked for his approval. The “Callistites” claimed that this was only a “temporary and curable deviation from the canonical order” whose aim was the cleansing of the Church from moral vices, especially sodomy, since “men have been raised to the priesthood who are both unworthy and incapable.” On February 27 Archbishop Auxentius, Metropolitan Gerontius and those with them met “in order to formulate a position on the sedition brought about by its members, Callistus of Corinth and Anthony of Megara, who illegally severed themselves from the body [of the Holy Synod] and high-handedly undertook to consecrate bishops. Upon discussing this matter at length, on the basis of the holy canons of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Christ, [the Holy Synod] unanimously decreed and imposed upon the two seditious Metropolitans the punishment of deposition, as the holy canons themselves enjoin.” Some days later, the Auxentiite Synod, augmented by no less than ten new bishops, met in order to confirm the invalidity of the Callistite ordinations and the deposition of the Callistites as “conspirators, factionalists, establishers of unlawful assemblies and schismatics”.ROCOR refused to confirm the canonicity of either faction, while the independent Metropolitans Chrysostomos (Kiousis) of Thessalonica and Acacius of Diauleia condemned both sides. So to affirm that “there has never been any question about the validity” of Metropolitan Cyprian’s consecration is manifestly untrue.

 3. “The matter was not that of one side submitting to the other.” But we know for a fact that three bishops – Cyprian the Younger, Ambrose and Klimis – received some kind of absolution from GTOC. So they submitted… The details have not been published, unfortunately. However, the stubborn refusal of Bishop Auxentios and his elder to act likewise does them no credit.

 4. “Regarding the ‘heresy of Cyprianitism,’ the ecclesiology of the Synod in Resistance was not an invention of Metropolitan Cyprian, but was based on the Synod’s interpretation of the Conciliar, Patristic, and historical precepts of theOrthodox Church—an interpretation, in fact, expressed in many of the writings of the ‘Father’ of the Old Calendar movement, Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Phlorina.” Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina made some mistakes. Cyprian seized on the mistakes and built them up into a full-grown ecclesiology. Chrysostomos repented of his mistakes. Cyprian never repented. Metropolitan Chrysostomos never created a schism on the basis of his mistakes. Cyprian did. Metropolitan Chrysostomos was never condemned in a formal canonical trial. Cyprian was. The difference is great…

5. “No prayer of any kind was ever read over either of us, nor did we submit any sort of confession for our supposed past heresy. Nor would we ever have accepted such provisions. I think that this fact speaks for itself.” It does indeed. It demonstrates that whether we call Cyprianism “heresy”, “crypto-ecumenism” or “justification for schism”, the false teaching that it undoubtedly embodies – as witnessed by many statements of the canonical GTOC before the union of 2014 – has not been repented of by Bishop Auxentios. Moreover, he appears even to be glorying in his stubborn lack of repentance

 All this represents a very serious challenge to the Synod of GTOC. In a previous article, I pointed out that Bishop Auxentios, in spite of his defiant refusal to repent, had been given an enormous amount of power – virtually a “Pan-North American” diocese – in flagrant defiance of the territorial principle of Church administration. And I concluded that "this arrangement constitutes a de facto broadening of the influence of the Cyprianite ecclesiology (as represented by Bishop Auxentius) at the expense of the influence of the True Orthodox ecclesiology (as represented by Metropolitan Demetrius). For if Bishop Auxentius is a true follower of his "abba" Metropolitan Chrysostomos - and there is not reason to think otherwise - then we can expect not only that Cyprianism will be consolidated in the hearts and minds of the Cyprianites themselves, but also that it will begin to infect areas formerly under truly Orthodox bishops but not under the Cyprianite "Pan-North American, Hawaiian and Alaskan" diocese. The cancer has metastised... “ 

 If the Synod of GTOC is to retain its credibility as an upholder of the True Faith, it must act against Bishop Auxentios. If it does not, then the cancer will spread, and if there are any True Orthodox left in the union they will separate from the compromisersso as to save their souls. After all, we have the terrifying example of the fall of the Russian Church Abroad to warn us. In 1983 ROCOR under St. Philaret anathematized ecumenism and Cyprianism. And yet, only eleven years later, after the death of St. Philaret, Cyprianism was proclaimed the official ecclesiology of ROCOR. And that in spite of many protesters and doubters… Today, the protesters have melted away; there is an ominous silence from the former zealots of GTOC. ROCOR had a Hector under St. Philaret. GTOC today appears to have no Hector to stand out against Achilles – and Cyprianism remains, as before, its Achilles heel… We conclude that their glorying in this deeply flawed union “is not good. Do they not know that little leaven leavens the whole lump?” (I Corinthians 5.6).

July 10/23, 2015.

[Maria]

Upon looking at the SiR document regarding Met. Chrysostomos once again, I found this gem -- the last paragraph of the document. The use of flowery Greek prose can be a trap ... a trojan horse, as it is nothing more than flattery.

http://www.dep.church/downloads/St.Chrysostomos.pdf

Let us close with the words of two famous New Calendarist Hierarchs.
St. Chrysostomos’ spiritual son and former Deacon, the late Œcumenical
Patriarch Athenagoras, who was by any measure an “arch-ecumenist,”
referred, perhaps with foresight, to the new Saint as his“ blessed elder
Μetropolitan Chrysostomos of Pelagonia.” 17 And the late Metropolitan
Augoustinos of Phlorina, at his enthronement to that State Church See,
said of St. Chrysostomos the New: “I am about to administer a diocese
in which Hierarchs radiating wisdom and virtue shone forth during the
Turkish domination, the last of whom was the blessed and wise
Chrysostomos (Kavourides) of Pelagonia, the spiritual Father of the
current Œcumenical Patriarch (Athenagoras).”

Blue font is my emphasis.

What a back-handed compliment! No doubt, the Ecumenists heaped praise upon Met. Chrysostomos because he backpedaled and did not condemn them for their errors. This is neither virtuous, nor is it behavior befitting of a saint. Instead, it is the fruit of Cyprianism, which longs for praise from the Ecumenists.