These are all likely true. But I don't care, I will drop this whole line of questioning, since this is obviously not the time or place for it, and it is not edifying[/quote]
I will repeat. I am perfectly okay discussing these claims, that you are not making but simply inquiring about for your own salvation. But as I noted in my previous post, we absolutely NEED to be on guard against that well-worn weapon of satan, rumour. But sort it out we must if it is eating away at your heart.
I first heard of this accusation when it was made by Albert Efthymios Valdez (a.k.a. pilgrim1411) on his YouTube Channel. I do not know if his information is first hand or simply got it from the hearsay of Nathanael Kapner. In any case, you would have to interview Bp Christodoulos, then call Kapner and get his original source, chase that down and hopefully find the supposed victim and find out why he never filed a police report and had him charged with assault with a deadly weapon causing bodily harm. Disfiguring someone's face carries a heavy penalty in the USA. He would be locked up for a very long time if this were true. So, I think there is reason to hold this claim in doubt until the evidence proves otherwise.
If you type ""Marineas Sued Christodoulos For Chopping Off His Nose" in quotes, in Google, for an exact match, there are 68 hits. Almost all of these say: One website said: "Marineas Sued Christodoulos For Chopping Off His Nose." Except one of these shows the source: http://sbn-nathanael.livejournal.com/, which is now deleted. So Nathanael Kapner heard it somewhere about 2007, and posted in on his blog, and then deleted it. Then "pilgrim1411" spread this as fact. So I agree this should be doubted.
Icxypion, thank you for your opinion. I AM trying to work out my own salvation. So why am I asking these things? The thought has crossed my mind that I should look into joining your church. I was asking for a public statement that Metr. Pavlos repented of his 1994 and 1995 statements, and apparently no such document stating that exists, but it is obvious he has because of subsequent statements and events.
So there is really only one issue, which I mentioned before: Is the Cyprianite-Florinite ecclesiology (which has several slightly different versions) correct, or is the Matthewite ecclesiology correct? Archbishop Gregory believes that "Cyprianism" is a heresy, but he also believes that the Matthewites are schismatics. This position doesn't make any sense to me. I think that "Cyprianism" is basically the same as "Florinism". The Cyprianite-Florinite position states that uncondemned heretics must be separated from ("walled off"), but are still in the church until a great future council formally condemns them. The schism is only "potential" not "actual", and thus the church has both "healthy" and "sick" members within it. Within the Cyprianite-Florinite camp there are differences in practice, so one group allows new calendarists to go back and forth and still commune, another group will admit them by confession, and the "strict" group will admit them chrismation. And then there are groups that don't believe in "Cyprianism" (e.g. the old calendar Romanians), who are in communion with them because they don't understand these subtleties. I'm sticking with the Matthewite position for now because it is simple and I can understand it.
I'm sure this has all been discussed in another thread, and I just need to read through the archives.
nathanv wrote:If you type ""Marineas Sued Christodoulos For Chopping Off His Nose" in quotes, in Google, for an exact match, there are 68 hits. Almost all of these say: One website said: "Marineas Sued Christodoulos For Chopping Off His Nose." Except one of these shows the source: http://sbn-nathanael.livejournal.com/, which is now deleted. So Nathanael Kapner heard it somewhere about 2007, and posted in on his blog, and then deleted it. Then "pilgrim1411" spread this as fact. So I agree this should be doubted.
Good. Now you know not to believe everything you read.
Icxypion, thank you for your opinion. I AM trying to work out my own salvation. So why am I asking these things? The thought has crossed my mind that I should look into joining your church. I was asking for a public statement that Metr. Pavlos repented of his 1994 and 1995 statements, and apparently no such document stating that exists, but it is obvious he has because of subsequent statements and events.
You could, of course, just call him up and ask if he still stands by those statements. Would that satisfy you?
Generally, I would not trust anything the Matthewites produce to "prove" the correctness of their position, but you should do your own investigations. One of the "documents" you may find floating around on Matthewite sites is a supposed letter by Abp Seraphim of ROCOR, in which he repents of his participation in the consecration of the Florinite hierarchy. Talk to Fr Anastasios and you'll find out how he learned through his own contacts in ROCOR that this was a forgery.
In any case, if you are worried about our ecclesiology, check out our website, hotca.org, where we have official statements setting out our position.
So there is really only one issue, which I mentioned before: Is the Cyprianite-Florinite ecclesiology (which has several slightly different versions) correct, or is the Matthewite ecclesiology correct? Archbishop Gregory believes that "Cyprianism" is a heresy, but he also believes that the Matthewites are schismatics. This position doesn't make any sense to me. I think that "Cyprianism" is basically the same as "Florinism". The Cyprianite-Florinite position states that uncondemned heretics must be separated from ("walled off"), but are still in the church until a great future council formally condemns them. The schism is only "potential" not "actual", and thus the church has both "healthy" and "sick" members within it. Within the Cyprianite-Florinite camp there are differences in practice, so one group allows new calendarists to go back and forth and still commune, another group will admit them by confession, and the "strict" group will admit them chrismation. And then there are groups that don't believe in "Cyprianism" (e.g. the old calendar Romanians), who are in communion with them because they don't understand these subtleties. I'm sticking with the Matthewite position for now because it is simple and I can understand it.
I'm sure this has all been discussed in another thread, and I just need to read through the archives.
It's perfectly reasonable to stay with a group you understand. Rest assured that the GOC also rejects the subtleties of Cyprianism.
There are good, sensible Matthewites out there. I would talk to Fr Anthony Gavalas (now Bishop of New York!). He is with Abp Nicholas.
jgress wrote:It's perfectly reasonable to stay with a group you understand. Rest assured that the GOC also rejects the subtleties of Cyprianism. There are good, sensible Matthewites out there. I would talk to Fr Anthony Gavalas (now Bishop of New York!). He is with Abp Nicholas.
Indeed, for that is all any of us have done, we have over time sought out the best information we could find, compared varying opinions, then settled on the most reasonable course. There is no shame in that if we have done our humble and honest best.
Hello again,
As I stated before, I am all alone spiritually, and joined this site to interact with some like-minded individuals. I have changed my thinking in some areas and wanted to bounce some ideas off of someone.
I don't believe that the Matthewite position is tenable, simply because it would require recognizing exactly one synod as the true church and condemning all other ones that aren't in communion with it. I don't understand the splits between the Matthewites. One of them has to do with whether an icon of the trinity is heretical, the other one has to do with whether stating that the Trinity was the first church is heresy. I am not prepared to defend or condemn either of these issues and I can't believe that they have risen to the level of something worth dividing the church over. There is also the problem of the "grace gap", between 1924 and 1935, since none of the bishops in Greece separated from the State Church immediately after the change to the new calendar.
So I started thinking again about "moderate traditionalism" - the stance that new calendarism, sergianism and ecumenism are heresies and thus churches that follow these should be separated from, without making a final pronouncement as the lack of grace in those groups. I started writing an essay about "Cyprianism-Florinism", and the 5 flavors of it: 1) the stance of Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina, 2) the "Royal Path" of Fr. Seraphim Rose, 3) the "resistance theology" of Metr. Cyprian of Fili, 4) the HOTCA "Proclamation on Ecclesiology", and 5) the vanguard position of the Milan Synod. These ideas are not identical, but they are not that different either.
Archbishop Gregory of Buena Vista distinguishes these saying that the New Calendar is a mistake but is not a heresy, so Bishop Matthew was an extremist, but ecumenism is a heresy. I think that Cyprianism is clearly based on Florinism.
Now, I have heard that "Cyprianism" teaches that heretics are guaranteed to have grace, but I think that that is a distortion of their position. Fr Steven Allen points out that ROCOR used the Synod-in-Resistance as a stepping stone to unification with the MP, but SiR were "dupes" in this regard. They clearly don't agree with the ecumenism of the MP.
So that is my position now. I think the struggle is to find a traditional Orthodox bishop who does not teach heresy. I like the continuing ROCOR under Metr. Agafangel, but I think that any synod that is not in the WCC (and not in communion with a church that is) is acceptable.
Hello Nathan,
The first thing I would do is consult with my priest, granted I trust him. However, if I am in an uncertain condition about every jurisdiction, then you will have to ask around and sort through the information you gather.
Here is my take in brief:
Heresy always drives out grace. (WCC MP EP JP etc are all praying actively with Roman Catholics, Protestants and, yes, even Jews and Muslims as the Serbian Patriarch has publicly done this past year at a synagogue.) So any communion that is actually IN the World Orthodox Communion is graceless. So, you needn't even consider those jurisdictions.
Second, the Holy Church has always taught that communion with Heresy threatens the grace of one's own Church, even if we ourselves have not fallen. It is true that some overlap may exist for a brief period of time while a new heresy or policy of praying with heretics may arise for brief periods of time (as when ROCOR was officially in communion with jurisdictions in World Orthodoxy, it did not lose grace since the ROCOR fought all those heresies consistently and never accepted them, and because of this eventually broke with those heretical Jurisdictions); nevertheless to preserve the grace of the Church we have to separate from holding communion with heretics after the apostolic and canonical injunctions have been observed: "A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject." Hence St Philaret wrote his sorrowful epistles and because there was no positive response from the World Orthodox ecumenist jurisdictions, no communion with them was possible. Eventually this resulted as you know in the formal condemnation of the new "pan-heresy" of ecumenism, the so-called "dialogue of love", two lung theory, and the branch theory, etc. The Anathema of 1983.
Cyprianites believe that grace has not departed from those jurisdictions. This is a heresy because, among other reasons, it teaches, contrary to the Holy Church, that heresy and communion with heresy does not drive out grace. Hence they commune New Calendarists all the time and have done for decades. Thus they declare that the mysteries of the heretics are equal with the mysteries of the True Church in their view. So, they are deprived.
Agathangel has officially received into communion the entire synod of Cyprian of Fili. Hence, by his official union and communion with Cyprianites he has driven out grace from his own synod. (Vladimir Moss has written much about the problematic stance of the Agathangelites)
The Matthewites take an extreme and rigorist stand, that goes beyond what is right or required by the Holy Canons regarding icons an other issues. They are not bringing up non-issues in all cases. However, their zeal is ill-advised in some cases. Hence, we call this kind of division from True Brothers and Sisters through excessive zeal, the sin of Schism. And schism is a serious sin and also deprives one of grace. (as to what point a schismatic group is truly deprived of grace, that is either decided by the Church, or consensus of the True Orthodox Churches over time). Hence, whilst the donatists and novationists began as True Orthodox Christians their exacting nature and extreme rigorist demands led first to schism then over time to heresy and finally to passing out of historical existence as a Christian Church. Being cut off from the vine of the Orthodox Church through excessive zeal, they withered and dried up and blew away. I am not saying here, however, that the Matthewites are graceless, though some in the TOCs would venture to say so. I am merely saying that they seem to me in my opinion to be more on a path of schism than of preserving the truth, per se, and hence down the line it is conceivable to me that they may be found to be schismatics due to excessive rigorism. So for my part, I would not commune there to be on the safe side.
I personally believe that the GOC/HOTCA and the Tikhonites and the ROAC of Valentine of Suzdal (don't know the name of his successor) are TOCs and that you can rest assured of getting real grace at their altars at present.
I hope that helps,
Symeon
Icxypion wrote:Hello Nathan,
The first thing I would do is consult with my priest, granted I trust him. However, if I am in an uncertain condition about every jurisdiction, then you will have to ask around and sort through the information you gather.
Here is my take in brief:
Heresy always drives out grace. (WCC MP EP JP etc are all praying actively with Roman Catholics, Protestants and, yes, even Jews and Muslims as the Serbian Patriarch has publicly done this past year at a synagogue.) So any communion that is actually IN the World Orthodox Communion is graceless. So, you needn't even consider those jurisdictions.
Second, the Holy Church has always taught that communion with Heresy threatens the grace of one's own Church, even if we ourselves have not fallen. It is true that some overlap may exist for a brief period of time while a new heresy or policy of praying with heretics may arise for brief periods of time (as when ROCOR was officially in communion with jurisdictions in World Orthodoxy, it did not lose grace since the ROCOR fought all those heresies consistently and never accepted them, and because of this eventually broke with those heretical Jurisdictions); nevertheless to preserve the grace of the Church we have to separate from holding communion with heretics after the apostolic and canonical injunctions have been observed: "A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject." Hence St Philaret wrote his sorrowful epistles and because there was no positive response from the World Orthodox ecumenist jurisdictions, no communion with them was possible. Eventually this resulted as you know in the formal condemnation of the new "pan-heresy" of ecumenism, the so-called "dialogue of love", two lung theory, and the branch theory, etc. The Anathema of 1983.
Cyprianites believe that grace has not departed from those jurisdictions. This is a heresy because, among other reasons, it teaches, contrary to the Holy Church, that heresy and communion with heresy does not drive out grace. Hence they commune New Calendarists all the time and have done for decades. Thus they declare that the mysteries of the heretics are equal with the mysteries of the True Church in their view. So, they are deprived.
Agathangel has officially received into communion the entire synod of Cyprian of Fili. Hence, by his official union and communion with Cyprianites he has driven out grace from his own synod. (Vladimir Moss has written much about the problematic stance of the Agathangelites)
The Matthewites take an extreme and rigorist stand, that goes beyond what is right or required by the Holy Canons regarding icons an other issues. They are not bringing up non-issues in all cases. However, their zeal is ill-advised in some cases. Hence, we call this kind of division from True Brothers and Sisters through excessive zeal, the sin of Schism. And schism is a serious sin and also deprives one of grace. (as to what point a schismatic group is truly deprived of grace, that is either decided by the Church, or consensus of the True Orthodox Churches over time). Hence, whilst the donatists and novationists began as True Orthodox Christians their exacting nature and extreme rigorist demands led first to schism then over time to heresy and finally to passing out of historical existence as a Christian Church. Being cut off from the vine of the Orthodox Church through excessive zeal, they withered and dried up and blew away. I am not saying here, however, that the Matthewites are graceless, though some in the TOCs would venture to say so. I am merely saying that they seem to me in my opinion to be more on a path of schism than of preserving the truth, per se, and hence down the line it is conceivable to me that they may be found to be schismatics due to excessive rigorism. So for my part, I would not commune there to be on the safe side.
I personally believe that the GOC/HOTCA and the Tikhonites and the ROAC of Valentine of Suzdal (don't know the name of his successor) are TOCs and that you can rest assured of getting real grace at their altars at present.
I hope that helps,
Symeon
Thank you, Symeon, for this analysis.
Are the RTOC under Bishop Tikhon?
Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me a sinner.