Bp Auxentios GOC-K: 1-19-2015 OS - Debate

[jgress]

If Bishop Matthew had gone into schism from (broken communion with) the GOC under Met Chrysostom, then surely his defrockings aren't valid from the Florinite point of view? Talking about formally deposing Bp Matthew misses the point, which was that, by his own admission, he was no longer in communion with Met Chrysostom. For the Florinites to take his defrocking seriously would also require legitimizing Bishop Matthew's jurisdiction.

[Lydia]

Lydia, the canons cannot depose anyone, and there is no such thing as self-excommunication in Orthodoxy. Archbishop Matthew of blessed memory exercised economia in the performance of a single-handed ordination. Until a synod were to convene against him and depose his bishops, they remain as bishops. There is no such thing as self-deposition for canonical "infraction."

Yes, I understand this, but it was the terminology used in an article I read. You are right, of course.

[Lydia]

I think you're missing the point. They left Bishop Matthew because they believed that Bishop Matthew had committed an act against the canons. They were not the only ones. It is unreasonable to accept your own discipline(defrocking) from someone you believe has no authority to do enact such discipline.
I understand that the Matthewites believe that Bishop Matthew's one-handed consecration was canonical, but (then) Father Auxentios Pastras did not. Therefore, Bishop Matthew had no authority to defrock Father Auxentios in his own judgment.
You left Metropolitan John Lobue because you judged that he was not a true Bishop. Would you acknowledge and obey if he excommunicated you? (which he probably did) If he placed on you an epitimia that you not commune until you return to his jurisdiction would you obey? No! because you judge through your actions that he has no authority over you. Isn't this correct?
I ask you again for evidence that Father Auxentios and Akakios committed fraud. You are no doubt aware of the concept of mens rea? Can you produce something which proves that these men acted with a guilty mind?
You came from the Roman Catholic Church. When you left and renounced it, you became an excommunicate heretic (Glory be to God) Do you accept the Pope's authority and confess your state when you join a new True Orthodox Bishop? No!

[jgress]

Actually the Catholics are ecumenists now; I doubt they'd excommunicate you for joining Orthodoxy. But still your point stands.

[Maria]

I think you're missing the point. They left Bishop Matthew because they believed that Bishop Matthew had committed an act against the canons. They were not the only ones. It is unreasonable to accept your own discipline(defrocking) from someone you believe has no authority to do enact such discipline.

Auxentios and Akakios used the single-handed consecration as an excuse, but it was not an uncanonical action as there are reasons such as times of active persecutions when a bishop cannot find another bishop.]

They left the GOC because they wanted the episcopacy and were not willing to submit to St. Matthew. The people at the Clergy-Laity Conference had not elected them to the episcopacy but had chosen Bishop Spyridon and others, so their feelings were hurt.

I understand that the Matthewites believe that Bishop Matthew's one-handed consecration was canonical, but (then) Father Auxentios Pastras did not. Therefore, Bishop Matthew had no authority to defrock Father Auxentios in his own judgment.

It was not only St. Matthew who defrocked Auxentios and Akakios, but the entire GOC Holy Synod of Bishops.

You left Metropolitan John Lobue because you judged that he was not a true Bishop. Would you acknowledge and obey if he excommunicated you? (which he probably did) If he placed on you an epitimia that you not commune until you return to his jurisdiction would you obey? No! because you judge through your actions that he has no authority over you. Isn't this correct?
I ask you again for evidence that Father Auxentios and Akakios committed fraud. You are no doubt aware of the concept of mens rea? Can you produce something which proves that these men acted with a guilty mind?
You came from the Roman Catholic Church. When you left and renounced it, you became an excommunicate heretic (Glory be to God) Do you accept the Pope's authority and confess your state when you join a new True Orthodox Bishop? No!

Off topic, but I will give you some answers.
I sent an email to Met. John LoBue. He did not excommunicate me. He asked me to call him, but I did not.
Since he is in schism, he has no authority over me.

If Auxentios and Akakios had not committed fraud, then the ROCOR would not have taken steps to rectify their actions.
However, the only way to rectify schism is to return to the GOC, which neither did.

[Maria]

Lydia,

Father Stephen advised me not to continue this argument if I noticed a circular pattern.

I have a real life to live ... praying, researching and studying, administrating this forum, cooking, gardening, and sewing for my family.

Here is the post that my husband and I sent when we left Met. John's Metropolia:
Since Met. John's computer was still at the shop, we sent the post to Fr. Enoch.

Dec. 23, 2014

Dear Fr. Enoch and Met. John,

Due to the actions of certain clergy of the Metropolia under Met. John LoBue,
especially that of two hieromonks who had been defrocked, concerns were
being raised by our friends in the GOC-K who were urging us to return to the
GOC-K. Pointing out the unsettling union of the GOC-K with the Cyprianites
and the continuing harassment by certain individuals in the GOC-K and in
ROCA, we told them that such an option would be impossible.

When these friends started researching the history of the GOC-K, they
discovered the very schismatic beginnings of the GOC-K, HOCNA, Milan
Synod, and the Metropolia of Met. John, in that these above mentioned
jurisdictions continue to deny the validity of the original Genuine Orthodox
Church of Greece (GOC). As they shared this information with us, we came
to the conclusion that we must join this GOC, insofar as it continues and
maintains both the original mentality and the original spirit of the Zealot
fathers of Mt. Athos who shaped and guided the GOC to become what it is
today under the presidency of Archbishop Stephanos of Athens.

Respectfully yours in Christ,
Xenios and Maria

[Cyprian]

May I be allowed to make a couple of observations that I feel may be relevant?

When Archbishop Matthew performed the single-handed consecration on September 6/19 1948, he was 87 and 1/2 years old. He fell asleep in the Lord around 20 months later. I think the very advanced age and declining health of Abp. Matthew at the time of the consecration(s) is evidence that the bishop did not perform these consecrations out of vainglory or ambition, but out of love for the Church of Greece, in order to preserve a genuine confessing episcopacy. Contrast this with some of the much younger and ambitious types we've seen in recent decades, who have gotten themselves consecrated secretly in disobedience to synods.

Also, St. John (Maximovitch) of Shanghai in 1938, just one year after the division between Matthew and Chrysostom in 1937, proclaimed the introduction of the New Calendar to have caused a "frightful schism". St. John, a credible third party from the Church of Russia, did not refer to the introduction of the New Calendar as merely a "potential schism," but in actuality a frightful schism! In 1926, Abp. Theophan of Poltava also regarded the introduction of the New Calendar as fomenting an ecclesiastical schism, depriving the innovators of the grace of the Holy Spirit. Abp. Theophan stated that the Orthodox "must have no communion in prayer with them, even before their conciliar condemnation."

Met. Philaret of New York, in his letter to Met. Epiphanios of Cyprus on September 20, 1975, stated: “It is obvious to all that the calendar innovation caused a schism in the Greek Church in 1924, and the responsibility for the schism weighs exclusively on the innovators. This is the conclusion that will be reached by anyone studying the Patriarchal Tomoi (as that of 1583)…”

It is clear that any notion of merely a "potential schism" as opposed to an actual "frightful schism" and "extreme disorder" caused by the innovators who imposed the calendar change, is just plain wrong. The partisans of Met. Chrysostomos would do well to abandon any notions of trying to argue that Met. Chrysostom was following a correct path in trying to woo the New Calendarists back to the Church by treating them as only "potentially in schism." He should not have wavered for all those years, and should have held steadfast to the original 1935 confession, which everyone ought to be able to see (at least in hindsight) was the correct and God-pleasing one.

St. John Maximovitch
The Decline of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. (1938)

The moral authority of the Patriarchs of Constantinople has likewise fallen very low in view of their extreme instability in ecclesiastical matters. Thus, Patriarch Meletius IV arranged a "Pan-Orthodox Congress," with representatives of various churches, which decreed the introduction of the New Calendar. This decree, recognized only by a part of the Church, introduced a frightful schism among Orthodox Christians. Patriarch Gregory VII recognized the decree of the council of the Living Church concerning the deposing of Patriarch Tikhon, whom not long before this the Synod of Constantinople had declared a "confessor," and then he entered into communion with the "Renovationists" in Russia, which continues up to now.

In sum, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, in theory embracing almost the whole universe and in fact extending its authority only over several dioceses, and in other places having only a higher superficial supervision and receiving certain revenues for this; persecuted by the government at home and not supported by any governmental authority abroad; having lost its significance as a pillar of truth and having itself become a source of division, and at the same time, being possessed by an exorbitant love of power-represents a pitiful spectacle which recalls the worst periods in the history of the See of Constantinople.