Who is the true ROCOR or ROCA now?

[someguy]

Chrysostomos of Florina was part of this world and so was St. Matthew.

So you are meaning to suggest that no Greek old calendarist synod has or has ever had grace?

[someguy]

Can anyone more learned comment on the validity of the below?
http://austroca.org/differences-synod-a ... %81%D0%B8/

[jdigrande]

I am not one to come to conclusions about grace. I am not one who subscribes to the light-switch theory. It takes bishops in council to declare heresy and the anathemas that protect the Church from heresies.

But I am saying no one local OC church in the 20th century was infallible or impeccable. All were guilty of either sins of commission or omission. No saint was infallible or impeccable.

Ecumenists, Masons, Communists and Renovationists were in leadership positions in all the local churches from the beginning of the 20th century. How did this happen? Once in leadership positions they ordained hundreds of like-minded heretics and pagans as priests and bishops.

And what was the response of the OC? In many instances it was muted to non existent for many years. Part of the reason for this was a false notion of obedience to hierarchs. Part of it was based on cowardice. Part of it was based on ignorance. Part of it was based on tribal hatred ( "I am not my Greek brother's keeper, I am not my Slav brother's keeper." etc)

This fratricidal, "Orthodox" tribal hatred was on full display during the Balkan Wars that occurred just before World War I. It was also on full display on Mount Athos from the beginning of the 20th century between Greeks and Slavs. Tribal hatred had as much to do with hesychastic prayer as vodka/ouzo had to do with hesychastic prayer.

And who rallied the Orthodox? To my mind it was St. Matthew, St. Glicherie, St. Victor Leu, St. Theophan of Poltava, St. Nicholai Velimirovich, St. Philaret, St. John Maximovich, St. John the Romanian St. Tikhon, 750,000 Serbs martyred by the Latins, millions of Russian New Martyrs, St. Catherine and the GOC martyrs, thousands of Romanian martyrs.

Each of these people tried to make a difference. Each of them failed at many points of their lives.

Each 2018 OC local church regards some or one of these people as saints and rejects one or more of them as imposters/schismatics in 2018. Someday I hope they are all on an ikon. But I am not holding my breath. It took the Greek Orthodox Church 950 years to canonize St. Photius the Great who presided over the 8th Ecumenical Council.

All of these saints failed to condemn the Anglicans based on 879, 1285, 1341/51/1672. They all failed to do this for over 30 years.

But I still think they all are saints even though I will be judged an "Orthodox Ecumenist."

Many bought into the main tenet of the Branch Theory which was to return to the Church of the first seven councils (787). It meant to disregard all of the councils after 787 as either worthless or just warnings. A separate idea developed on Mount Athos in the 20's that said that only ecumenical councils (the first 7) could condemn heretics.

Based on these heretical ideas, the Anglicans were judged Orthodox (by the Orthodox) in the 1920's.

ROCOR Met. Antony Krapovitsky (of ROCOR) attended the liturgy at Westminster Abbey in 1925 and afterward said that all Anglican bishops would be received in ROCOR in their orders. The Church of England was an heretical church that was 60% Masonic in the 1920's.

I see all the punishments of the Orthodox in the 20th century that were allowed by God as just punishments: the end of political and military power,
and the end of unified episcopal power.

The Orthodox abused military power (the Balkan Wars) and they abused episcopal power through ecumenism before 1924. A Mason controlled the patriarchal Constantinople for 19 years and the recognition of Anglican sacraments as grace-filled was its bitter fruit. No one said a word.

It was very much like St. Peter denying Christ. He was and is a saint because he got up from his fall. And so did the saints I have mentioned.

[Orthodox in Michigan]

correction: "and no one enforced them in the first quarter of the 20th century."

Under pressure from Meletios the Patriarch of Constantinople accepted Anglican orders in 1922... Then in 1923 he initiated the Pan-orthodox conference (may 10 -June 8) the orthodox populace was not happy with this decision and a attack was made on on the Patriarchal premises , the Greeks wrecked the premises and subjected him to assault and battery, under pressure he was forced to retire .

Shortly after in 1924 when the new calendar was
introduced mostly all the clergy submitted , the fathers of Mount Athos who did not formed the sacred union of zealot monks , that same year the Greek religious community of True Orthodox Christians was reorganized.

So from there the communion with the Anglicans would not be recognized nor the MP if the church was now with them and no longer with the new calendarists state church since masons never had authority to enact any thing in the church in the first place and communication was not so fast then if the laity and monks and certain priests did not know about the acceptance it would of never been valid any way.

As for ROCOR accepting them they were outside of the Old Calendar Struggle at that time for them it was not so much about the church Calendar it was about the Red Army persecuting the church.

[jdigrande]

The problem is that the GOC cannot supply written statements, essays or books condemning the acceptance of Anglican sacraments. Perhaps there is something in the collected works of St. Matthew but that has not been published yet either.

I also cannot find anything on how long the Jerusalem Patriarchate held this public stance on the validity of Anglican sacraments.

Did the Jerusalem Patriarchate still hold that heretical view when the GOC visited them in 1937 in the hopes of convincing them to support the GOC?

I have asked Vladimir Moss and he has no idea. I have asked the GOC and have not gotten an answer.

Did the Jerusalem Patriarchate hold this view in 1971 when the GOC tried to form a union with ROCOR?

I am amazed that the GOC did not demand an end to ROCOR's union in prayer with the Jerusalem Patriarchate in 1971. It was not even mentioned when the GOC broke communion with ROCOR in 1976! The Jerusalem Patriarchate as a whole was in eucharistic communion with the NC in 1937/71/76 and to this day (2018). They gave ROCOR canonical permission to serve the Liturgy in the Holy Land from 1917 to the MP take over.

Instead the GOC was angry about a lack of a written ROCOR confession and Archbishop Anthony of Geneva giving communion to the NC, Serbs, etc and that is why they broke communion. They did not even protest against the union with their chief enemies in Greece- Auxentius from 1971-76. It was not even mentioned in the 1976 letter.

There was not one GOC word about the Jerusalem Patriarchate and the 50 year history with ROCOR in 1976. Perhaps the GOC had its own history with the Jerusalem Patriarchate that it wanted to hide? To my knowledge there is no history of 20th century Jerusalem Patriarchate in English. Is there one is Greek?

The common answer for any possible GOC mistakes during this period is that communications were poor but Greece had a population of only 5 million people in 1920. The Patriarchates of Jerusalem, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch plus Athens, Mt. Athos and Cyprus were extremely close to each other geographically and most of them connected by boat, railroad, telephone and postal services.

All of the higher clergy spoke Greek in these episcopal/monastic centers and many of them were related in 1920. St. Matthew went to high school in Jerusalem with Meletios Metaxis. Mt. Athos had scores of monks from each of these centers. Publishing centers were established and monthly journals flourished in all the major cities.

It was a much more tightly connected network through families sharing a language and culture than the internet culture of this site or any other site.
If one is not trilingual (Russian, Greek and English or another Slav language) one cannot have access to either the episcopate or the primary sources needed to make sense of the historical situation much less the mess that is 2018.

For example I found out recently that an archbishop (Patriarch?) of the Jerusalem Patriarchate gave the Masonic US. President a piece of the True Cross in 1921 (Harding) in the United States! This was at the same time that the Jerusalem Patriarchate recognized the sacraments of the Anglicans to be grace-filled. Of course this was widely reported in the press and it had to have been common knowledge in Greece in that the JP was and is Greek-led.

There were two other historical realities in 1920 in Greece. There was a huge political division between the Socialists and Royalists. Also there was the huge population exchanges between Turkish Anatolia and Greece. The hundreds of Masonic ordinations performed by the Masonic hierarchy of Joachim III and Meletius Metaxis (In Cyprus before 1920) prepared the population for the adoption of the NC in 1924 and for the muted response to ecumenism through the Anglicans. I have looked for Anglican-Greek primary sources from 1900-1920 in English but have come up empty here too.

What percentage of the population of Greece accepted the NC in 1924 and held to it? What percentage of the parishes and monasteries accepted it?

The standard GOC (and Cyprian) excuse was that the population was too ignorant to know what to make the NC but it had been debated since 1848 in Greece. It was not a new idea in Greece at all. It had been condemned multiple times from 1848-1920. It had to have been discussed by parishes and monasteries through out Greece and the Patriarchal centers surrounding Greece, as well as Mt. Athos.

In general the Soviet MP and Masonic EP both have the goals of white washing the history of the 20th century and they have unlimited resources for this job. The True Orthodox have few multi-lingual historians capable of competing. The MP and EP have Soviet and Vatican-like zeal to do this job and they are working 24/7 to do it.

What do we have? Vladimir Moss (who is despised by the GOC) only speaks English but has 100,000 pages of footnoted history. Who do we have in the Greek language or Russian language to compete with the Soviet and Masonic Renovationists today?

If one adds the Vatican and the secularists who have erased Anno Dominem (AD) from all of history, then the True Churches have scant resources indeed. For a mono-lingual dolt like me, it is almost impossible to get the true facts. I have been driven to Masonic Anglican sources since I cannot find anything from the GOC or ROCOR.

I cannot imagine what a convert today has to go through to decide what to do.

[d9popov]

Chrysostomos of Florina was part of this world and so was St. Matthew.

So you are meaning to suggest that no Greek old calendarist synod has or has ever had grace?

Dear Someguy: Do not allow the historical issues raised by jdigrande to weaken your resolve to join the True Orthodox Church. There were many errors that were not caught immediately, and jdigrande often brings these historical errors up. They do not change the fact that it was the True Orthodox who resisted heresy and defended Orthodoxy.

Once again allow me to repeat that ROAC is a true successor to the ROCOR of Saint Philaret because it upholds the Anathema Against Ecumenism (1983) and condemns Cyprian's Ecclesiological Theses (1984) ---- which later document was meant to refute the correct ecclesiology of the 1983 Anathema. I pray that the Andronik-Sofrony-Andrei synod will issue an even more-clear condemnation of Cyprianism than it already has and will seek communion with the ROAC. i hope that the RTOC also seeks reunion with ROAC. The tiny fragments that claim to continue a lineage from Metropolitan Vitaly should do the same. Eventually, it would be appropriate for the Russian parishes in North America to come under an autocephalous local church in North America. But, in the meantime, the ROAC can be looked upon as a possible point of unity for anti-Ecumenist Russians in Russia and the diaspora.

I believe that the Kallinikos-Cyprian-Agafangel-Fotiy-Irenaeus-Moscow unia is unsound, especially its relationship with the deposed ecumenist patriarch Irenaeus of Jerusalem and their limited inter-communion with the ecumenists is Moldova and the Russian-occupied areas of the the republic of Georgia.

Lastly, why do you refer to "Chrysostomos of Florina" but "St. Matthew." You should keep an open mind on who was more correct.

[d9popov]

Can anyone more learned comment on the validity of the below?
http://austroca.org/differences-synod-a ... %81%D0%B8/

The linked report by Archbishop Sofroniy, at the same website, has one accusation of serious dogmatic nature: Agafangel's relationship with the ecumenist deposed Patriarch Irenaeus of Jeruslam.

[begin quote]

The consecration of Bishop Roman
The election and consecration of a new bishop belongs to the entire Council of Bishops (I Ecum. 4, and Ap. Canon 1; VII Ecum. 3; Antioch 19, 23; Laodicea 12; Sardica 6; Constantinople 1; Carthage 13). In violation of these canons, on July 7, 2014, with “the blessing of Pat. Irenaeus,” Met. Agafangel, Abp. Georgiy and Bp. Nikon performed a secret monastic tonsure and episcopal consecration as Bishop of Haifa, of Fr. Roman Raduan, without verbally or in writing seeking the opinion of absent bishops (as required by the ROCA Statute, paragraph 10 and 11, g), and without a vote on this issue. (Ap. Canons 5, 51; I Ecum. 3; Trullo 30, 48; Carthage 3, 4, 25, 70).

In this instance, the canonical crime was the consecration of a bishop in violation of the “ROCA Statute,” but to an even greater extent, it is also the fact that Met. Agafangel, without following conciliar order, undertook a decision of the utmost importance, i.e. the consecration of a bishop for the Holy Land. The consecration of a bishop for the Holy Land is an unheard of historical precedent and runs counter to the traditions of the ROCA. Throughout its history, the ROCA has possessed monasteries and temples in the Holy Land and has never appointed bishops for the Holy Land. Today, when we have practically no churches in the Holy Land, what was the imperative that made it necessary for Met. Agafangel to conduct a secret consecration? As Bp. Roman was consecrated in secret, not all of the bishops were aware of it. Met. Agafangel, in order to create the appearance of canonical order, proposed at the Extraordinary session of the Council of Bishops, November 25-27, 2014, that the bishops sign a document about the consecration of Bp. Roman. This document was signed by four out of the 12 bishops, with two bishops not present, and on December 18/31, 2014, the Metropolitan was forced to announce that the consecration had been performed.

In March 2014 representatives of the Old Calendar Churches of Greece and Romania signed an important doctrinal document, the Omologiya.
Met. Agafangel signed this document and it was approved by the Council of Bishops meeting at the Mountain View Orthodox Spiritual Center in May 2014. The consecration of Bp. Roman on July 7, 2014 contradicts the provisions of the Omologiya for the following reason: At the same Council of Bishops meeting, the Metropolitan explained the necessity of the episcopal consecration of Fr. Roman by saying that he would be an “assistant to Patriarch Irenaeus, so that Bishop Roman would be the future successor to His Holiness on the canonical territory of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem.” The title of Bishop of Haifa was assigned to Bp. Roman by Pat. Irenaeus and was not approved by our Council of Bishops. We honor the act of moral courage and braveness exhibited by Patriarch Irenaeus, especially his signing of the epistle condemning ecumenism. On the other hand, the fact that he has not made any official declarations of breaking with groups involved in ecumenism, does not make it possible at this time to establish Eucharistic communion with Patriarch Irenaeus. I have nothing personal against and respect Bp. Roman and Pat. Irenaeus, but I want to draw your attention to the fact that Patriarch Irenaeus has not made any official statements about breaking with the ecumenical community, and quite the opposite, continues to submit appeals of his case to Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, the well-known heretic-ecumenist. In this fashion, communion with Pat. Irenaeus, who has not officially abandoned the ecumenical community, and particularly the consecration “with his blessing” of a bishop, is a violation of several points of the Omologiya such as paragraphs 4, 7, 10 and others. Met. Agafangel, at the August 2016 meeting at a Greek monastery with Metropolitan Demetrius, in response to Met. Demetrius’ question if Bp. Roman commemorates Pat. Irenaeus, stated that Bp. Roman does not. Bp. Roman, however, has said in his own words, that he commemorates Pat. Irenaeus and there is video evidence of this. As a cleric of our Church and a vicar bishop subordinate to Met. Agafangel, Bp. Roman to this day commemorates Pat. Irenaeus at the Great Entrance during the Liturgy.

To our knowledge, none of the other True Orthodox synods have bishops in the Holy Land. Such an important decision should not have been made without coordination with the other anti-ecumenist Churches. This canonically reckless adventure has diminished the reputation of our Synod in the eyes of our sister Churches.

...

Met. Agafangel has been repeatedly caught in falsehoods. A typical example of this is, when asked the question of whether he commemorates Pat. Irenaeus, the Metropolitan gives conflicting answers, depending on whom he is speaking to.