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

[Isaakos]

Johnathan:

Nestorius was Anathematized as a heretic.

But his Christology was that of Theodore of Mopsuestia.

Between the 5th and the 6th centuries, between the condemnation of Nestorius and the condemnation of Theodore at the 5th ecumenical council, was Theodore a heretic or not?

Met Cyprian taught the heresy of "Potential" Heresy when he taught that heretics remain ailing members of the church until condemned by a larger synod. Everyone in true Orthodoxy agreed this was heretical, and ROAC anathematized this idea.

But Metropolitan Cyprian only transposed the ideas of Chrysostomos of Florina from the realm of schism to heresy.
Therefore, if it is heretical to believe that individuals who hold to an already anathematized heresy are members of the church albeit ailing members, it is equally heretical in the same way to believe that those who have embraced anathema willfully, persistently and consistently, and have torn themselves from the body of the Church by embracing liturgical deviations, can remain as members of the Church.

The typical Florinite party line is "Chrysostom held this as a personal opinion!"

Nope. False. He announced it in multiple encyclicals addressed to all the faithful of the GOC.

Not to mention the constantly overlooked point that Chrysostom of Florina had admittedly published opinions in articles and encyclicals that were contrary to the principles of Orthodoxy.

How euphemistic. This is plainly an admission of heretical teaching. Or is there a better definition of heresy than to fight against the very principles of Orthodoxy? Oh, well, perhaps he merely meant schism...

Just read the 1947 encyclical of Metropolitan Matthew where he elucidates that it is for matters of clear faith that he had broken with the others.

http://orthodoxy1982.blogspot.com/2015/ ... l.html?m=1

[jgress]

Thank you, Isaakos. I still disagree with your position on Met Chrysostom, but thank you for providing that information about Bp Matthew. But in general I don't think there's any information anyone can provide here that hasn't been fleshed out in greater detail elsewhere. For the moment we have to agree to disagree.

[Archimandrit Nilos]

I can only agree with isaakos.

[Barbara]

Which Archbishop Andrew did Vladimir Moss leave Rocor for ?
I am not at all conversant with his path, except to know where he is today, the STOC, apparently.

[Maria]

Which Archbishop Andrew did Vladimir Moss leave Rocor for ?
I am not at all conversant with his path, except to know where he is today, the STOC, apparently.

Isn't Vladimir Moss in the RTOC? I think he has been in every True Orthodox Jurisdiction, except the vagante ones.
Has he written a journal about his journeys in True Orthodoxy?

Sadly, the laity has not been provided with much information, so they must trust the clergy, laity, and hierarchy. Yet, almost all the original participants in the Old Calendar movement of the early 1900s are no longer alive, so all we have is second hand reports which may or may not be reliable.

Nevertheless, reading the stories of St. Glicherie of Romania and St. Matthew of Greece sheds a lot of truth about the horrific persecutions that these two Bishop-Confessors endured at the hands of Freemasons and members of the State Church.

Unfortunately, time and time again, clergy and hierarchy of the State Churches were more beholden to Mammon than God, so they persecuted the True Orthodox thinking that they could compel these people to pay tithes to the State Church. Yes, it boiled down to money.

Even though navigating through the waters of True Orthodoxy has been filled with icebergs, I could never return to the State Churches with their ecumenical gatherings, false piety, and constant appeals for money.

[Lydia]

St. Matthew's actions were justified. He and his fellow bishops wrote to Met. Chrysostom twice correcting him for his error in departing from the original 1935 document, but Met. Chrysostom persisted in his error and continued to vacillate neither returning to the EP or Greek State Church nor returning to St. Matthew's GOC, which was becoming scandalized by Chrysostoms' inaction.

You are not answering my question, which was whether talking of a "potential schism" is itself a heresy.

Before Bp Matthew, every precedent involving single-handed consecrations ended with the bishops having their ordinations corrected by other Orthodox bishops. Single-handed consecrations are a temporary expedient; the canons do not envision a time when only one Orthodox bishop is left in the world. The Matthewites were therefore obligated to seek out ROCOR, or any other jurisdiction that hadn't fallen into heresy, and have their ordinations corrected.

Then in 1971, more than 20 years after the death of St. Matthew, Auxentios' continual harping against the GOC did not stop even after the ROCOR "blessing" was imparted to the GOC. Indeed, from 1971 until 1976, Auxentios and his group refused to be reconciled to the GOC even though the GOC joined the ROCOR for that purpose. Neither did the ROCOR complete their part of the agreement in that they never presented a solid confession of faith to the GOC as promised. In addition, when the GOC became aware of the New Calendar Ecumenism being espoused by Anthony of Geneva who was having intercommunion with churches under the EP and in those of the ROCOR, and no steps by the ROCOR were forthcoming in condemning such intercommunion, the GOC had valid reasons for leaving the ROCOR: heresy.

It wasn't all the Florinites' fault. The Matthewite bishops refused to perform cheirothesia on their priests. And it's interesting you finally come out and say ROCOR was in heresy back then. Well, there goes St Philaret, I suppose. It would be kind of difficult to maintain veneration of St John Maximovich, too, since he never broke communion with the new calendarists (even if he expressed sympathy for the old calendarists) and he was only glorified in 1994.

This is what happens when you become a Matthewite. I think the same thing happened to Vladimir Moss: he left ROCOR for Abp Andrew in the late 1970s since he thought they were already ecumenists. So back then Met Philaret was a heretic, but now he's a saint and scourge of ecumenism! I'm glad Vladimir softened his stance, and his history of the divisions in the GOC are pretty fair and balanced now. I recommend reading his history of the 1970s for the full picture of how the Florinites and Matthewites fell out with each other and with ROCOR.

This is a very good assessment, Jonathon. It is interesting that Vladimir Moss wrote that the Matthewites painted themselves into a corner.

Perhaps you could answer some questions for me, since I can't get an answer from others on this board.
What year was Archbishop (then archimandrite) Auxentios defrocked by the Matthewite synod? Is it true that he left Bishop Matthew because of the uncanonical consecration or because he was upset that he wasn't the one consecrated? If the latter reason is correct, can you provide any actual proof that this is true? I have searched for this information but I haven't been able to find it.
It is a scandalous libel to accuse someone of such motivation in the absence of any proof.

I would like your opinion on another matter. If the GOC entered into full eucharistic communion with ROCOR in 1971, then it follows that they entered into full communion with Archbishop Auxentios as well.
Why would they do this if they considered Archbishop Auxentios to be no more than a defrocked priest? If the letter of Archbishop Seraphim is anything to go by, it was the Matthewites who did all they could to effect a peaceful union with Archbishop Auxentios. It seems a strange course of action if, as I had read on this board, they considered Archbishop Auxentios to have committed fraud in his dealing with ROCOR.

[Maria]

St. Matthew's actions were justified. He and his fellow bishops wrote to Met. Chrysostom twice correcting him for his error in departing from the original 1935 document, but Met. Chrysostom persisted in his error and continued to vacillate neither returning to the EP or Greek State Church nor returning to St. Matthew's GOC, which was becoming scandalized by Chrysostoms' inaction.

You are not answering my question, which was whether talking of a "potential schism" is itself a heresy.

Before Bp Matthew, every precedent involving single-handed consecrations ended with the bishops having their ordinations corrected by other Orthodox bishops. Single-handed consecrations are a temporary expedient; the canons do not envision a time when only one Orthodox bishop is left in the world. The Matthewites were therefore obligated to seek out ROCOR, or any other jurisdiction that hadn't fallen into heresy, and have their ordinations corrected.

Then in 1971, more than 20 years after the death of St. Matthew, Auxentios' continual harping against the GOC did not stop even after the ROCOR "blessing" was imparted to the GOC. Indeed, from 1971 until 1976, Auxentios and his group refused to be reconciled to the GOC even though the GOC joined the ROCOR for that purpose. Neither did the ROCOR complete their part of the agreement in that they never presented a solid confession of faith to the GOC as promised. In addition, when the GOC became aware of the New Calendar Ecumenism being espoused by Anthony of Geneva who was having intercommunion with churches under the EP and in those of the ROCOR, and no steps by the ROCOR were forthcoming in condemning such intercommunion, the GOC had valid reasons for leaving the ROCOR: heresy.

It wasn't all the Florinites' fault. The Matthewite bishops refused to perform cheirothesia on their priests. And it's interesting you finally come out and say ROCOR was in heresy back then. Well, there goes St Philaret, I suppose. It would be kind of difficult to maintain veneration of St John Maximovich, too, since he never broke communion with the new calendarists (even if he expressed sympathy for the old calendarists) and he was only glorified in 1994.

This is what happens when you become a Matthewite. I think the same thing happened to Vladimir Moss: he left ROCOR for Abp Andrew in the late 1970s since he thought they were already ecumenists. So back then Met Philaret was a heretic, but now he's a saint and scourge of ecumenism! I'm glad Vladimir softened his stance, and his history of the divisions in the GOC are pretty fair and balanced now. I recommend reading his history of the 1970s for the full picture of how the Florinites and Matthewites fell out with each other and with ROCOR.

This is a very good assessment, Jonathon. It is interesting that Vladimir Moss wrote that the Matthewites painted themselves into a corner.

Perhaps you could answer some questions for me, since I can't get an answer from others on this board.
What year was Archbishop (then archimandrite) Auxentios defrocked by the Matthewite synod? Is it true that he left Bishop Matthew because of the uncanonical consecration or because he was upset that he wasn't the one consecrated? If the latter reason is correct, can you provide any actual proof that this is true? I have searched for this information but I haven't been able to find it.
It is a scandalous libel to accuse someone of such motivation in the absence of any proof.

I would like your opinion on another matter. If the GOC entered into full eucharistic communion with ROCOR in 1971, then it follows that they entered into full communion with Archbishop Auxentios as well.
Why would they do this if they considered Archbishop Auxentios to be no more than a defrocked priest? If the letter of Archbishop Seraphim is anything to go by, it was the Matthewites who did all they could to effect a peaceful union with Archbishop Auxentios. It seems a strange course of action if, as I had read on this board, they considered Archbishop Auxentios to have committed fraud in his dealing with ROCOR.

Lydia,

The GOC wanted to heal the schism that was caused by Auxentios, but Auxentios had to come back to the GOC or at least concelebrate with them. He refused even though Archbishop Seraphim begged him to reconsider. The GOC were heeding the commandment of Christ to forgive 70 x 70. Even showing this good will did not entice Auxentios to concelebrate with the GOC. He refused, so the schism was never healed. If Auxentios was wounded by the fact that he was not selected to be a bishop by the GOC laity and clergy, this was a deep wound, that prevented him from reconciling with the GOC.

During the life of St. Matthew the New Confessor, St. Matthew continually forgave Met. Chrysostomos of Florina and invited him back countless times begging the Met. of Florina to help consecrate some bishops for the GOC, but Met. Chrysostomos kept refusing saying that the GOC was only a movement, not a jurisdiction, and that the True Church was the State Church. Yet, Met. Chrysostomos did not return to the State Church, he remained separated from it until the day he died.

Jonathan,

A single-handed consecration that is done by economia in dire times of persecution does not need to be rectified by laying on of hands. The only time a single-handed consecration would need to be rectified would be if simony, heresy or another violation of the canons had occurred. Bishop Sypridon was a valid bishop by the act of consecration given by St. Matthew. He did not need laying on of hands.