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

[Barbara]

Interesting comparison with St Augustine of Canterbury, thank you, Isaakos. I hadn't heard that story but it does seem at least a bit analogous to Bp Matthew's single-handed consecration of Bp Spyridon of Tremithus.

[Cyprian]

And the issue is not whether Met Chrysostom was correct to talk of "potential schism", but whether his error was so serious that Bishop Matthew was justified in breaking communion with Met Chrysostom and later consecrating more bishops on his own.

How could Bishop Matthew remain with his metropolitan who changed his confession of faith? "Can two walk together, except they be agreed?" (Amos 3:3). From the history that I have read, Bishop Matthew was fully within his right to separate from Met. Chrysostom. They simply could not exist in the same synod, while publicly holding divergent views on such a crucial matter.

I believe his error was not so serious, and most of the GOC at the time agreed and remained with Met Chrysostom.

You say that most of Met. Chrysostom's flock agreed that his error was not so serious? But did they actually acknowledge (at that time) that he was in error? Are there letters or other such appeals from his flock asking him to return to the original confession? If his flock recognized their Metropolitan was in error, why didn't they all beseech him to turn away from his errors, and publicly correct his earlier mistakes? Then the reason for division would no longer exist.

But as I also say elsewhere, these issues were resolved in 1971 when the Matthewites and Florinites entered into communion; it is disingenuous for Matthewites to keep bringing it up like its news when trying to argue for the rightness of their position (just as Florinites today should not attack Matthewites for what happened before).

If only everyone else would follow your lead and let bygones be bygones. At this time, it would in fact be better to focus on the present. The confession of a right faith can overcome all previous enmity. Presently, the Kallinikite synod does not have the same confession of faith as the genuine Matthewite synod. That is a major hindrance to their being united. When the Kallinikite synod leaves off their errors, then the way may be cleared for union.

We're not interested in the 1948 consecrations anymore, we're interested in why the two sides broke communion in 1976 and what can be done to fix that.

Even the reasons behind the separation in 1976 are far less important than the current differences in confession of faith, which trumps all.

[Maria]

Indeed, we have now come back full circle.

The encyclicals and teachings of Bishop Auxentios of Portland and Oregon and of the GOC-K make it impossible for the GOC-K to unite with the GOC under Archbishop Stephanos as the GOC-K still waits for a Pan-Orthodox Council, which is what Met. Chrysostomos of Florina also wanted. Furthermore, the documents of unity published in 2014 between the GOC-K and the SiR are problematic in that they are not clear regarding the question of grace.

Even if the True Orthodox were to hold a "Pan-Orthodox Council," the World Orthodox would laugh and consider the anathemas "uncanonical." What good would come of such a "Pan-Orthodox Council"?

[jgress]

I agree that it is highly unlikely the World Orthodox will ever return en masse to the GOC, but that would not be the only goal of convening a Major Synod. Another purpose would be to persuade individual WO members who might be more convinced if not only the Greeks, but the Russian, Serbian, Romanian and Bulgarian True Orthodox spoke with one voice on the issue, and also to assure other True Orthodox not in communion with us that we are serious about the ecclesiological consequences of ecumenism and sergianism by re-affirming the anathemas against them, and persuading the more "liberal" members of our churches that ecumenism and sergianism really are under anathema and that the official Orthodox churches are completely severed from the true vine and no longer possess grace-filled mysteries. I can't see any drawbacks to holding such a synod.

Plus, it's not as if Matthewite tactics of breaking communion over every little issue has been any more successful at winning over the World Orthodox, is it?

[jgress]

Cyprian, you keep insisting that the question of whether the new calendarists had grace was a "crucial matter" on which Bp Matthew was justified in creating a schism. I simply disagree: it was not crucial to insist categorically on whether or not the new calendarists had grace, but rather what was crucial was to insist that the new calendar had been condemned by the Church already and that Orthodox Christians should neither follow it nor take communion from new calendarist priests.

[Dcn.Ephrem]

I agree that it is highly unlikely the World Orthodox will ever return en masse to the GOC, but that would not be the only goal of convening a Major Synod. Another purpose would be to persuade individual WO members who might be more convinced if not only the Greeks, but the Russian, Serbian, Romanian and Bulgarian True Orthodox spoke with one voice on the issue, and also to assure other True Orthodox not in communion with us that we are serious about the ecclesiological consequences of ecumenism and sergianism by re-affirming the anathemas against them, and persuading the more "liberal" members of our churches that ecumenism and sergianism really are under anathema and that the official Orthodox churches are completely severed from the true vine and no longer possess grace-filled mysteries. I can't see any drawbacks to holding such a synod.

I agree with what Jonathan writes here. I humbly hope that the GOC-K and its friends are able to convene such a Synod and proclaim a good confession to everyone. I cannot understand why anyone would want anything else. Who doesn't want to see them proclaim a good confession?