Moderator: Mark Templet
Constantine wrote:Also Akakios and company, knew full well that rocor had spiritual contact with the NC EP and the NC Archbishop of North and South America, and that rocor considered the NC only a mistake and still had spiritual contact with churches using the NC, but Akakios decided to ignore all that even though he "believed" there was no grace in the NC.
So why did the Matthewites enter in communion with ROCOR too, knowing this and knowing ROCOR was in communion with the Florinites?
Priidite, poklonimsja i pripadem ko Hristu.
Because the Matthewites met with rocor in order to learn what rocor's ecclesiology was, they did not know, they did not have the documents sent to the florinites by rocor in 1961 explaining there ecclesiology. Also the matthewites read their "confession of faith" which includes the fact that the nc is graceless, and they were told that rocor was in agreement with them. If the matthewites knew the rocors ecclesiology concerning the NC, they would not have had to read theirs. You can only make a decision with the information that is placed in front of you, the florinites on the other hand had FULL knowledge of rocor's ecumenistic activities since 1961 when they were informed via letter but decided to overlook that.
So my question is, if it was ok for rocor to be in communion with the EP and NC when the florinites need bishops, why is not ok to be in communion with the EP and NC when the florinites dont need bishops?
petros_p wrote:and Bishop Mathaios was in schism and had performed invalid (single handed) consecrations according to them.
http://www.egoch.org/Akakians/Leonty_at ... uneral.jpg
Both of them were full pledged ecumenists not just new calendarists!!! So please get real!!!
Christ is Risen
Petros
Theophilus later apostacized but you cannot bismirch the memory of Leonty who was a great man. So going to a Catholic prelate's funeral makes you an ecumenist? Maybe they were friends. Or maybe he decided he made a mistake. Either way, judge him in context: and he was not an ecumenist. :ohvey:
Constantine wrote:Because the Matthewites met with rocor in order to learn what rocor's ecclesiology was, they did not know, they did not have the documents sent to the florinites by rocor in 1961 explaining there ecclesiology. Also the matthewites read their "confession of faith" which includes the fact that the nc is graceless, and they were told that rocor was in agreement with them. If the matthewites knew the rocors ecclesiology concerning the NC, they would not have had to read theirs. You can only make a decision with the information that is placed in front of you, the florinites on the other hand had FULL knowledge of rocor's ecumenistic activities since 1961 when they were informed via letter but decided to overlook that.
So my question is, if it was ok for rocor to be in communion with the EP and NC when the florinites need bishops, why is not ok to be in communion with the EP and NC when the florinites dont need bishops?
Just as your knowledge of ROCOR changed over time, so did ours. ROCOR was moving away from the EP by the time the two bishops consecrated for us, and in 1969 when we entered communion they had completely broken communion.
I agree the situation is ambiguous but I don't think Church history has ever been tidy. That is why despite my disagreement with the Matthewite position I consider you brothers.
I am sorry fr anastasios but I disagree. Even after akakios was concecrated, in 1961, the florinite synod received a official document from rocor, stating that it has spiritual relations with the EP and the greek nc Archbishop of north and south america, in this document they also state that the nc is considered a mistake but the still have spiritual relations with those that use it, that letter was received by the florinite synod in late 1961. So quite clearly rocor was not moving away from the EP and NC when they concecrated Akakios but in fact after they did they reinforced there position to the florinites that in fact they did have relations with the NC and EP, but the florinites still pursued communion with rocor even after this and were later recognized by rocor and base their "canonical" status on that recognition, by rocor, who used the NC, communed with the EP and the NC..
So again I would like to ask anyone that can answer me, why is it ok to commune with the NC and EP when the Florinites need bishops, but it is not ok to commune with the NC and EP when they dont need bishops?
Constantine wrote:I am sorry fr anastasios but I disagree. Even after akakios was concecrated, in 1961, the florinite synod received a official document from rocor, stating that it has spiritual relations with the EP and the greek nc Archbishop of north and south america, in this document they also state that the nc is considered a mistake but the still have spiritual relations with those that use it, that letter was received by the florinite synod in late 1961. So quite clearly rocor was not moving away from the EP and NC when they concecrated Akakios but in fact after they did they reinforced there position to the florinites that in fact they did have relations with the NC and EP, but the florinites still pursued communion with rocor even after this and were later recognized by rocor and base their "canonical" status on that recognition, by rocor, who used the NC, communed with the EP and the NC..
Thank you for reminding me about the letter of Fr George Grabbe, which I have a copy of. Keep in mind that Fr George was the secretary and worked for Met Anastassy. Met Anastassy was friendly with Arch Iakovos, was against the ROCOR helping the Old Calendarists, etc. He was, however, not the Synod in its entirety. When he retired 3 years later, the confessing Met Philaret was elected, things were put in order, and voila, ROCOR placed itself firmly in the Orthodox anti-ecumenist camp.
Remember that all it took for the Monophysite Juvenaly I believe it was, Patriarch of Jerusalem, to be accepted as Orthodox was to cross the aisle at Chalcedon, at which point the others said, "hail, Orthodox." And so it was with the ROCOR--the stronger bishops won (at least for a time). Fr George as you know went on to be quite a firm confessor of Orthodoxy and his later writings had nothing in common with that letter.
Constantine wrote:Because the Matthewites met with rocor in order to learn what rocor's ecclesiology was, they did not know, they did not have the documents sent to the florinites by rocor in 1961 explaining there ecclesiology. Also the matthewites read their "confession of faith" which includes the fact that the nc is graceless, and they were told that rocor was in agreement with them. If the matthewites knew the rocors ecclesiology concerning the NC, they would not have had to read theirs. You can only make a decision with the information that is placed in front of you, the florinites on the other hand had FULL knowledge of rocor's ecumenistic activities since 1961 when they were informed via letter but decided to overlook that.
I highly disagree. The Matthewites knew ROCOR had given bishops to the Florinites and nonetheless entered in communion with the same ROCOR. But the Matthhewites regarded the Florinites as being graceless schismatics. So entering in communion with ROCOR (that was in communion with the Florinites) they fell under their own condemnation of Florinites?. Who would enter in communion with a church that is itself in communion with another church that you declare schismatic?
Priidite, poklonimsja i pripadem ko Hristu.
