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

[Jean-Serge]

Isn't true that Archbishop Chrysostomos wrote an official letter in 1950 affirming that the New Calendarists were indeed schismatic and taking upon himself the responsibility for the earlier division of the True Orthodox of Greece?

The Matthewite objection is that in fact he was not sincere because later he said that this was just a move to appease those who were reproaching him his "cyprianite" stance (see book of Father Stephen Fraser). So, things are complicated but the way reconciliation was made with cyprianistes does not help a reconciliation with Matthewites.

[Lydia]

http://www.euphrosynoscafe.com/forum/vi ... ?f=2&t=789
Here is an old thread that claims that the Matthewites and Florinites were close to union in 1991.
10 of the 12 Matthewite Bishops voted in favour of union, even though Archbishop Auxentios was one of the Florinite bishops.
In light of what has been written about Archbishop Auxentios by the Matthewite followers, this strikes me as very odd and confirms what I have read about the factional mentality of many Matthewites.
I hope this condition can be overcome but with the continued splintering of the Matthewite Bishops, it seems unlikely.
Not that I'm saying the Florinite-Akakians were any better...

Interesting, though I'm not so sure the date is accurate. The Matthewites and Florinites did formally enter into communion in 1971, but this union lasted only 5 years. Still, that little history of the relations between the factions should have mentioned that! So I suspect the author meant to write 1969-1971, not 1989-1991. Or am I mistaken and were there negotiations in 1991 that I don't know about?

Abp Auxentios was still canonically head of the synod in 1971, but by 1991 he had been deposed and was leading his own faction.

According to the thread and porto-credo, they almost united circa 1990. The porto-credo article said the negotiations were with Archbishop Auxentios. Perhaps they were mistaken.

[Lydia]

Isn't true that Archbishop Chrysostomos wrote an official letter in 1950 affirming that the New Calendarists were indeed schismatic and taking upon himself the responsibility for the earlier division of the True Orthodox of Greece?

The Matthewite objection is that in fact he was not sincere because later he said that this was just a move to appease those who were reproaching him his "cyprianite" stance (see book of Father Stephen Fraser). So, things are complicated but the way reconciliation was made with cyprianistes does not help a reconciliation with Matthewites.

It seems unlikely to me that Archbishop Chrysostomos would write those things that are cited by Father Stephen.
Why would he admit that he lied to his flock to appease them and to steal the monasteries at Keratea? These are crimes against God and His Holy Church. That he would write them in his own synod's periodical where the clergy and laity would read them is beyond reason.
Isn't it true that he was arrested in 1951 and exiled? Why would he be so treated(a man in his eighties) if he were doing the bidding of the New Calendarists? Why wouldn'd he just go and live out his life in the monasteries that he had just admitted stealing?
Just because someone writes something doesn't make it true. We have to use our reason.

Anyway, the history of the Old Calendarists in Greece is so muddied at this point in time that I believe it is now of little consequence. Perhaps God has a purpose in this to keep us from forming cultic obsessions with certain individuals. All that we can do is seek out Bishops who are True Orthodox in their confession, who speak the truth in love, who are tenderhearted and humble and are true shepherds, caring about the souls in their care rather than their own ambition and pride.

[Jean-Serge]

Why would he admit that he lied to his flock to appease them and to steal the monasteries at Keratea? These are crimes against God and His Holy Church. That he would write them in his own synod's periodical where the clergy and laity would read them is beyond reason.

Very good point! Without showing the original documents, anybody can say anything.The old copies of these different newspapers still exist in Greece.

[Maria]

Why would he admit that he lied to his flock to appease them and to steal the monasteries at Keratea? These are crimes against God and His Holy Church. That he would write them in his own synod's periodical where the clergy and laity would read them is beyond reason.

Very good point! Without showing the original documents, anybody can say anything.The old copies of these different newspapers still exist in Greece.

As St. Matthew had fallen asleep in the Lord in 1950, Met. Chrysostomos of Florina knew that his life was also drawing to a close, so it appears that he was seeking repentance, but instead of asking the GOC Synod of Bishops to be received back into the fold, Chrysostomos asked the GOC Synod to join him who had no synod of bishops, as he was alone and refused to consecrated anyone else. Asking the GOC Synod to join him was a little strange as usually the repentant one is the one begging for forgiveness and mercy. Could it be that after all the torture and starvation Chrysostomos had endured at the hands of the New Calendarists and freemasons, that he was suffering from slight dementia?

St. Matthew fell asleep in the Lord in 1950, and Met. Chrysostomos followed him a few years later in the mid 1950s. When Met. Chrysostomos died, his followers had no bishops, so the Florinians died out.

[jgress]

Why would he admit that he lied to his flock to appease them and to steal the monasteries at Keratea? These are crimes against God and His Holy Church. That he would write them in his own synod's periodical where the clergy and laity would read them is beyond reason.

Very good point! Without showing the original documents, anybody can say anything.The old copies of these different newspapers still exist in Greece.

As St. Matthew had fallen asleep in the Lord in 1950, Met. Chrysostomos of Florina knew that his life was also drawing to a close, so it appears that he was seeking repentance, but instead of asking the GOC Synod of Bishops to be received back into the fold, Chrysostomos asked the GOC Synod to join him who had no synod of bishops, as he was alone and refused to consecrated anyone else. Asking the GOC Synod to join him was a little strange as usually the repentant one is the one begging for forgiveness and mercy. Could it be that after all the torture and starvation Chrysostomos had endured at the hands of the New Calendarists and freemasons, that he was suffering from slight dementia?

St. Matthew fell asleep in the Lord in 1950, and Met. Chrysostomos followed him a few years later in the mid 1950s. When Met. Chrysostomos died, his followers had no bishops, so the Florinians died out.

Uh, the Florinites did NOT die out.

[Lydia]

Why would he admit that he lied to his flock to appease them and to steal the monasteries at Keratea? These are crimes against God and His Holy Church. That he would write them in his own synod's periodical where the clergy and laity would read them is beyond reason.

Very good point! Without showing the original documents, anybody can say anything.The old copies of these different newspapers still exist in Greece.

As St. Matthew had fallen asleep in the Lord in 1950, Met. Chrysostomos of Florina knew that his life was also drawing to a close, so it appears that he was seeking repentance, but instead of asking the GOC Synod of Bishops to be received back into the fold, Chrysostomos asked the GOC Synod to join him who had no synod of bishops, as he was alone and refused to consecrated anyone else. Asking the GOC Synod to join him was a little strange as usually the repentant one is the one begging for forgiveness and mercy. Could it be that after all the torture and starvation Chrysostomos had endured at the hands of the New Calendarists and freemasons, that he was suffering from slight dementia?

St. Matthew fell asleep in the Lord in 1950, and Met. Chrysostomos followed him a few years later in the mid 1950s. When Met. Chrysostomos died, his followers had no bishops, so the Florinians died out.

From what I have read:
Archbishop Chrysostomos went to Bishop Mathew as he was dying hoping for reconciliation. Twice he went and according to eyewitnesses, Bishop Matthew embraced him as a brother, but Abbess Maryam drove Archbishop Chrysostomos away. Is this true? I don' know. So, perhaps the division is more due to the followers(and controllers?) of Bishop Matthew than by the Hierarchs themselves.

Archbishop Chrysostomos supposedly told his followers to go to Bishop Matthew's synod after his death but they did not. Is this true? I don't know. There is no written record of this and since his followers obviously disobeyed him, I conclude that it is false. But, really, I don't know.

It seems to me, that until the end of his life, Archbishop Chrysostomos earnestly believed that the New Calendarists could be brought back. I have read that Patriarch Athenagorus tried to entice Archbishop Chrysostomos to come over to the State Church with promises of wealth and power, but Archbishop Chrysostomos refused, instead imploring the Patriarch to repent. Is this true? I don't know.

I have also read that many of Bishop Matthew's clergy and laity were truly dismayed over his decision to consecrate a bishop alone and that they left him for what they judged an uncanonical act. It seems unreasonable for them to join a synod they had recently left when the reason for their departure still existed. They also state that Bishop Germanos was alive and able to consecrate with Bishop Matthew but he refused. So, Bishop Matthew acted alone. Is this true? I don't know.