Greetings

[jgress]

I can give you Bishop Christodoulos' phone number, and he can put you in touch with Met Pavlos, if you really want to find out the truth.

[Matthew]

Dear Nathan,

You are new here so you probably need more time to get a sense of the etiquette that is established here for certain good reasons. The sort of claims you are putting up for discussion deserve a well researched and articulated response, mainly because they are issues that do affect people's walk with God in a negative way, and we ought to, for love's sake, try to remedy those wounds. The truth is the only remedy for it. It seems that you might be doubtful about the necessity of going to lengths to privatise this discussion topic. It is not "secret" though. It is simply that some people are not able to hear such discussions without being greatly harmed, and this is one way to make sure of greater chances that someone who comes across such threads will be prepared and able to encounter them with less wounding or scandal.

I personally, am not an expert on all the charges you listed, though I have come across them before. I think it is important to note at least one thing that will probably help you sort through some of these kinds of issues. Not all of the ones you listed, though disturbing, are really issues of dogmatic or canonical consequence. In such cases, it is often wiser to drop the matter. The other ones may have such more weighty implications, and in those cases we are well advised to seek out expert authorities, preferably from multiple and varying points of view. Then having sorted through the various arguments try to prayerfully arrive at the most truthful and accurate version of the events and their meaning.

Finally, it is always an imperative to ask the accused for their version of the events, as Jonathan has rightly pointed out. It is entirely outside of the most rudimentary standards of Orthodox Christianity for us to accept the charges against a brother, much less a bishop, without having once heard the personal defence of the accused. I trust you will make that step the first and most urgent one on your list.

I hope that these general comments help somewhat.

[Matthew]

What is with the recognition and veneration of Chrysostom of Florina of bad remembrance who was a schismato-heretic and his condemnation from side of the Florinites ? What is with neo-eikonomachia and many other matters ? Questions about questions for the Akakian-Florinites without any answer.

Sorry, but I find these words confusing.

But first, let me say this: Please use the proper title when referring to clergy, especially those in the TOCs. This forum has a long established rule of doing so to make sure that things do not devolve into a mud-slinging fest, but rather maintain a respectful and charitable tone. We never have to sacrifice charity for honesty or zeal for the truth. Both can be maintained.

You seem to be saying that Metropolitan Chrysostom of Florina was condemned from the side of the Florinites? Huh?

Please be more specific when you use the charge of schismatic and heretic: I mean you should briefly refer to the actions or pronouncements that purportedly establish this. This is to ensure that all readers, neophyte and veteran know what you are talking about and that the debate can centre on real issues and facts, for without that, we are writing without any honest intention or hope of resolving these issues and differences and to generate more real unity amongst each other. Love heals and seeks to heal, and this is His Commandment, and ought to be the priority we work under. Let's really sincerely try to resolve these sorts of things.

Who are you referring to when you say "Akakian-Florinites". This means nothing to me because I am not well acquainted with all the figures in the history of these events. Forgive me Father Nilos, but it would be helpful not to assume all readers know what you are talking about. I am interested in what you have to say, but lack of detail blocks me from entering into a common understanding of your ideas.

[jgress]

Dear Nathan,

You are new here so you probably need more time to get a sense of the etiquette that is established here for certain good reasons. The sort of claims you are putting up for discussion deserve a well researched and articulated response, mainly because they are issues that do affect people's walk with God in a negative way, and we ought to, for love's sake, try to remedy those wounds. The truth is the only remedy for it. It seems that you might be doubtful about the necessity of going to lengths to privatise this discussion topic. It is not "secret" though. It is simply that some people are not able to hear such discussions without being greatly harmed, and this is one way to make sure of greater chances that someone who comes across such threads will be prepared and able to encounter them with less wounding or scandal.

I personally, am not an expert on all the charges you listed, though I have come across them before. I think it is important to note at least one thing that will probably help you sort through some of these kinds of issues. Not all of the ones you listed, though disturbing, are really issues of dogmatic or canonical consequence. In such cases, it is often wiser to drop the matter. The other ones may have such more weighty implications, and in those cases we are well advised to seek out expert authorities, preferably from multiple and varying points of view. Then having sorted through the various arguments try to prayerfully arrive at the most truthful and accurate version of the events and their meaning.

Finally, it is always an imperative to ask the accused for their version of the events, as Jonathan has rightly pointed out. It is entirely outside of the most rudimentary standards of Orthodox Christianity for us to accept the charges against a brother, much less a bishop, without having once heard the personal defence of the accused. I trust you will make that step the first and most urgent one on your list.

I hope that these general comments help somewhat.

Thank you for your measured words, Symeon. Unfortunately I get upset when I keep hearing the same accusations, and I let my temper get the better of me. Please forgive.

And I should qualify my reaction: there is some basis to the accusations. Fr Pavlos did have discussions with Pat Bartholomew back in the early 1990s, under the impression that Pat Bartholomew was a traditionalist and would hold dialogue with the GOC, and ease the persecution of zealots on Athos. Of course, this was a false promise, Fr Pavlos realized his mistake and repented of it. All of these issues were resolved by the time of his ordination.

I have no idea what is meant by "secret" consecration. I've seen plenty of pictures of Met Pavlos' consecration.

Met Pavlos does not knowingly admit new calendarists to communion, and issued a firmly worded statement about it around 10 years ago. I keep hearing these claims and I don't know what the basis is for them. Perhaps some new calendarists receive communion at times like Pascha, when it's crowded and the fathers don't have the opportunity to check if the person receiving has permission. But there's no way you can claim that it's official policy to commune new calendarists.

Bp Christodoulos used to be in film and directed a silly zombie movie. Obviously he stopped doing that when he became a monk, so I don't know why people bring it up. And the ONLY source for this ridiculous story about chopping someone's nose off with a shovel is a blog post by the notorious Brother Nathanael. I was unable to find confirmation of this story anywhere else on the web, so you can do the math on that one.

Anyway, do call people up and ask their version of what happened. Obviously, each person will interpret events with some bias, but you really can't make any kind of judgment before you hear both sides of the story.

[nathanv]

These are all baseless slander. Why don't you contact the people in question and ask them about it, instead of relying on the internet ravings of a deposed priest?

These are all likely true. But I don't care, I will drop this whole line of questioning, since this is obviously not the time or place for it, and it is not edifying. Except for the first two points. Metr. Pavlos, before he was ordained bishop in 1994, admitted in an interview with a newspaper that he belonged to the Ecumenical Patriarch in conscience. I would like to see in a public document before 1998, that he repented and retracted these remarks. Or if that is not possible a statement after that date. I don't believe he has ever publicly repented of these beliefs.

The bishops who ordained him were well aware of these statements and ordained him anyways. The conclusion I draw is that the whole synod is Cyprianite-Florinite in its ecclesiology.

[nathanv]

Fr Pavlos did have discussions with Pat Bartholomew back in the early 1990s, under the impression that Pat Bartholomew was a traditionalist and would hold dialogue with the GOC, and ease the persecution of zealots on Athos. Of course, this was a false promise, Fr Pavlos realized his mistake and repented of it. All of these issues were resolved by the time of his ordination.

Is there any public statement to this effect, like a link on a website somewhere?

[Matthew]

Thank you for your measured words, Symeon. Unfortunately I get upset when I keep hearing the same accusations, and I let my temper get the better of me. Please forgive.

God forgives...but it is I that greatly needs forgiveness.

Bp Christodoulos used to be in film and directed a silly zombie movie. Obviously he stopped doing that when he became a monk, so I don't know why people bring it up. And the ONLY source for this ridiculous story about chopping someone's nose off with a shovel is a blog post by the notorious Brother Nathanael. I was unable to find confirmation of this story anywhere else on the web, so you can do the math on that one.

I first heard of this accusation when it was made by Albert Efthymios Valdez (a.k.a. pilgrim1411) on his YouTube Channel. I do not know if his information is first hand or simply got it from the hearsay of Nathanael Kapner. In any case, you would have to interview Bp Christodoulos, then call Kapner and get his original source, chase that down and hopefully find the supposed victim and find out why he never filed a police report and had him charged with assault with a deadly weapon causing bodily harm. Disfiguring someone's face carries a heavy penalty in the USA. He would be locked up for a very long time if this were true. So, I think there is reason to hold this claim in doubt until the evidence proves otherwise.

One final note, so much of this smacks of rumour. I cannot think of anything more destructive than ears that readily receive rumours as a source of guidance and a basis upon which we make personal decisions for our own lives and upon which we judge our neighbours as being good or bad, "in" or "out." We need to have a strong distaste for rumours and avoid taking them seriously. That is a great shield against the devil who loves to sew discord and strife among brethren. Please turn your warning lights on regarding this one and take heed to your inner sense that this is just plain wrong for Christian ears to accept.