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

[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.

I actually spent some time trying to find the old copies, but I failed. Perhaps they exist in paper form, but haven't been electronically copied yet.

[Maria]

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:
[1] 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.

Source?

[2] 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.

Source?

[3] 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.

Source?

[4] 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.

Source?

Magenta font, my emphasis.
It would help if you listed your sources.

My source: Father Stephen Fraser, Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece (GOC): A Brief History and Commentary

[1] Met. Chrysostomos apparently did visit St. Matthew before he died, but Met. Chrysostomos never returned to the GOC. Thus, Met. Chrysostomos never reconciled nor repented for his schismatic action in leaving St. Matthew.

[3 and 4] It is true that Met. Chrysostomos formerly of Florina continually refused to consecrate any bishop either single-handed or in union with St. Matthew as Met. Chrysostomos had hoped that the Greek State church would repent. In addition, he considered the Old Calendarists to be a movement for a change back to the Old Calendar, and did not view the GOC as a church. For this reason, he never returned to the GOC, but asked the GOC to come with him and acknowledge the GOC as a movement, not a church.

[4] According to Rev. Father Stephen Fraser, the clergy and laity under St. Matthew repeatedly begged him to consecrate a bishop. It was not just one or two people, but an overwhelming majority of the clergy and laity of the GOC who asked St. Matthew to consecrate a bishop. Among those begging for consecration was Hieromonk Auxentios, who was terribly disappointed when the clergy-laity conference gave their vote to Bishop-elect Spyridon. Bishop Spyridon was consecrated in 1948, and Hieromonk Auxentios left St. Matthew and joined Met. Chrysostomos in 1948. However, Met. Chrysostomos steadfastly refused to consecrated Auxentios and or anyone else who approached him.

[jgress]

Why would Met Chrysostom even consider consecrating Fr Auxentios alone? You make it sound like this constitutes some damning judgment of Fr Auxentios' character on the part of Met Chrysostom, when it sounds more like simple prudence. Single-handed consecrations are highly irregular. And how did Met Chrysostom "leave" Bishop Matthew? I don't recall Met Chrysostom ever declaring Bp Matthew in schism; the denunciations were all coming from Bp Matthew's side.

[Lydia]

http://www.romanitas.ru/eng/Matthewites ... inites.htm:
In the same year of 1948, Metropolitan Chrysostomos began to recognise his error of 1937, which enabled Metropolitan Germanos of the Cyclades to return into communion with him without demanding any public repentance or “reconciliation with the Church”. This, in my view, is how the Matthewites should have acted later, just after Metropolitan Matthew’s death in 1950, when Metropolitan Chrysostomos issued a public encyclical repenting of his erroneous statements since 1937. Church history shows that such statements have been quite sufficient to resolve Church disputes which did not involve major heresy. If the Matthewites had united with Chrysostomos at that point, the Old Calendarist movement would have been united under two metropolitans confessing that the new calendarists were real schismatics with no grace of sacraments. But the glittering prize of unity in the truth was lost because the Matthewites distrusted Metropolitan Chrysostomos. In view of his later behaviour, they say, and in view of his refusal to consecrate more bishops, the whole thing would have ended in tears. But how do we know? How do we know that the very opposite would not have happened – that God, seeing the love and humility of His servants, would have strengthened them in the struggle for the truth faith, overcoming their weaknesses and allaying their fears? In any case, speculations about the future should play no part in such decisions. Metropolitan Chrysostomos admitted his guilt: no more was required. He sought forgiveness and reconciliation: it should have been given him.

The division continued, and in 1955 Metropolitan Chrysostomos, the last remaining Florinite bishop, died without consecrating any more bishops. According to some reports, he advised his flock to turn to the Matthewite bishops. Should they have done that? I can’t make up my mind. On the one hand, such an act would have been an act of obedience to their beloved archpastor. On the other hand, it would have involved accepting that that same archpastor died as a schismatic, and that they themselves were returning from schism to Orthodoxy. And that was not only objectively false: it was subjectively impossible for anyone who sincerely believed he was already a member of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

http://www.trueorthodoxy.org/schismatic ... ings.shtml
http://www.portal-credo.ru/site/?act=english&id=6
http://classicalchristianity.com/2014/0 ... lesiology/
http://sangiulio.org/articles/true-orth ... imir-moss/
http://ecclesiagoc.com/info/:
In January of 1950, Metropolitan Germanos of the Cyclades, who had been imprisoned for ordaining priests, was released and was once again united with the G.O.C. Traditional Church of Greece and Metropolitan Chrysostom of Florina. This brought great joy to all the Old Calendar G.O.C. of the Traditional Church of Greece.
The”Matthewites” and “Florinites.” made many attempts at reconciliation, but all were unsuccessful. Stavros Karamitsos, a theologian and author of the book The Agony in the Garden of Gethesmane, describes as an eye-witness the two instances in which metropolitan Chrysostom of Florina personally attempted to meet with Bishop Matthew. Unfortunately, on both occasions the abbess and senior nuns of the Keratea Convent, at the prompting of Matthewite protopresbyter, Eugene Tombros, intervened and would not allow Metropolitan Chrysostom to speak with Bishop Matthew. In May of 1950, when Bishop Matthew was on his deathbed and had been unconscious for three days, Metropolitan Chrysostom arrived at Bishop Matthew’s quarters and approached his bedside. Standing at his side, Metropolitan Chrysostom bowed down and quietly asked him, “My holy brother,
The text of this encyclical is as follows:how are you feeling?” To the astonishment of all present, Bishop Matthew regained consciousness and opened his eyes. When he saw the Metropolitan, he sought to sit up out of deference and began to whisper something faintly. At that very moment, the Abbess Mariam of the Convent of Keratea entered the room with several other sisters and demanded that all the visitors leave. Only a few days later, on May 14, 1950, Bishop Matthew died, and the two hierarchs were never again to meet in this life.

https://scottnevinssuicide.wordpress.co ... bresthena/:
At the end of the 40s, Bishop Matthew, seeing that his end was drawing nigh and that no other bishop was with him, proceeded against the canons and ordained numerous bishops by himself, which then declared themselves a Synod and elected him Archbishop. This was the second blow to the zealots of Athos. Many at the time abandoned Bishop Matthew, observing that they could not be consistent in condemning the calendar change as uncanonical and then accept the uncanonical ordinations of bishops by one bishop.

http://pdfsr.com/pdf/g-o-x-the-creation ... -hierarchy:
http://gnisios.narod.ru/florinite.html

These are a few of the sources where I obtained information. There are many, many more. Are they true? I don't know.

[Lydia]

Maria, you cite as a source Father Stephen Fraser. That can't be correct. He was not there when Bishop Matthew's followers begged him to consecrate a bishop alone, was he?
Father Stephen is just repeating things he has read or heard.
Are there official documents from the synod attesting to this?
Much of the official history of the Old Calendrists in Greece is merely hearsay.

But, as I wrote before, does it really matter, anymore?

[Maria]

Why would Met Chrysostom even consider consecrating Fr Auxentios alone? You make it sound like this constitutes some damning judgment of Fr Auxentios' character on the part of Met Chrysostom, when it sounds more like simple prudence. Single-handed consecrations are highly irregular. And how did Met Chrysostom "leave" Bishop Matthew? I don't recall Met Chrysostom ever declaring Bp Matthew in schism; the denunciations were all coming from Bp Matthew's side.

Fr. Stephen's sources say that Hieromonk Auxentios wanted St. Matthew to consecrate him (single-handedly), but in 1948, the people chose Bishop-elect Spyridon instead with the single-handed consecration of Bishop Spyridon taking place on Sept. 6/19. A new bishop was consecrated jointly by Bishops Matthew and Spyridon each week for three weeks in the Fall of 1948. Hieromonk Auxentios left in 1949 shortly after the consecrations by St. Matthew and Bishop Spyridon had resulted in the formation of the new GOC Synod.

In other words, Hieromonk Auxentios favored the single-handed consecration as long as he was to be elected and consecrated a bishop, but when it was obvious that he was not going to be consecrated, he left St. Matthew under the pretext that the single-handed consecration was invalid and uncanonical, and then he joined Met. Chrysostomos formerly of Florina. For this schismatic act, both Auxentios and Akakios Papas were defrocked by the GOC.

As Hieromonk Auxentios, uncanonically consecrated by the ROCOR, continued to show disdain toward the GOC, he was rebuked by ROCOR bishops for his attitude. He failed to mention that he was defrocked by the GOC prior to his consecration. His act of schism from the GOC led to other schisms when his own synod removed him from office and eventually formed two new synods that are now the GOC-K and the former SiR, which has just recently merged with the GOC-K in 2014.

...Archbishop Auxentios' uncanonical acts caused at least four of his Hierarchs to individually break break communion from him by 1974, and Auxentios' uncanonical consecration of Gabriel of Lisbon eventually caused the ROCOR Synod to break communion from him within the same decade. (p. 54, Fraser, Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece (GOC), 2013)

[Maria]

Lydia, do purchase and read Father Stephen's book with all the footnotes. He quotes various sources including HOCNA's research, correspondence, and news sources and periodicals of that time.

Yes, it is a complicated history.

Below is an excerpt from Fr. Stephen's book concerning the demise of the Florinites.

On November 6 [1952], out of frustration, the three Florinite Hierarchs, Met. Chrysostom of Florina, and Bishops Polycarp and Christopher, resign from their Archpastoral duties, "until a final resolution of the calendar question by a Pan-Orthodox Synod." Protests force Met. Chrysostom to immediately retract his resignation, but Polycarp and Christopher remain as simple monks within the Florinite Synod.

*1954: In February, the simple monks who were once Florinite bishops, i.e., the former Bishops Polycarp and Christopher, return to, and are received as bishops by, the new calendar State Church of Greece.

*1955: On September 8/21, Metropolitan Chrysostom of Florina, the last remaining Florinite Bishop, dies, leaving no successor-bishops for his Synod. ... The widowed Florinites seek, by every means possible, to re-establish their Hierarchy. This led to the uncanonical consecration of Akakios Papas, [who was defrocked by the GOC together with Auxentios for schism] and the establishment of the Akakian Hierarchy....(p.17, Fraser)