Are Florinites Graceless?

[Justice]

Regarding the Mathewite/Florinite schism, the Florinites seem to be the ones who are in schism. Could someone tell me the Florinite view of this situation?

[Maria]

A lot has been written in this private forum on the Florinites.

If you read the book written by Father Stephen Fraser, he very clearly states that Archbishop Chrysostom of Florina was in schism with St. Matthew. http://www.svetosavskasrbija.com/sites/ ... ce_goc.pdf
And here is the life of St. Matthew: http://media.wix.com/ugd/9060ee_ce909e0 ... a5a3dc.pdf
Of course, the Kallinikites and other Florinites will claim the opposite as they recently canonized Archbishop Chrysostom.

It is interesting that the successor of the Florinite tradition, Archbishop Auxentios, left the Matthewites after being rejected by St. Matthew and the GOC laity who did not want him consecrated as a bishop. Ultimately Matthew died in 1950. Auxentios joined with Archbishop Chrysostom of Florina in 1949, but he also would not consecrate Auxentios. Then Chrysostomos died in 1955 leaving no bishop to rule the Florinites.

No one had found Auxentios worthy to be consecrated as bishop. Desperate to continue the Florinite line, Auxentios then arranged to get himself consecrated without permission of the ROCOR Synod, whereupon he set up his own Synod. Later he was accepted by the ROCOR synod in an effort to regulate his consecration. However, he was deposed by members of his own Synod, who established another schismatic synod to depose him, and from this schismatic synod, the Synod in Resistance also broke in a schismatic act.

Basically, it was one schismatic act after another. Schism begets schism.

Thus, anyone from Florinite origins is schismatic having originally broken from St. Matthew, who founded the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece in 1924 as a priestly and lay organization, and kept it going without episcopal oversight praying that bishops would repent and join them. Finally in 1935, three bishops repented and joined Hieromonk Matthew. St. Matthew restored them through public confession and absolution, and then these three restored bishops consecrated Matthew as a bishop and started a new True Orthodox Synod.

However, this arrangement was short-lived as the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Archbishop of Athens started a massive persecution wherein all the new True Orthodox bishops were arrested and imprisoned. Archbishop Chrysostomos, weakened in mind and in body, broke under the pressure and returned to the Ecumenical Patriarch. Then he flip-flopped, repented, and changed his position, not only once but several times.

[Agios_Irineos]

I'm going to say this briefly, and I am not going to elaborate on it, because I find these type of questions very unedifying and a distraction from my own repentance.

If you are looking for "the" GOC synod with a perfect canónical pedigree, you will not find one. Every single one has anomalies, and every single one has a story that justifies their anomalies and condemns those of others.

How telling that after almost 100 years of persecution from the state church and world orthodoxy, we still would rather rail against the difficult decisions of men trying to preserve the true faith than extend the slightest charity in our post hoc historical analyses.

[Maria]

I'm going to say this briefly, and I am not going to elaborate on it, because I find these type of questions very unedifying and a distraction from my own repentance.

If you are looking for "the" GOC synod with a perfect canónical pedigree, you will not find one. Every single one has anomalies, and every single one has a story that justifies their anomalies and condemns those of others.

How telling that after almost 100 years of persecution from the state church and world orthodoxy, we still would rather rail against the difficult decisions of men trying to preserve the true faith than extend the slightest charity in our post hoc historical analyses.

Amen.

Look at St. Peter. He denied Christ three times, yet he was still blessed by Christ to be an apostle as was St. Paul, who persecuted the Christians until Christ called him to repentance.

I think this is the single point that stands out. Are we repentant? Are we willing to follow a bishop who has repented?

The rest in World Orthodoxy have not repented of their ecumenism. Instead they make excuses.

Are we willing to make excuses for our sins and for those sins of others in which we are in communion?

Or are we manly enough to own up to our own faults and try as best as we can to follow Christ?

[Justice]

I'm going to say this briefly, and I am not going to elaborate on it, because I find these type of questions very unedifying and a distraction from my own repentance.

If you are looking for "the" GOC synod with a perfect canónical pedigree, you will not find one. Every single one has anomalies, and every single one has a story that justifies their anomalies and condemns those of others.

How telling that after almost 100 years of persecution from the state church and world orthodoxy, we still would rather rail against the difficult decisions of men trying to preserve the true faith than extend the slightest charity in our post hoc historical analyses.

Amen.

Look at St. Peter. He denied Christ three times, yet he was still blessed by Christ to be an apostle as was St. Paul, who persecuted the Christians until Christ called him to repentance.

I think this is the single point that stands out. Are we repentant? Are we willing to follow a bishop who has repented?

The rest in World Orthodoxy have not repented of their ecumenism. Instead they make excuses.

Are we willing to make excuses for our sins and for those sins of others in which we are in communion?

Or are we manly enough to own up to our own faults and try as best as we can to follow Christ?

This is very nice response, but wouldn't this go against your jurisdiction's view on the situation? For example, the Milan synod was formed under Archbishop Auxentios, wouldn't the GOC-Stephanos come to the conclusion that there never was a Milan synod? If so, then how can it have grace? Then again I have no clue what Fr. Stephen or Archbishop Stephanos have said on this situation.

[Orthodox in Michigan]

A lot has been written in this private forum on the Florinites.

If you read the book written by Father Stephen Fraser, he very clearly states that Archbishop Chrysostom of Florina was in schism with St. Matthew. http://www.svetosavskasrbija.com/sites/ ... ce_goc.pdf
And here is the life of St. Matthew: http://media.wix.com/ugd/9060ee_ce909e0 ... a5a3dc.pdf
Of course, the Kallinikites and other Florinites will claim the opposite as they recently canonized Archbishop Chrysostom.

It is interesting that the successor of the Florinite tradition, Archbishop Auxentios, left the Matthewites after being rejected by St. Matthew and the GOC laity who did not want him consecrated as a bishop. Ultimately Matthew died in 1950. Auxentios joined with Archbishop Chrysostom of Florina in 1949, but he also would not consecrate Auxentios. Then Chrysostomos died in 1955 leaving no bishop to rule the Florinites.

No one had found Auxentios worthy to be consecrated as bishop. Desperate to continue the Florinite line, Auxentios then arranged to get himself consecrated without permission of the ROCOR Synod, whereupon he set up his own Synod. Later he was accepted by the ROCOR synod in an effort to regulate his consecration. However, he was deposed by members of his own Synod, who established another schismatic synod to depose him, and from this schismatic synod, the Synod in Resistance also broke in a schismatic act.

Basically, it was one schismatic act after another. Schism begets schism.

Thus, anyone from Florinite origins is schismatic having originally broken from St. Matthew, who founded the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece in 1924 as a priestly and lay organization, and kept it going without episcopal oversight praying that bishops would repent and join them. Finally in 1935, three bishops repented and joined Hieromonk Matthew. St. Matthew restored them through public confession and absolution, and then these three restored bishops consecrated Matthew as a bishop and started a new True Orthodox Synod.

However, this arrangement was short-lived as the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Archbishop of Athens started a massive persecution wherein all the new True Orthodox bishops were arrested and imprisoned. Archbishop Chrysostomos, weakened in mind and in body, broke under the pressure and returned to the Ecumenical Patriarch. Then he flip-flopped, repented, and changed his position, not only once but several times.

Is it possible that the state pressure on the old calendar bishops like they did in Russia was being done also to create a controlled opposition old calendar movement in Greece, blinding the Luke warm and working to destroy the true confessing Orthodox Church.

[Justice]

A lot has been written in this private forum on the Florinites.

If you read the book written by Father Stephen Fraser, he very clearly states that Archbishop Chrysostom of Florina was in schism with St. Matthew. http://www.svetosavskasrbija.com/sites/ ... ce_goc.pdf
And here is the life of St. Matthew: http://media.wix.com/ugd/9060ee_ce909e0 ... a5a3dc.pdf
Of course, the Kallinikites and other Florinites will claim the opposite as they recently canonized Archbishop Chrysostom.

It is interesting that the successor of the Florinite tradition, Archbishop Auxentios, left the Matthewites after being rejected by St. Matthew and the GOC laity who did not want him consecrated as a bishop. Ultimately Matthew died in 1950. Auxentios joined with Archbishop Chrysostom of Florina in 1949, but he also would not consecrate Auxentios. Then Chrysostomos died in 1955 leaving no bishop to rule the Florinites.

No one had found Auxentios worthy to be consecrated as bishop. Desperate to continue the Florinite line, Auxentios then arranged to get himself consecrated without permission of the ROCOR Synod, whereupon he set up his own Synod. Later he was accepted by the ROCOR synod in an effort to regulate his consecration. However, he was deposed by members of his own Synod, who established another schismatic synod to depose him, and from this schismatic synod, the Synod in Resistance also broke in a schismatic act.

Basically, it was one schismatic act after another. Schism begets schism.

Thus, anyone from Florinite origins is schismatic having originally broken from St. Matthew, who founded the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece in 1924 as a priestly and lay organization, and kept it going without episcopal oversight praying that bishops would repent and join them. Finally in 1935, three bishops repented and joined Hieromonk Matthew. St. Matthew restored them through public confession and absolution, and then these three restored bishops consecrated Matthew as a bishop and started a new True Orthodox Synod.

However, this arrangement was short-lived as the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Archbishop of Athens started a massive persecution wherein all the new True Orthodox bishops were arrested and imprisoned. Archbishop Chrysostomos, weakened in mind and in body, broke under the pressure and returned to the Ecumenical Patriarch. Then he flip-flopped, repented, and changed his position, not only once but several times.

Is it possible that the state pressure on the old calendar bishops like they did in Russia was being done also to create a controlled opposition old calendar movement in Greece, blinding the Luke warm and working to destroy the true confessing Orthodox Church.

Yes. I would say it wasn't just possible but was a reality.