The official position of the GOC under Abp Kallinikos is that the Matthewite hierarcy was normalized by ROCOR's cheirothesia in 1971, so the original problem of the single-handed consecrations by Bishop Matthew has been dealt with. The problem since then has been that the Matthewites themselves rejected the validity of the cheirothesia and on those grounds refuse to have communion with us. From our point of view there is no problem with them as to their origins; the main problem now is that they have split into three groups and we aren't prepared to enter into official communion with one group only.
I believe that the official position of the GOC under Apb Nicholas is that they reject the ROCOR's cheirothesia in 1971. See Encyclical regarding the Cheirothesia of 1971. I think the problem is that the Matthewites felt "tricked". They believed that ROCOR had the same beliefs they did regarding ecumenism, but ROCOR would not put their statement regarding the ecumenists in writing. (And meanwhile Archbishop Anthony of Geneva continued his concelebrations with new calendarists). There was also the new calendar Bishop Teofil who was in ROCOR until he was deposed in 1972. This was also the timeframe when Metropolitan Philaret was writing his sorrowful epistles, but there was no "teeth" to them. So the Matthewite Synod broke communion with ROCOR in 1976. (ROCOR did eventually put their statement in writing in 1983, but then quickly repudiated it).
To re-establish communion I think would require only a common statement condemning ecumenism and the papal calendar.
...but ROCOR would not put their statement regarding the ecumenists in writing. ...This was also the timeframe when Metropolitan Philaret was writing his sorrowful epistles, but there was no "teeth" to them. So the Matthewite Synod broke communion with ROCOR in 1976. (ROCOR did eventually put their statement in writing in 1983, but then quickly repudiated it).
I think the Sorrowful epistles are an excellent example of putting it in writing. They are very clear indeed.
And, when and in what terms do you say that Rocor repudiated the Anathema of 1983. Everyone who stayed true to real ROCOR still fully accepts it and views it as binding for all time, universally, even though it was produced by a "local" synodal meeting, and not a worldwide ecumenical council. And why does it getting done in 1983 suggest slowness to commit. I don't see it that way. In terms of ecclesiastical speed (the long view of Church history) it happened rather swiftly.
(And meanwhile Archbishop Anthony of Geneva continued his concelebrations with new calendarists). There was also the new calendar Bishop Teofil who was in ROCOR until he was deposed in 1972.
I don't know anything about this. I would like to read up on this if it is available. Thanks.
To re-establish communion I think would require only a common statement condemning ecumenism and the papal calendar.
I hope it is that simple. Surely, there must be greater, more complex issues at work here. Otherwise, would they not have done so already?
I feel like there are some issues that you don't want to discuss, both historically and currently.
I have access to the "secret" forum, so let me get these questions out there. Assuming that all the historical issues can be resolved, these issues still remain. Some of these almost seem like "gossip" but I haven't seen them addressed anywhere. I obviously don't have any first-hand knowledge of anything. These are mostly things I have heard from Archbishop Gregory or Brother Nathaniel and are specific to the HOTCA.
Metropolitan (then Archimandrite) Pavlos, in a 1994 interview with the National Herald, stated that he belonged in conscience to the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, and that he gave the mysteries to followers of the new calendar.
In 1996, Metr. Pavlos in the magazine "Orthodox Tradition", stated that he agreed with the ecclesiology of Metr. Cyprian and that New Calendarists and Modernists have Grace because they have not wholly succombed to heresy.
Fr. (now Archbishop) Gregory, who was then a member of the church, wrote a letter in protest to the proposed ordination of Archimandrite Pavlos. In return, he was accused of being a homosexual by a forged letter, which was later proven to be false. Because of this, he leaves the Kiousis Synod and joins the Synod of Kallinikos of Lamia.
Metr. Pavlos was ordained in secret, without any announcement, for fear that someone would cry out "unworthy".
In 1999, Archbishop Chrysostom Kiousis ordains 5 "baby bishops", who were all under the canonical age to be made a bishop.
Bishop Christodolous used to be an actor in vampire movies and he chopped someone's nose off with a shovel. He has never received the orthodox form of baptism, but was baptized through pouring when he was a baby.
At the Cathedral of St. Markella, new calendarists still are allowed, to this day, to receive the mysteries for "pastoral" reasons. The Cathedral has pews.
Today, the Synod of Kallinikos of Athens is considering going into communion with the Synod in Resistance (Cyprianites).
Are these true? I apologize if I am just repeating baseless slander.
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.
I feel like there are some issues that you don't want to discuss, both historically and currently.
I have access to the "secret" forum, so let me get these questions out there. Assuming that all the historical issues can be resolved, these issues still remain. Some of these almost seem like "gossip" but I haven't seen them addressed anywhere. I obviously don't have any first-hand knowledge of anything. These are mostly things I have heard from Archbishop Gregory or Brother Nathaniel and are specific to the HOTCA.
Metropolitan (then Archimandrite) Pavlos, in a 1994 interview with the National Herald, stated that he belonged in conscience to the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, and that he gave the mysteries to followers of the new calendar.
In 1996, Metr. Pavlos in the magazine "Orthodox Tradition", stated that he agreed with the ecclesiology of Metr. Cyprian and that New Calendarists and Modernists have Grace because they have not wholly succombed to heresy.
Fr. (now Archbishop) Gregory, who was then a member of the church, wrote a letter in protest to the proposed ordination of Archimandrite Pavlos. In return, he was accused of being a homosexual by a forged letter, which was later proven to be false. Because of this, he leaves the Kiousis Synod and joins the Synod of Kallinikos of Lamia.
Metr. Pavlos was ordained in secret, without any announcement, for fear that someone would cry out "unworthy".
In 1999, Archbishop Chrysostom Kiousis ordains 5 "baby bishops", who were all under the canonical age to be made a bishop.
Bishop Christodolous used to be an actor in vampire movies and he chopped someone's nose off with a shovel. He has never received the orthodox form of baptism, but was baptized through pouring when he was a baby.
At the Cathedral of St. Markella, new calendarists still are allowed, to this day, to receive the mysteries for "pastoral" reasons. The Cathedral has pews.
Today, the Synod of Kallinikos of Athens is considering going into communion with the Synod in Resistance (Cyprianites).
Are these true? I apologize if I am just repeating baseless slander.
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?