The Saint Euphrosynos Cafe

[ This is a very good assessment, Jonathon. It is interesting that Vladimir Moss wrote that the Matthewites painted themselves into a corner. Perhaps you could answer some questions for me, since I can't get an answer from others on this board. What year was Archbishop (then archimandrite) Auxentio...

Thank you, Isaakos. I still disagree with your position on Met Chrysostom, but thank you for providing that information about Bp Matthew. But in general I don't think there's any information anyone can provide here that hasn't been fleshed out in greater detail elsewhere. For the moment we have to a...

St. Matthew's actions were justified. He and his fellow bishops wrote to Met. Chrysostom twice correcting him for his error in departing from the original 1935 document, but Met. Chrysostom persisted in his error and continued to vacillate neither returning to the EP or Greek State Church nor retur...

Except that Met Chrysostom never denied the new calendar was anathematized. The question is whether the concept of "potential schism" is in itself a heresy. Only if that is true were Bp Matthew's actions justified. Regardless of this question, there have been opportunities for reconciliati...

But did Met Chrysostom's language of "potential schism" constitute a heresy? That I submit is not the case, and therefore Bishop Matthew's severance of communion, and subsequent actions like single-handedly consecrating bishops, were not justified. The language used by Met. Chrysostom, &q...

Thank you, Cyprian. However, the position I hold, and I believe the GOC holds it, too, is that Met Chrysostom was wrong to waver, but he did so out of understandable uncertainty and good intention, given the circumstances. There were New Calendar bishops who appeared on the brink of repentance, but ...