Outside the Church, there is no salvation?

Patristic theology, and traditional teachings of Orthodoxy from the Church fathers of apostolic times to the present.

Moderators: Maria, phpBB2 - Administrators

User avatar
Posts: 266
Joined: Sun 5 January 2014 1:27 am
Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin- Discerning the GOC’s.

Re: Outside the Church, there is no salvation?

Postby Isaakos » Sun 18 January 2015 6:18 am

Barbara, the Orthodox-Christianity link is a Stephanos synod link, but it was last update by Fr.Fraser in 2011. He is currently working on updates to the pages. He intends to upload them in the next couple weeks.

In the TOC Polemics page I touched on this a bit more, but we will go into it here a bit:

What is "Potential" Heresy? It is the Idea and the belief that A person who publicly proclaims heresy is not de facto and by that very fact a false bishop and stripped of their priesthood directly and immediately by Christ, but that heresy and heretics can exist in the Church of Christ until they are expelled by a Council. In other words, Heresy and the Church can coexist in the same space. This was the Position of Cyprian of Oropos and Filii

Now, "Potential" Schism is Identical: It is the belief that those who have KNOWINGLY placed themselves in schism by commiting schismatic actions are not de facto outside the Church, but that they need to be judged by a competent synod in order to be placed outside the Church. This was the Position of the Former Metropolitan of Florina, Chrysostom in 1937-1955.

Now, we both agree that those espousing Cyprians heretical theories willfully and persistently are themselves heretics. They are heretics because they involve themselves in denying the Nature of the Church, that it is the spotless bride of Christ which cannot coexist with the heretics. Otherwise, where would the Church be, with the heretics or with the Orthodox? He who would monstrously answer "Both!" is depraved in mind.

Now, Chrysostom of Florina taught an Identical theory, except in regard to schism, and it was on the basis of this theory that Cyprian formed his own positions. So we see Chrysostom teaching in 1935, that the New Calendarists, by the very act of adoption of the New Calendar were made schismatics and they separated themselves from the unity of the Church. This was also the Position of Germanos of Demetrias, Germanos of the Cyclades and Matthew of Bresthena.

in 1937, Chrysostom began to change his tune. He NOW began to teach publicly that the New Calendarists were only POTENTIALLY schismatic and not ACTUALLY until judged so by a competent synod. He thereby denied the confession of faith he professed in 1935. Metropolitan Matthew (He was not a vicar bishop, that is a lie, Metropolitan Germanos of the Cyclades writes of "Seven Metropolitans" who were consecrated in 1935, one of which being Metropolitan Matthew) wrote to the Synodal President, Germanos of Demetrias,a sking for the Synod to assemble and put this matter down and confess the New Calendariss were schismatics. He also wrote a second letter explaining this position to Metropolitan Germanos of Demetrias. After waiting for three whole months for a reply, and receiving no Answer, he severed communion with Chrysostom and Germanos for matters clearly of faith, and not personal reasons. For to teach that those who knowingly embraced schism were not actually schismatic is certainly an ecclesiological heresy of the same order as ecumenism and Cyprianism, is it not?

Now, we may ask, "Well, was the Archbishop of Athens and the Metropolitans with him AWARE of taking a schismatic stance?" Emphatically, undoubtedly, and definitely, "YES." In 1923, Archbishop Chrysostomos Papdopolous of Athens, was an Archimandirte, and the member of a special commission to investigate whether the Church could adopt the New Calendar. He and others with him wrote the following:

In the Letter of the Three Metropolitans who broke communion with the state Church in 1935 to the People of Greece explaining their reasons for leaving, they stated:

"That these things are so, is also confirmed by the excellent lawyers, theologians and professors of the National University, when it appointed a committee to study the calendar issue, and one of the members happened to be the [current] Archbishop of Athens, [Chrysostom Papadopoulos], who at that time was a Professor of Ecclesiastical History at the National University.
Here is what that Committee stated regarding the calendar issue:
“All the Orthodox Churches, even if they are Autocephalous in their internal administration, do not fall apart because they are united to each other through the Dogmas and Synodical Decrees and Canons...No Orthodox Autocephalous Church can separate itself from the rest and accept the new calendar without becoming schismatic in the eyes of the others.” Accordingly, since His Beatitude, the Archbishop of Athens, through his own signature, declares himself a schismatic, what further need do we have of witnesses, so that we can prove that he and his like‐minded hierarchs have made themselves schismatics, by breaking apart the unity of Orthodoxy through the innovation of the calendar, and splitting the Ecclesiastical and National soul of the Orthodox Greek people?"

So, let's make this clear Barabara:

1. In 1935 Metropolitan Chrysostom and Metropolitan Germanos of Demetrias STATED that the New Calendarists had become schismatics by the very fact of the implementation of the New Calendar.
2. In 1935, They clearly showed that the Archbishop of Athens and those with him had clearly gone over into schism in 1924 by violating what they had said in 1923!
3. In 1935, as a consequence, Germanos and Chrysostom clearly declared the New Calendarists to be graceless as regards their mysteries.


4. In 1937 Chrysostom changed his mind and declared the New Calendarists were not REALLY Schismatic, but just potentially schismatic. This teaching is a heresy for all the reasons Cyprianism is a heresy, because it places Schismatics, willful schismatics no less, in the same space as the Church. Does the Church then abide with both Schismatics AND the Orthodox?

5. Metropolitan Matthew asked Metropolitan Germanos of Demetrias twice to please end this issue by adhering to the MANY times they had confessed just the opposite. After 3 months of hearing nothing, he separated for reasons clearly of faith.

6. There are several problems with Chrysostom and Germanos' heretical theory, not the least of which, they are made schismatics 3 times over and deposed of their status as Metropolitans! WHY?

a. For abandoning the confession of faith in 1935 and causing a schism.
b. If the New Calendarists are only POTENTIALLY schismatic and grace-filled, then what is the justification for leaving them? Absolutely zero. There was no explicit heresy, there was no ACTUAL schism, so for Germanoos and Chrysostom to leave the State Church made THEM schismatics if "Potential" schism is true!
c. If the New Calendarists are real priests, real bishops and not schismatic ACTUALLY, then the depositions of Chrysostom and Germanos by the Synod of the State Church was valid and effective, and as such, they are subject to its condemnations which made them simple monks, and not bishops. But, since they REFUSED to accept this judgment, they are schismatic on that count as well! Now, someone may say, "Well isn't it possible for them to be real bishops giving an unjust judgment?" But then WHY didn't Chrysostom and Germanos get a LARGER council to reinstate them and retry their case? The very fact that they as private individuals refused to accept the rulings of a "legitimate" synod (in their eyes!) renders them schismtics!

So, if the theories of Chrysostom are true, then he is a schismatic, rendering himself and his synod schismatics. And if they are not true, he is still a schismatic for severing communion with Bishops who taught correctly, and not for reasons of faith or schism! Rendering his synod schismatic! So he is stuck, UNLESS he and his synod approach Metropolitan Matthew as penitents and confessing the confession of 1935.

To read three individual confessions of faith in 1935, see the links below:

http://www.orthodoxy1982.blogspot.com/2 ... ch-of.html

http://www.orthodoxy1982.blogspot.com/2 ... efore.html

http://www.orthodoxy1982.blogspot.com/2 ... after.html

See the seriousness here? Where was the repentance of Metropolitan Chrysostom? Where was his REESTABLISHING COMMUNION with Metropolitan Matthew and his synod? Without that, he remains schismatic. And it never happened. Oh, and the priests who abandoned archbishop Matthew for his consecration of Bishop Spyridon? Yeah, they became schismatic, because canon 13 of the 861 A.D. First-Second synod says that if any priest leaves his bishop for canonical infractions ALONE (Like a single-handed consecration) that he is a schismatic. Oh, and then unites himself to a schismatic synod? And then gets himself elected the Archbishop of a new RIVAL synod in 1962 when there was already an Archbishop of Athens for the GOC from 1949 onward? Yeah, clearly not schismatic...

See what I mean?
Blessed is the man who has volunteered to hold and keep until the end of his life our holy Orthodox faith, the faith of the one Church of Christ and our mother, the Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Archbishop Matthew Karpathakis

Return to “Theology and Tradition”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests