Rdr.Vladimir Moss on "Cyprian" Ecclessiology

[Justin Kissel]

seraphim

it was not until his death approached that Metropolitan Chrysostmos appears to have basically adopted the Matthewite position on the New Calendarists

FWIW, according to a quote given by Vladimir Moss in his work The Orthodox Church in the 20th Century, Met. Chrysostom had came back around to a stricter confession of faith in 1948. I'll give that quote below. Also, I don't want to get into a dispute about everything that's been said on this thread, but the surrounding context of this quote also gives a different perspective on some things being discussed here--a perspective I happen to agree with, so I'll quote the surrounding context as well.

With regard to the third condition (c), there is indisputable evidence (quoted above) that Metropolitan Chrysostomos did not want to consecrate bishops for the Old Calendarists. While this can hardly be called "betrayal"--after all, there is no canon which compels a bishop to consecrate other bishops,--it was certainly not the act of a man who believed in the real autocephaly of the Old Calendar Church of Greece. As for the other bishop who might have assisted in the consecrations, Bishop Germanus, he was in prison for ordaining priests – but would hardly have assisted Matthew in any case, since even before his release from prison he had come to the belief that Metropolitan Chrysostomos had returned to the Orthodox confession. For, in a pastoral letter dated 29 October, 1948, Metropolitan Chrysostom returned unambiguously to his confession of 1935, declaring that the new calendarists had "separated themselves from the Unique Body of Orthodoxy... We consider and believe that the official Church of Greece is schismatic and that the services celebrated by its clergy are deprived of Divine grace." (Metropolitan Calliopius, Nobles et Saints Combats, op. cit., p. 144) This encouraged Bishop Germanus, who had been in prison from January, 1948 to January, 1950, to reconsider his position, and on his release he re-entered communion with Metropolitan Chrysostom.

A few other thoughts...

...the new calendarists and those local Churches involved in the ecumenical movement, while growing in lawlessness and confusion, do not worship an alien god, nor have they officially imposed a new dogma of salvation upon their citizens.

Both those points are disputable, though generally I agree with you (for the time being). However, are these the only ways in which one cuts oneself off from the Church? There have been "praiseworthy divisions" (St. Gregory the Theologian) over far less.

It is also quite obvious, that Orthodoxy and genuine piety, or the signs of grace, are not absent amongst them either - whether it be the existance of living saints in their midst, the renewing of Icons, the fulfillment of prophecies made of old, or the Holy Fire in the sepulchre of our blessed Lord

The Holy Fire one really bugged me, even up till today. But then I thought... am I a sign seeker, or a truth seeker? I don't know if you are familiar with Saint Gerasimus of the Jordan, but I'm sure that people in his day made the exact same point you are making: "Hey, those monophysites can't be all that bad, if a Saint like Gerasimus is one of them, and is still performing miracles!" You've been bringing up Seraphim Rose, but one thing about Fr. Seraphim is that he saw right through seeking signs to find the truth. The truth is not seen in signs and wonders, for even non-Christians can levitate, heal people, produce visions, and do even greater miracles.

I am not about to say that what is happening with the Holy Fire is nothing but a demonic trick. But neither do I think we can simply assume that because the Holy Fire is still appearing as it has for a long time, that that means that everything is perfectly fine. If you want to get away from talk of grace, and just focus on Orthodoxy, then let's focus on that. Is the JP's middle-of-the-road position fully Orthodox (I don't mean for anyone to answer, just throwing the question out there to be thought about)? If you want to just take a look at orthodoxy and canonicity, how does the JP, and other Churches measure up? How do the GOC and ROAC measure up, for that matter (after all, "they shall know you because you love one another")?

At this point, I'd also like to ask you about something you said one time before. Referring to the Letter of Resistance of Elder Sabbas, you asked something like "how can we argue with him?". Would you, today, disagree with the position of Elder Sabbas as seen in this letter?

"If thy bishop should teach any thing outside of the appointed order, even if he lives in chastity, or if he work signs, or if he prophecy, let him be unto thee as a wolf in sheep's clothing, for he works the destruction of souls" (Saint Ignatius).

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Seraphim,

I agree with your message completley. There is indeed a danger of "super-correctness" in all of us.

This has nothing to do with being impressed with beautifully guilded domes, nice vestments or such tertiary externals - it's a matter of discernment, and not being blind to the obvious - the obvious being that the new calendarists and those local Churches involved in the ecumenical movement

My point was that many times people are not even aware that they subconsciencly convince themselves to believe this way or that for very superficial reasons. You will find people who will build massive intellectual defenses to justify themselves on all sorts of important theological issues, and only because in the end it is really because of some other reason.

[Seraphim Reeves]

Justin,

FWIW, according to a quote given by Vladimir Moss in his work The Orthodox Church in the 20th Century, Met. Chrysostom had came back around to a stricter confession of faith in 1948. I'll give that quote below. Also, I don't want to get into a dispute about everything that's been said on this thread, but the surrounding context of this quote also gives a different perspective on some things being discussed here--a perspective I happen to agree with, so I'll quote the surrounding context as well.

Two things...

1) When was this act of repentence received by Bishop Matthew and those with him, along with any act reconciling the Florinites to the "true" Orthodox Church? If such was not required why not? What happened to apostolic succession, or at the very least a liberal economy by which the Church heals that which was barren? To simply insist that none was required, while insisting that Bishop Matthew was right (making Metropolitan Chrysostmos of Florina and those with him schismatics) is indulging (and in a rather self serving, hypocritical way) a level of fuzziness and ambiguity which it would seems is not being applied around the board.

2) While I am not informed enough to dispute Rdr.Vladimir's description of Metropolitan Chrysostmos' chage of heart, I do know that there certainly are Matthewites who would dispute this - claiming that he went back and forth on this, and that whatever he personally would come to think, the same would be true of the Florinites into the 70's. In fact a Matthewite on this forum (austindoc) has outlined this in a recent posting.

(re. new calendarists worship an alien god, and propose a different dogma of redemption, etc.)

Both those points are disputable, though generally I agree with you (for the time being). However, are these the only ways in which one cuts oneself off from the Church? There have been "praiseworthy divisions" (St. Gregory the Theologian) over far less.

Yes, exactly - disputable. Hardly self evident, in fact I'd argue very far from it.

(re. signs of grace - Holy Fire in Jerusalem, renewing Icons, ostensible fulfillment of prophecies, etc.)

The Holy Fire one really bugged me, even up till today. But then I thought... am I a sign seeker, or a truth seeker? I don't know if you are familiar with Saint Gerasimus of the Jordan, but I'm sure that people in his day made the exact same point you are making: "Hey, those monophysites can't be all that bad, if a Saint like Gerasimus is one of them, and is still performing miracles!" You've been bringing up Seraphim Rose, but one thing about Fr. Seraphim is that he saw right through seeking signs to find the truth. The truth is not seen in signs and wonders, for even non-Christians can levitate, heal people, produce visions, and do even greater miracles.

This might be the case, but then one could just as easily turn around and say someone ignoring all of this is hard hearted, like those who refused to accept Christ, even when He restored sight to the blind and raised Lazarus from the tomb - making every possible rationalization to dismiss the One Who didn't fit into their neat and tidy system of how things were supposed to be.

This joined with how contentious judgements about these problems is even amongst those who unambiguously proclaim that there is a problem, can weigh things in such a way where you can just as easily turn around and say that these signs of grace are an accusation against any who would view these troubled bodies as broken vessels, fit for the fire.

My fear, is that in the more "strict" appraisals of the modern woes afflicting the Orthodox faithful, is a pharisaism which not only isn't content if it doesn't have an opinion on absolutely everything under the sun, but which (more tellingly) would probably have turned around and anathematized entire centuries of Orthodox Christians, including luminaries and great Saints because they find a conflict between their own understandings. You see this quite plainly in the contemputous way some Greek Old Calendarists speak of the Russian Orthodox Church of the last few centuries, though in reality I think if you sufficiently acquainted them with other periods (including amongst Greek-Byzantine Orthodox Churches) they'd probably find the same "faults" there as well.

Simply put, the more "extreme" position seems to have the danger of being "Christian pharisaism" - and like the Pharisees, would have slewn any of the Prophets had they been confronted with them themselves, though because those men existed now in hallowed history, they pay a kind of lip service to their memory.

[qoute]I am not about to say that what is happening with the Holy Fire is nothing but a demonic trick. But neither do I think we can simply assume that because the Holy Fire is still appearing as it has for a long time, that that means that everything is perfectly fine.[/quote]

I think there is a big chasm between saying "everything is perfectly fine" and "all save us and those with us are to be counted as lost". Lots of space between those two. I'm not saying you are doing this, but the tendency to reduce everything in such an absolute way is (imho) a big problem which betrays a lack of prudence, and basically removes any possibility to be discerning.

If you want to get away from talk of grace, and just focus on Orthodoxy, then let's focus on that. Is the JP's middle-of-the-road position fully Orthodox (I don't mean for anyone to answer, just throwing the question out there to be thought about)? If you want to just take a look at orthodoxy and canonicity, how does the JP, and other Churches measure up? How do the GOC and ROAC measure up, for that matter (after all, "they shall know you because you love one another")?

Whether it is because of fear, confusion, long-suffering, or some combination of those three, the JP has not seen fit to sever ties to what we might call the "worst offenders" of the matters we are discussing.

I think the question for those who know their Orthodox faith and who have placed themselves under the care of conscientious Orthodox pastors who have removed themselves from the communion of the "official" local Churches, is not what the truth is. That doesn't appear to be that controversial (though you will find a few who can find heresy in absolutely anything, like bickering over details of iconography, etc.) amongst such resistors of real heresy.

The question perhaps, is what do you make of those who through ignorance, confusion, and/or bad judgement are still yoked with men who should be deposed, or who understand that they are of the Church and will not be dispossessed or "forced to move" as it were by what they see as a (relatively) few bad apples? Can we take their confession from them, or do anything but simply disagree that what they are doing is prudent, and sufficient to protect their flocks?

This has particular relevence as to how one receives such persons into communion, should that time come - are they to be received as unbaptized persons (who at best, will be received via "economy"), with neither Holy Chrism or Priests? Will their clergy be received, but only by some extreme economy (like those "erring" Russians did for so long in regard to the Latins)?

As time goes on, I'm coming to realize that a lot of the "grace"/"graceless" argument is a child of these times. I think a lot of people now days (though I don't doubt they speak and act with good faith, at least for the most part) would have been left very disastisfied by the way the Church often did things in previous times.

Heresy/schism, as a sin, removes grace just as any other sin does. Likewise, heresy/schism as a sin can be healed by the infusion of grace, just as every other sin is. While the ugliness-extent of schisms and heresies can wax and wain (and thus affect how the Church receives those who abandon it while their former fathers and brethren still persist in said falsehood), all can be healed by grace one way or another.

Does this Divine Grace heal only when witnessed to by the canonical heirarchs of the Church - just as does a man only receive the remission of his sins only if he can find a Priest who will witness his confession and re-admit him into the participation of the Mysteries?

My point is, if such things undoubtedly can happen in the hiddeness of God, and no few Holy Heirachs have been willing to say as much - even Christ not denying that those not with the Apostles and "formal" followers of His as such could expell demons by His Name... a recognition that His power works amongst those removed from Him, but whose hearts do not truly oppose Him but even are inclined toward Him - what justifies viewing those who are Orthodox in their faith, but who perhaps err too far on the side of liberality, as basically being on the same footing as non-liturgical Protestants, except for indulging in smells and bells?

At this point, I'd also like to ask you about something you said one time before. Referring to the Letter of Resistance of Elder Sabbas, you asked something like "how can we argue with him?". Would you, today, disagree with the position of Elder Sabbas as seen in this letter?

The passage from St.Ignatios of Antioch is particularly good...

"If thy bishop should teach any thing outside of the appointed order, even if he lives in chastity, or if he work signs, or if he prophecy, let him be unto thee as a wolf in sheep's clothing, for he works the destruction of souls"

No, I do not disagree - flee, run like the wind!

But consider for a moment how much is not said by such a passage. Does it say that such a false teacher presiding as Bishop immediately ceases to have any ability to excercise the Priesthood? That, as impiously as he would do so, he cannot celebrate sacraments, even if only for the benefit of those too ignorant or confused who remain under him?

Or does this sacramental grace flee with every other, even though the excercise of the sacraments is not for the Priest's own benefit?

So yes, run like the wind. But I would say the same thing of the person subjected to an abusive, or flagrantly immoral (to the point of scandalizing them or their children) Bishop, though I'd say the harm in both of those situations is actually less of an evil than heresy. The point of fleeing, is so that you do not lose your soul, since that is where such a person (whether due to heresy, or some other sin) is manifestly heading - and either by choice or circumstance, they are not going to simply take themselves to hell either.

Also worth noting - according to the letter, Elder Sabbas did not break with the EP until 1987. Obviously, he understood that something was very very wrong beforehand (how could he not, particularly on Mt.Athos?) - but what happened between Patriarch Demetrios and John Paul II was for him the straw that broke the camel's back. While I do not doubt that he shed tears of repentence for having not separated himself before hand, this begs the question - did Elder Sabbas believe he wasn't in fact an Orthodox Christian before this time? If we took the strict line of some people, Elder Sabbas was a "graceless heretic" (in fact, or more likely "by assocation") before that time.

Indeed, tighten the noose for others, and God will be sure to hang you with it first - just to see if it's really that snug.

I guess when all is said and done, I'm satisfied with not making judgements, other than stating the obvious. To say that God's grace (or more specifically, mysteriological grace, though I'd like to see just why the difference is often so cleanly being made between the two in discussions like this) withdraws before He clearly expells men from the Church (which He does one way or another - the commonality being that it is clear), is something I obviously have a lot of problems with. That to me, is not the same as saying that I do not know what I ought to be doing - that is to say, not putting my life in the hands of one who does the devil's work (as Elder Sabbas puts it) or put my confidence in one without either the good sense or strength to be disassociated from such a worker of evil.

Seraphim

[Austin Doc]

Dear Seraphim and Justin,

Code: Select all

  This thread is getting a somewhat complicated, but I thought I could make a few comments on the various points you bring up.

Seraphim said:

2) While the then unified GOC of Greece's act of 1935 may have satisified those with Her that the heirarchy and clergy of the Greek Church had fallen and now were (in effect) expelled/deposed, can such an act be understood automatically as speaking not only the mind of the universal Church, but also acting on Her behalf? It obviously did not speak for the ROCOR, nor did anyone else recognize it as doing such. While the condemnation of the GOC of Greece in 1935 was certainly a rebuke, addressing the conscience of the State Church and indeed that of the entire world, do a few Bishops (even if correct in their understanding of the Holy Canons) have the authority to do anything but accuse and further refuse to have any part in lawlessness (in effect, "walling themselves off")?

Code: Select all

     The TOC of Greece in 1935 was simply one local church in a long list of already stated positions condemning the "new" calendar:  

*** 1583 Pan Orthodox Council anathematizes the Gregorian cal.
*** 1587 " " " "
*** 1593 ditto
*** 1670 Pat. Dositheos of Jerusalem and synod condemns it
*** 1827 Ecu Pat. Agathangelos and Synod condemns it
*** 1895 Ecu Pat. Anthimos VII and Synod
*** 1902 Ecu Pat. Joachim III and synod
*** 1903 Pat. Damianos of Jerusalem and synod
*** 1903 Church of Russia
*** 1903 Church of Romania
*** 1903 Church of Greece
*** 1904 Ecu. Pat.Joachim IIi and synod again
*** 1919 Synod of Church of Greece
*** 1923 the future Abp. of Greece writes "No Orthodox autodephalous Church can separate itself from the rest and accept the New Cal. without becoming schismatic in the eyes of the others".
*** 1935 TOC of Greece condemns the NC. calls it a schism and reaffirms it as being without Grace. Why? Because 3 Pan-Orthodox councils anathematized it and 10 local churches condemn it.

Code: Select all

   The point I'm trying to make is that the TOC of Greece in 1935 was not proclaiming anything new.  It was simply reaffirming what had already been stated.  Just like other local churches will in time condemn various heresies et cetera.  The TOC of Greece (Matthewites) condemned Freemasonry and Ecumenism.  ROCOR condemned Ecumenism, ROAC condemned Sergianism, and so on, each in their own time.

  Not all local churches realize Truth at the same time, and "organically" have to preceive the threat and then wall it off.  It took ROCOR longer to recognize the Truth regarding the calendar innovation, and indeed there was a bishop in ROCOR in it's early days that stated exactly what the TOC of Greece believed.  Met. Anthony just didn't accept what other local Churchs had already stated 14 times.

  The Matthewites did not automatically believe in the "bad electron" theory that because you're in communion with schism you were automatically without Grace.  In fact, prior to their single handed consecration in 1948, they had indeed approached the Jerusalem Patriarchate for help.  However, the JP did not want to rock the boat by co-consecrating for the TOC of Greece, when it was still in communion with the State Church.  The times were difficult, they didn't have internet and post WWII there was chaos.  The Matthewites were reaching deadends.   Bp. Germanos, who with Matthew originally kept true to the 1935 Decl. was in prison.  Chrysostom of Florina was maintaining he was a "movement" within the State Chruch and stated he wouldn't ordain anymore bishops.
     [quote]"We assure all the Church and State authorities that, having full awareness that we are only simple keepers of an institution of Pan-Orthodox importance as the old calendar is, and representatives of a rebellious church, we shall never and in no case whatsoever carry out ecclesiastical acts such as the consecrations of bishops."  Nov. 14, 1945 from the "Eleutheria" newspaper.[/quote]

 So, they (the TOC/Matthewites) were isolated and had to propogate the Church by not being able to fulfill the apostolic canons and relied on the Apostolic Injunctions and tradition with their one time single handed consecration.    Later,  when the Matthewites approached ROCOR (1971), it was with the idea that ROCOR was of the same mindset, and indeed the ROCOR bishops said they were of the same ecclesiological beliefs.  (the Matthewites did not approach ROCOR in order to receive ordinations, as it is sometime stated by Florinites.)  In 1976,  the TOC/Matthewites broke that communion with ROCOR until ROCOR could define for them what their position on ecumenism was, as there were concelebrations still going on with Ecumenists and New Calendarists.  They're still waiting.

   Anyway, I'm getting off track:  my summary point is that the TOC did not do anything new.  they were reaffirming as a local Church what had already been condemned.  It did not necessarily mean that they alone were acting as "the" only Church.  


 Justin writes:

1) When was this act of repentence received by Bishop Matthew and those with him, along with any act reconciling the Florinites to the "true" Orthodox Church? If such was not required why not?

Code: Select all

  Bp. Chrysostom of Florina "repented" on May 26, 1950, exactly 12 days after the repose of Bp. Matthew.  He did not go to the Matthewites to be "received".    Instead, he wrote an epistle as "...a last appeal to all the True Orthodox Christians, calling on them in a paternal manner to come into union with [him]."   Bp. Chry. of florina admitted that he had created a schism and renounced everything he said or wrote between 1937  and 1950, and yet then asks the TOC/Matthewites to come join him.  One could ask, why didn't he submit himself to them to be received by repentance?     
  
 Well, I'll leave it there for now.  There is simply too much to write about.   

In Christ,
Nectarios[/quote]

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Austindoc,

There is really enough trouble today without unnecessarily making statements to rehash very old issues, and thereby working to aggravate old wounds.

When the TOC of Greece wrote their tome to the State Church in 1935, the confession was signed by Met. Chrysostom, Bp. Chrysostom, and Bp. Germanos, not Bishop Matthew who was only ordained two days before as a suffragan bishop. This was the public confession of faith maintained by Bp. Chrysostom.

And again later, following public trial and immediately before their exile, it was once again declared in the “pastoral encyclical to the Orthodox Greek People”, signed by the same three Bishops and not suffragan Bishop Matthew, that the State Church were bereft of the means of Divine Grace.

The beatings, church closures, shaving and murder of their priests, ect continued until a new Prime Minister realized this persecution embarrassed him politically. It was then that the open persecution stopped and the bishops (including Mathew) were returned from exile.

Things seemed to be looking up and it became widely recognized that the government and the State Church were going to pursue a Pan-Orthodox synod to finally resolve the problems. One can only imagine the immense joy and hope people had. This hope also effected Mt. Athos as many of the monasteries began to commemorate the EP again with the understanding that a Pan-Orthodox council was imminent.

It was at this time and because of the change in climate and the hope people had for a resolution that Met. Chrysostom of Florina suggested in a private letter (which he specifically expressed as his “completely private opinion”) a relaxation of the canons and suggested the schism was not total. One of many considerations was that there were many sympathetic bishops in the State Church and abroad who would likely restore order in a Pan-Orthodox council. So by relaxing the canons for a time it was hoped the climate would not be aggravated and a Pan-Orthodox council would be called. Never had his public confession written to the people and clergy change.

13 years later in 1950, after WWII and when it became apparent that the State Church was now rooted to their new tree, he, once again, reinforced his previously stated and unchanged public confession that the new calendar hierarchy had “fallen under the curses and anathemas” of the divine Fathers of the church. It was no coincidence that it was also around this time that the monasteries of Mt. Athos who were once again commemorated again ceased to commemorate. So say that Met. Chrysostom “repented” is just Mathewite propaganda.

Your statement that Met. Chrysostom would never consecrate new bishops because he always believed the State Church was the true church is also just non-sense and only serves to destroy the bonds of hope many people have for unity.

So we can continue with this, carrying it into all the other problematic issues we will both be forced to defend, but I fear the only thing we will "prove" is our persistant divisions.

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Seraphim,

Mysteriological Grace is a hard reality only known completely and exactly by God. What the Bishops declare is characterized as an adherence to the faith of the Church which was handed down from the beginning. When those declarations are accepted it is because they are in the spirit of what has always been taught. Often only time proves a declaration one way or another.

When wolves enter the sheepfold, when heretic bishops present themselves, it is prudent and righteous for the shepherds to find safety with as many sheep as possible. It is not at all an injustice to declare total destruction with what they left behind, because if all the sheep are not destroyed, they will be soon. And to now be more specific, the Grace of the Church flows through its priesthood. When those priests are not of the Orthodox faith nobody can declare contrary to the Holy Church that their baptisms are Baptisms, and their communion is Communion. So what else can be done but to accept these people, however well intentioned, as foreign to the Church?

Clearly, like in the case of Elder Sabbas, the Grace of God awoke him and by this alone perhaps one can hold great hope. But it does nothing to prove his Bishop, the Ecumenical Patriarch, had the Grace of the Priesthood. In the Orthodox Church, a priest is only a priest in-so-far as his bishop is a bishop.

Therefore, the recognition of Mysteriological Grace cannot become a philosophical theory, or a “healthy [sic] indifference” as with what you seem to be suggesting. Recognition and confession of where the Grace of the Church is, is a map to the flock describing just how big the pastoral field is which is safe to roam, and a declaration of where the priesthood of God is.

As I have seen so often, your concerns seem to be playing into the idea that such declarations of Grace is nothing more than an insulting and presumptuous propaganda attack, and more importantly, an insult to sentimentalism. Nothing could be further form the truth.

[Austin Doc]

Dear OOD,

Code: Select all

 You said:  [quote]There is really enough trouble today without unnecessarily making statements to rehash very old issues, and thereby working to aggravate old wounds.[/quote]

  I apologize, I'm not trying to aggravate wounds; however, since the thread was about "Cyprianite' ecclesiology, the history of Bp. Chrysostom of Florina and the 1935 Declaration does come into the discussion.   Your post to me does additionally bring up other points so I will make a few comments, at the very least to clarify some historical points.

1) Just to reiterate: the New Calendar was anathematized, which means "no Grace". The Church declared this, not just the local 1935 Declaration. The Grace issue is not being labeled on various jurisdictions, New Calendar or Old Calander. simply, any church that crosses this barrier is under the anathema -- subject to "no Grace". (Personally, I believe the Holy Spirit will go where He wills, but nonetheless, it is encumbent for the Orthodox to follow this prescription.)

2) in 1925 the idea that New Calendarists were only 'potentially" but not "actually' in schism was proposed by the Athonite monk, Athanasios Danielidou. The TOC community condemed this in two publications. Later, the "Sacred League of Zealot Monks" also condemned this.

As you can see, the ecclesiology of Bp. Cyprian that heretics can have Grace, in a way has its precedence here. Later, Bp. Chrys. of Florina adopted the ecclesiology of "potential" schism instead.

3) OOD said:

When the TOC of Greece wrote their tome to the State Church in 1935, the confession was signed by Met. Chrysostom, Bp. Chrysostom, and Bp. Germanos, not Bishop Matthew who was only ordained two days before as a suffragan bishop. This was the public confession of faith maintained by Bp. Chrysostom.

Code: Select all

    This is correct that a letter was written, however I have a slightly different version of events.   First, Bp. Matthew was not a suffragan bishop.  Why would 1 of the 4 newly consecrated bishops be a suffragan bishop...especially someone with such seniority, age, and veneration as Archimandrite Matthew who headed the Mentochian in Athens and was elevated to Archimandrite by even St. Nectarios?  (..and besides, what does it matter if he didn't sign it, or was a suffragan bishop?   Each bishop is consecrated to uphold the Orthodox Faith.) 

 Further, the letter I have the content of, is signed by Matthew as well:  " On account of this, we counsel all who follow the Orthodox festal calendar to have no spiritual communion  with the schismatic Chruch and its schismatic minister, from whom the grace of the All Holy Spirit has departed...  and no longer have the grace of the Holy Spirit abiding with them.  And how, indeed can they impart to others that which they have not?'

4) Later that year upon return from exile, Bp. Chry. of Florina preached from the ambo at several Churches (in Thebes, Chalkis, Piraeus and Athens) that children baptized in the State church should not be chrismated when they approach the Eucharist of the TOC because supposedly the New Calendarists were only "potentially schismatics' since the innovation of the calendar has not been offically condemned." This is opposite to the anathemas and condemnations from 14 previous synods and councils, including what he himself signed earlier. ( I forgot to add in an earlier post, that in 1924, Pat. Photios of Alexandria and synod condemned the calendar innovation as well.)

As a result, Bp. Matthew wrote a letter on June 17/30, 1937 to Met. Germanos of Demetrias, the synodal president to clarify and rectify this. there was no reply, and thus a second letter was composed and sent by Matthew giving a time table to reply, or else he would break relations with Germanos and Chrysostom. A third letter was sent by Bp. Matthew 2 months later after hearing nothing back, and he severed his relations with the two.

5) OOD said:

It was at this time and because of the change in climate and the hope people had for a resolution that Met. Chrysostom of Florina suggested in a private letter (which he specifically expressed as his “completely private opinion”) a relaxation of the canons and suggested the schism was not total.

Code: Select all

  As noted above, Met. Chrysostom was not just 'private" in his expression of this ecclesiologic innovation.   It is well known that he did write  in a private letter to monk Mark Chaniotis, who was also seeking clarification of their position, the following: 

"The Holy Chrism, which is sanctified by the Church of the Ecumenical Patriarchate retains all its grace and sanctifying energy, even if blessed by the Patriarchate after the calendar innovation."

This statement was written after the EP's infamous 1920 letter, "To the Churches of Christ Wheresoever They Might Be.", as well as after the 1922 EP's recognition of Anglican orders!

6) OOD said:

13 years later in 1950, after WWII and when it became apparent that the State Church was now rooted to their new tree, he, once again, reinforced his previously stated and unchanged public confession that the new calendar hierarchy had “fallen under the curses and anathemas” of the divine Fathers of the church.

I do not pretend to understand the tumult and turmoil of those times, nor do I pretend to understand "why" Bp. Chrysostom did what he did, wrote what he wrote, or said what he said. On the other hand, I really wonder if what he did was the best thing, of course the same accusation has too often befallen Bp. matthew. At this point, we can only go by what documents we have and try to interpet from there. It is clear that no Synod was called to refashion the ecclesiology of the Chruch. Bp. Matthew tried to summon a synod by appealing to the then president, Germanos of Demetria, but to no avail. While it is clear that many did follow Met. Chrys., many also followed Bps. Matthew and Germanos of Cyclades, who alone remained faithful to the Anathemas of the Church and the 1935 Declaration.

7) OOD said:

So say that Met. Chrysostom “repented” is just Mathewite propaganda.

Please, lets not use inflamatory words such as, "propaganda". I did not write this, but merely responded to Seraphim who used this word. However, lets look at what Met. Chrysostom himself wrote in the conclusion of his public epistle from May 26, 1950 -- written 12 days after the repose of Bp. Matthew:

"In calling on you, we remove the scandals which have been created by us through our fault, and to that end recall and retract everything written and said by us since 1937, whether in announcements, clarifications, publications or encyclicals, which was contrary and opposed to the principles of the Eastern Orthodox Church of Christ and the sacred struggle for Orthodoxy conducted by us, as proclaimed in the encyclical published by the Holy Synod in 1935, without any addition or subtraction, and including the technical definition "potentiality and actuality"...

Did the Matthewites claim that he "repented"? It reads to me as an official repentance. In my opinion, good for him! there is nothing wrong in this "repentance". So, i don't understand why this is labeled as "propaganda".

OOD said:

Your statement that Met. Chrysostom would never consecrate new bishops because he always believed the State Church was the true church is also just non-sense and only serves to destroy the bonds of hope many people have for unity.

I can only point out what Met. Chrysostom himself wrote, as I posted previously:

"We assure all the Church and State authorities that, having full awareness that we are only simple keepers of an institution of Pan Orthodox importance as the old calendar is, and not representative of a rebellious church, we shall never and in no case whatsoever carry out ecclesiastical acts such as the consecrations of bishops."
(Written in the Eleutheria newspaper, Nov. 14, 1945)

later, again reversing positions from the 1950 "repentance" letter, Met. Chrysostom wrote in the "Evening" newspaper on July 2, 1950:

"..the Synodical Decision of 1935 [regarding the schismatic and graceless state of the New calendarists] does not finally apply until the [Calendar issue] is discussed at the future Pan-Orthodox Council."

Again, from, "The Voice of Orthodoxy" , Dec. 1950:

"It is intentionally extended to the notification of the Synodical Commision [of the State Church], that we, the formerly conservative and moderate ones, later passed over to the fanaticism of the faction of Matthew, preaching that the State Hierarchy is schismatic, and that its mysteries are deprived of grace, only and only so that we could achieve...the enormous property...[ie, the Monastery of Keratea/"Matthewite"]...It is true that we avoided preaching that [the State Church] is schismatic, for respect towards the care of the [State Church]... We, finding ourselves in a state of defense, circulated the respective encyclical [ the 1950 "repentance" epistle] in order to silence the uprising conscience of our flock..."

Later, in the Evening newspaper, dated Dec 11, 1950, Met. Chrysostom wrote:

"...the [State] Hierarchy, for the sake of the authority and prestige of the Church , should suggest for one Metropolitan [of the State Church] to act as an Old Calendarist, and to become the head of the Old Calendarists, while controlling the struggle from within the canonical boundaries [of the State Church]... Only now have these ideologies emerged, which direct the [sacred struggle] and control it within the frames of the Sacred Canons...."

So, my point: the Cyprianite ecclesiology is predated by Met. Chrysostom. I think the above statements make it clear...at least to me, that he was of the mind set that the New Calendar was only "potentially' in schism, while ignoring the very 1935 Declaration he signed before all the faithful of the Church. The very faithful who were dying for the TOC. Had he written what he later preached and wrote, I doubt the TOC faithful would have approved of him, or at least a schism would have occured right then.

It is also appears to me that Met. Chrysostom was not really sincere in his 1950 'repentance" letter, because he later made statements to refute this, as I quoted above.

What is unusual, is that the current "Florinite" jurisdictions: Kiousis, Lamian, HOCNA, are not really in line with the "Florinite" thinking, but rather the original TOC Declaration. Why? Most of the original "Florinite" bishops were former defrocked "Matthewite" clergy: (Acacius Papas, Parthenius Skourlis, Auxantious Pastras, and Acacius Papas the younger)

So, I'm not trying to incite more division, but history is history, and I think this shows that Cyprianism is just a continuation of an earlier condemned ecclesiology.

in Christ,
Nectarios