Matthewites and Chrysostomites

[ioannis]

Lie? I believe even your bishops admit this much. Efthymios was accused of being a homosexual, it made all the Greek newspapers, and he was called to spiritual court - no?

[Kollyvas]

We all have our sins, but if he is not practicing, then, as St. Niphon, Patriarch of Constantinople affirms, that sin is not an obstacle to the charisma of the episcopacy. Yet IF, as in the case of others, the temptation is not resisted, then, yes, our brother has fallen and we must weep...
R

[προσκυνητής]

Yes, Met. Efthymios was accused. But my understanding is that when the Synod was united, the bishops consistently voted, whenever Kiousis brought up the issue, not to have a court because they didn't find the charges credible. At the last united meeting, the bishops voted Kiousis down again. And then they voted to investigate Kiousis for forming his secret corporation and renting another synodal office. That is when Kiousis and his supporters stormed out of the meeting. Any "court" that was called by Kiousis was after the synod had already split.

The lie is that our bishops left to avoid a court the way HTM did.

[ioannis]

Yes, Met. Efthymios was accused. But my understanding is that when the Synod was united, the bishops consistently voted, whenever Kiousis brought up the issue, not to have a court because they didn't find the charges credible. At the last united meeting, the bishops voted Kiousis down again.

No, everytime the Holy Synod scheduled to vote on the issue, Euthymios' buddies wouldn't show up in order to block the vote. It was only when the Archbishop said the vote would take place with or without the 12 bishops that Euthymios decided it was time to cut and run.

Suffice it to say that Euthymios was called to court by a vote of the Holy Synod and only avoided it by leaving.

And of course, this was not the first time Euthymios was accused of homosexuality. The GOC churches in Thessoloniki were divided because many people would not accept him for the previous accusations of homosexuality. There was a book with 75 testomonies of people who claim to have known Euthymios to be a homosexual, many by way of abuse.

It was therefore important to call him to court because the scandal was in all of the Greek newspapers and many people were scandalized and most of the people refused to accept him. A court was the only way to resolve it, otherwise it would have appeared to be brushed under the rug.

Tell me Romanos, when has there ever been a case in the history of the Church when two bishops can run off, start their own synod, declare their old synod to be devoid of Grace, for reasons other than heresy?

[προσκυνητής]

Ioannis,

I don't intend to get into a verbal battle with you over this issue, so this will be my last post on this topic.

I think you are mistaken about the events in question. When the split originally occurred, we had six bishops and Kiousis had five. Then four bishops left us, and we were down to the two. One could easily accuse Kiousis of fleeing the investigation of his secret corporation by storming out of the synod meeting.

The history of the Greek Old Calendarists is littered with examples of bishops leaving one synod to form another. It is an unfortunate situation and our strident posts do nothing to promote unity, so I will leave you with the last word. Many years to you and to all for the Feast of the Meeting of the Lord!

[ioannis]

Romanos,

The only last word I want are these:

Schismatics cannot dress themselves in statements like this: "the history of the Greek Old Calendarists is littered with examples of bishops leaving one synod to form another."

In the absence of heresy, the Holy Canons don't provide for bishops to just leave their lawful synods and start new ones, declaring their old ones graceless. In fact, this is the very definition of a graceless schismatic.

It is enough to know that of the six bishops who left, as you say, 2 repented and came back, 2 became heretics for the EP, and the last two are your real founders. These two confessed in 1996 in an letter to the Holy Synod of 7 bishops, "that we are completely responsible for the separation."

In the end, I think all of these events are just tragic. I also think, that in the absence of the bishops repenting (which was a long hoped for goal), the priests and lay people have a duty to return to the lawful synod - the Church. St. Cyprian wrote about this, that the unity of the Church can be found in both these ways - if the bishops cannot maintain the unity of the Church, then the people locally must.

[Daniel]

I was reading through the 1935 Cofession of Faith written by Mets. Germanos, Chrysostom (Florina), and Chrysostom (Zachynthos) and I'm having a little trouble finding the part that states the Church of Greece is without Grace.

I see something saying that the Ruling Hierarchy of Greece...effectively declaring itself schismatic...but no definative statement cutting the rest of the Greek Heirarchy from the Church.

The next paragraph goes on to say that they [the above three heirarchs] are severing all ties to the State Church for as long as it maintains the calender innovation. So, I'm assuming, that once the State Church readopted the Julien Calender that the above heirarches would re-establish all relations and ecclesiastical communion with the Ruling Heirarchy.

Any thoughts on where those two pesky words, without and Grace, are?