Seraphim Rose on the Matthewites

[Isaakos]

Dear Issakos,

It is good to see that you are still among the living.

Which synod are you now embracing?

It sounds like you might be accepting the position of Archbishop Kallinikos and his union with the former SiR, but you address neither the Metropolitan of Florina, Chrysostomos, nor St. Matthew as saints. However, both Archbishop Kallinikos and Archbishop Stephanos claim the title of Archbishop of Athens.

Note that the New Calendarist schismatic also claims the title of Archbishop of Athens, and indeed he is a heretic. Look at his current actions in defrocking priests who disagreed with the heretical Council of Crete in 2016.

So, yes this situation would seem to be highly uncanonical as there are three claimants to the throne of Athens. However, I would not bow down and kiss the ring of this pretender, the New Calendarist schismatic and heretic as that would be an act of apostasy.

In Christ,
Maria

I remain in a state of discernment. I never embraced formally the synod of Metropolitan Kirykos.

What I see objectively is that the pride of individuals is our greatest enemy, that and personality worship. We are not united because we know better than everyone else.

So what is a key to me as I discern is to see which groups are the most insular and run away, lol. Christ unites. It is nice to see Cyprus finally has its own Archbishopic for the GOC there Maria. And the current Archbishop looks much like the Metropolitan Epiphanios of Kition of blessed memory.

I WOULD say in agreement with Metropolitan Demetrios of the GOCK, “Don’t make a dogma where there is no dogma.”

How many petty issues are we going to continuously blow into Dogmatic issues? That’s how the Makarian Synod arose. We don’t like the Archbishop handling funds and placing them into an officially incorporated organization. Oh no, ecclesiological heresy!!!!

That’s what I am trying to avoid. We can be right and still be fanatics. Which synods are not characterized by fanaticism, are characterized by order, and who show great signs of unity, growth, and a general humility?

Sign me up with them!

So you believe the GOC-S is fanatical? If so, where have they "made a dogma where there is no dogma?

I never said that. Indeed, the GOC under Archbishop Stephanos ought to be admired for their restraint and prudence dealing with their noisier bishops, as well as their more moderate policies regarding reception from schism. The question with them would be the question with the Matthewites as a whole- who is responsible for the initial schism? Archbishop Matthew and his successors or Metropolitan Chrysostom of Florina me the Akakians?

When considering this question there are necessary distinctions to keep in mind-

1. Scandalous behavior is not intrinsically schismatic, but it can provoke schism in others.

2. The sin of scandal is a two way street. It is a sin for me to scandalize you, but it is a sin for you to allow scandal to carry you to schism. This is elementary moral theology. Both the scandalized and the scandalizer sin through imprudence.

3. Whenever two groups separate, both are to blame, and therefore both ought to show humility and overlook offenses. Who has been the one to reach out, and who is the one who insists on remaining offended?

Keep these issues in mind.

[Maria]

Remember that the New Calendarists were the ones to create the schism in the first place. They pontificated this New Calendar from the throne of Athens and from the Throne of the EP, who still persists in pontificating ecumenism and the New Calendar to placate the Roman Pope.

Read the life of St. Nectarios of Aegina. Did not the New Calendarist Bishop of Athens persecute the saint and even hasten his death by demanding that St. Matthew come to see him by riding a donkey when the saint was very sick, dying, and in a lot of pain. That bishop could have come to him, but no, he would not because he opposed St. Nectarios who insisted that the Julian Calendar was correct, that clergy should retain facial hair, and that clergy should wear the frock and not a business suit (or masonic gear) as this New Calendarist Bishop of Athens was known to do publicly. Did not this New Calendarist Bishop then deny St. Nectarios a grave and refuse permission to bury him?

And finally remember that St. Nectarios of Aegina was the spiritual father of St. Matthew.

St. Nectarios was humble and obedient, and even though he was dying, he came to that New Calendarist bishop riding on a donkey, just like Christ came on a donkey into Jerusalem.

St. Matthew, the spiritual son of St. Nectarios, was humble and obedient too. He repeatedly asked Met. Chrysostomos of Florina to repent and to join him in consecrating a bishop for the GOC, but Met. Chrysostomos of Florina was beholden to the New Calendarist and refused the pleas of St. Matthew. However, St. Matthew would not kiss the hand of the New Calendarist Bishop of Athens who was pontificating not only the New Calendar but also ecumenism and freemasonry. St. Matthew was obedient to God and to the Ecumenical Councils, not to hardened heretics who pretended to be on the throne of Athens.

[Isaakos]

Remember that the New Calendarists were the ones to create the schism in the first place. They pontificated this New Calendar from the throne of Athens and from the Throne of the EP, who still persists in pontificating ecumenism and the New Calendar to placate the Roman Pope.

Read the life of St. Nectarios of Aegina. Did not the New Calendarist Bishop of Athens persecute the saint and even hasten his death by demanding that St. Matthew come to see him by riding a donkey when the saint was very sick, dying, and in a lot of pain. That bishop could have come to him, but no, he would not because he opposed St. Nectarios who insisted that the Julian Calendar was correct, that clergy should retain facial hair, and that clergy should wear the frock and not a business suit (or masonic gear) as this New Calendarist Bishop of Athens was known to do publicly. Did not this New Calendarist Bishop then deny St. Nectarios a grave and refuse permission to bury him?

And finally remember that St. Nectarios of Aegina was the spiritual father of St. Matthew.

St. Nectarios was humble and obedient, and even though he was dying, he came to that New Calendarist bishop riding on a donkey, just like Christ came on a donkey into Jerusalem.

St. Matthew, the spiritual son of St. Nectarios, was humble and obedient too. He repeatedly asked Met. Chrysostomos of Florina to repent and to join him in consecrating a bishop for the GOC, but Met. Chrysostomos of Florina was beholden to the New Calendarist and refused the pleas of St. Matthew. However, St. Matthew would not kiss the hand of the New Calendarist Bishop of Athens who was pontificating not only the New Calendar but also ecumenism and freemasonry. St. Matthew was obedient to God and to the Ecumenical Councils, not to hardened heretics who pretended to be on the throne of Athens.

I think you’re confusing something Maria, St. Nectarius died in 1921. Hieromonk Matthew was never summoned to appear before a New Calendar bishop riding a donkey.

As for Archbishop Matthews humility, I don’t doubt he was probably characterized by it. But the facts are he insisted on his own way and his own understanding. And yet Metropolitan Chrysostom changed his perspective for the sake of unity. Was that not an act of humility?

The point is we were not there and anything we read will be colored by Polemic. It is a fact that Christ himself appeared to the New Calendarist priest Ignatius Vetsis and told him to join the synod of then Archbishop Andreas. That really happened, and we was a profoundly ascetic hieromonk.

And Christ also worked miracles through elder Ieronymos of aegina, who was subject to Archbishop Auxentius.

This is why the appeal to persons and their sanctity literally does not matter and can not establish the truth. The appeal to miracles can not establish the truth. No appeal to any external phenomenon should have the last word.

Only ONLY ONLY the theological consistency and correctness can establish the truth of any given position. When it comes to comparing miracles between persons, it’s a waste of time. Padre Pio has miracles too. Pope Kurillos VI did too of the Coptic church.

We need theological and organic continuity. Solely and without exception. And prudence to see the conclusion. Not fanaticism. Not appeals to secondary signs.

[Maria]

Remember that the New Calendarists were the ones to create the schism in the first place. They pontificated this New Calendar from the throne of Athens and from the Throne of the EP, who still persists in pontificating ecumenism and the New Calendar to placate the Roman Pope.

Read the life of St. Nectarios of Aegina. Did not the New Calendarist Bishop of Athens persecute the saint and even hasten his death by demanding that St. Matthew come to see him by riding a donkey when the saint was very sick, dying, and in a lot of pain. That bishop could have come to him, but no, he would not because he opposed St. Nectarios who insisted that the Julian Calendar was correct, that clergy should retain facial hair, and that clergy should wear the frock and not a business suit (or masonic gear) as this New Calendarist Bishop of Athens was known to do publicly. Did not this New Calendarist Bishop then deny St. Nectarios a grave and refuse permission to bury him?

And finally remember that St. Nectarios of Aegina was the spiritual father of St. Matthew.

St. Nectarios was humble and obedient, and even though he was dying, he came to that New Calendarist bishop riding on a donkey, just like Christ came on a donkey into Jerusalem.

St. Matthew, the spiritual son of St. Nectarios, was humble and obedient too. He repeatedly asked Met. Chrysostomos of Florina to repent and to join him in consecrating a bishop for the GOC, but Met. Chrysostomos of Florina was beholden to the New Calendarist and refused the pleas of St. Matthew. However, St. Matthew would not kiss the hand of the New Calendarist Bishop of Athens who was pontificating not only the New Calendar but also ecumenism and freemasonry. St. Matthew was obedient to God and to the Ecumenical Councils, not to hardened heretics who pretended to be on the throne of Athens.

I think you’re confusing something Maria, St. Nectarius died in 1921. Hieromonk Matthew was never summoned to appear before a New Calendar bishop riding a donkey.

As for Archbishop Matthews humility, I don’t doubt he was probably characterized by it. But the facts are he insisted on his own way and his own understanding. And yet Metropolitan Chrysostom changed his perspective for the sake of unity. Was that not an act of humility?

The point is we were not there and anything we read will be colored by Polemic. It is a fact that Christ himself appeared to the New Calendarist priest Ignatius Vetsis and told him to join the synod of then Archbishop Andreas. That really happened, and we was a profoundly ascetic hieromonk.

And Christ also worked miracles through elder Ieronymos of aegina, who was subject to Archbishop Auxentius.

This is why the appeal to persons and their sanctity literally does not matter and can not establish the truth. The appeal to miracles can not establish the truth. No appeal to any external phenomenon should have the last word.

Only ONLY ONLY the theological consistency and correctness can establish the truth of any given position. When it comes to comparing miracles between persons, it’s a waste of time. Padre Pio has miracles too. Pope Kurillos VI did too of the Coptic church.

We need theological and organic continuity. Solely and without exception. And prudence to see the conclusion. Not fanaticism. Not appeals to secondary signs.

St. Nectarios died in 1920.

[Isaakos]

Yes, the point being there were no New Calendarist bishops during his lifetime. Do you have a reference to bishop Matthew being asked to ride a donkey to meet a New Calendar bishop? I would like to read that.

[Maria]

Yes, the point being there were no New Calendarist bishops during his lifetime. Do you have a reference to bishop Matthew being asked to ride a donkey to meet a New Calendar bishop? I would like to read that.

1. You have repeatedly misread what I wrote, Isaakos. I said that it was Bishop Nectarios who had to ride a donkey to meet the New Calendar bishop in 1920. This bishop hastened the death of St. Nectarios, so much did he hate St. Nectarios.

St. Matthew, the spiritual son of St. Nectarios, remained an obedient priest and then bishop. He remained obedient to Christ-God by following the Julian Calendar, not the freemason-inspired New Calendar.

1. New Calendarist bishops were present in Greece and in other countries way before 1920, and they actively promoted the Papist Gregorian Calendar without the Orthodox Pascha in books, in speeches, and even in an Encyclical issued by the EP in January 1910. St. Nectarios actively wrote and spoke out against the New Calendar, and most likely his voice stopped it from being imposed before 1920. I do not think that those writings of St. Nectarios have been translated into English yet. Perhaps Father Panagiotes Carras of Canada knows. St. Nectarios was forced to retire due to his opposition to the New Calendar. Below is a commentary on the heretical Ecumenical Patriarchial Encyclical of 1910, which promoted the Papal New Calendar, and which was issued during the lifetime of St. Nectarios.

In January of 1910, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople issued an Encyclical on the subject, signed by twelve Metropolitans: 1) Dorotheos of Prusa, Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne; 2) Nicholas of Caesarea; 3) Constantine of Cyzicus; 4) Germanos of Amaseia; 5) Gerasimos of Pisidia; 6) Gervasios of Ankyra; 7) Joachim of Ainos; 8) Anthimos of Bizya; 9) Evgenios of Selyvria; 10) Agathangelos of Seranta Ekklesiai; 12) Chrysostomos of Tyroloa and Serentios; and 13) Eirenaios of the Dardanelles and Lampsakos. ...

Yet other contradictions mark the 1910 Encyclical of the Patriarch of Constantinople. It preaches love as it abolishes love.

"We believe," the Encyclical states, "that it is essential to rekindle and to encourage, above all, love between the Churches," that is, between the heretics and the local Orthodox Churches. Love for heresies, however, means the love of falsehood, since the heresies are falsehood and darkness. The Encyclical does not preach the "love of the truth" which is taught in the Holy Gospel (II Thessalonians 2:10), but the love of falsehood and darkness. Therefore our Lord Jesus Christ says also of the Ecumenists that "men loved darkness rather than light" (St. John 3:19).

cf. http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_critique.aspx

1. Saint Nectarios was known to pray all night to the Theotokos to stop the spread of this New Calendar, but almost immediately after his death when the voice of St. Nectarios was silenced, then these cowardly New Calendarists wrote the encyclical of 1920, and then imposed the Papal Calendar, not only in Greece and in Romania, but also in the United States and North America. The Freemasons in Greece and in Romania, brutally persecuted and killed those Orthodox Christians who wanted to stay on the Julian Calendar. The Freemasons in Russia. in the Slavic countries, and in the Balkan states brutally persecuted and killed Orthodox Christians who refused to serve under their false orthodox church (Sergius, etc).

See this link discussing the Patriarchal Encyclical of 1920 http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_critique.aspx

As it should be known, this "Encyclical," addressed to the "Churches of Christ everywhere," intends and recognizes as such the entire "mish-mash" of the heterodox and heretics! Consequently, it believes, confesses, and proclaims that "rapprochement and communion" with them "is not excluded by the dogmatic differences existing between them"! Likewise, it considers and acknowledges these "Churches" as "sisters and worthy of reverence," and for this reason "fellow-heirs and of the same body [sharing in] the promise of God in Christ" (cf. Ephesians 3:6)! In other words, there is a full recognition, admission, and acceptance by the authentic representatives of Orthodoxy, and this in a fully official manner, that the heterodox and heretics possess: Priesthood, Mysteries, and Apostolic Succession! For this reason, moreover, joint prayer, joint commemoration, joint observance of Feast Days, joint blessings, and liturgical concelebration are allowed to be conducted with them!

"The acceptance of a unified calendar for the simultaneous celebration of the great Christian feasts by all the Churches" is considered by the Encyclical to be indispensable for the goal of this union ecumenistically intended and pursued. ...

1. Remember that during the first three to five years of imposition, that New Calendar did not even observe Pascha, so that there was no Holy Fire in Jerusalem much to the consternation of the Orthodox faithful. Thus, people flocked to the churches established by St .Matthew. In fact, after the New Calendar was forced on the Orthodox in Greece and in Romania, there was such a cry by the faithful and so much resistance, that the New Calendar churches modified the Gregorian calendar to allow for the Pascha celebration on the correct Orthodox date. As soon as the New Calendar was modified to include the correct date of Pascha, then the Holy Fire returned. Unfortunately, many faithful became confused and took this return of the Holy Fire as a sign from heaven blessing the New Calendarists.

1. During the All-Night Vigil of the Holy Cross, the Holy Cross appeared in the sky over the churches served by St. Matthew confirming the Old Calendar, not once, but twice, first on September 14/27, 1925 over the Church of St. John the Theologian on Mount Hymettos outside of Athens, and then again on September 14/25, 1937 over the Church of the Exaltation of the Holy Precious Cross on Mt. Kophinas in Crete.

2. Also, "On September 14/27, 1937, as a reaction to the non-Orthodox teachings found in the letter of Metropolitan Chrysostom of Florina, Bishop Germanos of the Cyclades issued the following encyclical addressed to the faithful Genuine Orthodox Christians:"

   ... Hence, we are forced to renounce the two Hierarchs, Germanos, hitherto of Demetrias, and Chrysostom, formerly of Florina, and to cut off every (sacramental) association with them , because they have trampled and and cast away all that they had previously preached in the presence of thousands of people at Kolonos. They (Germanus of Demetrias and Chrysostom of Florina) have fallen into the same category as the New Calendarists themselves; for, on the one hand, they accept the mysteries of the latter as valid, and, on the other hand, they forbid us to characterize the so-calleld Church under Chrysostom Papadopoulos of Athens as schismatic, (even though the State Church) has clearly violated the Canons of the Holy Apostles, the decisions of the Holy Seven Ecumenical Councils, the teachings of the Holy and God-bearing Fathers, and the Sacred Traditions of the church. They have accepted intercommunion with the New Calendarists in order to serve their own interests ...

cf. Father Stephen Fraser, Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece (GOC): A Brief History and Commentary, Holy Trinity Orthodox Church, 2005, 2013, p.34

[Isaakos]

I was referring to this-

“Read the life of St. Nectarios of Aegina. Did not the New Calendarist Bishop of Athens persecute the saint and even hasten his death by demanding that St. Matthew come to see him by riding a donkey when the saint was very sick, dying, and in a lot of pain.”

You meant St. Nectarios then?