ROCOR -- ecumenist from the beginning; Arch. Auxentios & St. Matthew

[d9popov]

Joseph, I believe that there is a world of difference between the errors before 1965 and those after. Before 1965, the transgressions were often of forbidden common prayer---even though the Orthodox often still reaffirmed the uniqueness of Orthodoxy (as we all agree Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky did clearly). I believe that Saint Tikhon, Saint Nikolaj of Zhicha, and Metropolitan Anthony genuinely believed that conservative Old Catholics and Anglicans were about to embrace Orthodoxy. I do not wink at any improper common prayers, but I know the historical context. After 1965, there was a dogmatic denial of God-given dogmas about one Church and one baptism. This was preaching another gospel. Once again, we need to focus on the two issues on which the Anathema of 1983 focuses. If all bishops affirm the 1983 Anathema in word and deed (no intercommunion with ecumenist laity), certain pastoral differences can be tolerated. So far, Matthewites have not generally agreed with that; and the Synod in Resistance did not either. We need to look to Saint Philaret, Bishop Gregory Grabbe and the ROAC in Russia, and Archbishop Auxentios, who all defended the purity of dogma but exercised pastoral leniency. The solution today is staring us right in the face, and slapping us right in the face: all we need to do is wake up, see what is in front of us, and follow this "mainstream" of traditional Orthodoxy, and many of these issues can be resolved. Remember Orwell's words: to see what is right in front of us requires a constant struggle. We cannot resolve the transgressions of the 1920s. We can come to acknowledge the wisdom of people like Archbishop Auxentios who were dogmatically pure but pastorally lenient, for the salvation of souls.

[Maria]

Joseph, I believe that there is a world of difference between the errors before 1965 and those after. Before 1965, the transgressions were often of forbidden common prayer---even though the Orthodox often still reaffirmed the uniqueness of Orthodoxy (as we all agree Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky did clearly). I believe that Saint Tikhon, Saint Nikolaj of Zhicha, and Metropolitan Anthony genuinely believed that conservative Old Catholics and Anglicans were about to embrace Orthodoxy. I do not wink at any improper common prayers, but I know the historical context. After 1965, there was a dogmatic denial of God-given dogmas about one Church and one baptism. This was preaching another gospel. Once again, we need to focus on the two issues on which the Anathema of 1983 focuses. If all bishops affirm the 1983 Anathema in word and deed (no intercommunion with ecumenist laity), certain pastoral differences can be tolerated. So far, Matthewites have not generally agreed with that; and the Synod in Resistance did not either. We need to look to Saint Philaret, Bishop Gregory Grabbe and the ROAC in Russia, and Archbishop Auxentios, who all defended the purity of dogma but exercised pastoral leniency. The solution today is staring us right in the face, and slapping us right in the face: all we need to do is wake up, see what is in front of us, and follow this "mainstream" of traditional Orthodoxy, and many of these issues can be resolved. Remember Orwell's words: to see what is right in front of us requires a constant struggle. We cannot resolve the transgressions of the 1920s. We can come to acknowledge the wisdom of people like Archbishop Auxentios who were dogmatically pure but pastorally lenient, for the salvation of souls.

Soon you will canonize Archbishop Auxentios who broke in schism from St. Matthew because St. Matthew and his GOC refused to consecrate him as a bishop? Oh poor child. What abuse he suffered at the hands of St. Matthew. If Auxentios was so pure, then why did he have the reputation of asking money for consecrations and ordinations? Wasn't this one of the reasons that his followers had for defrocking Auxentios? Have you read that part of his biography?

[jdigrande]

I agree with Maria. The whole Florinite Schism was based on rebellion against the rightful archbishop of Athens: St. Matthew. It was born in secrecy and with total disregard of the canons: the midnight consecration in Detroit of Acacias Papas by a New Calendar bishop of ROCOR and one OC Bishop of ROCOR and the secret visit to Athens by the ROCOR Archbishop of Chile (Leonty) without the slightest contact with or knowledge of the rightful Archbishop of Athens of the Church of St. Matthew. In both cases no effort was made by ROCOR to even educate itself on the whole history and problem in Greece by actually talking to both sides of the issue. This bespeaks total arrogance. All of this should have been done long before sticking ROCOR's clerical nose in something that was none of their canoncial business.

As far as what happened before 1965- prayer with heretics is defined by the canons. The problem is that we all cannot agree with what happened for the last 200 years in the Orthodox world and thus if one cannot admit wrongdoing, then there is no repentance.

With no repentance- the punishment continues until we come to our senses (like the Prodigal Son).

The Orthodox ate with the pigs during this period (Masons, Anglicans, Latins). From 1820 on Masons invaded the clerical orders, the Branch Theory (as the religious corollary to the Holy Alliance) was defacto accepted by many and Latins/Masons controlled all higher education in most of the theological academies.

Masons were also well entrenched in the autocracies of the Orthodox world. At the start of the 20t century the Branch Theory was de facto in practice ("We are all Christians" became the byword from Grandmama (Victoria) to St. Nicholas (referred to as "Uncle Nicky") by the heretics in London. To state that we are all not Christians would have been seen as bad Victorian manners in both St. Petersburg and London.

We are not all Christians. Arius was not a Christian and neither was Joachim III and Meletius Metaxis.

Met Sergius in 1913 denied the dogma of St. Gregory Palamas in public and received no punishment. Actually he was promoted from 1913-1925 despite becoming a condemned Renovationist in 1922. He was not a Christian.

On a practical level at the Sunday of Orthodoxy a list of these sins should be read and prostrations done by the whole church to prove to God that we actually are sorry for this. Since we cannot even agree with these basic facts: I expect more punishment from God.

[Barbara]

Who was the New Calendar Bishop of Rocor who consecrated Akakios ? It wouldn't have been Bp James Toombs, would it ? I remember he came from the Midwest, but don't know if this was even the right era for that. ...

[jdigrande]

Archbishop Theophilius was a New Calendar Romanian Archbishop inside ROCOR. They followed the New Calendar.At the time (early 1950's) St. Victor Leu of Romania was kidnapped in Vienna by the KGB and brought to Moscow to be interrogated by Beria himself. He later spent many years in the Romanian Gulag and suffered greatly but never was broken.

He was ordained by ROCOR after WW2 but they threw him under the bus and never tried to defend him at all and will not canonize him now (nor any of the Russian TOC's) although he suffered more then all of the normal saints (Matthew, John, Nicholai, Philaret etc) put together.

So at the same time St. Victor was being kidnapped, St. John of San Francisco decided to accept the Dutch and Romanian parish in Paris under the New Calendar with the hope that they would come to their senses. RTOC defends this by saying that when a ROCOR bishop visited Lesna- they would serve with them under the OC as a justification. I do not agree with that defense at all.

Ten years pass and Theophilius ends up in Detroit (probably on a visit). Acacias Papas had already tried to bribe the ROCOR Metropolitan in New York with 10 thousand dollars to make him a bishop. The Metropolitan refused so Acacias Papas went to Detroit and was ordained at midnight and in secret. I am not sure if the bribe was paid to the two bishops or not.

Thus ROCOR built on the bad foundation of the Florinite priests who in 1955 had no bishop at all. They could have easily been accepted by the Church of St. Matthew if they accepted the Council of 1935 as valid. But in 1955 these priests and monks did not see 1935 as valid. So 70 years of absolute chaos ensues.

ROCOR also did not accept the 1935 Council as valid in 1961 and so these Florinite priests gravitated to them for bishops and against the will of their former Metropolitan who forbade them to have any bishops at all but to rather reenter the NC Church of Greece.

Archbishop Leonty of Chile compounded the problem by ordaining Florinite bishops in Athens without the permission/knowledge of his Synod or St. Philaret in the mid 60's.

The Florinites considered Theophilius to be a valid Bishop just like they considered the whole NC Church of Greece and its bishops including the Mason Athenagoras to be valid and grace-filled in the mid 1960's. But from my point of view Acacias Papas was ordained with one bishop alone (if one accepts ROCOR as valid).

Sins were committed here but the Russian Church and Florinites do not think so. So God will allow more punishments, more division.

If I as a layman do not confess my sins, do not feel repentance for them, and do not try and rectify them the priest rightly tells me that I will be burned by communing. How many times I have heard that one must make peace with one's brother before approaching the Holy Chalice. But at the episcopal level, only "mistakes" get made.

One can try and rip the church apart by episcopal self will and whim and no one is going to answer for it.

But God is not mocked. We will pay and continue to pay until sins are admitted.

St. Philaret inherited this whole mess when he became Metropolitan of ROCOR but he was a willing agent while a normal Bishop. In 1974 he apologized to the Old Rite for 1667. I was in shock when I read it: a saint actually saying that the episcopate had sinned. but that is the humility needed now at the clerical level. I am not holding my breath. IN 1971 he tried to solve it but was in the minority in ROCOR. The last thing the vast majority of ROCOR bishops wanted in 1971 was a union with Arch. Andreas.

[Agios_Irineos]

And this one needs to move to polemics too, if we are going to attack Auxentios and declare Matthew of Bresthena the true Archbishop of Athens.

[Maria]

These posts have been split from the original thread in the public forum because they contain Intra-TOC Polemics.

Thank you, Bishop Irineos for bringing this to our attention.

Maria
Administrator