Who is the true ROCOR or ROCA now?

[Maria]

If the calendar change in 1924 caused these problems and it was solved after st mathew establised a synod with bishops how can any one else clam to to be the church not recognize others mysteries and still justify their right to being the church unless st matthews thinking was incorrect how can this be or how long can these groups be separated and not unify ?

How exactly did a hieromonk establish a synod of bishops? Was he given magical powers to ordain bishops that never before have been found in priests? Is this another canonical anomaly or are you maybe taking your admiration a bit too far and overstating the case? It was all St. Matthew in your world?

St. Matthew simply read the prayers of absolution over the two repenting bishops who had been consecrated under the Old Calendarists. Next, these repenting bishops were purified, illuminated, and sanctified through Holy Communion. The two repenting bishops then consecrated the third repenting bishop who had been ordained and consecrated by New Calendarists/Freemasons. Finally the three consecrated St. Matthew.

Cannot a priest absolve from serious sins of apostasy?

When the Synod of St. Matthew broke from the ROCOR in 1976, they did so because of the notorious Anthony of Geneva who had recently been discovered to be a modernist and an ecumenist. Before 1976, those under the Synod of St. Matthew did not know for church news traveled very slowly in those years. However, when one of the ROCOR priests who was under Anthony left him to join the Synod of St. Matthew, then the Synod discovered the truth.

[Agios_Irineos]

If the calendar change in 1924 caused these problems and it was solved after st mathew establised a synod with bishops how can any one else clam to to be the church not recognize others mysteries and still justify their right to being the church unless st matthews thinking was incorrect how can this be or how long can these groups be separated and not unify ?

How exactly did a hieromonk establish a synod of bishops? Was he given magical powers to ordain bishops that never before have been found in priests? Is this another canonical anomaly or are you maybe taking your admiration a bit too far and overstating the case? It was all St. Matthew in your world?

St. Matthew simply read the prayers of absolution over the two repenting bishops who had been consecrated under the Old Calendarists. Next, these repenting bishops were purified, illuminated, and sanctified through Holy Communion. The two repenting bishops then consecrated the third repenting bishop who had been ordained and consecrated by New Calendarists/Freemasons. Finally the three consecrated St. Matthew.

Cannot a priest absolve from serious sins of apostasy?

When the Synod of St. Matthew broke from the ROCOR in 1976, they did so because of the notorious Anthony of Geneva who had recently been discovered to be a modernist and an ecumenist. Before 1976, those under the Synod of St. Matthew did not know for church news traveled very slowly in those years. However, when one of the ROCOR priests who was under Anthony left him to join the Synod of St. Matthew, then the Synod discovered the truth.

Oh wait, so what he did was perform the priestly duties of hearing a confession. Then two BISHOPS, made another BISHOP, and then those three made the former hiermonk the vicar of Bresthena. And thence there was a synod of right confessing bishops formed, which he then was joined to? That's a little different than establishing a synod of bishops. One would have thought that St. Matthew did all this by his own efforts. Of course this same poster has previously posited that St. Matthew actually founded the church, something any Orthodox knows is reserved to Jesus Christ.

As for the historicity of the ROCOR situation, I'll not comment. So much revision has occurred through the years it will hardly edify anyone for it to be rehashed here. St. Matthew was a brave and strong confessor of the faith. He was not inerrant, and that is all I have to say about that.

[Maria]

Thanks for your explanation, Bishop Irineos.

Do you know the exact words (in translation) of St. Irineos who said something like, "Where the bishop is there is the Church."

Thus, in separate areas of the world, where a bishop establishes a diocese, Christ will be present.

We know that during the Soviet occupation of the lands of Russia, there were True Orthodox believing priests and bishops who lived hidden lives and who silently ministered to the people in Russia. Many were found, beaten, drugged, imprisoned, starved, frozen, and executed. Others managed to escape capture, and were able to train and ordain more priests and even consecrate new bishops for Christ. Thus the Church survived but it was an underground Church, and apparently this catacomb Church still exists today.

[Agios_Irineos]

Maria,

I think you are referring to St. Ignatius of Antioch who said " Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church," which is often shortened to "where the bishop is, there is the church." And yes, the catacomb Church in Russia survived the Sergianist persecutions, and were never in communion with any of the Greek Old Calendar jurisdictions. Were they not the Church? Or were the Greeks not the Church? Or was the fullness of God's grace found in both places even though they did not recognize one another. The world has always tried to persecute and destroy the Church, and the Church has always adapted and survived. This was not always done with perfect administrative order per the canons. But if disorder born of human failings destroyed the Church we'd all have been lost centuries ago. God has and will heal our human failings that have given rise to disorder.

[Maria]

Thank you, Bishop Irineos. Your comments are always enlightening.

[Barbara]

Returning for a moment to Justice's question, well, I got the information, finally. It was obscure for so long, with a only fragmentary account or two on Portal-Credo [ which is not always reliable as we all are aware ].

I think I will post this as a separate thread, just in case anyone is searching for this particular Bishop or TOC jurisdiction...by now he has catapulted to Metropolitan !

See the most complete information presented so far [ but still needing much more to fill in gaps - such as the question Justice posed ] at :
http://euphrosynoscafe.com/forum/viewto ... 170#p74170

[jdigrande]

St Matthew was a bishop and not just a monk in 1948 when he performed his single handed consecration after begging Chrysostomos of Florina for years to discard his heterodox beliefs and agree again to the union of 1935. It is also important to note that Chrysostomos was a big public admirer of Stalin and Pat. Alexi in 1944.

He also tried to contact bishops in Palestine, Poland and France (according to documents on the GOC websites). The bishop in Palestine was protesting the JP giving communion to New Calendar laymen. This was the same Patriarchate that accepted Anglican sacraments and priesthood as valid in 1922.
The bishop in Poland (Stephan) was in ROCOR and a staunch anti-ecumenist.