G.O.C any help appreciated

[Orthodox in Michigan]

The Chirothesia was nothing. The church did not accept it. The two bishops accepted the blessing from rocor and agreed to a union without the blessing of the synod of bishops is what i have heard what happened.

[Agios_Irineos]

The Chirothesia was nothing. The church did not accept it. The two bishops accepted the blessing from rocor and agreed to a union without the blessing of the synod of bishops is what i have heard what happened.

Modern revisionism. The stories can't even be kept straight.

[Maria]

On the return of the Matthewite bishops to Greece, the other bishops accepted cheirothesia from them, but most of the priests refused, being incited by the lay theologians Eleutherius Goutzides and Menas Kontogiannis (the future “Metropolitan” Kyrikos of Mesogaia) to reject the whole act as a Masonic plot designed to deny the validity of their apostolic succession and so destroy the True Orthodox Church of Greece.[2]

Eventually, in 1984, the Matthewite Synod officially declared the 1971 union and cheirothesia to be “a robber act, which had been previously constructed by the enemies of the Church.”[3]

Not content with this, in 2005 “Metropolitan” Kyrikos of Mesogaia went into schism from the main Matthewite Synod under Archbishop Nicholas, denouncing them as heretics who had betrayed the True Church of Greece by their acceptance of the cheirothesia in 1971…

This is according to Vladimir moss .

Re: Vladimir Moss
You must be careful not to believe everything that Vladimir Moss writes.
None of us are infallible. We all make mistakes.

Did you know that Vladimir Moss' wife was healed when she touched the skull of St. Matthew?
She had been confirmed to a wheelchair in pain, and the pain left her instantly as the miracle took place.
Then within a matter of a few years, Vladimir and his wife left the GOC, forgetting the miracle.
Even miracles cannot convince someone of the truth.

Remember the words of Christ that even if a man were to see someone rise from the dead, that might not be enough to convert him.

Monk Kirikos has told so many untruths. He has caused so many to leave the Holy Faith. Stravos and Vladimir Moss are among the many who have left the faith. Unfortunately, Monk Kirikos thinks strictly in black and white terms. This is not normal. This rigidity is exterior only as Stravos was scandalized at his show of piety.

Despite what Monk Kirikos has said, the entire synod of the GOC has said that the cheirothesia by the ROCOR never really took place. Read the book written by Father Stephen who mentioned eye-witness reports that told of all the irregularities that took place. It was a three ring circus.. It was not a cheirothesia. Otherwise, why did Bishop Auxentios refuse to acknowledge the so-called cheirothesia? Why did Bishop Auxentios refuse to join the GOC? And why did his own synod then defrock Bishop Auxentios?

You must realize that the consecrations of Bishop Matthew in 1949 were valid as he had written and begged bishops to come and consecrate bishops for the True Church. None were able to come as many were injured physically and mentally by the Freemasons, Socialists, and Communists in the Eastern European block countries. These bishops were impoverished and had no money for travel. The Communists had erected huge fences and barriers to prevent border crossings. Travel was dangerous and very expensive especially for old crippled bishops. There are exceptions to the canons that allow bishops to consecrate under these dire circumstances.

[Orthodox in Michigan]

Galaktion of Romania was a new calendarist bishop ordained after the schism of 1924. He left the state church, was not received or ordained by true bishops, and he single handedly ordained glicherie of Romania I have heard that none of the flornites have doubts about this ordination.

To summarise the whole rocor thing. The two bishops did have the blessing to go to America. The synod was told there was another truly Orthodox synod of Russian bishops. However they accepted the chirotheisa and went into union without the blessing of the synod. This was quickly spun into the florenite lie that the rocor re ordained the matthewite bishops. However evidence from the rocor plus eyewitnes testimonies show that it was not an ordination but only a blessing. The whole ordeal was not accepted by Church as a whole and the synod tried to do the best they could with the situation. Since they were told that the rocor held the same confession of faith as the GOC, unity continued until it was found out that it wasn’t true, the communion was broken.

[someguy]

I will not comment on anything about the internal and current Matthewite group disagreements as there are just many different angles unfortunately...

Why did Bishop Auxentios refuse to join the GOC? And why did his own synod then defrock Bishop Auxentios?
There are exceptions to the canons that allow bishops to consecrate under these dire circumstances.

I thought bishop Auxentios was scandalized by the ordination of the homosexual or is that a different bishop Auxentios?...

I've asked this question before though at that time was not ROCOR still perceived as orthodox by the faithful orthodox bishops which were fighting against the non canonical calendar reforms?
Once again I apologize though I do not understand why other bishops which were in acceptance of the same orthodox confession did not assist in avoiding a violation of the first apostolic cannon or was it that bishop Matthew only wanted a Greek Orthodox bishop?

I do not understand all the details but did not the ROCOR definitely assist both the Matthewite & Florinite lines though much later in time... why did this not occur prior to the two different GOC groups even existing? It would make for a much more united GOC existence today

[Maria]

Unfortunately, Monk Kirikos as secretary of the GOC Synod, kept all the files and meetings of the Holy Synods. He never returned those historic archives. This was thievery.

Monk Kirikos strictly guards these archives and did not allow Father Stephen access. Perhaps some of these records display the bad behavior of Monk Kirikos. We will not know with these records hidden. It would be lovely to have access.

However, I have heard from the Kirikos faction that there were many letters and official communications between Archbishop Auxentios and the GOC synod seeking unity, but this never bore fruit. Remember that there were hard feelings as Hieromonk Pappas before he was consecrated by the ROCOR as bishop Auxentios was originally defrocked by the GOC synod.

Those in the Metropolia under Archbishop John of New Jersey say that Archbishop Auxentios repented and that he is considered by some to be a saint. We will know for sure some day in heaven, but by then, it will not matter because we will all be rejoicing with the angels and saints. In the meantime, some people want their historical figures to be canonized to justify their positions just as the SiR would like their former Bishop Cyprian to be canonized one day.

Since both Archbishop Chrysostomos of Florina and St. Matthew were willing to die for their faith during their horrific imprisonment at the hands of the Freemasons who were in control of both the Greek State and the Greek State New Calendarist clergy, their martyrdom must be considered. Although Archbishop Chrysostomos flipflopped after his brutal imprisonment while St. Matthew remained firm, both men were repentant at their death. Consider St. Peter who also repented.

[Maria]

I will not comment on anything about the internal and current Matthewite group disagreements as there are just many different angles unfortunately...

Why did Bishop Auxentios refuse to join the GOC? And why did his own synod then defrock Bishop Auxentios?
There are exceptions to the canons that allow bishops to consecrate under these dire circumstances.

I thought bishop Auxentios was scandalized by the ordination of the homosexual or is that a different bishop Auxentios?...

I've asked this question before though at that time was not ROCOR still perceived as orthodox by the faithful orthodox bishops which were fighting against the non canonical calendar reforms?
Once again I apologize though I do not understand why other bishops which were in acceptance of the same orthodox confession did not assist in avoiding a violation of the first apostolic cannon or was it that bishop Matthew only wanted a Greek Orthodox bishop?

I do not understand all the details but did not the ROCOR definitely assist both the Matthewite & Florinite lines though much later in time... why did this not occur prior to the two different GOC groups even existing? It would make for a much more united GOC existence today

The ROCOR did not assist the GOC (from the line of St. Matthew). Their blessing, which was not needed, only confused the matter.

The Florinites actually descend from the ROCOR, through that illicit midnight consecration of Hieromonk Pappas, not from the GOC through St. Matthew. Remember that Archbishop Chrysostomos of Florina did not consecrate any new bishops even though St. Matthew begged him to do so, so when Archbishop Chrysostomos died in 1955, he left no bishops to guide his flock.

While it is true that the ROCOR issued a paper (protocol) rectifying that midnight consecration of Hieromonk Pappas (Bishop Auxentios), that midnight consecration was done by only one ROCOR bishop as the other participating bishop was a New Calendarist bishop. If the ROCOR desired to help St. Matthew's line of bishops, they could have also issued a paper protocol, instead the ROCOR gave a blessing, which was not a cheirothesia. Realize again, that St. Matthew's (GOC) neither asked for nor wanted a blessing or even a paper protocol from the ROCOR. Neither were necessary.

Incidentally, who assisted Bishop Auxentios in establishing his synod? It must have been the ROCOR. I hope it was not Anthony of Geneva who might have been a soviet agent. That would have created another set of problems. I only ask because I remember reading that there was interaction between Anthony of Geneva and members of Bishop Auxentios' synod. Some members of the synod had contacted Anthony when they were seeking to defrock Bishop Auxentios. Again, from what I had read, Anthony only muddied the waters typical of a soviet agent.