HISTORICAL-COURSE OF THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

[Archimandrit Nilos]

NOTES TO THE HISTORICAL-COURSE OF CHRIST

2016: Metropolitan Gregory reposed in the Lord in 2009. New First-Hierarch of the Genuine Orthodox Church is- at the embassy of pontificate - the Metropolitan of Thebes and Levadia Chrysostom; the Athonite.

Three Hierarchs of our Church are outside of ecclesial communion, and we expect their repentance and the return of them to the body of the Church. These are the former Metropolitans: Mr. Chrysostom Metropoulos of Thessaloniki (2002 for heresy), Mr. Kosmas Skretas of Triki. (2011 for ethical issues) and Mr. Philotheos Tourtounis of Larissa (2015 error from the right).

Former Archbishop Andreas died in 2005. Shortly before his death, "Bishop" Mr. Kirykos Kondogiannis seceded and created "Synod" with old- calendarist Romanians (and Cypriots who seconded their communion with Andrehites). Today "Archbishop" of the Neo- iconoclasts Andrehites is former clergyman Mr. Stefanos Tsakiroglou.

Supporters of Kyprianos of “Filly” ( those in Resistance), after his death, joined the faction of Chrysostomos Kiousi. Current Archbishop of Florinites is Mr. Kallinikos Sarantopoulos.

The faction of Mr. Ephraim of "Boston" (HOCNA) was dissolved due to scandals and the heresy of Name- worshipping. The through majority joined to the jurisdiction of Kallinikos Sarantopoulos while the others, under Ephraim, joined the Florinites of the another faction of "Archbishop" Mr. Makarios Kavvakidi, successor of "" Mr . Kallinikos Chaniotak of Fthiotis.

The Afxentians (Maximus died, etc.) are dissolved and groups that exist are minor and exclusively to survive New Calendarists.

Athanasius of "Acharne" died alone.

Athanasios of "Larissa" joined to Chrysostomos Kiousi.

Chrysostomos Kiousis died in 2010 and they assumed "Archbishop" Mr. Kallinikos Sarantopoulos.

In the Jurisdiction of Kallinikos of "Fthiotis" (Florinite schism in 1995) is "Archbishop" Mr. Makarios Kavvakidis. From this group are fallen away: Nephon of "Piraeus" Angel of "Avlona" and Christopher of "Mesogaia", Niphon of Peiraios and Isles, Arethas of "Kritis", Amwrosios Nikiphoridis of "Philippon" now with Kallinikos Sarantopoulos, died Vissarion (Vasilios Sotiropoulos) of "Tarsos" in Sydney.

The faction of Ierotheos (Kindinis) is dissolved. There was splitting in his successors. Theses are ridiculous groups engaged in quackery.

Akakios of "Attica" returned to the "Synod" of Kiousis in 2003.

The "Portugueses” (Evloghios of "Milan" etc.) are dissolved and groups that exist are minor and exclusively to survive New Calendarists. These are ridiculous groups engaged in quackery and have multi- dissolved in point of extinction.

Finally, developments are expected in the area of the E​cumenism- New Caslendarism - this year when it is expected to convene a "Pan-Orthodox Synod".

[Justice]

Today "Archbishop" of the Neo- iconoclasts Andrehites is former clergyman Mr. Stefanos Tsakiroglou.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the 1992 Mattewite encyclical it says the following: "The icon of the Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ we urge pious iconographers henceforth to paint without the depiction of the bath and midwives so as to give no cause for doubt regarding the painless childbearing by the Theotokos."

Does this not go against Holy Tradition? the bath and midwives has been seen in Traditional Orthodox art and is in no way heretical. It also mentions something similar about the icon of the resurrection of Christ: "we decree that this icon [Christ's Resurrection from Hades with Adam and Eve] be placed on stands for veneration in the Holy Temples on the day of Great Saturday only and on no other days. We must also make it clear that because of the disagreements that have come about on this matter, henceforth the title 'The Resurrection' is not to be placed on this icon but only the title 'The Descent into Hades.'"

This also sound like it goes against Holy Tradition and contradicts the Mattewites whole mission, or is this a different Mattewite synod that put together this encyclical?

[Maria]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the 1992 Mattewite encyclical it says the following: "The icon of the Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ we urge pious iconographers henceforth to paint without the depiction of the bath and midwives so as to give no cause for doubt regarding the painless childbearing by the Theotokos."

Does this not go against Holy Tradition? the bath and midwives has been seen in Traditional Orthodox art and is in no way heretical. It also mentions something similar about the icon of the resurrection of Christ: "we decree that this icon [Christ's Resurrection from Hades with Adam and Eve] be placed on stands for veneration in the Holy Temples on the day of Great Saturday only and on no other days. We must also make it clear that because of the disagreements that have come about on this matter, henceforth the title 'The Resurrection' is not to be placed on this icon but only the title 'The Descent into Hades.'"

This also sound like it goes against Holy Tradition and contradicts the Mattewites whole mission, or is this a different Mattewite synod that put together this encyclical?

The Icon of The Nativity of Christ should not have the midwives present. That was a modernist addition as Christ did not have a vaginal birth. His miraculous birth not only spared His Mother Mary pain, but also preserved her virginity. This is why the all Holy Virgin is depicted in holy Icons with three stars: one on her forehead and one on each of her shoulders. These stars represent her ever-virginity for she remains a Virgin before the Incarnation, after the Incarnation, and after the Nativity of Christ. This is a wonder not seen before on the earth.

The Icon of The Descent into Hades is a great event in Judaism for all the Old Covenant (Old Testament) saints depicted by Adam and Eve and King David were led into Heaven by Jesus Christ our Lord God and Savior during the Holy Resurrection. Since the Descent into Hades and the Holy Resurrection were two different events, they should be depicted by two different icons.

First, it was necessary that St. John the Forerunner precede Christ in death. Once in Hades, St. John preached the Gospel of Christ to all who would accept this Gospel of Good News. Once Christ descended into Hades, the game was up. Satan no longer ruled. Christ as God was not only victorious over Satan, but also broke the very bonds of Hell setting free all the just captives who now believed in Christ.

[Justice]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the 1992 Mattewite encyclical it says the following: "The icon of the Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ we urge pious iconographers henceforth to paint without the depiction of the bath and midwives so as to give no cause for doubt regarding the painless childbearing by the Theotokos."

Does this not go against Holy Tradition? the bath and midwives has been seen in Traditional Orthodox art and is in no way heretical. It also mentions something similar about the icon of the resurrection of Christ: "we decree that this icon [Christ's Resurrection from Hades with Adam and Eve] be placed on stands for veneration in the Holy Temples on the day of Great Saturday only and on no other days. We must also make it clear that because of the disagreements that have come about on this matter, henceforth the title 'The Resurrection' is not to be placed on this icon but only the title 'The Descent into Hades.'"

This also sound like it goes against Holy Tradition and contradicts the Mattewites whole mission, or is this a different Mattewite synod that put together this encyclical?

The Icon of The Nativity of Christ should not have the midwives present. That was a modernist addition as Christ did not have a vaginal birth. His miraculous birth not only spared His Mother Mary pain, but also preserved her virginity. This is why the all Holy Virgin is depicted in holy Icons with three stars: one on her forehead and one on each of her shoulders. These stars represent her ever-virginity for she remains a Virgin before the Incarnation, after the Incarnation, and after the Nativity of Christ. This is a wonder not seen before on the earth.

The Icon of The Descent into Hades is a great event in Judaism for all the Old Covenant (Old Testament) saints depicted by Adam and Eve and King David were led into Heaven by Jesus Christ our Lord God and Savior during the Holy Resurrection. Since the Descent into Hades and the Holy Resurrection were two different events, they should be depicted by two different icons.

First, it was necessary that St. John the Forerunner precede Christ in death. Once in Hades, St. John preached the Gospel of Christ to all who would accept this Gospel of Good News. Once Christ descended into Hades, the game was up. Satan no longer ruled. Christ as God was not only victorious over Satan, but also broke the very bonds of Hell setting free all the just captives who now believed in Christ.

Interesting, as from what I've been told, the encyclical was a rough draft that had to be rushed, leaving many errors within it. Five metropolitans threaten to split off if the document wasn't published in 1992 and they did this even after the publication of the document.

[Justice]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the 1992 Mattewite encyclical it says the following: "The icon of the Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ we urge pious iconographers henceforth to paint without the depiction of the bath and midwives so as to give no cause for doubt regarding the painless childbearing by the Theotokos."

Does this not go against Holy Tradition? the bath and midwives has been seen in Traditional Orthodox art and is in no way heretical. It also mentions something similar about the icon of the resurrection of Christ: "we decree that this icon [Christ's Resurrection from Hades with Adam and Eve] be placed on stands for veneration in the Holy Temples on the day of Great Saturday only and on no other days. We must also make it clear that because of the disagreements that have come about on this matter, henceforth the title 'The Resurrection' is not to be placed on this icon but only the title 'The Descent into Hades.'"

This also sound like it goes against Holy Tradition and contradicts the Mattewites whole mission, or is this a different Mattewite synod that put together this encyclical?

The Icon of The Nativity of Christ should not have the midwives present. That was a modernist addition as Christ did not have a vaginal birth. His miraculous birth not only spared His Mother Mary pain, but also preserved her virginity. This is why the all Holy Virgin is depicted in holy Icons with three stars: one on her forehead and one on each of her shoulders. These stars represent her ever-virginity for she remains a Virgin before the Incarnation, after the Incarnation, and after the Nativity of Christ. This is a wonder not seen before on the earth.

The Icon of The Descent into Hades is a great event in Judaism for all the Old Covenant (Old Testament) saints depicted by Adam and Eve and King David were led into Heaven by Jesus Christ our Lord God and Savior during the Holy Resurrection. Since the Descent into Hades and the Holy Resurrection were two different events, they should be depicted by two different icons.

First, it was necessary that St. John the Forerunner precede Christ in death. Once in Hades, St. John preached the Gospel of Christ to all who would accept this Gospel of Good News. Once Christ descended into Hades, the game was up. Satan no longer ruled. Christ as God was not only victorious over Satan, but also broke the very bonds of Hell setting free all the just captives who now believed in Christ.

This must be an ancient innovation as many ancient icons have this.

Icon of the nativity from Mt. Athos:

Another example:

[Maria]

This is why there is confusion regarding the Nativity of Christ.
The one from Mt. Athos is clearly in error. How did this error creep in?

Was not Christ conceived miraculously of the Holy Spirit?
Note: A normal conception would have destroyed the physical virginity
of Mary.

And was not Christ born in such a miraculous way that he did not
pass through the birth canal? Note: A vaginal birth would have
destroyed the physical virginity of Mary.

And were not the "brothers" of Christ really his step-brothers?
Did not the term, "brothers," in Hebrew also signify a close relative?
Thus, "brothers" could be step-brothers or even first cousins.
So, were not these "brothers" most likely born of St. Joseph through
an earlier marriage? Was not St. Joseph a widower?
Note: Additional children born through a "marriage" of Joseph and Mary
would have destroyed the physical virginity of Mary.

Mary has always been honored as "ever-virgin." Her canonical icons
depict her with three stars: one on the veil covering her forehead,
and one on each of her robed shoulders. These stars represent that the
Theotokos was a virgin before the conception of Christ, during her
pregnancy and birth of Christ, and after the birth of Christ. Although
many Protestants teach that Mary bore other children after she bore
Christ, this is an innovation, for even Martin Luther taught that
Mary remained a Virgin.

St. Joseph was not the father of Christ as some people believe. Instead,
St. Joseph was both the legal guardian and legal protector of the Virgin
Mary and the Christ Child. The Theotokos never wed St. Joseph, but
was officially betrothed to him in order to confuse the Devil. Thus, we
honor her in hymns as "The Unwedded Bride" or 'The Bride without
Bridegroom." See the Parakleisis to the Blessed Virgin (supplicatory
canon).

Christ came forth from the Virgin Mary in such a miraculous way
without passing through the birth canal, so a midwife was not needed.
Neither did Christ need a bath after His miraculous Nativity as he
emerged clean. Furthermore, St. Luke describes the birth, and admits
that the Shepherds came to adore the Newborn Messiah at the
invitation of angels. There they saw angels, St. Joseph, the Holy
Virgin Mary, and the newly born Christ Child Who was born in a cave.
There was no mention of midwives or other attendants.

[d9popov]

No one here is saying that Christ "needed" a bath. Baths were a custom of the time. No one here is denying the miraculous nature of Christ's conception and birth from the Most-Holy, Most-Pure, Most-Blessed, and Most-Glorious Lady, the Birth-Giver of God. What we are saying is that the bath is in hundreds (probably thousands) of correct, traditional Orthodox icons. The Matthewite encyclical admits that these icons are traditional, but it advocates an innovation: forbidding the bath in future icons. This innovation is not necessary. The traditional icons are Orthodox, not heretical. We should all follow holy tradition, not an innovation from 1992! What "Justice" says about the encyclical, that it was a draft that was forced on the synod by the five soon-to-be schismatic metropolitans, is well-known to be true. It was the five schismatic metropolitans who were passionate about this innovation. I would expect that Archbishop Stephanos now sees the fanaticism and irrationality of the five metropolitans who pushed that innovation. They left the Matthewite synod. No one should follow them into their schism and their innovative views on icons. We should follow the ancient, Orthodox models.