HISTORICAL-COURSE OF THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

[d9popov]

Maria wrote: "Since the Descent into Hades and the Holy Resurrection were two different events, they should be depicted by two different icons." That is Maria's own personal logic, but it is not the historic, traditional teaching of the Orthodox Church. In Orthodox tradition, there is a well-known icon of Christ resurrecting Adam and Eve from Hades. Some of these icons are titled "Descent into Hades" and some are titled "Resurrection" --- but it is one and the same scene in these icons, but with two traditional Orthodox names. It could also be called "Resurrection from Hades," which is precisely what the icon shows. The draft encyclical that "Justice" mentioned, which was the idea of the five schismatic metropolitans, admitted that it had been traditional to use this icon for the Resurrection, but the draft encyclical advocated the innovation of forbidding this traditional resurrection icon except for one day, Holy Saturday. That is innovation, not Orthodox tradition. The draft encyclical was the brain-child of the schismatics. There is no need for Matthewites who remained in the main Matthewite synod to follow the false passions and innovations of the enemies of the synod. Can't we all just return to settled Orthodox teaching, without innovation?

[Justice]

Maria wrote: "Since the Descent into Hades and the Holy Resurrection were two different events, they should be depicted by two different icons." That is Maria's own personal logic, but it is not the historic, traditional teaching of the Orthodox Church. In Orthodox tradition, there is a well-known icon of Christ resurrecting Adam and Eve from Hades. Some of these icons are titled "Descent into Hades" and some are titled "Resurrection" --- but it is one and the same scene in these icons, but with two traditional Orthodox names. It could also be called "Resurrection from Hades," which is precisely what the icon shows. The draft encyclical that "Justice" mentioned, which was the idea of the five schismatic metropolitans, admitted that it had been traditional to use this icon for the Resurrection, but the draft encyclical advocated the innovation of forbidding this traditional resurrection icon except for one day, Holy Saturday. That is innovation, not Orthodox tradition. The draft encyclical was the brain-child of the schismatics. There is no need for Matthewites who remained in the main Matthewite synod to follow the false passions and innovations of the enemies of the synod. Can't we all just return to settled Orthodox teaching, without innovation?

Does every other Mattewite synod except the GOC-Stephanos accept this innovation?

[Maria]

Maria wrote: "Since the Descent into Hades and the Holy Resurrection were two different events, they should be depicted by two different icons." That is Maria's own personal logic, but it is not the historic, traditional teaching of the Orthodox Church. In Orthodox tradition, there is a well-known icon of Christ resurrecting Adam and Eve from Hades. Some of these icons are titled "Descent into Hades" and some are titled "Resurrection" --- but it is one and the same scene in these icons, but with two traditional Orthodox names. It could also be called "Resurrection from Hades," which is precisely what the icon shows. The draft encyclical that "Justice" mentioned, which was the idea of the five schismatic metropolitans, admitted that it had been traditional to use this icon for the Resurrection, but the draft encyclical advocated the innovation of forbidding this traditional resurrection icon except for one day, Holy Saturday. That is innovation, not Orthodox tradition. The draft encyclical was the brain-child of the schismatics. There is no need for Matthewites who remained in the main Matthewite synod to follow the false passions and innovations of the enemies of the synod. Can't we all just return to settled Orthodox teaching, without innovation?

Does every other Mattewite synod except the GOC-Stephanos accept this innovation?

Let me ask my spiritual father concerning this matter. I am still a new member in the Synod of GOC-Stephanos. These matters still confuse me, as I am not a theologian. However, of the two schismatic groups that dare to call themselves Mattewites, the one of the Five, and the other of Kyrikos, both have falsely accused the Synod of the GOC under Stephanos of being iconoclastic, but that is not true. It is merely a distraction from their own schismatic actions. The GOC under Stephanos continues to honor the icons that were honored by St. Matthew the New Confessor, and that are found in his cell.

For example, Kyrikos, through his lay theologian, has changed their confession of faith repeatedly. This is another reason why I have refrained from joining Kyrikos. In his schismatic action, he has become more strident with name calling and even more schismatic with the introduction of more theological errors. How could I consider joining this schismatic "synod" when its very confession of faith varies from year to year? How could I consider joining this schismatic "synod" when it is very strident with public demonstrations against Archbishop Stephanos and with the false rumors that it circulates.

On the other hand, the Synod of the Five, has now been reduced to one, and this one has single-handedly consecrated a second bishop to assist him. Being a schismatic group, that consecration is totally invalid.

[Justice]

Maria wrote: "Since the Descent into Hades and the Holy Resurrection were two different events, they should be depicted by two different icons." That is Maria's own personal logic, but it is not the historic, traditional teaching of the Orthodox Church. In Orthodox tradition, there is a well-known icon of Christ resurrecting Adam and Eve from Hades. Some of these icons are titled "Descent into Hades" and some are titled "Resurrection" --- but it is one and the same scene in these icons, but with two traditional Orthodox names. It could also be called "Resurrection from Hades," which is precisely what the icon shows. The draft encyclical that "Justice" mentioned, which was the idea of the five schismatic metropolitans, admitted that it had been traditional to use this icon for the Resurrection, but the draft encyclical advocated the innovation of forbidding this traditional resurrection icon except for one day, Holy Saturday. That is innovation, not Orthodox tradition. The draft encyclical was the brain-child of the schismatics. There is no need for Matthewites who remained in the main Matthewite synod to follow the false passions and innovations of the enemies of the synod. Can't we all just return to settled Orthodox teaching, without innovation?

Does every other Mattewite synod except the GOC-Stephanos accept this innovation?

Let me ask my spiritual father concerning this matter. I am still a new member in the Synod of GOC-Stephanos. These matters still confuse me, as I am not a theologian. However, of the two schismatic groups that dare to call themselves Mattewites, the one of the Five, and the other of Kyrikos, both have falsely accused the Synod of the GOC under Stephanos of being iconoclastic, but that is not true. It is merely a distraction from their own schismatic actions. The GOC under Stephanos continues to honor the icons that were honored by St. Matthew the New Confessor, and that are found in his cell.

For example, Kyrikos, through his lay theologian, has changed their confession of faith repeatedly. This is another reason why I have refrained from joining Kyrikos. In his schismatic action, he has become more strident with name calling and even more schismatic with the introduction of more theological errors. How could I consider joining this schismatic "synod" when its very confession of faith varies from year to year? How could I consider joining this schismatic "synod" when it is very strident with public demonstrations against Archbishop Stephanos and with the false rumors that it circulates.

On the other hand, the Synod of the Five, has now been reduced to one, and this one has single-handedly consecrated a second bishop to assist him. Being a schismatic group, that consecration is totally invalid.

Do you have any updates on this subject Maria? I would assume Fr. Steven would agree with this encyclical as it's posted on the official GOC website.

[Cyprian]

Earlier in this thread ROCOR was accused of being Cyprianite back in the 1970's. I don't see how this logically could be inferred.

Correct me if I am wrong, but Cyprianism asserted a "walling-off" from the "Mother Church" which they identified as being embroiled in the heresy of ecumenism, yet until an Ecumenical Council adjudicates, the Mother Church is not deprived of the priesthood, and positively has the grace of the mysteries.

In the 1970's, ROCOR declared that they were not competent to make any final decision regarding the presence or non-existence of grace among the followers of the New Calendar/ecumenism. Do I have that right?

A) deprived of grace for followers of New Calendar/ecumenism (GOC of Greece)
B) not prepared to say with finality either way whether grace is present or not, until decided by future Ecumenical Council (ROCOR)
C) grace of mysteries is present for followers of New Calendar/ecumenism since not yet condemned by Ecumenical Council (Synod in Resistance)

One may wish to argue that only A is the proper Orthodox response, and positions B and C are in error in some fashion, but how can it be said that B and C are identical? Back then, did ROCOR ever positively declare the Moscow Patriachate to have the grace of mysteries? Maybe, perhaps, or possibly is certainly not the same as a definitive yes.

So how is ROCOR considered Cyprianite back then?

[Orthodox in Michigan]

Maria wrote: "Since the Descent into Hades and the Holy Resurrection were two different events, they should be depicted by two different icons." That is Maria's own personal logic, but it is not the historic, traditional teaching of the Orthodox Church. In Orthodox tradition, there is a well-known icon of Christ resurrecting Adam and Eve from Hades. Some of these icons are titled "Descent into Hades" and some are titled "Resurrection" --- but it is one and the same scene in these icons, but with two traditional Orthodox names. It could also be called "Resurrection from Hades," which is precisely what the icon shows. The draft encyclical that "Justice" mentioned, which was the idea of the five schismatic metropolitans, admitted that it had been traditional to use this icon for the Resurrection, but the draft encyclical advocated the innovation of forbidding this traditional resurrection icon except for one day, Holy Saturday. That is innovation, not Orthodox tradition. The draft encyclical was the brain-child of the schismatics. There is no need for Matthewites who remained in the main Matthewite synod to follow the false passions and innovations of the enemies of the synod. Can't we all just return to settled Orthodox teaching, without innovation?

Does every other Mattewite synod except the GOC-Stephanos accept this innovation?

what i am told is that withMetropolitan Kirykos, there is no problem with the Nativity icon with mid-wife and font, so long as no one tries to interpret it as our Lord needing to be washed because He broke the seal of His mother's virginity.
She is virgin before, during and after giving birth.

[d9popov]

I do not support Kerykos's schism or ecclesiology, but he does have a college degree in theology and does have some correct opinions. It is totally acceptable to have the bath, since thousands of traditional icons have it. A bath was not necessary for Christ, but it was customary for all babies of the time and therefore is represented in traditional icons of His Nativity. Lets follow tradition