G.O.C any help appreciated

[Orthodox in Michigan]

47A11EE0-F948-47B7-B4EA-401638D9930E.jpeg (71.41 KiB) Viewed 215 times

[Orthodox in Michigan]

It says:

DEDICATIONS

in this text of this calendar of the year of the Saviour 2018 are mentioned

Two major events occurred 70 years ago in 1948. They are:

A) the historical consecrations of 1948

B) the establishment of the world council of churches

If this is a correct translation i am curious why the establishment of the world council of churches would be on this calendar as if is of importance to this synod?

[someguy]

I'm glad the forum is back online

I have some more details about the hierarchy which a church near me is under, which is the topic of this thread

What can people share about the below bishops which have consecrated the current Archbishop Michael

• Ο ΤΑΛΑΝΤΙΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΛΟΚΡΙΔΟΣ Κ.Κ ΓΕΡΜΑΝΟΣ (Κεφαλᾶ)
  (Bishop Germanos (Kefala- his surname) of Talantiou & Lokridos)
• Ο ΚΡΗΝΗΣ ΚΑΙ ΑΝΕΩΝ Κ.Κ ΧΡΥΣΟΣΤΟΜΟΣ
  (Bishop Chrysostomos of Krinis & Aneon)

Also can someone more learned than myself clarify the technicals of ordaining of a bishop...? As I know that two or more bishops are required for the endorsement though is it specifically two or more that are physically required in terms of laying of the hands or only witnesses to endorse the consecration?

Thanks as always

[d9popov]

i am curious why the establishment of the world council of churches would be on this calendar as if is of importance to this synod?

Easy question. The establishment of the WCC is important (negatively) because it contributed greatly to the spread of the Branch Theory Heresy within the Eastern Orthodox world. For example, in the 1950s, Father Georges Florovsky and others stated boldly that the Orthodox Church was the one true church and that "ecumenism" for them was "universal conversion to Orthodoxy." This did not last. By the late 1960s, both Constantinople and Moscow were preaching the Branch Theory Heresy: Constantinople explicitly and Moscow by offering Communion to Roman Catholics. The note in the calendar is obviously contrasting (1) what it considers to be a bad historical event for Orthodoxy (WCC founding) with (2) what it considers to be a good historical event (consecration and foundation of Matthewite synod by Bishop Matthew), both of which occurred 70 years ago, in 1948.

[d9popov]

One bishop is the primary consecrator (ordainer) of a new bishop, but there should be two, or at least one, other co-consecrating bishop(s) who physically lay(s)-on his/their hand(s) on the candidate. If there are numerous bishops, some may lay their hand on another consecrating bishop in a "chain" arrangement. It is the chief consecrator who places his hand over the Gospel that is placed on the bishop elect's head, usually with one or two other bishops. The consecration of a bishop is considered to be a "new Pentecost" since the first Pentecost Day was the day of the "ordination" of the Apostles to their full apostolic ministry of preaching the Resurrection and building up the Church founded by Christ.

For the ordination to the episcopacy to be valid, there should be a valid election of the bishop-elect by a valid holy synod. This is mentioned in one of the three vows/oaths/confessions of faith that the bishop-elect reads in the service before he is ordained. He promises that he comes to the consecration not by money (simony) but by election of the holy synod.

Under very rare circumstances, a holy synod may bless one bishop (alone) to physically consecrate a bishop-elect, especially when persecution makes the physical presence of two consecrating bishops impossible.

[d9popov]

This is the part I was referring to:

"I also confess, in this my written profession of faith, that neither by the promise, nor by the gift of gold, or of silver, have I come to this ministry; but, on the contrary, I have received it by the election of the Most Holy Synod. And herewith I promise also to do nothing under constraint, whether coerced by powerful persons, or by a multitude of the people, even if they would command me, under pain of death, to do something contrary to the divine and holy laws: nor to celebrate the Divine Liturgy in a diocese other than my own, nor to exercise any other episcopal function without the permission of the bishop of that diocese; and that I will not ordain either a priest, or a deacon, or any other ecclesiastic in another’s diocese, nor receive such into my diocese without letters of dismissal from their own bishops."

I just posted the entire Confession of Faith by Bishops-Elect (from Hapgood) under the DOGMAS AND ANATHEMAS thread.

[d9popov]

What can people share about the below bishops which have consecrated the current Archbishop Michael

• Ο ΤΑΛΑΝΤΙΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΛΟΚΡΙΔΟΣ Κ.Κ ΓΕΡΜΑΝΟΣ (Κεφαλᾶ)
  (Bishop Germanos (Kefala- his surname) of Talantiou & Lokridos)
• Ο ΚΡΗΝΗΣ ΚΑΙ ΑΝΕΩΝ Κ.Κ ΧΡΥΣΟΣΤΟΜΟΣ
  (Bishop Chrysostomos of Krinis & Aneon)

These "bishops" are unknown and unheard of. Their website is weirdly organized and pretty much strange in every way. The website lists various patriarchs, but then it says that some may be heresiarchs. Why list them if they are heretics? The website condemns the new calendar, but then it lists several new calendarist bishops as if they are canonical. It lists several vagante (vagrant, wondering) bishops who really didn't care one way or the other about the calendar issue. The website makes a HUGE deal about the fact that Saint Philaret and all of ROCOR recognized Archbishop Auxentios and all of his synod in 1969. But the website fails (as best I can determine) to show any connection to either Saint Philaret or Archbishop Auxentios. If this group of bishops claims that Saint Philaret and Archbishop Auxentios are the standards of canonicity and then these bishops fail to show any apostolic succession from Saint Philaret and Archbishop Auxentios, then they fail to show (by their own logic) any apostolic succession at all.

Dear SomeGuy: since you are located close to them, why don't you call them or ask them in person how they claim to have apostolic succession from Archbishop Auxentios. We know which bishops buried Archbishop Auxentios in 1994, and the bishops on this website were not there and appear to have no connection to the Archbishop they claim to honor. If they cannot give an answer, it might be best to avoid them.

They show all the signs of vagantism (instability, uncanonicity). They don't show any connection to true Orthodoxy. If they want to be Orthodox, they should submit themselves in obedience to a true synod of bishops.