Name-Worhipping in the ROAC???

scyldscefing · Post by **scyldscefing** » Fri 13 August 2004 6:34 pm

The "Lamians" are the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece under Archbishop Makarios of Athens. called Lamians or Kallikites because Kallinikos of Lamia was the former president of the synod. They with with Chrysostomos II (Kiousis) until, depending on who you ask
they left the synod, or his emminence Chrys. II left for reasons of either,,,, uncanonical actions regarding an accused bishop or ecumenism. (take your pick) They are a slightly bigger group than the GOC under Kiousis in greece, a fact of which they make note often on their websites. Either way, they both harken back to the days of the that old-school old calendarist Chrysostomos of Florina.

as to name worshipping I remember an article from them denouncing it but it's very hard now to contact them as their websites are down, and go up once in a blue moon...

OrthodoxyOrDeath · Post by **OrthodoxyOrDeath** » Fri 13 August 2004 7:37 pm

scyldscefing,

They are a slightly bigger group than the GOC under Kiousis in greece, a fact of which they make note often on their websites.

Maybe you could direct me to which website that might be, I have them all saved to my hard drive as they are now defunct, and I don't see anything. I am anxious to find out more about why the Lamians for years included all of our 225 churches and monastery's in their pocket calendar/directories (I have one of theirs and one of ours from the same year). Now they have just taken to list the home of each priest along with their churches which still doesn't amont to much (thank God) (I have recent directories too). I just cannot see how 2 former bishops (one retired) carried away "most" of the flock into schism.

I would also like to add that when the Lamians left the Holy Synod in 1995, it was because an until then unknown man accused a bishop of homosexual activity. This bishop did not want to appear to answer the allegations before the Holy Synod and simply left to form his own synod, claiming other very false reasons. The point is, there was never any allegations of "ecumenism" from either side, that is ridiculous.

It is simply common knowledge that the Lamian bishops for years always claimed they were "walled off", often even going so far as to say there was no schism, just a dissagreement!! Perhaps they have always known the lack of any foundation to become their own "true church"? I don't know. All I know is that it was never a question of who departed who, it was only a question of whether or not these deposed clergy would return. It appears not.

scyldscefing · Post by **scyldscefing** » Sat 14 August 2004 3:26 pm

nyeh its hard to remember the websites..

and what I heard from their side was
he was not an unknown man but was convicted in a
greek court of blackmail, the bishop received a call from
him saying he had a video tape of him committing a homosexual
act.. The bishop called the police and they set up a sting to
arrest the blackmailer. He was charged and convicted. or some such
thing.. but it's so hard to paraphrase things I read a year ago!

alls I know is,, Chrysostomos II looked into the accusation and later charged him and other bishops of an uncanonical act of cornering a bishop off, or refusing to discuss the charges. scyld scefing needs to flip through the rudder and find this one some day...

scyldscefing · Post by **scyldscefing** » Sat 14 August 2004 3:32 pm

as to the accusations of ecumenism, they were against Abp. Pavlos of Astoria, who some had witnessed him giving communion to new calendarists, whether or not this is true is a matter of opinion I guess..
As you say they left the synod is 1995, Pavlos wasn't ordained until later.

OrthodoxyOrDeath · Post by **OrthodoxyOrDeath** » Sat 14 August 2004 4:17 pm

alls I know is,, Chrysostomos II looked into the accusation and later charged him and other bishops of an uncanonical act of cornering a bishop off, or refusing to discuss the charges. scyld scefing needs to flip through the rudder and find this one some day...

I can tell you that you will not find any patristic support to justify them in declaring their synod of bishops dead, graceless and not the Church, just because they decided a spiritual court was not in order. Such a thought is absurd and simply more evidence to show them as the schismatics they are.

As much as I am sympathetic to all "old-calendarist" groups, clearly there are schismatics among us, and we must never be confortable with this; as if we can just say, "oh well, we are all legitimate".