A Traditionalist Imperative: Unity, Coordination, Dialogue

[Kollyvas]

Bless Father.

I think that a closer examination of the writings of the Cappadocian Fathers, esp. St. Basil, would show that "Kiprianite" ecclesiology is not so innovative. But where I was unclear is that in the absence of imperial authority, it is necessary for men of good will to assemble and to dialogue for the good of the Oikumene as opposed to "walling themselves off." That may seem a minor variance with "Kiprianite" ecclesiology, but the potential effect is quite major.

In the LOVE of Christ,
R M Malleev-Pokrovsky

[GOCPriestMark]

Bless Father.

Yes to some degree, keeping the view in mind that baptized Orthodox Christians in other places remain such and that other places have not been condemned by a Council. They are still to be considered Orthodox and their Mysteries valid.

In the LOVE of Christ,
Rostislav Mikhailovich Malleev-Pokrovsky

May God bless †
Since my question was:

By "Florina model" do you mean Archbishop Chrysostomos of Florina when he signed the Declaration of 1935?

then it is obvious by your answer that you didn't understand my question and perhaps don't know about the 1935 statement of the three old calendar Greek bishops, in 1935, stating that the State church of Greece has not the Grace of God in its mysteries. Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina [I was wrong to say Abp. above.] signed this document and at the end of his life held it to be true, (even if he fluctuated in the mean time). That is why I was asking what version of the "Florina model" you were refering to. Regardless, now I know all I need to know in regards to this. Thanks.

[1937 Miraculous Cross]

Dear David,

You asked:

What is the essential difference between "Cyprianite ecclesiology" and the "Florina model"?

What you ask is really complicated from a historical perspective, but I'll try to condense this for you.

1. I'm assuming you already know about the Pan Orthodox Councils in the 1500's. The 3rd one in 1593 formulated an anathema against any adoption of the Gregorian calendar paschalion and menologian, as well as anything contrary to the Tradition of the Church.
   There were also about 9 or 11 more local declarations condemning the new Calendar, up thru 1924.

2. In 1924 the Greek State Church adopted the Revised Julian Calendar, which adopted portions of the Gregorian Menologian, but left the Traditional Paschalion intact. Many in Greece felt this put the State Church under the 1593 Anathema.

3. 1925, an Athonite monk, Athanasios Danielidou concocted a theory that the New Calendar was only "potentially" without Grace, not "actually". (THIS IS THE FORERUNNER OF CYPRIANITE ECCLESIOLOGY.)

4. 1926: The Sacred League of the Zealot Monks from Mt. Athos, held a council and condemned the theory of Athanasios Danielidou. Many of these Athonite monks were to become important figures in the OC Church later on: Frs. Matthew (Mathewites), Akakios Papas (later 1st hierarch of the ROCOR derived GOC), and more.
   The Holy Greek Orthodox Community of True Orthodox Christians -- a lay assembly, supported the Athonite Fathers that the new Calendarists were fully schismatics

5. 1935: 3 bishops returned to serve the True Orthodox Christians. These men were: Bps. Chrysostom formerly of Florina, Germanos of Demetrias, and Chrysostom of Zakynth. In front of the assembly of the TOC faithful they signed a Declaration proclaiming the State Church of Greece as schismatic and without Grace. They were applying the 1593 anathema against the Gregorian Calendar, as had been done by several local councils before them.
   they then consecrate 4 more bishops: Matthew of Bresthena, Germanos of Cyclades, Christopher of Megara, Polycarp of Diavalia.

1. 1937: Bps. Chrysostom of Florina and Germanos of Demetrias, began to preach and write that the New Calendar was only potentially in schism. Three bishops eventually return to the State Church, while Bps. Germanos of Cyclades and Matthew alone held fast to the 1935 Declaration and asked the former two bishops to explain their views.
   In essence, a Synod was never granted and eventually the parties were no longer in communion and remained divided over the matter of "potential" vs "actual" schism.

2. 1948: the TOC under Bp. Matthew could see that he was elderly, ill and could not find another bishop to help, decided to single handedly consecrate another bishop (Spyridon). These two then consecrated more bishops, now know as the "Matthewites". Bp. Germanos was in prison, and Chrysotom of Florina vowed to never consecrate any more bishops.

3. 1950: shortly after the death of bp. Matthew, Bp. Chrysostom of florina reaffirmed his position as that of the original 1935 Declaration. However, he left his flock bishopless and requested that they patch things up with the Matthewites. (This never happened.)

4. In the 1960's, the "Floronite" remnant managed to get Archimandrite Akakios Papas consecrated by a ROCOR bishop and a Romanian bishop who was a New Calendarist. Later, Bp. Akakios consecrated a bishop with another ROCOR bishop in Greece, thus founding the revived "Floronites", aka the GOC, or "Floro-Akakians".

5. the "revived" Floronites were basically of a Matthewite mentality, i.e, that the New Calendar was "actually' in schism and therefore without Grace. (Florinite bishops: Akakios and Auxentios were defrocked Matthewite clergy...hence the similar ecclessiology.)

So, to compare the Cyprianite and Floronite ecclesiologies it depends on which era of Florinite history you refer to. The ecclesiology of Met. Cyprian of Fili is similar to the ecclesiology of Athonite monk Athanasios Danielidou, in that the New Calendarists are "potentially" in either heresy, or schism, respectively. This ecclesiology is the same as that of Met. Chrysostom of Florina during his years of 1937 to 1949, but dissimilar to his ecclesiology of 1935 and post 1950.

I hope this helps. It is confusing and has taken me years to get the data straight.

in Christ,
Nectarios Manzanero
Austin, TX Exaltation of the Cross Mission

[DavidHawthorne]

Thank you, Nektarios for your in-depth discourse. That does help me to understand better the differences between the two ecclesiologies. I think the originator of this thread was referring then to a "soft" Florinite viewpoint that accepts grace without walling itself off from the modernists while the Cyprianite approach would be a stricter: accepting the grace of the modernists in their potential schism while walling themselves off to prevent "infection". "Hard" Florinite/ Matthewite ecclesiology then would say schism has occurred and the modernists have deprived themselves of grace and walls itself off as well.
Do I got it?
Would "hard" Florinite/ Matthewites consider the faithful of the compromised jurisdictions to be true Orthodox who are simply in unfortunate circumstances under schismatic clergy and commune them or would they need Baptism first?

In Christ,
David Hawthorne

[Kollyvas]

Christ is in our midst!

As far as I understand the GOC history, the presentation given is pretty comprehensive. There are a few points which I have a slightly different take on. Firstly, the 1923 reform initially inaugurated a Gregorian Paschalion, but later rescinded it to avoid the anathemas of Nicea. The Russian church initially accepted this reform but later rejected it after learning of the circumstances of this robber council. Secondly, the calculations for the New Calendar were based on the Gregorian reform by a Serbian professor--they are an UPDATE, but NOT the Gregorian calendar; hence, the technicality the New Calendarists claim in escaping the anathemas of the three Synods of Jerusalem. Moreover, the Counciliar model for enforcing anathemas on local churches MANDATES the voice of the Oikumene. Such a council has not been assembled. Even though certain clergy may teach and believe error, the example of St. Basil the Great vis a vis the arian controversies is to avoid them, the clergy, speak out against the error, dialogue with those who will listen and not place the blame on the respective flocks. Issues of grace, schism, heresy arise only AFTER formal Counciliar decision.

In The LOVE Of Christ,
R M Malleev-Pokrovsky