In Defense of Blessed Abp. Auxentios

Discussion about the various True Orthodox Churches around the world including current events. Subforums in other langauges, primarily English on the main forum.


Moderator: Mark Templet

Post Reply
User avatar
Sean
Member
Posts: 365
Joined: Thu 22 July 2004 6:26 pm
Faith: Old Calendar Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: HOTCA

In Defense of Blessed Abp. Auxentios

Post by Sean »

This an excellent article taken from homb.org

Archbishop Auxentius’s “Deposition”

Some years ago, a review was published of the book, The Struggle Against
Ecumenism. This review, written by Vladimir Moss, was favorable for the most part, calling
the book “objective”, “the best on its subject to have appeared in English, and quite possibly in
any language”, and observing that points in the book are “treated with admirable fairness”.
The reviewer, at the same time, offered the opinion that the defense which the book
makes for the late Archbishop Auxentius of Athens is “sketchy and biased”. He maintained
that The Struggle Against Ecumenism “slanders those other Orthodox bishops who tried to
introduce canonical order into the church” when they “deposed” Archbishop Auxentius.
It was good that Mr. Moss qualified these remarks with the words “in the opinion of
this reviewer.” This qualification is important, because it highlights some problems in his
observations.
The first problem is that the reviewer, as he has admitted elsewhere, has no knowledge
of the Greek language. Therefore, all his information on questions pertaining to the traditional
Orthodox Christians of Greece was and remains second-hand at best. He could not have read
the many pages of evidence, testimony, and signed affidavits that were distributed widely, and
which demonstrated the Archbishop’s innocence.
Also, our reviewer failed to mention a letter signed by him (dated June 20/July 3,
1994), in which he separated himself from those very bishops that supposedly “deposed”
Archbishop Auxentius. The reasons given in this letter for Mr. Moss’s departure from these
bishops were their canonical and dogmatic infractions.
Further, since he was not present and does not speak the Greek language, Mr. Moss
could not have known first-hand that Bishop Stephanos of Chios – one of the bishops which
“deposed” the Archbishop – came to Archbishop Auxentius’s funeral, tearfully begging
forgiveness of the now-reposed Archbishop and saying in the presence of all, “Forgive us,
Father, for we have sinned against you. We embittered you, we slandered you....” The
photograph that captured this particular moment was published on page 129 of The Struggle
Against Ecumenism.
Neither did our reviewer mention the fact that, “for the sake of the unity of the Church,”
the very bishops who “deposed” Archbishop Auxentius later “lifted” the deposition on
September 18, 1998.
Nor did Mr. Moss mention yet two other bishops – Kallinikos of Lamia and Euthymios
of Thessalonica, who, with the others had “deposed” the Archbishop, and later went on to form
their own “Synod”. These bishops, too, admitted officially (in an Encyclical dated April 1/14,
1997, protocol number 73) that the Archbishop’s deposition “arose from the plots of third
parties,” that it was “uncanonical, invalid and void”, and that they recognize “the blessedly
reposed hierarch” “as the rightful and canonical” ruler of his throne.
These incontrovertible facts, we believe, clarify and settle this matter.

Some people prefer cupcakes. I, for one, care less for them...

User avatar
Jean-Serge
Protoposter
Posts: 1451
Joined: Fri 1 April 2005 11:04 am
Location: Paris (France)
Contact:

Post by Jean-Serge »

Well, I do not know many things about these but Bishop Auxentius made too many "mistakes" :

  • receiving the Portuguese monks from ROCOR
  • receiving Eulogius of Milan and giving its church autocephaly.
  • receiving too many homosexual priests from the State church of Greece and so on.

This was really harmful for True Orthodoxy!

Priidite, poklonimsja i pripadem ko Hristu.

Anastasios
Sr Member
Posts: 886
Joined: Thu 7 November 2002 11:40 pm
Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC-Archbishop Kallinikos
Location: Raleigh, NC
Contact:

Post by Anastasios »

Yeah Sean, sorry man, I hope one day that all TOC's can work out their differences, but just say for the sake of argument that the deposition for the Tsakos affair was unjustified (and I don't think it was--I read all the stuff on homb.org and still disagree). Archbishop Auxentios still could have been deposed (and should have at least been retired) for granting the Portuguese bishops and Eulogios of Milan autocephaly with a handwritten note, with no synodal approval. It's clear that the Tsakos affair was merely the straw that broke the camel's back. The GOC, now headed by Archbishop Chrysostomos II, removed the deposition posthumously so that Arch Auxentios's spiritual children and those ordained by him could commemorate him as a bishop and not feel uncomfortable about that, and in order to facilitate the return of the remnants of his Synod. But the Synod ultimately did have the right to do what it did.

Anastasios

User avatar
Sean
Member
Posts: 365
Joined: Thu 22 July 2004 6:26 pm
Faith: Old Calendar Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: HOTCA

Post by Sean »

Abp. Auxentios was a very guileless man who took many clergyman on their word that they were fleeing the State Church because of Ecumenism. He was surrounded by ambitious vipers on every side. This righteous man did not desire the episcopacy, but had the office forced upon him.

How do the Kiousis people honestly propose to "re-unite" the Blessed Archpastor's flock to their fold when they keep parrotting the same old rhetoric? Even if you are correct, it does nothing but alienate those who venerate him.

I am not impressed with the things I have heard about your first hierarch. From what I have read, he was very grieved that Vladyka Leonty of ROCOR had passed him over for consecration, in favor of Abp. Auxentios. In fact, one of Abp. Chrysostomos' apologists lists this event as one of the hardships his first hierarch had to endure. I'm very leary of monastics who desire the episcopacy.

The whole situation with Met. Kallistos of Corinth forming a surreptitious synod in schism from Abp. Auxentios, and then for many of the other bishops who remained to then leave and join forces with this schism to "depose" their first hierarch is bizzarre and unprecedented indeed. But according to all of you, this restored canonical Church order. Well, I believe the fruits this has bourne speaks volumes more than your rhetoric. As Old Calendarists, our witness is almost completely diminished by new bishops following suit every year, forming schism after schism.

Abp. Auxentios' Synod was the original Florinite Synod from which all these other groups splintered, and HOCNA comprises those who remained loyal to him throughout.

For a more detailed account of these events, those who desire to know the truth should go to
http://www.homb.org/frameset-hochist.htm
and read Fr. Basil's letter to Met. Kallinikos.

Some people prefer cupcakes. I, for one, care less for them...

Joseph
Member
Posts: 114
Joined: Sat 5 February 2005 11:58 am
Location: TN

Post by Joseph »

Once again, The Holy Orthodox Church in North America, in my opinion, is shown to be the most authentic, sane and stable of all the OC groups, and is certianly the most substantial in terms of parishes, monasteries, convents, publications, mission work, etc.

Recent events have also confirmed the validity of their contentions and reasons for leaving ROCOR. We have seen reports of how ROCOR allegedly did to another monastery/convent out West, what they attempted to do to Holy Transfiguration - there seems to be a pattern. We do know for sure that there was a definite shift in ROCOR thinking about Ecumenism and World Orthodoxy.

I always find it interesting how the various OC groups can point the finger and pretend there were no problems or questions about how their particular group came about. Also, how the World Orthodox groups point the finger at OC groups forgetting that the Greek Archdioscese was started by a bishop who had been deposed by his synod in Greece and then, of course, there is the whole thing about how the OCA came into being, not to mention the uncanonical duplicate bishops/jurisdictions in America. Add to this the confusion, opposing bishops and depositions that always accompanied heresies in the past, and we might end up with questions hard to answer for us all.

I pray for the day when the OC groups can come together as one. In the meantime, we would all do well to remember that in the midst of conflicts mistakes are easily made and none of the OC groups are with out fault and failures in one way or another. At some point, this needs to be owned and confessed by all with agreement to move forward with repentance and humilty.

In the meantime, those who live in glass houses should be careful about throwing stones.

Post Reply