To Metropolitan Paul of Astoria

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
nicholas candela
Newbie
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue 18 January 2005 11:54 am
Contact:

Post by nicholas candela »

NICHOLAS: This is your Akakian-Auxentian-Kiousite, Makarian slander of St Matthew, who perhaps knew the canons better than you or your mentors, the fake Traditionalists: ""The Apostolic Injunctions, Book VIII, chapter 27, on the other hand, command that anyone ordained by a single bishop be deposed from office along with the one who ordained him, except only in the case of persecution or some other impediment by reason whereof a number of bishops cannot get together and he had to be ordained by one alone, just as was Siderious ordained bishop of Palaibisca, according to Synesius, not by three but by one bishop, Philo" (THE RUDDER, 1957, p. 4). If you do not believe the conditions for the exception were satisfied in 1948, then you do not know the history of the GOC.

INCOGNITO: What about the ecumenical and apostolic canons I cited?

NICHOLAS: I addressed them. If you're going to ask questions, you should at least have the courtesy to read the response. Bear in mind the words of St Nicephoros: "In times of heresy, according to necessity not everything is to occur in accordance with the canons whch are established in times of peace"(QUESTION 1 of Monk Methodios). Your false indignation at St Matthew's righteous act is, as I've already said, the indignation of a Pharisee. In Russia St Joseph of Petrograd said to those who were invoking the medieval canonist Balsamon to prove that it was "uncanonical" to seperate from the Bolshevik "church" that "this Balsamon of yours could not possibly have foreseen the events of our times, so do not judge me too harshly."

INCOGNITO: You're statement is question begging. It assumes Matthew was under persecution or some other impediment.

NICHOLAS: How could anyone even cursorily aquainted with the history of the GOC question the fact that St Matthew was under persecution? For defending the very ecclesiology you yourself claim to hold, he was abandond, slandered, with no one willing to help him make bishops. If you want the documentation, go on genuineorthodoxchurch.com and read the history of the GOC.

INCOGNITO: Any heretic or schismatic could claim persecution as a justification for schism. Matthew's un-canonicity was never rectified.

NICHOLAS: Because it does not exist. You who rhetorically rail against M Pavlos for communing new calendarists who are indeed outside the Church, it's telling to see you siding with those who regard St Matthew as having been outside the Church, simply because he defended what you yourself claim to be defending.

I addressed many more points than you deigned to address. I'm sensing you really don't want a way out of the mess you've found yourself in: you strike me now as merely a provacateur, who not only does not know GOC history but does not want to: you are someone, it seems, who just wants to complain. You're looking for an excuse to apostatize altogether. I will now allow you to stop wasting my time. Don't say you weren't warned.

Nicholas Candela

nicholas candela
Newbie
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue 18 January 2005 11:54 am
Contact:

Post by nicholas candela »

INCOGNITO: ]Bishop Matthews Errors

http://www.trueorthodoxy.org/schismatic ... tings.shtm

NICHOLAS: Fr Gregory's history of the GOC is hallucinatory. The reason he maligns St Matthew has nothing to do with canons (tell me: which canons permit a man to leave a synod because they will not make him a bishop?: and yet this is why Fr Gregory left the then-Kallinikites: his top supporter told me so, approvingly!), which Fr Gregory ignores whenever it suits him: what irks Fr Gregory about St Matthew is that if his ecclesiology is correct (and it IS), then Fr Gregory was outisde the Church for the first 21 years of his life: a fact Fr Gregory will not face. It's that simple. I don't have the time to go through his sorry article, neither, from what you've written, do I believe you really care), for which you've provided the url. But it is filled with historical inaccuracies, a threadbare knowledge of actual GOC history, and out-and-out slander, meant to encourage refugees from ROCOR to come under Fr Gregory. It is moronic of you to have posted what you did about Fr Gregory 's character and then to cite him as an authority on the GOC, to which he has never belonged.

Nicholas Candela

Incognito1583
Member
Posts: 273
Joined: Sat 5 July 2008 5:34 pm

Post by Incognito1583 »

Deleted

Last edited by Incognito1583 on Sat 1 November 2008 6:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Incognito1583
Member
Posts: 273
Joined: Sat 5 July 2008 5:34 pm

Post by Incognito1583 »

nicholas,

the link I gave completely debunks the Matthewite schism. Did you read it? Don't attack the source of arguments [ad hominem], attack the arguments.

Incognito1583
Member
Posts: 273
Joined: Sat 5 July 2008 5:34 pm

Post by Incognito1583 »

Deleted

Last edited by Incognito1583 on Sat 1 November 2008 6:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 »

Incognito1583 wrote:
drewmeister2 wrote:

Have you even been to St. Markella's lately (if at all)? If not, how in the world would you know what is going on?

Because his own monastery told me this is still going on to this day. If you don't believe me, ask them yourself. Ask Father Maximus. Ask Bishop Chrystodoulos.

I know both of them very well and I have a good idea what they might have told you. Both of them are very honest people who are upfront about the problems our church has faced and faces. There are a few situations where New Calendarists have continued, despite NUMEROUS encyclicals and statements to the contrary, to approach the chalice. This usually happens on major feast days, because as is the current practice of many Orthodox Churches (a practice which is a deviation), most people do not commune on the average Sunday. I know, because I have given communion to the faithful at St Markella's. Every person that came up there was someone that the other priests knew the name of and was obviously a regular attendee and member. But we can't help that certain other situations happen:

1) Someone comes to our Church, then we find out they went to communion in the NC later.

2) Someone who lies to us.

3) Someone who comes up to communion, and we later find out was not a member of our Church (what are we supposed to do, put nametags on people? These are people who we see at Church, often regularly. Plus, we had communion with ROCOR before--there were people coming from other Churches we were in communion with.) On Christmas and Pascha there are a vast number of people communing, and there are several chalices. There have been several priests hearing confessions. People do slip through the cracks. In those cases where we find out that happened we tell the person to speak to a priest and they are received into the GOC at that point or if they do not want to join, they are asked not to commune again.

4) People who have been coming to our Church for a long time exclusively and even confessing and they never mentioned they were NC.

It is in that sense that some New Calendarists may have been or may still occasionally be communed. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE ENCOURAGE, ACCEPT, OR ARE COMPLACENT TOWARDS THE SITUATION. We make repeated and regular attempts to educate the faithful and explain that New Calendarists should not be communing and must be received into our Church first!

drewmeister2 wrote:

Met. Pavlos would never commune Catholics as a way to bring them into the GOC, they are too far into their heresy.

Why not? The new calendarists are also schismatic/heretical innovaters

Not to the same degree. After the schism between Orthodoxy and Papism in 1054, it was not until 1204 that it was clear there was a schism. Intercommunion occurred in limited places until the 17th century! (see Eustratios Argenti by Timothy Ware). That is not to say that it was RIGHT, but that it HAPPENED. In the same way, many people in America are confused about OC vs NC and to say that some Greek old lady who is pious and never heard of the schism is on par with a Papist is not true. Now, in 100 years, or 200 years, sure, even pious old ladies in the NC church will have lost all sense of Orthodoxy, but there are still vestiges of Orthodoxy alive in the NC today and people who don't know any better can and should be treated differently than those who are avowed heretics. The bishop used to commune NC's as a way to get them in, but now he realizes that is a mistake and has made efforts to overcome that practice.

That is what a lot of internet-only Orthodox don't get; in real parishes with real people mistakes are made. What makes someone Orthodox is when they try to avoid those mistakes and take measures to overcome them. And that has happened at St Markella's. I have had discussions with clergy there as to "further ways to avoid the problem happening." They are in tune that communing NC's is a problem and are constantly looking for better ways to make sure people understand this. But you can't change the fact that there is a mass of people who come and go to our parish there and who may or may not know the facts. It's a constant struggle to educate and inform. That's life.

drewmeister2 wrote:

The NC's are much closer to Orthodoxy than Catholic, Protestants, etc.

It' doesn't matter. They are still outside the Church and in schism. Read the First Canon of Saint Basil. And if they are closer to us, then why can't I commune in one of their "churches"? Either they are Orthodox or not. You simply cannot have it both ways. The Church strictly fobids communing non-Orthodox people.

Well, if you look at history, that is not exactly how things have always played out. For instance, the Russian Church at times communed Eastern Rite Catholics (so-called Uniates) with the promise that they would not return to communion in the Eastern Catholic Church.

drewmeister2 wrote:

The problem is that many NC's don't even know what the True Orthodox are and therefore don't know the difference between going to an NC parish and St. Markella's, so rather than scare them off right away by refusing them communion, Met. Pavlos decided to use a little economia in easing their entrance into the GOC.

He should have told them what the deal was and properly received them into the Church. He has compromised because he didn't want to hurt their feelings [and possible tithes].

1) It is up to a bishop to receive someone and apply the canons, and a schismatic can be received by confession instead of chrismation (cf. Trullo canon 95).

2) There is nothing unchristian about trying to avoid hurting people's feelings.

3) The bishop preaches on the topic of modernism and ecumenism and the New Calendar and why these things are wrong. He was concerned about turning away those who were ignorant. The Synod felt it went too far, but that doesn't mean he wasn't working to educate them at the same time and that his intent wasn't to get them in to the Church, because it was. But he accepted the Synod's position and read the Encyclical in 2003 from the ambo. Then tried to take steps to correct the problem. What more do you want?

As for the question of tithing, the idea that we derive a significant portion of our money from New Calendarists giving money in the collection plate is silly. If you had ever been to St Markella's you would understand why I say that. I know where the money comes from, and that was not the concern.

drewmeister2 wrote:

No, Met. Pavlos would never bless any GOC person to commune in a New Calendar church.

Why not? According to his warped and convoluted ecclesiology, I am perfectly justified in communing in a NC church.

By communing new calendarists, he is saying they are Orthodox. If they are Orthodox, then logically I can commune in one of their churches. Both of my premises are valid. Therefore, my conclusion is valid. You must destroy the validity of one [or both] of my premises in order to invalidate my conclusion.

Unfortunately, that is not how it works--giving communion to someone and asking them to not commune in another Church (reception via communion) is an extreme ekonomia (he was not telling people they could commune in both places; as they developed a relationship with him as a spiritual father they were asked not to go back to the NC)--an ekonomia even I think went too far--whereas telling someone to commune outside the Church who is a fully-aware member, is a different story. But the question is moot, because he is not willfully communing New Calendarists anymore. If people slip through the cracks or are dishonest about it that is one thing; but he is not turning a blind eye, wink wink, looking the other way, or anything of the sort. In fact, he has even chrismated New Calendarists since then!

In Christ,

Fr Anastasios

Incognito1583
Member
Posts: 273
Joined: Sat 5 July 2008 5:34 pm

Post by Incognito1583 »

Deleted

Last edited by Incognito1583 on Sat 1 November 2008 6:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply