True Orthodox Unity

[Macrina]

I would like to have a calm and rational discussion of what the True Orthodox Christians on here believe it would take to begin seeing official unity happen in our midst.

A simple matter of the bishops involved talking to one another would be my answer. However, I think we all know that bishops have talked with other bishops and in doing so they know where each other stands. So the further question would be, are the bishops willing to talk to each other enough in reasoning to be able to change one another's mind of understanding about anything. I like to think they could, but I also know they will not in most cases.

Let me stress once again that I am not talking about any administrative unity, only the acknowledgment of each others Orthodoxy and the allowance of concelebration. This, in my opinion, would be the first step.

If most bishops think in the same mindset of monasticism, an "acknowledgment" would only be made in the case of a dire emergency to the faithful involved to allow them communion. So it would only last a short time, as "concelebration" is a matter of sharing the same cup and being in full agreement.
In other words, the bishop would handle things as he would within a monastery. This is the impression that my bishop has given me within our interactions. On the other hand, my bishop has also shown that every case is an individual matter. So I don't see how we could even guess at what a bishop will or will not do. Only God knows.

Side note: Bishops do not have to be in administrative unity. Not even within their own synods. Just something new I learned.

---

Cyprian, from informal talks I have had with Bishop Andrew I do not believe he would agree with the first two of the four issues you posted. I have not noted any signs of ecumenism from Bishop Andrew at any time. He takes the Genesis account quite literally with no signs of belief in evolution (which I assume you mean in the secular scientific sense). I have never asked him about the other two "issues" (3, 4) you put forth, but I'm sure he wouldn't mind talking with you about them. He is a very open and friendly man.

[Priest Siluan]

Dear Kyprian!

Just some questions for you about your info here. I read:

"Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: none"

What is you jurisdiction? Are a "Native" Orthodox or a convert one? Where are a baptized?

Thank you in advance.

With love in Christ

Priest Siluan

[nun.xenia]

Dear Father Mark,

The union usually starts not from the top but from the level of church people. At first people and priests from different gruops recognize each other, and it influences the bishops, and the official decision of the bishops is the final stage of the union.

nun Xenia

[Priest Siluan]

Dear Father Mark,

The union usually starts not from the top but from the level of church people. At first people and priests from different gruops recognize each other, and it influences the bishops, and the official decision of the bishops is the final stage of the union.

nun Xenia

For many time, I just saw more and more schisms supported by clergymen and laymen, even creating their new "bishops" and their new "Synods", and the relationships and approaches among clergymen and laymen from different jurisdiction are weak and disparate and little serious. I think that this should be only a "political decision" from the bishops, the relationships among clergymen and laymen without them don't have any real importance in what concerns to the unity.

[Cyprian]

Dear Cyprian,

I have two points I would like to make:
1) I don't believe that you are sticking with my initial proposal for this thread.

Greetings Fr. Mark,

Your very first proposal in this thread asked for calm and rational discussion on what it would take to begin seeing official unity. I believe my post was both calm and rational, and I specified four doctrinal issues that I personally feel have not been addressed fully (if at all) by some or all of these various jurisdictions. I do not consider these issues to be mere "nuances," but rather serious matters of the Faith.

I disagree with your main premise, which is that there are no serious dogmatic differences between any of these three groups, but only "nuances". I believe this is wishful thinking, not based in reality. Talk of accentuating the positives, while ignoring or setting aside differences, is what we have grown accustomed to hearing from the ecumenists. There are no compromises when it comes to matters of the Faith.

I believe that you are attempting to bring personal issues into a discussion that I intended to be the exact opposite.

Such as? Please be specific. The issues I have broached are all matters of the Faith, and not mere "personal issues".

Rather that imply defects of Vladyka Andrei (which you seem ironically interested in doing, versus your disgust of those who are critical of St. Augustine of Hippo), I wanted this to be a discussion on progress rather than a rehash of the past.

I am not interested in exploring any personal "defects" of your Vladyka, but rather am only interested to learn his opinions with regards to matters of the Faith. If you're confident that your bishop has maintained a pure confession of the Faith, then my questions shouldn't disturb you in the least. The circumstances surrounding Fr. Michael's departure from the Matthewites and his submission to monastic obedience under Gregory of Colorado gives genuine cause for concern, and raises serious questions.

2) You seem to be bit like a prosecutor in a courtroom who is asking Vladyka Andrei to prove his innocence,

Let's examine the facts, shall we? By all means, correct me if I am in error as to the precise nature of the circumstances. As I understand it, the then Fr. Michael (now Bp. Andrei) had been with Fr. Anthony Gavalas in Astoria for years, and both were received by the Matthewite synod of Abp. Andreas in 1997. Approximately six years later, Fr. Michael leaves the synod of Abp. Andreas, and is accepted into the ROAC by Bp. Gregory of Dormition Skete. I believe Bp. Gregory subsequently tonsured Fr. Michael with the name Andrei. Now, this prompts an interesting question. The unmitigated hatred and revulsion Gregory of Colorado displays toward all Matthewites, extending back to the holy personage of Abp. Matthew himself, is well-known and no secret to anyone. Gregory has published all kinds of slander and calumny on his websites, which remains to this day.

This set of circumstances prompts a number of obvious questions.

...while you use coy words like "nebulous circumstances," if they are so nebulous then why does your tone sound as if you want a potential reader to believe that nebulous is equivalent to nefarious?

How else should one describe it? Let's examine the facts. The Matthewites are not and were not in communion with the ROAC at the time of Fr. Michael's departure. Furthermore, why would the Matthewite synod of Abp. Andreas grant Fr. Michael a canonical transfer to someone like Gregory of Buena Vista who publicly reviles and slanders their synod? It makes absolutely no sense. Since, to my knowledge, no canonical release has ever been mentioned or presented publicly, I think it is safe to speculate that Fr. Michael was likely not given any kind of canonical transfer when he left the Matthewites. On the other hand, I am not aware of there being any kind of canonical trial to depose or expel him from the synod, either. Since the official ROAC website totally glosses over this portion of Bp. Andrei's bio, what is one left to conclude, but that his departure from the Matthewites was under "nebulous circumstances"? How would you characterize it differently?

This only serves to beg the question: why would Fr. Michael join himself in monastic obedience to one who openly reviles his former synod, with whom he sojourned for around six years? What does that reveal about his opinion of the synod of which he was formerly a member? Obviously one would be left to conclude that Fr. Michael did not leave the Matthewites under the best of circumstances, or he wouldn't have gone straight to that vagante scoundrel Gregory of Dormition Skete. Since Gregory of Colorado is a blasphemer who engages in every kind of slander, and scandalizes many with his zeal not according to knowledge, what does this say about Fr. Michael, who went and joined himself in obedience to Dormition Skete?

Naturally the question arises, in what way does (the now) Bp. Andrei agree with the opinions of Gregory of Colorado, the one who tonsured him, or not? Gregory of Colorado learned to slander and calumniate the saints, especially St. Augustine, from the Panteleimonites with whom he sojourned with at the Boston monastery. He also learned to reject certain icons of the Holy Trinity as heretical from this same monastery. Also, there was a time during which Gregory sojourned with the Panteleimonites in Brookline, when they held heretical opinions relating to the so-called theory of Evolution. The HOCNA monastery in Boston has been shamed into recanting these opinions in recent years.

But I digress, let me reverse the challenge on you: if you really want to know his personal history, then ask him yourself, his phone number is....... He is out of the country at the moment, but in a few weeks you can get the answer you feel so entitled to.

There is nothing personal about a bishop's confession of the Faith. I don't consider it a personal question to inquire of your bishop whether or not he left the Matthewites over matters of the Faith or not. If his grace left the Matthewite synod of Abp. Andreas because he deems them to be heretical or schismatic in some way or fashion, I would like to know the reason why. If (the then) Fr. Michael did not leave over matters of the Faith, then I would be interested in hearing his canonical justification for leaving.

In Christ our only Hope,

Cyprian

[Cyprian]

Greetings Ephrem, and congratulations on the birth of your new daughter Naomi.

May the Lord God keep and preserve your entire family pure and blameless until the end.

Thank you for pointing out my error. I mistakenly had in my mind ROAC where I should have read RTOC. I thought Fr. Mark was saying that the ROAC was holding promising discussions with the GOC, when in fact he was referring rather to the RTOC. This makes more sense, as I understand that the RTOC and the GOC synod recently vacated by Abp. Chrysostomos (Kiousis) were very close to entering into communion, according to Vladimir Moss. I believe there have been some limited concelebrations recently as well, including here in the U.S. between clergy of HOTCA and clergy of the RTOC.

Please forgive me for mixing up the two jurisdictions.

Cyprian

[mmcxristidis]

Dear Kyprian!

Just some questions for you about your info here. I read:

"Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: none"

What is you jurisdiction? Are a "Native" Orthodox or a convert one? Where are a baptized?

Thank you in advance.

With love in Christ

Priest Siluan

Fr Siluan, you will probably have better luck squeezing blood out of a turnip than getting Cyprian to answer your questions because he can't, so he will just ignore you as he has anyone who has asked these questions in the past. There is no jurisdiction on earth correct enough for him, so, he will probably go unbaptized forever. Perhaps the Lord will grant that he will one day be baptized in blood.