Bp Auxentios GOC-K: 1-19-2015 OS - Debate

[jgress]

Thank you, Cyprian. However, the position I hold, and I believe the GOC holds it, too, is that Met Chrysostom was wrong to waver, but he did so out of understandable uncertainty and good intention, given the circumstances. There were New Calendar bishops who appeared on the brink of repentance, but insistence on their schism might hinder their return. And Met Chrysostom changed his mind on schism after conversation with the Patriarch of Jerusalem, who, along with the other patriarchates that hadn't yet changed the calendar, maintained that the new calendarists couldn't be declared in schism until a Pan-Orthodox synod was convened.

Again, hindsight is 20/20: it is easy to condemn Met Chrysostom now given what we know has transpired. How do we know we would have chosen differently under the same conditions? And even today we are debating the authorities of local synods to make final and binding judgments of anathema; it was a much less settled question back then. When the Greek GOC stood all alone in declaring the new calendarists in schism, while EVERY OTHER jurisdiction, including ROCOR, maintained communion with them, is it a wonder some doubted the wisdom of making such a judgment so soon?

Which brings us to ROCOR and St John. Cyprian quotes St John referring to the "schism" of the new calendar. It might be pertinent to add that St John remained in formal communion with this schismatic church until his death (though I don't know how often, if ever, he concelebrated with new calendarists). After Fr Petros (Astyfides) was consecrated bishop of Astoria, St John and other ROCOR bishops visited him and made clear their support for his mission, but as far as I know they never concelebrated: ROCOR did not establish official communion till 1969 (the new calendarists had already broken communion with ROCOR the previous year over Met Philaret's Sorrowful Epistles).

Once more, hindsight tells us Met Chrysostom's wavering was wrong and Bishop Matthew was right to maintain the original confession. The new calendar was ALREADY condemned by the Pan-Orthodox synods of the 16th century: the 1935 local decision of the GOC only confirmed the existence of the schism that had already occurred. But did Met Chrysostom's language of "potential schism" constitute a heresy? That I submit is not the case, and therefore Bishop Matthew's severance of communion, and subsequent actions like single-handedly consecrating bishops, were not justified.

[Maria]

But did Met Chrysostom's language of "potential schism" constitute a heresy? That I submit is not the case, and therefore Bishop Matthew's severance of communion, and subsequent actions like single-handedly consecrating bishops, were not justified.

The language used by Met. Chrysostom, "potential schism," is the same language used by Cyprian who started the Synod in Resistance.

However, the New Calendar was condemned and anathematized by three local Synods several centuries before the unilateral imposition of the New Calendar in the early 1920s, so it was not a "potential schism" but an "actual schism."

[jgress]

But did Met Chrysostom's language of "potential schism" constitute a heresy? That I submit is not the case, and therefore Bishop Matthew's severance of communion, and subsequent actions like single-handedly consecrating bishops, were not justified.

The language used by Met. Chrysostom, "potential schism," is the same language used by Cyprian who started the Synod in Resistance.

However, the New Calendar was condemned and anathematized by three local Synods several centuries before the unilateral imposition of the New Calendar in the early 1920s, so it was not a "potential schism" but an "actual schism."

But was "potential schism" itself a condemned heresy at the time?

[Maria]

But did Met Chrysostom's language of "potential schism" constitute a heresy? That I submit is not the case, and therefore Bishop Matthew's severance of communion, and subsequent actions like single-handedly consecrating bishops, were not justified.

The language used by Met. Chrysostom, "potential schism," is the same language used by Cyprian who started the Synod in Resistance.

However, the New Calendar was condemned and anathematized by three local Synods several centuries before the unilateral imposition of the New Calendar in the early 1920s, so it was not a "potential schism" but an "actual schism."

But was "potential schism" itself a condemned heresy at the time?

If the heresy had been condemned by a valid Council, then it would no longer be potential, would it?

[jgress]

Except that Met Chrysostom never denied the new calendar was anathematized. The question is whether the concept of "potential schism" is in itself a heresy. Only if that is true were Bp Matthew's actions justified.

Regardless of this question, there have been opportunities for reconciliation since then, and both sides have played their part in obstructing such attempts. In dialog with the Matthewites, the Florinite GOC has always pointed out that the original causes of division were resolved in 1971 when both sides entered into communion, and so further discussions should only deal with events after that year. It's annoying when either side keeps bringing up Met Chrysostom's wavering in 1937, or Bishop Matthew's uncanonical consecrations in 1948, since they should be water under the bridge by now.

[Maria]

Except that Met Chrysostom never denied the new calendar was anathematized. The question is whether the concept of "potential schism" is in itself a heresy. Only if that is true were Bp Matthew's actions justified.

Regardless of this question, there have been opportunities for reconciliation since then, and both sides have played their part in obstructing such attempts. In dialog with the Matthewites, the Florinite GOC has always pointed out that the original causes of division were resolved in 1971 when both sides entered into communion, and so further discussions should only deal with events after that year. It's annoying when either side keeps bringing up Met Chrysostom's wavering in 1937, or Bishop Matthew's uncanonical consecrations in 1948, since they should be water under the bridge by now.

St. Matthew's actions were justified. He and his fellow bishops wrote to Met. Chrysostom twice correcting him for his error in departing from the original 1935 document, but Met. Chrysostom persisted in his error and continued to vacillate neither returning to the EP or Greek State Church nor returning to St. Matthew's GOC, which was becoming scandalized by Chrysostoms' inaction.

Then in 1971, more than 20 years after the death of St. Matthew, Auxentios' continual harping against the GOC did not stop even after the ROCOR "blessing" was imparted to the GOC. Indeed, from 1971 until 1976, Auxentios and his group refused to be reconciled to the GOC even though the GOC joined the ROCOR for that purpose. Neither did the ROCOR complete their part of the agreement in that they never presented a solid confession of faith to the GOC as promised. In addition, when the GOC became aware of the New Calendar Ecumenism being espoused by Anthony of Geneva who was having intercommunion with churches under the EP and in those of the ROCOR, and no steps by the ROCOR were forthcoming in condemning such intercommunion, the GOC had valid reasons for leaving the ROCOR: heresy.

[jgress]

St. Matthew's actions were justified. He and his fellow bishops wrote to Met. Chrysostom twice correcting him for his error in departing from the original 1935 document, but Met. Chrysostom persisted in his error and continued to vacillate neither returning to the EP or Greek State Church nor returning to St. Matthew's GOC, which was becoming scandalized by Chrysostoms' inaction.

You are not answering my question, which was whether talking of a "potential schism" is itself a heresy.

Before Bp Matthew, every precedent involving single-handed consecrations ended with the bishops having their ordinations corrected by other Orthodox bishops. Single-handed consecrations are a temporary expedient; the canons do not envision a time when only one Orthodox bishop is left in the world. The Matthewites were therefore obligated to seek out ROCOR, or any other jurisdiction that hadn't fallen into heresy, and have their ordinations corrected.

Then in 1971, more than 20 years after the death of St. Matthew, Auxentios' continual harping against the GOC did not stop even after the ROCOR "blessing" was imparted to the GOC. Indeed, from 1971 until 1976, Auxentios and his group refused to be reconciled to the GOC even though the GOC joined the ROCOR for that purpose. Neither did the ROCOR complete their part of the agreement in that they never presented a solid confession of faith to the GOC as promised. In addition, when the GOC became aware of the New Calendar Ecumenism being espoused by Anthony of Geneva who was having intercommunion with churches under the EP and in those of the ROCOR, and no steps by the ROCOR were forthcoming in condemning such intercommunion, the GOC had valid reasons for leaving the ROCOR: heresy.

It wasn't all the Florinites' fault. The Matthewite bishops refused to perform cheirothesia on their priests. And it's interesting you finally come out and say ROCOR was in heresy back then. Well, there goes St Philaret, I suppose. It would be kind of difficult to maintain veneration of St John Maximovich, too, since he never broke communion with the new calendarists (even if he expressed sympathy for the old calendarists) and he was only glorified in 1994.

This is what happens when you become a Matthewite. I think the same thing happened to Vladimir Moss: he left ROCOR for Abp Andrew in the late 1970s since he thought they were already ecumenists. So back then Met Philaret was a heretic, but now he's a saint and scourge of ecumenism! I'm glad Vladimir softened his stance, and his history of the divisions in the GOC are pretty fair and balanced now. I recommend reading his history of the 1970s for the full picture of how the Florinites and Matthewites fell out with each other and with ROCOR.