Incognito 1583's own personal thread about whatever

[Kosmas]

Premise-
If these facts are even close to the truth then it is doubtful that Bishop Matthew was right with God:
http://www.trueorthodoxy.org/schismatic ... rors.shtml

1st. B. Matthew as an Athonite monk asked his Spiritual Father if it was wise for him to go to Greece Proper to combat the New Calendarists. His Spiritual Father said "No." He went anyway without the blessing of his Father which is automatically enough to make the above premise true.

2nd. Now the term vicar-bishops (Xorioepiskopoi) were applied to bishops who were not full bishops but rather of a village or rural countryside. They were dependent on the Bishop of the city and Vresthena was not a city but a village. The spiritual authority of vicar-bishop Matthew was dependent on Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina, in whom he was publically and privately disobedient to.
http://www.dimaras.gr/vresthena/english/history.htm

3rd. About circumventing on not just one but MANY canons which requires to have at least 3 Bishops for ordaining a Bishop is immutable. The Apostles themselves understood this as absolute. So that even if there was just ONE bishop who had grace, that would satisfy the requirement. Again, God would have provided TWO Bishops IF v.b. Matthew was a slave of God.

4th. The vivar-bishop Matthew suffered a stroke and only his RIGHT SIDE became paralyzed. Thereby he himself should have stepped down as the Canons and common sense dictates. Of course he did not and instead had his Nun hold his right hand during the psuedo-consecration.

5th. After his death during the exhumation there was controversy over his remains. One witness described them as "Unholy."

Even if ONE of these are TRUE then the whole argument that bishop Matthew was a true Bishop is invalid as he went against the very heart of what a Bishop is suppose to be.
He should have never left the Holy Mountain as his spiritual confessor told him.

[Pravoslavnik]

This thread should be split into two or three threads and re-titled--one regarding the Mathewite issues and the other regarding the sainthood of Tsar Nicholas II and/or Father Seraphim Rose. I am responding to the pen-ultimate comment about the saints.

Incognito,

Code: Select all

 Do you consider Sts. Boris, Gleb, and Igor to be saints of the Orthodox Church, and why?  Do you consider the blind Prince Lazar of Serbia to be an Orthodox saint, and why?  What is your belief about why Tsar Nicholas II chose to stay at Tsarskoe Selo in 1917 rather than fleeing to his estate at Livadia, and what evidence do you offer to support your claims about the Tsar?  Can you offer us some telling references other than Wikipedia (which, incidentally, fails to even reference the Mitrokhin archives and  [i]The Sword and the Shield[/i] in its distorted entry on the ROCOR and the Act of Canonical Communion.)

 You also wrote that "only the Church" can decide whether Father Seraphim Rose is a saint.  I certainly concur with this, but would also ask, [i]who and what is the "Church?"[/i]  Are Orthodox laity "the Church," or do you consider "the Church" to consist only of the Patriarchs?  Metropolitans?  Archbishops?  Bishops? Priests? Deacons?  Readers?

[GOCPriestMark]

This thread should be split into two or three threads and re-titled--one regarding the Mathewite issues and the other regarding the sainthood of Tsar Nicholas II and/or Father Seraphim Rose.

The problem is that we already have threads on most of the topics Incognito 1583 wanted to talk about, but he didn't seem to be able to stay focussed. So now he has his very own space to put forth whatever he wants with whoever would like to discuss his topics.

[Incognito1583]

I just believe that the criteria for sainhood in Orthodoxy is too low today. I have seen Orthodox esteem the rich and educated of the world, and despise the lowly and poor. Of course the word "despise" is my own subjective opinion. I said way back in 1995 that Orthodoxy was "for the rich." Some of the most arrogant people I have ever known in my life, have confessed Orthodox religion. But I have also seen the most devout and humble people in Orthodoxy.

When I think of a saint, I think of Saint Symeon the Stylite, Daniel the Stylite, Anthony the Great, and all the saints of the Philokalia.

I am not really concerned over the Matthewites. I can systematically shred all their argumentes one by one. But I feel this is a fruitless endeavor. I think they are good and sincere people. They're just wrong.

You don't have to take my opinions. I am just a sinful person expressinhg my own opinions. Always follow the Church. She is guided by the Holy Spirit.

[Constantine]

I can systematically shred all their argumentes one by one

You havn't adressed any of my posts or points, let alone shred them. If you wish to discuss the Mathewites in a civil manner I would love too, but you seem to believe that all the bishops in 1935 were schismatic, is that correct?

.

[Constantine]

His Spiritual Father said "No." He went anyway without the blessing of his Father which is automatically enough to make the above premise true.

I have never heard this one before....Gregory of Colorado is hard at work in the imagination factory.

After his death during the exhumation there was controversy over his remains. One witness described them as "Unholy."

Really, I have heard that his relics have performed various mircales, ask Vladimir Moss the Florinite.

The spiritual authority of vicar-bishop Matthew was dependent on Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina, in whom he was publically and privately disobedient to.

The spiritual authority of a ruling bishop was dependant on a RETIRED bishop that had no dioceses? Also at the time of his death why did met chrysostomos direct his flock to go under the omophorion of the matthewite bishops? If met chrysostomos believed the matthewites were void of grace and schismatic, he would be sending his flock to spiritual suicide, but met chrysostomos deep down knew that he was the schismatic and the matthewites were canonical.

God would have provided TWO Bishops IF v.b. Matthew was a slave of God

.

There are times in history where there was not 1 Bishop, ie St Maximus's time. Again I ask you, besides Bishop Matthew in 1948, name me just ONE other bishop that believed the apostolic succesion of the GOC should continue or was available to assist?

[Pravoslavnik]

Incognito writes: "I just believe that the criteria for sainhood in Orthodoxy is too low today. I have seen Orthodox esteem the rich and educated of the world, and despise the lowly and poor."

Incognito,

Code: Select all

    Consider the Orthodox saints of North America-- Saints Herman, Innocent, Juvenaly, Peter the Aleut, Tihkon, John of San Francisco.  They were all poorer than proverbial church mice, although St. Innocent was able to build rather remarkable buildings, furniture, clocks, etc. with his own hands, something he learned while growing up in extreme poverty in Siberia as a youth.   St. John of Kronstadt was so poor that he walked barefoot to school in Archangelsk so that he would not ruin his only pair of shoes.   Father Seraphim Rose, I am told, lived in fairly extreme poverty at Platina, after growing up in a non-descript, middle class home in southern California.  (I think his father owned a gas station.)  One would hardly consider such men to be wealthy or elitist, except of course in matters of the spirit and intellect.

     As for the Royal Martyrs, they are among the best known among many thousands in the ranks of those martyred by the Bolsheviks in Russia.  Their wealth--like that of righteous saints such as the Patriarch Abraham, King David,  Job, St. Vladimir, or the King Stefan Nemanja (St. Simeon) -- was not used for evil, but for Godliness.  Tsar Nicholas II, for example, was a very generous patron and protector of the Orthodox Church, and would personally greet and embrace every Orthodox priest in any community that he ever visited on affairs of state.