Moderator: Mark Templet
Michael,
It is helful to know (and I'm am not saying I do) the situation with regard to Bishop Teofil Ionescu.
I have been told he was being persecuted by the Communists in Romania and fled to join the ROCOR. Since his parishes were new-calendar, a measure of economy had to be used in order to bring each parish back over time. The important thing is that they were not engaged in what caused the new-calendar, ecumenism.
With each stray sheep, the church has different medicines.
OOD,
I have been told he was being persecuted by the Communists in Romania and fled to join the ROCOR. Since his parishes were new-calendar, a measure of economy had to be used in order to bring each parish back over time. The important thing is that they were not engaged in what caused the new-calendar, ecumenism.
I think it's very important that you pointed this out.
Too often a mistake is made by many outside of the Greek Old-Calendarist milieu (even by those sympathetic to it) regarding just what the position of most of the Old Calendarists actually was, historically. Too often, people confuse the ideology of the Matthewites (who were, as far as I'm concerned, a relatively early schism from the GOC, named after their leader, Bp. Matthew) with that of the entire GOC of Greece.
Up until "lifting of the anathemas" against the Papists by Athenagoras of Constantinople in 1965, there was no hard view of the New Calendarists as being graceless heretics. While there certainly was heresy in the State Church of Greece (and it was this which had motivated the original calendar change, as clearly outlined in the Patriarchal Synodical of Constantinople), the separation of the most of the Old Calendarists was self understood as a measure to protect themselves from an anti-canonical change whose import was to serve the heresy of ecumenism. Unfortunately, this prudent foresight came to fruition later, with Athenagoras' act, the eschalation of the ecumenical movement in various places, and the refusal of those in the "official Orthodox churches" to protest Athenagoras' blasphemy - rather, they staid silent, continued communion with him (clearly a heretic), or even outright supported such thoughts with treaties and concelabratory acts of their own.
The ROCOR and the Greek Old Calendarists ended up on pretty much the "same boat" because of the events of 1965 - it was at this time that the ROCOR (despite revisions to it's own history in the 90's through today) also ceased relations with so called "world Orthodoxy".
In short, it took decades for the evils of the revolution in Russia, and the ecumenical movement to take hold, subvert, and ruin much of the visible "Orthodox" world and their heirarchies.
This is different than the Matthewite position, which as far as I know, holds that the State Church of Greece was graceless from the moment it adopted the new calendar. It was because of such a rigid understanding that they separated themselves from the other Old Calendarists very early on.
Seraphim
Seraphim,
From the Matthewite stand point:
Bishop Matthew broke communion with Mets. Chrysostomos and Germanos over two related issues. Met. Chrysostomos was quote in a periodical saying that he could not say the State Church was without Grace. And, I'm assuming, because of that told one of the other bishops that those coming over from the New Calender Schism should not be 're'-Chrismated. Bishop Matthew thought this went against the 1935 Confession and eventually broke communion with the Mets.
Again, this is just the Matthewite standpoint. OOD can put forth the GOC standpoint on the Mattewites, he knows it far better than I do.
I want to reiterate OOD's point that the medicine is different for each case. That the Romanian bishop was on the new calender does not bother me so long is was only a matter of praxis, and I'm sure he might have been weened off of it had he not fallen in to his future errors. On that, just because he fell into error later on, does not effect the concecration of the GOC bishops. I'm sure they wouldn't even allow him to do it if his confession at the time was faulty.
first i will say i do not have a "thing" against greek old calendarists; however, i do find their various and continuing permutations extremely confusing, which, i have found, is not an exceptional point of view. i think it is rather ironic, given some of the quite rigid and uncompromising opinions of some greek old calendarists, that their current episcopate results from the consecration of a bishop in which one of the co-consecrators was a new calendarist hierarch. situations such as this, to my way of thinking, only serve to make us humble and perhaps, hopefully, soften intransigent positions and attitudes marked mainly by irascibility in face of any and all criticism, or worse yet, "assumed" criticism. i am exceedingly suspicious of the motives of those who, for whatever reason, cannot accept even the right of anyone to criticize or make observations on seemingly germane topics and related events-especially if those topics and events do not "fit into" a warm and cozy little box prepared primarily for the sake of comfort. if i mentioned bishop teofil once too often in that context, i ask forgiveness. i also will point out that on a forum such as this, that includes many people with very strong opinions-myself included-i am rather amazed at "touchiness" about this or that issue or statement. it might also be mentioned that the Romanian Orthodox Church was one of the first, if not the first, after Constantinople, to adopt the new calendar; i had a publication from the Patriarchate in Romania some years ago (in english), which included an article boasting proudly (no exaggeration, i promise!) that the Romanian Church was one of the first to be involved in ecumenism, beginning as early as 1925, and consequently was very glad to be among the "vanguard of ecumenism." so, the new calendar was adopted by the Romanians for the very same reasons it was adopted by Constantinople et al. while both Metroplitan Vissarion and Bishop Teofil may not have been ecumenists (bp teofil's later -uh- adventures seem to be better characterized by some sort of confusion rather than the adoption of a particular philosophy...), their adherence to the new calendar was no different, i would think, than the adherence to the new calendar by any other bishop some twenty to twenty five years after the adoption. if the church abroad allowed them to continue on the new calendar for "pastoral reasons," then all that can be said, is-that they allowed it- as i am not here to judge the church abroad for allowing that, just as i do not judge the greek old calendar episcopate as being invalid or somehow lacking because a new calendar bishop co-consecrated a bishop for them. however, it seems that what i recall reading about the beginning of the greek old calendar movement is that it was the calendar change-period-that sparked that movement. i must also say that i was not implying in any way whatsoever that any subsequent actions taken by bp teofil had anything at all to do with his co-consecration of the bishop for the greek old calendarists, or that those actions had any significance for the greek old calendarists. i also simply do not understand how that implication could possibly be assumed; merely imparting some information. to impart some more information on this seemingly little known episode in the history [an aside: seraphim stated, "despite revisions to it's own history in the 90's through today," referring to the church abroad-a good point, and this is one reason i am an eager student of the history of the church abroad, and feel that the study of the history of the various Churches those belong to on this forum is important for them for just that fact-so we know revision and "non-history" when we see it, and are not dependent on the "latest" versions that may have been "corrected" for the benefit of this or that party line. and please-dont anybody come up with "my church would never do that how dare you!" i might also point out that instead of the previous observation, i could have asked seraphim his "motives" for that statement, and go on to ask if "non p.c." statements about the greek old calendarists are not acceptable here, why is the church abroad somehow "fair game"....but, i didn't :-)] of the church abroad, which marginally involved the greek old calendarists, the biography of bishop teofil and the story of his diocese follows:
Archbishop Teofil (Ionescu) was born in Boboc, in the Buzau district of Romania on October fourteen, eighteen ninety-four. He entered a monastery at age fourteen; entered the Tismana Monastery in 1915, and was ordained hierodeacon that same year. Appointed proto-psalte ("proto-reader") of the Metropolitan Cathedral in Bucharest in 1918, and ordained to the priesthod in 1921. Appointed superior of the Patriarchal Chanting School, and assistant priest at the Patriarchal Cathedral. In 1925 he founded the Patriarch Miron Missionary Association (named after the first Romanian Patriarch) and a religious journal, "The Good Word." He also founded a home for the elderly and a canteen for the poor. In 1928 he completed the Nifon Metropolitul Seminary, and went on to receive his master's degree in Paris, for his dissertation, "The Life and Work of Metropolitan Petru Movila." In nineteen thiry-eight, Patriarch Miron appointed him as rector of the Romanian Holy Archangels Parish in Paris; in nineteen forty-two, he was elevated to mitred archimandrite, a rare distinction in the Romanian Church. In nineteen forty five, the communist hold on the church authorities in Romania forced them to remove Archimandrite Teofil from his position at the parish in Paris. He went to the US, and became priest at the Saint Symeon Romanian Church in Detroit, and was elected president of the Dioesan Council (the Bishop for the Romanians in America at that time, Polycarp [Morusca], had returned to Romania after the war and was not allowed to return to the US).
Metropolitan Vissarion (Puiu, +nineteen sixty-four) of the Romanian Patriarchate, was sentenced to death by the communists but fled to western Europe before he was arrested. The Holy Archangels Parish in Paris became a center for Romanian refugees, and it was there, in nineteen forty-nine that Metropolitan Vissarion established the Romanian Orthodox Diocese for Western Europe. The efforts of the communist regime to take over the Holy Archangels parish in Paris obliged the faithful to break canonical relations with the Romanian Patriarchate, and to join, out of necessity, the Russian Church Abroad. The Diocese followed the new calendar, as had the Romanian Church soon after its adoption by Constantinople; this was allowed to continue by the Church Abroad. [somewhat later this was seen as an embarrassment by many, and i do not believe the romanian new calendar parishes were listed in later synodal directories]
In nineteen fifty-four, the aged Metropolitan Vissarion chose Archimandrite Teofil as his successor, and he was consecrated to the episcopate by Metropolitan Vissarion, Archbishop John (Maximovitch, Saint John of Shanghai and S.F.) of Brussels and Western Europe, and Bishop Nafanael (Lvov, +nineteen seventy-six) of Carthage and Tunis. Metropolitan Vissarion then retired. The consecration took place in the Saint Nicholas Church in Versailles on December twenty-six, nineteen fifty-four. Bishop Teofil was given the title "of Sevres." His Diocese included the parishes in Western Europe and a few in the US and Canada. Bishop Teofil assisted Archbishop Seraphim (Ivanov, +1987) consecrate a bishop for the Greek Old Calendar Church, Bishop Akakios (Pappas) in nineteen sixty. He also assisted Archbishop (Saint) John in nineteen sixty-four to consecrate a bishop for the French Orthodox Church (western rite), Bishop John (Kovalevsky, +1972) of Saint Denis. "Metropolitan" Pangratios (Vrionis, of ill repute, now "up the river," i believe) claims Bishop Teofil was one of his co-consecrators in 1970; however, there were no witnesses to this "event" other than Pangratios and those he claimed consecrated him. Conveniently, they were all deceased when Pangratios revealed their names. During the conference of the academic society Daco-Romania, on December sixth, 1970, Bishop Teofil commemorated Pope Paul VI and the Romanian Uniate Bishop Basile Cristea, who attended the Liturgy, during the Great Entrance. He also commemorated among the reposed the deceased Romanian Uniate Bishop Jules Hossu of Cluj-Gherla. When Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky, +1985) demanded an explanation, Bishop Teofil attempted to justify his actions by claiming that he had done it "in the name of ecumenism and as part of the fight against the Patriarchs of Moscow and Bucharest, who have appropriated the point of view of the regime and are without faith and are even criminals, in that they have perpetuated the assassinations and the persecutions against the Greek Catholic [Uniate] Church of Romania, under the false pretext of aiding their integration into the Orthodox Church." Having been reproved by the Synod of the Church Abroad [it might be explained here that the Romanian Diocese of the Church Abroad, as well as the Bulgarian Diocese under Bishop Kyrill (Yonchev, now of the OCA), and the American Orthodox Mission under Archbishop James (Toombs, +1970) were all granted a wide ranging autonomy], Bishop Teofil "evolved in a manner more and more contradictory." Which led him to the point where, on January 17, 1972, he petitioned Patriarch Justinian of Bucharest (whom he had condemned as without faith and a criminal a year and a half before) to be recieved into the Romanian Patriarchate. The Romanian Patriarchate accepted him on March 10, 1972; on April twenty-third, 1972, Bishop Teofil signed a pastoral letter in which he reaffirmed his faithfulness to the Russian Church Abroad. On May 8th, 1972, he went to the Uniate Monastery at Chevetogne, France, to greet the visiting Patriarch Justinian, and on the following day, wrote to his diocese that he was, "henceforth, after years and years of going astray, once again in the bosom of the Mother Church." The Council at his Cathedral notified Bishop Teofil they "no longer depended on him," and on May 21, 1972, Metropolitan Philaret came from New York to celebrate the Liturgy and to announce that he had "received the Diocese and all its parishes under his direct authority." The Synod of the Church Abroad deposed Bishop Teofil and reduced him to the monastic state for participating in the consecration of a deposed priest, Gilles-Germain Hardy [for the French Orthodox Church, I believe..]
In December, nineteen seventy-four, the Romanian Patriarchate elevated Bishop Teofil to Archbishop. Totally cut off from the Romanian emigre community in Paris, Teofil spoke to one of his former priests, admitting he had committed a grave error in leaving the Chruch Abroad, and further, said that he had become a hostage of the Securitate, the Romanian equivalent of the KGB. He died on May 9, 1975, and was buried, due to the efforts of Archpriest Michel Constandache, in the Parisian Cemetery of Montparnasse, next to the grave of Metropolitan Vissarion.
An epilogue-it seems the Romanian parishes of the Annunciation in Montreal and Holy Archangels in Paris left the Church Abroad in 1988, and were recieved by Archbishop Nathanael of the OCA Romanian Diocese in 2000.
michael woerl
besse, jean-paul
L eglise orthodoxe roumaine de Paris
Paris, nineteen ninety-four
thanks to br serge nedelsky for english translation
Fr Anthimos Bichir
"archbishop teofil ionescu"
no date
"correspondent"
"Montreal: Good News Indeed"
"Solia"
no date on article but describes events of September 2001
whatever you think its more than that, more than that...
