GOC

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

George,

There are different opinions in the GOC, some more informed than others in my opinion.

What is officially held by everyone in the GOC is that the ecumenists are not the Church (meaning "world orthodoxy"). We also recognize several groups as schismatic - such as the Lamians.

According to the Archbishop, we are completley nuetral with regard to what is happening with the Russians; opinions vary with regard to the exact status of the ROCOR, but mostly the opinion is quite bleak. I know priests and bishops who are very positive towards ROAC and ROCiE. We have been talking about a union with the "Matthewites" under Archbishop Nicholas for the past year or so.

Ultimatley, and I think to answer your question, I have never heard anyone forward a "last remnant idea" and I believe we recgognize the same thing could be happening now as it did to even saints of the Church: that there can at times be divisions between groups and in time this might be healed. It would be a great thing if there was more unity among right-believing bishops. Of course officially the bishops maintain clear boundaries.

[John Haluska]

Regarding the "new calendar" only:

Can anyone please accurately and precisely explain,

Exactly why was the "new calendar" "introduced?

and

What, in fact, was the Orthodox "basis" behind the "new calendar's" "introduction"?

and

Has the "new calendar's" "introduction" somehow furthered "unity" among ALL Orthodox Christians"?

John

[John Haluska]

Regarding my last post, I have re-read the following and wish to ask forgiveness from ALL for my last post.

It was sent in anger and pride.

" There are such things as saintly pride and wicked humility.

For that pride is justified which is arrogant towards this world, holds it in contempt, and refrains from enjoying all its great, sweet, and beautiful possessions, because of absorption with heavenly things and subjection to God's commands.

And on the other side, that humility is condemned which is complaisant
to men not from faith but from mental cowardice, which cares more
for popularity with men than for salvation.

It is the servant of lies, the enemy of truth, a stranger to freedom, a subject of injustice, it mixes water with wine, weakening the wine of truth with the water of flattery.

I think it is humility of this kind which is specifically attacked and
condemned by these words of Scripture:

"Woe to you that call evil good, that proclaim the sweet for them who
are bitter, and righteousness for the wicked" (Ps. 87:6).
---The Letters of St. Paulinus of Nola, V. I "

John

[George Australia]

Exactly why was the "new calendar" "introduced?

Dear in Christ John,
Misguided enthusiasm.

What, in fact, was the Orthodox "basis" behind the "new calendar's" "introduction"?

The Church is the sole interpretor of Holy Tradition. The Synod which changed the Calender believed it had the authority to (and I think it probably did, I'm not sure an Ecumenical Coiuncil was required.)

Has the "new calendar's" "introduction" somehow furthered "unity" among ALL Orthodox Christians"?

Nope. And the EP's own actions show this. I know of at least one Church on the greek Island of Kalymnos under the EP's juristiction which is permitted to follow the Julian Calendar in order to prevent people from leaving to join the Old Calendar Churches not in communion with the EP.

George

[Anastasios]

Who recognizes the GOC (Chrysostomos II)? The Jerusalem Patriarchate for one, although they are not in communion. The ROCOR for another, as they are in communion but do not concelbrate. When GOC bishops go to Jerusalem they are received AS BISHOPS OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCH. Jerusalem Patriarchate clerics have been known to visit GOC Churches (Such as the Cyprian group) and Patriarch Diodoros praised Met Cyprian publicly (his speech is available on orthodoxinfo.com).

Of course, the GOC (Chrysostomos II) being an Orthodox Church it doesn't really need to be "recognized" by anyone else. It already IS what it is by virtue of it being Orthodox in faith and having apostolic succession, and not being schismatic from a higher authority.

I don't, however, accept the GOC "Matthewites" as having the same status or relations (to our "Matthewite" poster, I don't mean any personal offense and I respect the Matthewite priests that I have conversed with as highly spiritual).

Anastasios

[1937 Miraculous Cross]

Dear George,

I think your comparison of the canons regarding the use of a spoon for Communion is not quite applicable to the situation about the Calendar innovation. Yes, we can find in the Rudder, canons that are being broken by todays practice. Mostly, these are things that are "administrative" in nature, and not touching on dogmatic matters like John alluded to. The Calendar problem reflects something greater in scope. This is why in my earlier responses to you I used the phrase "Holy Tradition" and "phronema" of the Church.

It has always been the phronema of the Church to be of one mind, one practice in regards to the celebrations of the feasts, hence the canons on the determination of Pascha. Is it the mindset of the Church that because only Pascha's dating was made into a canon, that any local church should arbitarily switch around the fixed feasts? No. When the Fathers of the 3 Pan Orthodox Councils of the 1500's anathematized the Gregorain Paschalian "AND" Menologian, were they intending that it is OK to change the menologian (fixed feasts)? I think not...as it is not the phronema of the Church. [This is kind of like saying: "taking marijuana AND heroin is bad" and interpeting this as meaning they are only bad if you take them together, but taking heroin by itself is OK.]
I don't read Greek and perhaps I'm wrong on this, but it seems to me that the intent of the 3 Pan Orthodox councils by saying the "Paschalian AND Menologian," was to mean that changing to ANY aspect of the Gregorian calendar was to step outside the Church. The Coucil drew a line in the sand so-to-speak.

What you are suggesting is the very splitting of hairs that the Calendar innovators have intellectually used to justify their unilateral and ecumenical move.

To top this off, all canons aside, you still have the fact that there are several local Churchs/Patriarchates that condemned the New Calendar in the 20th century before the official adoption by the State Church of Greece:
- 1902 EP patriarch and synod condemns it
- 1903 Jerusalem Patriarch and synod condemns it
- 1903 Church of Russua condemns it
- 1903 Church of Romania condemns it
- 1903 Chruch of Greece "" '' ''
- 1904 EP again condemns it
- 1919 Church of Greece again condemns it
- 1923 future Abp. Chrys. Papadopoulos writes changing to the
new calander would make them "schismatic" .
- 1924 Patriarchs of Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria (& synod),
and Abp. of Cyprus condemn it.

Are they condemning the use of the whole Gregorian calendar, or are they condemning the change to even the Menologian alone? Isn't it obvious?

You are correct to point out that we should not judge others, but this is not such a matter. It is not for me to judge you or anyone, but the bishops and laity are right to point out a deviation from the Holy Traditions that have been already condemned in synod or Pan Orthodox councils...in part or in whole. ( Paschalian and Menologion)

in Christ,
Nectarios

[George Australia]

Edited by me: Double-entry...sorry