A Lecture by Fr. Seraphim Rose

Constantine · Post by **Constantine** » Sat 2 August 2008 1:06 pm

Dear Incognito, can you please show me how Bishop Matthew or the "Matthewites" were schismatic?

They will follow him blindly, no matter how un-canonical and schismatic he might be

.

The reason anyone followed Bishop Matthew, was his confession of faith, it never changed it remained the same as the GOC 1935 confession of faith, that is why people "followed" him, he remained loyal to the GOC, when all others bishops betrayed the GOC.

and not for the truth and unity of the Church.

The truth at that time was that the GOC in 1935 declared the new calendarists schismatic and heretical. As far as unity, unity must be based on truth/confession of faith, please tell me besides Bishop Matthew, which bishop in their time believed, new calendarists were void of grace, and that the apostolic succesion of the GOC should continue. The answer is no one, so how could Bishop Matthew have unity with the chrysostomos of florina when chrysostomos teachings were not the truth. The Fathers said 'a unity based on lies, is a false unity, and from the evil one.'

Constantine[/code]

Incognito1583 · Post by **Incognito1583** » Sat 2 August 2008 4:13 pm

I've already showen [with a link] why Matthew was a un-canonical schismatic. He did not have the right to violate the canons of the Church for what he thought was a just cause.

And I still fail to understand why all those bishops even believed the new calendarists were without grace at that time. The old calendar was never a dogma of the faith. The Church is not built on a calendar. The Church is built on real dogmas. Christ did not establish such a flimsy institution. God would never deprive his faithful sheep of deifying grace [the Eucharist] because of a calendar. I believe those bishops were fanatics and hateful men.

Today the situation is different because of ecumenism.

P.S. I recently learned the lecture of Fr. Seraphim has been removed due to a copyright issue.

Constantine · Post by **Constantine** » Sat 2 August 2008 4:31 pm

I believe those bishops were fanatics and hateful men.
Today the situation is different because of ecumenism

The pre-cursor to the calendar change was the encyclycal which was the charter of ecumenism issued in 1920 by the EP, "To all the churches of Christ". The calendar change was the physical transformation of the ecclesiastical calendar, which was established by a Ecumenical council btw, for the purpose of fulfilling the 1920 Encyclical, for the purpose of concelebration with heretics, for the purpose of ecumenism. Ecumensim was just as much a heresy and alive in 1920 as it was now, so I am afraid your comment:

Today the situation is different because of ecumenism

. is incorrect based on historical fact.

As far as your feelings towards the hierarchy of the Orthodox church in the 1930's, I do not see how you can say that, could you please elaborate.

I've already showen [with a link] why Matthew was a un-canonical schismatic. He did not have the right to violate the canons of the Church for what he thought was a just cause

If you could re-post that so I could see it, I would love to discuss this topic with you. You yourself said "truth and unity in the church" you cannot sacrifice one for the other, I believe you missed my question, or perhaps I did not word it properly, either way my apologies, but if you dont mind please answer my question, besides Bishop Matthew, which bishop in their time believed, new calendarists were void of grace, and that the apostolic succesion of the GOC should continue?

Constantine

joasia · Post by **joasia** » Sat 2 August 2008 8:57 pm

Incognito wrote:

...not necessarily the God-ordained authorities.

Who do you believe are the “God-ordained authorities”? Can you provide names of hierarchs, not general descriptions of Orthodox values? Who do you see as upholding the Orthodox truth?

jckstraw72 · Post by **jckstraw72** » Sun 3 August 2008 12:15 am

Fr. Seraphim's position on the MP was that it was not up to him to decide. Also, St. John allowed his parishioners to commune at MP Churches.

Incognito1583 · Post by **Incognito1583** » Sun 3 August 2008 12:23 am

jckstraw72 wrote:
Fr. Seraphim's position on the MP was that it was not up to him to decide. Also, St. John allowed his parishioners to commune at MP Churches.

wow, do you have any sources for this about Saint John? Or is it based on rumor? Thank you.

nyc_xenia · Post by **nyc_xenia** » Sun 3 August 2008 5:23 am

Incognito1583 wrote:
People who are in schism, don't believe they are in schism. Some of them care for numbers and worldly recognition, and not for the truth and unity of the Church.

What a true statement, it is a sad thing that the new calenderists don't see how they have broken away from the rest due to a papal calendar...

Nevertheless, you know, all of that "World Orthodox" recognition has to be worth something.