ROCOR -- ecumenist from the beginning; Arch. Auxentios & St. Matthew

[Maria]

I have decided to split the later pages of this topic as the original thread did not engage in Intra-TOC Polemics.

Unless I am mistaken, d9popov started this polemical mess in the public forum, so this serves as an informal warning to d9popov to cease and desist from posting polemical matters in the public forum. One more offense and you will be issued a board warning.

In the Risen Christ,
Maria
Administrator

[jdigrande]

I read the views of Met. Antony Krapovitsky and want to respond to two basic things he said:

I agree with him that there are those within the Orthodox Church who have the education and discernment to dialogue with the non Orthodox in a respectful manner. St. Justin did such a thing with a Jewish scholar in the 1st or early 2nd century and this dialogue has been preserved. Many other Orthodox saints have written tracts against heresies from the fight against the Gnostics and Pagans through today.

I disagree with his statement that the heretics are Christians because they believe that Christ was God. The demons believe that Christ was/is God too and they tremble. The demons also do not belong to the Church and are not Christians.

The word believe means to live and not just to think or feel something. Anglicans are not Christians. They do not believe or live by the truths imbedded in the Councils of 879/1285/1341/1351/1583/1672/1935/1983. There is this false notion that we want to go back to the first 7 Councils and the first thousand years of the Church as if the 2nd thousand years mean nothing. Actually the 2nd thousand years of the Church is as important as the first thousand years.

Met. Antony sincerely believed that the Anglicans were Christians and thus it was easy for him to encourage the Anglican seminarians to go out and baptize the world in the name of the Anglican Father, Son and Holy Spirit at Nicea in 1925.

I think there was also a cold calculation behind this exhortation for the Anglicans and his presence there: The whole Mideast was controlled by either the British or the Turks. The Turks had just slaughtered millions of Armenians and Greeks. The English had control of the Holy Land and Egypt. The Turks let Met. Antony into Turkey for this conference. The Turks installed his Masonic friend Joachim III to be Pat. of Constantinople as well as Meletius Metaxis.

The number one priority of Met. Antony was to preserve ROCOR control of the Holy Places (Mount of Olives, Hebron, Jericho, Old City). the holy relics of St. Elizabeth the Grand Duchess had just been buried in Gethsemane. Attending the meeting in Nicea was a great opportunity for Met. Antony to ingratiate himself with the British who ruled the Holy Land.

ROCOR had lost all of its holy places in Russia to the Soviets. ROCOR was dispersed and discouraged. Losing the Holy Places would have been a great psychological loss for the emigres in his mind.

At all costs the Holy Places had to be maintained by ROCOR and Met. Vitaly had the same policy at the end of the 20th century.

Met. Vitaly discarded the Anathema of 1983 to do just that in the late 80's and 90's of the 20th century. It was a huge sin in both instances. God allowed the autocracies and major Patriarchates to be destroyed for the sins they committed and so God allowed all the holy places in Palestine to be given to the Soviets for the discarding of the truth of Orthodoxy and 1983 both in 1925 and at the end of the century.

And like Maria has said elsewhere: the Anathema of 1983 should have been proclaimed instead of the Sorrowful Epistles(a mere warning to still valid Hierarchs in the eyes of ROCOR) of St. Philaret- 15-20 years earlier than 1983 and that would have made a huge difference today in the TOC's. It should have been proclaimed during the reign of the Mason Athenagoras and the KGB in Moscow. If 80% of ROCOR did not like it: excommunicate them or join the Greek/Romanian TOC's and let God deal with the Holy Land and its Patriarchate. Let the chips fall and call a spade a spade.

[d9popov]

BEING CHARITABLE TO THE TRUE ORTHODOX MAINSTREAM,
WITHOUT CENSORSHIP

It is good to be charitable towards our fathers in the faith, including recent saints who stood up boldly against heresy, even if they made some mistakes.
Saint Tikhon (Belavin) of Moscow hoped that the Old Catholics and Anglicans, or some of them, would join the one Church of Christ, the Orthodox Church. If he committed errors in his contacts with them, we should avoid repeating the errors, but also avoid exaggerating the errors or judging him too harshly. As patriarch of Moscow he resisted the Communists and the Communist-sponsored Living Church movement. He ended up going against the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s pressure to convert to the new calendar. He anathematized those who persecuted the Church. He presided over a resolution of the name-glorification controversy and brought peace to the Church on the name-of-God issue for the last five years of his life (1920–1925). In this, he fulfilled the wishes of the Tsar Martyr and, especially, of Saint Elizabeth the Grand Duchess, who worked greatly on the issue of reconciliation. Saint Tikhon certainly made mistakes, although scholars believe that some documents that were issued in his name were forged or improperly altered, so he should not be blamed for everything issued in his name. He confessed Christ and defended the Orthodox Christian Church in the face of Communist persecution, and he suffered greatly for Christ and His true Church.
Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) worked hard to cleanse Russian academic theology of Roman Catholic and Protestant influences. He made mistakes on the Orthodox teaching on the Godhood of the divine energies and, possibly, on the doctrine of redemption. He fought Communist pressures on the Church and he led the Russian bishops who were forced out of Russia due to Communist revolution and violence. (I have seen no real evidence that he understood the full agenda of Patriarchs Joachim and Meletios, so he cannot be blamed for what they did.) He stated boldly that non-Orthodox were outside of Christ’s Church and did not have efficacious sacraments. Many true Orthodox bishops today commemorate Metropolitan Anthony at every liturgy, despite his errors.
Saint Chrysostom (Kavourides), the former Metropolitan of Florina, suffered harassment for 20 years for his efforts to get all Orthodox to keep or return to the canonical calendar. Scholars estimate that 90 percent of the Genuine Orthodox Christians in Greece supported Saint Chrysostom of Florina. His life has been well documented; his writings are available. This documentation shows that several propaganda points that are claimed against him, by both some new calendarists and by a few old calendarists, are factually incorrect or negative “spin.” Several followers of Bishop Mathew (Karpathakes) of Vresthena were sincerely troubled in their consciences over Bishop Mathew’s consecration (by himself) of Bishop Spyridon, and these men of conscience went under Saint Chrysostom, as did some others after Bishop Matthew’s repose and after Saint Chrysostom’s reaffirmation of a stricter statement on ecclesiology. Saint Chrysostom is honored by ninety percent of true Orthodox Christians worldwide, despite any mistakes he may have made.
Saint Nikolaj (Velimirović) of Žiča had numerous contacts among the non-Orthodox, but supported the old calendarists in Greece from the beginning and he actively supported the idea of an old calendarist synod of bishops in Greece (something Bishop Matthew of Vresthena also supported). But Saint Nikolaj supported the 90 percent under Saint Chrysostom. Saint Nikolaj's spiritual writings and compilations are of spiritual benefit to Christians throughout the world. He denounced Masonry and western secularism and rationalism. The true Orthodox in Serbia and Bosnia-Herzegovina venerate him liturgically as a saint.
Saint Justin (Popović) of Ćelije remained in the Serbian Patriarchate until his repose in 1979, four years before the 1983 anathema. He defended churches (such as the Free Serbs, the Russian American Metropolia, and ROCOR) that had been denounced by ecumenist “Orthodox” and that were separate from "world Orthodoxy." Saint Justin’s 12-volume Lives of the Saints, his 3-volume Dogmatics of the Orthodox Church: Orthodox Philosophy of Truth, and his book The Orthodox Church and Ecumenism, are widely praised. His letter against common prayers with the heterodox is possibly the best such letter, ever. He ceased to commemorate Patriarch German because of the patriarch’s ecumenism. Before he reposed, he received Holy Unction from a ROCOR clergyman. Saint Justin was undeniably one of the strongest Orthodox writers against ecumenism, bar none. He is honored by many traditional Orthodox, despite any errors he may have made.
Saint Philaret (Voznesensky) the New Confessor, Metropolitan of New York, wrote to the entire Orthodox world defending traditional Orthodox doctrine and denouncing ecumenist deviations from Orthodoxy. In 1983 he got the entire ROCOR Council of Bishops to issue the Anathema Against Ecumenism. He sheltered Greeks, Romanians, Bulgarians, and many converts. He reached out to both Archbishop Auxentios of the Florinites and Archbishop Andreas of the Matthewites and worked for unity between them. He had a bishop consecrated for the catacomb Church in Russia. Both the ROAC and the RTOC are descended from that consecration blessed by Saint Philaret. He is highly venerated by traditional Orthodox Christians throughout the world.
Archbishop Auxentios of Athens is often slandered with no evidence to support the slander. Because there is such a gull between the slander and the reality, two synods passed resolutions exonerating Auxentios. A rival bishop came to his funeral and cried “We slandered you!” Witnesses reported a mild fragrance at the uncovering of his relics. To this day, though, some individuals repeat old attacks that have been shown not to be true. His confession of the Orthodox faith was pure and attacks on him are Donatist-like with a focus on alleged personal failings. Over time, others will also withdraw the slander and seek reconciliation in true Orthodoxy.
ROCOR was not ecumenist from the beginning. It taught one Church and one baptism, from the beginning. And when many churches started to oppose these Orthodox teachings, ROCOR anathematized those who taught the Branch Theory Heresy and the Heretical-But-Efficacious Sacraments Heresy. ROCOR taught Orthodoxy at least until the repose of Saint Philaret.
Sometimes people say condemnatory things that go way beyond what their bishops say. For example, Metropolitan Anthony (Gavalas) was a loyal member of the Matthewite synod, but he did not denounce all other Orthodox outside his synod. For example, he never joined HOCNA, but was very, very friendly towards HOCNA and would never denounce HOCNA. In fact, you can call some of his relatives to verify this. For another example, the Avlona synod has never condemned the Makarios synod or HOCNA synod. I have personally seen written statements from two Avlona bishops that were positive towards other synods: one was positive towards the Makarios synod and one positive towards HOCNA’s balanced position on the name of God issue (HOCNA’s position is Saint Tikhon’s final position, 1920–1925). Metropolitan Athony Gavalas, as well as the Avlona synod, both factions of the ROAC (Theodore and Gregory), the Damaskin synod, and the Makarios synod have found no heresy in HOCNA's adherence to the reconciliation advocated by Saint Elizabeth the Grand Duchess, approved by the Tsar Martyr, and accomplished by Saint Tikhon in 1920-1925. The final position of the Orthodox Church on the name-glorification depute of 1912-1919, was issued in 1921 by Saint Tikhon and implemented until his repose in 1925. It has been accepted by the entire Orthodox Church worldwide!
So, when we think about what is good polemics versus what is bad polemics, maybe we should consult our own bishops. Then maybe we would not try to censor views that are perfectly Orthodox, or, at a minimum, deserve to be debated without censorship, so that everyone can see for himself what is Orthodox and what is not. Personally, I defend the true Orthodox middle that accepts Saint Elizabeth the Grand Duchess’s and Saint Tikhon’s resolution of the name-glorification controversy (which, I have read, Avlona accepts) and the 90 percent of true Orthodox worldwide who honor Saint Philaret and Saint Chrysostom of Florina. What could be more “mainstream traditional Orthodox” than that? What we should focus on, with charity, is why 90 percent of traditional Orthodox worldwide adhere to this “mainstream traditional Orthodoxy” represented by Saint Tikhon, Saint Philaret, and Saint Chrysostom of Florina.

[Barbara]

How DID Rocor wrest control of the Holy Land properties back from the Soviets ?? Was Met Anthony's effort to cultivate contacts with the English who ruled the area called at the time the British Mandate successful, then ?

That is brilliant. This is the ONLY cogent explanation which has been advanced for the 1st Hierarch of Rocor's bizarre and annoying statement, heartily encouraging Anglicans in their missionary work. Of course, these logically would form competition for Rocor in various countries, so this was obviously a diplomatic sally more than anything else, as JDiGrande has discerned.
We have to recall that the Anglicans despised Catholics and persecuted them outrageously ; so why would Anglicans have any warmth toward Russian Orthodox ? I guess this was what's called a charm offensive by Met Anthony.

And I didn't completely understand the last paragraph of JdiGrande above. If Metropolitan Philaret's Synod had proclaimed the Anathema of 1983 15 years earlier, how would that have helped the TOC's ?

Then, why would such a high figure as 80 % of Rocor have left as a result ? Would not the flock have accepted whatever their Hierarchs promulgated ? Why would this have been SO controversial ?

From an earlier post regarding St John Maximovitch's acceptance of the Dutch and Romanian New Calendarists -- I was meaning to ask : does this signify that the Dutch [later Bp Adriaan and his group] were New Calendarists ? A lot, really a lot, was left out of their account of how they came under the Rocor Archbishop of Western Europe. One is left in a complete puzzle. Then why did the Dutch Orthodox promptly return to Moscow after St John was gone from the scene ? Officially the reason was that they were not accepted by the other Rocor hierarchs. But I wonder what ELSE was involved ?

And why would St John accept New Calendarist Romanians : what was the great Saint's reason ?

[Maria]

BEING CHARITABLE TO THE TRUE ORTHODOX MAINSTREAM,
WITHOUT CENSORSHIP

It is good to be charitable towards our fathers in the faith, including recent saints who stood up boldly against heresy, even if they made some mistakes.

Code: Select all

      Saint Tikhon (Belavin) of Moscow hoped that the Old Catholics and Anglicans, or some of them, would join the one Church of Christ, the Orthodox Church.  If he committed errors in his contacts with them, we should avoid repeating the errors, but also avoid exaggerating the errors or judging him too harshly. As patriarch of Moscow he resisted the Communists and the Communist-sponsored Living Church movement. He ended up going against the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s pressure to convert to the new calendar. He anathematized those who persecuted the Church. He presided over a resolution of the name-glorification controversy and brought peace to the Church on the name-of-God issue for the last five years of his life (1920–1925). In this, he fulfilled the wishes of the Tsar Martyr and, especially, of Saint Elizabeth the Grand Duchess, who worked greatly on the issue of reconciliation. Saint Tikhon certainly made mistakes, although scholars believe that some documents that were issued in his name were forged or improperly altered, so he should not be blamed for everything issued in his name. He confessed Christ and defended the Orthodox Christian Church in the face of Communist persecution, and he suffered greatly for Christ and His true Church. 

      Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) worked hard to cleanse Russian academic theology of Roman Catholic and Protestant influences. He made mistakes on the Orthodox teaching on the Godhood of the divine energies and, possibly, on the doctrine of redemption. He fought Communist pressures on the Church and he led the Russian bishops who were forced out of Russia due to Communist revolution and violence. (I have seen no real evidence that he understood the full agenda of Patriarchs Joachim and Meletios, so he cannot be blamed for what they did.) He stated boldly that non-Orthodox were outside of Christ’s Church and did not have efficacious sacraments. Many true Orthodox bishops today commemorate Metropolitan Anthony at every liturgy, despite his errors. 

      Saint Chrysostom (Kavourides), the former Metropolitan of Florina, suffered harassment for 20 years for his efforts to get all Orthodox to keep or return to the canonical calendar. Scholars estimate that 90 percent of the Genuine Orthodox Christians in Greece supported Saint Chrysostom of Florina. His life has been well documented; his writings are available. This documentation shows that several propaganda points that are claimed against him, by both some new calendarists and by a few old calendarists, are factually incorrect or negative “spin.” Several followers of Bishop Mathew (Karpathakes) of Vresthena were sincerely troubled in their consciences over Bishop Mathew’s consecration (by himself) of Bishop Spyridon, and these men of conscience went under Saint Chrysostom, as did some others after Bishop Matthew’s repose and after Saint Chrysostom’s reaffirmation of a stricter statement on ecclesiology. Saint Chrysostom is honored by ninety percent of true Orthodox Christians worldwide, despite any mistakes he may have made. 

      Saint Nikolaj (Velimirović) of Žiča had numerous contacts among the non-Orthodox, but supported the old calendarists in Greece from the beginning and he actively supported the idea of an old calendarist synod of bishops in Greece (something Bishop Matthew of Vresthena also supported). But Saint Nikolaj supported the 90 percent under Saint Chrysostom. Saint Nikolaj's spiritual writings and compilations are of spiritual benefit to Christians throughout the world. He denounced Masonry and western secularism and rationalism. The true Orthodox in Serbia and Bosnia-Herzegovina venerate him liturgically as a saint. 

        Saint Justin (Popović) of Ćelije remained in the Serbian Patriarchate until his repose in 1979, four years before the 1983 anathema. He defended churches (such as the Free Serbs, the Russian American Metropolia, and ROCOR) that had been denounced by ecumenist “Orthodox” and that were separate from "world Orthodoxy." Saint Justin’s 12-volume _Lives of the Saints_, his 3-volume _Dogmatics of the Orthodox Church: Orthodox Philosophy of Truth_, and his book _The Orthodox Church and Ecumenism_, are widely praised. His letter against common prayers with the heterodox is possibly the best such letter, ever. He ceased to commemorate Patriarch German because of the patriarch’s ecumenism. Before he reposed, he received Holy Unction from a ROCOR clergyman. Saint Justin was undeniably one of the strongest Orthodox writers against ecumenism, bar none. He is honored by many traditional Orthodox, despite any errors he may have made.

      Saint Philaret (Voznesensky) the New Confessor, Metropolitan of New York, wrote to the entire Orthodox world defending traditional Orthodox doctrine and denouncing ecumenist deviations from Orthodoxy. In 1983 he got the entire ROCOR Council of Bishops to issue the _Anathema Against Ecumenism._ He sheltered Greeks, Romanians, Bulgarians, and many converts. He reached out to both Archbishop Auxentios of the Florinites and Archbishop Andreas of the Matthewites and worked for unity between them. He had a bishop consecrated for the catacomb Church in Russia. Both the ROAC and the RTOC are descended from that consecration blessed by Saint Philaret. He is highly venerated by traditional Orthodox Christians throughout the world.

      Archbishop Auxentios of Athens is often slandered with no evidence to support the slander. Because there is such a gull between the slander and the reality, two synods passed resolutions exonerating Auxentios. A rival bishop came to his funeral and cried “We slandered you!” Witnesses reported a mild fragrance at the uncovering of his relics. To this day, though, some individuals repeat old attacks that have been shown not to be true. His confession of the Orthodox faith was pure and attacks on him are Donatist-like with a focus on alleged personal failings. Over time, others will also withdraw the slander and seek reconciliation in true Orthodoxy. 

      ROCOR was not ecumenist from the beginning. It taught one Church and one baptism, from the beginning. And when many churches started to oppose these Orthodox teachings, ROCOR anathematized those who taught the Branch Theory Heresy and the Heretical-But-Efficacious Sacraments Heresy. ROCOR taught Orthodoxy at least until the repose of Saint Philaret. 

      Sometimes people say condemnatory things that go way beyond what their bishops say. For example, Metropolitan Anthony (Gavalas) was a loyal member of the Matthewite synod, but he did not denounce all other Orthodox outside his synod. For example, he never joined HOCNA, but was very, very friendly towards HOCNA and would never denounce HOCNA. In fact, you can call some of his relatives to verify this. For another example, the Avlona synod has never condemned the Makarios synod or HOCNA synod. I have personally seen written statements from two Avlona bishops that were positive towards other synods: [b]one was positive towards the Makarios synod and one positive towards HOCNA’s balanced position on the name of God issue (HOCNA’s position is Saint Tikhon’s final position, 1920–1925)[/b]. Metropolitan Athony Gavalas, as well as the Avlona synod, both factions of the ROAC (Theodore and Gregory), the Damaskin synod, and the Makarios synod have found no heresy in HOCNA's adherence to the reconciliation advocated by Saint Elizabeth the Grand Duchess, approved by the Tsar Martyr, and accomplished by Saint Tikhon in 1920-1925. The final position of the Orthodox Church on the name-glorification depute of 1912-1919, was issued in 1921 by Saint Tikhon and implemented until his repose in 1925. It has been accepted by the entire Orthodox Church worldwide!

       So, when we think about what is good polemics versus what is bad polemics, maybe we should consult our own bishops. Then maybe we would not try to censor views that are perfectly Orthodox, or, at a minimum, deserve to be debated without censorship, so that everyone can see for himself what is Orthodox and what is not. Personally, I defend the true Orthodox middle that accepts Saint Elizabeth the Grand Duchess’s and Saint Tikhon’s [b]resolution of the name-glorification controversy[/b] (which, I have read, Avlona accepts) and the 90 percent of true Orthodox worldwide who honor Saint Philaret and Saint Chrysostom of Florina. What could be more “mainstream traditional Orthodox” than that? What we should focus on, with charity, is why 90 percent of traditional Orthodox worldwide adhere to this “mainstream traditional Orthodoxy” represented by Saint Tikhon, Saint Philaret, and Saint Chrysostom of Florina.[/quote]

d9povov,

It is interesting how you declare so many people to be saints, such as Met. Chrysostom of Florina, yet you have slandered the memory of St. Matthew the New Confessor and failed to mention the holy life of St. Glicherie. And then you expect us to accept your every word? Have you ever read the biography of St. Matthew or of St. Glicherie? Interestingly, you accept the biography and the glorification of Met. Chrysostom of Florina which was promoted by the Synod in Resistance. This same Synod in Resistance also promoted the glorification and biography of St. Glicherie.

This smacks of pick and choose Christianity or Cafeteria Orthodoxy.

Regarding the Name-Worshiping/Glorification controversy: from the studies which were written by members of the Kallinikos Synod, these theologians have shown that HOCNA and the Makarios Synod have twisted the words of Patriarch Tikhon, St. Gregory Palamas, and others to promote heresy. For shame! However, not only has HOCNA twisted and spun the works and words of St. Gregory Palamas, but also HOCNA has been consistently changing all their liturgical books to promote Name-Worshiping/Glorification. About every five years, HOCNA's Orthodox Prayer Book has been revised so that families who want to pray together must buy new prayer books so that they are on the same page -- new prayer books that promote the Name-Worshiping/Glorification heresy. Even the HOCNA Psalter has been revised to promote Name Worshiping.

For this reason, I cannot recommend that anyone purchase liturgical texts written and published by HOCNA.

[jdigrande]

Barbara:

I do not know the real reasons that St. John accepted the Dutch and Romanian NC groups in the early 1950's. The stock answer out of his biography is that it was by way of economia that he accepted them in the hopes they would move over to the OC in time.

Currently RTOC and Bishop Stefan have both defended this decision which was backed up by the ROCOR synod of bishops. I think it was a sin and needs to be repented for by a public apology by RTOC before the rest of the TOC. While the TOC's were being severely persecuted in Romania, Russia's Catacomb Church and the TOC in Greece ROCOR was coddling groups that were not persecuted at all in Western Europe. When St. John passed away they went back to the NC but I have no evidence why this happened.

This whole sorry affair has produced ikons of St. John in every NC World Orthodox "Church" in the world. He is portrayed as open minded and tolerant as Constantinople who allows the OC on Mount Athos along with the NC elsewhere. In Alaska the villages are permitted the OC while the cities are NC in the OCA under the MP today and this is said to reflect the open and tolerant attitude of St. John Maximovitch.

Along with a public apology RTOC and/or all the other Russian groups should canonize St. Victor Vasili Leu who was in the Gulag for 26 years while the NC were being coddled in Western Europe by ROCOR from 1950-72. This canonization of a suffering ROCOR bishop along with the canonization of St. Glicherie and the recognition by RTOC of the sanctity of Matthew the New Confessor would do much to heal the ill will in Greece and Romania toward the Russians.I cannot believe that the Russians have treated St. Victor Vasili Leu with such contempt over the years.

In 1969 and 71 ROCOR was in union with the GOC's of Greece but without a consistent formal confession of faith against Ecumenism and the New Calendar (how could they with a NC Romanian Bishop within ROCOR?). They only had the Sorrowful Epistles of St. Philaret and a small book by Archbishop Averky (who was rebuked by St. Philaret for letting Coptic heretics use the Church in Jordanville for its services while traveling through) which were warnings to NC and Ecumenistic hierarchs he considered Orthodox but ailing. It was only after the Ecumenists prayed with pagans in Vancouver in 1979 that St. Philaret decided to issue the anathema.

If ROCOR had issued the Anathema Against Ecumenism in the 1960's or early 70's rather than in 1983 it could have formed a union with the GOC's in Greece on a more firm basis. The Church of St. Matthew could have gone to New York in confidence and with enough information to form a strong union with ROCOR. The Florinites (to form a union with ROCOR) would have to change their stance toward the NC to reflect the anathema.

I think around 80% of ROCOR believed the NC to have the grace of the sacraments in the 1960's including Father Seraphim Rose and at least 80% of the bishops, many of which believed in secret that the MP and the Serbs had the grace of the sacraments but were ailing.

Issuing the anathema of 1983 then would have flushed them out of their positions and either return to the MP/NC's or join with the 20% of the people who would unite with the TOC in Greece minus that portion that accepted the Florinite position of 1937-50.

I have also heard that the Florinites repudiated the 1950 retraction six months after it was issued and returned to the position of 1937-50 which parallels that of Cyprian. It was only in 1970 that they returned to the 1950 retraction but still communed NC in some churches, like Anthony of Geneva did in ROCOR in Europe.

I do not read Russian or Greek so research would have to be done to ascertain other motives for ROCOR accepting the NC Dutch and Romanians into their fold. The defense today by the Russians is that the one day a year an OC Russian bishop came to serve in these Churches in France and Holland- everyone followed the OC. The other 364 days it was the NC.

The Russians continue to go to great lengths to protect the legacy of St. John Maximovich but he was fallible. Their absolute defense of him reflects their defense of Jerusalem Patriarchate before and after the Anathema of 1983 in order to safeguard their holy places in Palestine.

I have read elsewhere that Cyprian concelebrated with the "Patriarch" of Alexandria. Is that true and does anyone have information on this? I assume he felt that this "Patriarch" was ailing and in need of a joint liturgy if this is true.

[Maria]

d9popov,

I do not have the strength or energy to debate your claims right now. There are too many things on the burner. Several of your posts have been moved into the Mod Forum.

I trust the monks and hierarchs of the Kallinikos Synod who have not only left the heretical synod of HOCNA, but who also have done much research to expose the errors of HOCNA and the Makarios Synod, which was infected with the Name-Worshiping/Glorification by HOCNA's own Bishop Gregory who is a friend of the deposed Bishop Gregory (formerly of ROAC).

Apparently, Met. Rafail of Russia was aided in his works not only by HOCNA's laity and clergy (in the English Translation), but also by the deposed Bishop Gregory (formerly of ROAC). I still do not trust Met. Rafail unless I see some sign of retraction or repentance. I believe that Met. John of New York has been gravely misinformed.

However, you have persisted in derailing most of our threads and turning them into platforms for preaching Name Glorification/Name Worshiping.

This cannot be tolerated any further. Thus I am placing you on moderation.

Maria
Administrator