Orthodox in michigan wrote:How many mathewite factions groups are there today?
There's only one "Matthewite synod that holds the truth, and that's the GOC under Archbishop Stephanos.
Though here are the others groups that claim to be the main "Matthewite" synod.
GOC-Kirykos
GOC-Chrysostomos
GOC- Chrysostomos (Of Thessalonica)
jdigrande wrote:Note: There are two groups in Romania. One of them is based in Slatiora, regards St.Glicherie as a saint and made a union with the Synod of Resistance in the 1980's. Bishop Kirykos has never united with them.
He united with the other Romanian group (with Bishop Victor Leu as one of their ordainers in the 1940's). They are not based in Slatiaora. And they approached Bishop Kirykos in 2007. They decided to unite with him. I personally know both groups in Romania and have visited them. One of their current bishops- Cassian- was a bishop in 2004 before uniting with Bishop Kirykos. He also spoke with my ROCIE bishop between 2004-2006 but decided to unite with Bishop Kirykos.
Thanks for that clarification. The sources I talked with did not know that there were two groups in Romania. It is sad that Bishop Cassian decided to unite with Monk Kirykos. I was also told that Monk Kirykos was alone, as none of the other GOC bishops wanted to join his schism, until Bishop Cassian joined with him.
Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me a sinner.
Justice wrote:Orthodox in michigan wrote:How many mathewite factions groups are there today?
There's only one "Matthewite synod that holds the truth, and that's the GOC under Archbishop Stephanos.
Though here are the others groups that claim to be the main "Matthewite" synod.
GOC-Kirykos
GOC-Chrysostomos
GOC- Chrysostomos (Of Thessalonica)
Thanks , are these other groups separated due to the icon issue ?
I did wonder is there a thread on the icon issue the one st mathew had received ?
Orthodox in michigan wrote:Justice wrote:Orthodox in michigan wrote:How many mathewite factions groups are there today?
There's only one "Matthewite synod that holds the truth, and that's the GOC under Archbishop Stephanos.
Though here are the others groups that claim to be the main "Matthewite" synod.
GOC-Kirykos
GOC-Chrysostomos
GOC- Chrysostomos (Of Thessalonica)Thanks , are these other groups separated due to the icon issue ?
Yes. Though I thought for a while that Chrysostomos of Thessalonica's synod dissolved.
jdigrande wrote:I read the posts related to this subject and after thinking about it for a while and reading the websites of both churches, i have some questions. but first of all the word "ikonoclast" denotes someone who advocates the destruction of ikons, removal of ikons from churches and homes and the persecution of people who possess ikons. It links these practices between the original ikonoclasts from 717-843 AD and the Protestant destruction of ikons or images during or after the Renaissance.
After reading Bishop Kirykos's website, I fail to see that he or his followers fall into this category.
Calling him and his followers "ikonoclasts" seems to be just another hallmark of modern times: the tendency to fall into hyperbole when confronted with someone or church one has a disagreement with. I see this tendency for hyperbole on Bishop Kirykos's website too. There is the characterization of some of the laity as members of the Mafia (without legal proof provided). He also changes the name of one of the members of the church to indicate he is related to Satan because of actions he deemed wrong.
Schism between family members usually also calls for this stark black and white definition of the opposition and makes any dialogue more difficult.
That is why on this site I refer to him as a Bishop. I refer to Auxentius as an Archbishop and the Pope Franics as a Pope in that like a member of the Chinese Army who is a captain, I will refer to him as a captain even though I do not belong to the Chinese Army or subscribe to the legal framework of the Chinese nation. For example I do not consider Archbishop Auxentios to be a valid bishop nevertheless I refer to him thus because there are those on this site who do consider him a valid bishop including the members of my church (RTOC). ...
When Monk Kirykos split from the GOC, it caused much suffering, especially for the laity, priests, and nuns.
When those of us in the GOC refer to Kirykos as a Bishop, this very action would deny the GOC Synod's actions against Kirykos who was relieved of the office of Bishop. I was instructed by my confessor to use the term "monk" whenever referring to Kirykos.
Those in World Orthodoxy think differently because they have been infected with the heresy of Pan-Ecumenism. They use "proper" titles when addressing all dignitaries, and I suppose that they would also use the proper titles when referring to those in Satanism. Do you see how far this schizophrenia can go?
Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me a sinner.
Your post comes across as thoughtful, reasonable, and well-presented, however there still seems to be an implication or subtle insinuation that icons depicting God the Father are of a Latin/Western influence. It should be noted that images depicting God the Father (including in the East) date back more than a thousand years, prior to the schism. Icons of God the Father have not appeared in the East only in the last 500 years.
I have yet to see any proof demonstrating that images of the Father are of a Latin/Western origin, just unsubstantiated claims and assumptions. If people say it often enough, people begin to believe it.
The theology and tradition of the Church fully justifies depictions of the Father. Those who oppose depictions of the Father are the ones who put forth errant opinions and contradict long-held tradition in order to attempt to justify their non-acceptance of these icons.
jdigrande wrote:I read the posts related to this subject and after thinking about it for a while and reading the websites of both churches, i have some questions. but first of all the word "ikonoclast" denotes someone who advocates the destruction of ikons, removal of ikons from churches and homes and the persecution of people who possess ikons. It links these practices between the original ikonoclasts from 717-843 AD and the Protestant destruction of ikons or images during or after the Renaissance.
After reading Bishop Kirykos's website, I fail to see that he or his followers fall into this category.
Calling him and his followers "ikonoclasts" seems to be just another hallmark of modern times: the tendency to fall into hyperbole when confronted with someone or church one has a disagreement with. I see this tendency for hyperbole on Bishop Kirykos's website too. There is the characterization of some of the laity as members of the Mafia (without legal proof provided). He also changes the name of one of the members of the church to indicate he is related to Satan because of actions he deemed wrong.
Schism between family members usually also calls for this stark black and white definition of the opposition and makes any dialogue more difficult.
That is why on this site I refer to him as a Bishop. I refer to Auxentius as an Archbishop and the Pope Franics as a Pope in that like a member of the Chinese Army who is a captain, I will refer to him as a captain even though I do not belong to the Chinese Army or subscribe to the legal framework of the Chinese nation. For example I do not consider Archbishop Auxentios to be a valid bishop nevertheless I refer to him thus because there are those on this site who do consider him a valid bishop including the members of my church (RTOC).
My questions that are causing me confusion are:
When this original schism took place in the 1990's Bishop Kirykos was a member of the GOC. He was not considered an ikonoclastic heretic at the time by the GOC. Why not and when did the GOC under Arch. Andreas/Nicholas/Stephanos decide he was an Ikonoclast and why?
Has Bishop Kirykos destroyed ikons, had them removed from churches or advocated in public that any ikons should be destroyed or removed from churches? If so, where is the proof? Has he excommunicated or persecuted people in his own church for the possession of ikons of the Trinity and where is the proof?
There was a huge invasion of the Greece, the Balkans and Russia after 1453 by the Latins. Ikonography as a whole was transformed to the style of the West which began during the Renaissance. Theological academies were headed by Latins from Kiev to Athens. Publishing of Orthodox books was centered in Northern Italy. Uniate Churches were active all over the Orthodox world so much so that their priests were allowed to marry to subvert the Orthodox people. A saint like St. Thophan the Recluse published a book in the 19th century that borrowed heavily on the work of Francis De Sales (related to spiritual warfare). It took 300 years for the Russian Orthodox Church to canonize St. Gregory Palamas.
Photius Kontaglu started making ikons in Greece which were not related to the style of the Latin Renaissance in the mid 20th century. In fact the return to the style (which is intimately related to theology) of traditional Orthodox ikonography paradoxically returns at the height of ecumenism so much so that in many heretical Latin churches, one sees ikons in the traditional Orthodox sense today.
This 500 year invasion has caused immense spiritual trauma to the Orthodox world that has affected everyone on this site to the point of becoming a very small minority within a population of 7.8 billion people.
It is apparent to me that traditional Orthodox ikonography has always allowed God the Father and the Holy Spirit to be circumscribed within the human body or animal body (dove for the Holy Spirit). Some of the earliest ikons on Sinai which were pre-717 AD has the hand of God the Father blessing the saints from the upper right hand corner of the ikon.
On many ikons of the Trinity there is a triangle denoting the Trinity. This is a Latin-influenced addition. This ikon has been blessed to be in Orthodox churches during this traumatic 500 year invasion where ikonography was also taught in the academies controlled by the Latins. My opinion is that it remains a blessed ikon along with all the other Renaissance styled ikons of saints, the Theotokos and Christ but the return to classic Orthodox ikonography better represents the theology of the Church and must be promoted everywhere.
If a parish or bishop wants to replace any latin styled ikon in their church with a more traditional one and it is the consensus of the local church for this to happen, then Latin-influenced ikons must be preserved and given to members of that church who want them (the minority) in my opinion.
Having read Bishop Kirykos defense of his position on Latin styled ikons, I do not see him as an ikonoclast in any real sense but I could be wrong. I see the position of the GOC/Stephanos/Nicholas to be a rebuttal to the original position of the Gregorian Church in the 1990's. I do see the Gregorians as ikonoclasts.
And I see all of us as extremely traumatized refugees of this 500 year long Latin invasion. I encourage everyone to read all of these websites of these churches listed on this site to get different perspectives. And if one sees an enemy in any of them we must obey both Christ and Socrates:
"Love your enemies" and "Know your enemies."
And in the final analysis our greatest enemies are ourselves. I am the only one capable of eternally condemning myself to Hell because of my lack of repentance and sins. All others (including Bishop Kirykos and Stephanos et al) are my greatest friends in comparision.