Matthewites

[1937 Miraculous Cross]

Dear Fr. Siluan,

You posted: Well, that it is the classic and extreme "Mathewite" position, they believe that those "Florinites" they stopped to exist together with their leader Archb. Chysostomos who I don't consecrate bishops so that they continue him, according to some people He want that all of "Florinites" goes under the omophor of the bishops "Mathewites" and this way to unify Old Calendarist Movement.

But like we know this didn't happen. Then the Mathewitas sustains that the hierarchy settled down by ROCOR is not Florinites but "Akakians" and that they don't have Grace. They also accentuate that one of the bishops that consecrated Bishop Akakios (Romanian Bishop Teofilo Ionescu) was New Calendarist and to tell the truth, years later he left ROCOR to return to the Romanian Patriarcado.

I don't under your use of the words "classic" and "extreme" position. The recovered TOC under the initial 3 bishops took an ecclesisological position of applying the Anathema of the Pan Orthodox Councils of the 16th century to the Calendar innovation, because they felt it was an adoption of the Gregorian menaion and break from Tradition. the 3 bishops publically proclaimed this and wrote this in 1935/early 1937.

It is historical fact that the 3 original bishops later reversed their position on this in 1937. At that time only the vicar bishops, Bps Matthew and Germanos of cyclades remained true to the original application of the Anathema. Later, in 1950 Bp. Chryos. of Florina returned to the 1935 Declaration position. There is nothing "extreme" about what the TOC/'matthewites" have said about this. They simply have not wavered.

It is also historically true that in his later years Bp. Chry. of Florina refused to consecrate new bishops ( a prime failure of a bishop whose responsibility is to propogate the Church). It is also historically true that he urged his followers to patch is up the the TOC/Matthewites.

As I am about to leave town and don't have much time to get all my information together, if you want me to post the written documents that speak of this, I can do this sometime next week.

It is also true that the GOC/Florinites do not originate in their consecrations in anyway from Bp. Chrysos. of florina. How can they? They received their consecrations uncanonically from Bp. Seraphim of Chicago (ROCOR) and Bp. Theofilus (a new calendarist Romanian). How can it be otherwise? Bp. Chrys. of Florina was reposed and never present in any of the "Florinite" consecrations. Only the Matthewites have consecrations stemming from Bp. Chrys of Florina. Plus, no one has said anything about the "Florinites' not having any "Grace". Only you have. On the converse, the majority of literature in English on this matter is from the GOC/Florinites and is full of condemnations that the Matthewites are a schism and without GRace. Just do the homework.

BTW, Bp. Theofilus was on the New Calender while he was within the ROCOR Synod. Perhaps you did not know that ROCOR in some circumstances allowed for New Calendar parishes, and indeed had this NC bishop.

in Christ,

Nectarios

[1937 Miraculous Cross]

DEar group:

I'm sorry I got the quotes messed up in the previous post. The green section is my response to Fr. Siluan. The black section is supposed to be the "quote' copied from Fr. Siluan's previous post.

Nectarios

[Priest Siluan]

Dear Nectarios:

Excuse me for not having answered before. I feel deep respect for both "Mathewites" and" Florinites", I don't agree simply with the accusations of some "Matewites against Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina, to this I call "extreme", I think that the hesitant attitudes of Metropolitan Chysostomos has justification in that he wanted to attract the support of some patriarchates. According to some evidences, he died waiting that all "Florinites" go under bishops "Mathewites" and this way to unify Old Calendarist Movement. For that reason I find bad to accuse him of "False teachings." I also find limitless accusation of some "Mathewites" against "Akakians"

Excuse my English

[1937 Miraculous Cross]

Dear Fr. Siluan,

Hopefully I'll get my "quotes" right this time. You said:

Excuse me for not having answered before. I feel deep respect for both "Mathewites" and" Florinites", I don't agree simply with the accusations of some "Matewites against Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina, to this I call "extreme", I think that the hesitant attitudes of Metropolitan Chysostomos has justification in that he wanted to attract the support of some patriarchates. According to some evidences, he died waiting that all "Florinites" go under bishops "Mathewites" and this way to unify Old Calendarist Movement. For that reason I find bad to accuse him of "False teachings." I also find limitless accusation of some "Mathewites" against "Akakians"

You indicate that the "matthewites" have "limitless accusation" against the Akakians. I would like to know where you have read or heard such "accusations". To be quite honest with you I'm very surprised about this, because ever since I've been Orthodox in ROCOR (baptized in 1992) all I have ever hear is "Florinite" bashing agaist the "extremist/schismatic/ uncanonical" Matthewites. These types of comments coming from ROCOR and Florinite priests! (As a reminder, i used to be a Florinite myself and under a very wonder clergyman in Chicago who in fact married us, when Bp. Petros was still alive.) So, I know very well all the "Florinite" arguments. Then, and even now, there is very little of the "Matthewite" perspective available in English. Maybe in your native Spanish language there is more available, but I find that unlikely.

I always presumed the Matthewites to be a bunch of crazy extremists...that is, until I actually met them and heard their
side of the TOC history. So, at least in my reality, the "accusations" have been the other way around: Florinites "accusing" the Matthewites.

Regarding Bp. Chrysos. of florina...you are kind to say that he was
being "hesistant" in order to bring about support of the Patriarchates. We don't know if this really would have brought a real support. It is commonly said that the State Church of Greece was about to return to the Old Calendar, except that Bp. Matthew's "extremism" foiled this. However, I have yet to see actual proof that this was about to happen.
In reality, all these Patriarchates have moved further into the Ecumenism that was already being sown prior to the 1935 establishment of the Greek TOC. So I doubt that Bp. Chrysostom's approach would have brought forth any fruit in "World Orthodoxy", let alone the State Church of Greece.

What matters is that the episcopacy proclaim the Truth and uphold the Anathemas and canons. Bp. Matthew was not making up new doctrine, he was simply maintaining and upholding the application of the pan-Orthodox Anathema against the Calendar innovation THAT WAS ALREADY applied by the Synod that included bp. Chrys. of Florina.
If the three returning bishops started to reverse their position on this, then it was incumbent upon them to hold a synod and explain themselves, as they were now the 'innovators". Is it right to play politics on matters of Faith? It is my preference to not be under such bishops; however, in fairness, those times were hard times and I have no business in judging them. Instead, I simply made a choice...the Matthewite bishops have been consistent in their following of the canons and Anathemas and thus the choice was easy.

To be honest, I hope that the current Florinites can acknowledge the Apostolicty of the Matthewites and allow at the discussion table the events prior to the 1971 cheirothesia of the Matthewites by ROCOR. If the Kiousis Synod can do this, then half the battle is won. (I'm not holding my breath on this though.)

in Christ,
Nectarios

[Priest Siluan]

Dear Fr. Siluan,

Hopefully I'll get my "quotes" right this time. You said:

Excuse me for not having answered before. I feel deep respect for both "Mathewites" and" Florinites", I don't agree simply with the accusations of some "Matewites against Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina, to this I call "extreme", I think that the hesitant attitudes of Metropolitan Chysostomos has justification in that he wanted to attract the support of some patriarchates. According to some evidences, he died waiting that all "Florinites" go under bishops "Mathewites" and this way to unify Old Calendarist Movement. For that reason I find bad to accuse him of "False teachings." I also find limitless accusation of some "Mathewites" against "Akakians"

You indicate that the "matthewites" have "limitless accusation" against the Akakians. I would like to know where you have read or heard such "accusations". To be quite honest with you I'm very surprised about this, because ever since I've been Orthodox in ROCOR (baptized in 1992) all I have ever hear is "Florinite" bashing agaist the "extremist/schismatic/ uncanonical" Matthewites. These types of comments coming from ROCOR and Florinite priests! (As a reminder, i used to be a Florinite myself and under a very wonder clergyman in Chicago who in fact married us, when Bp. Petros was still alive.) So, I know very well all the "Florinite" arguments. Then, and even now, there is very little of the "Matthewite" perspective available in English. Maybe in your native Spanish language there is more available, but I find that unlikely.

I always presumed the Matthewites to be a bunch of crazy extremists...that is, until I actually met them and heard their
side of the TOC history. So, at least in my reality, the "accusations" have been the other way around: Florinites "accusing" the Matthewites.

Regarding Bp. Chrysos. of florina...you are kind to say that he was
being "hesistant" in order to bring about support of the Patriarchates. We don't know if this really would have brought a real support. It is commonly said that the State Church of Greece was about to return to the Old Calendar, except that Bp. Matthew's "extremism" foiled this. However, I have yet to see actual proof that this was about to happen.
In reality, all these Patriarchates have moved further into the Ecumenism that was already being sown prior to the 1935 establishment of the Greek TOC. So I doubt that Bp. Chrysostom's approach would have brought forth any fruit in "World Orthodoxy", let alone the State Church of Greece.

What matters is that the episcopacy proclaim the Truth and uphold the Anathemas and canons. Bp. Matthew was not making up new doctrine, he was simply maintaining and upholding the application of the pan-Orthodox Anathema against the Calendar innovation THAT WAS ALREADY applied by the Synod that included bp. Chrys. of Florina.
If the three returning bishops started to reverse their position on this, then it was incumbent upon them to hold a synod and explain themselves, as they were now the 'innovators". Is it right to play politics on matters of Faith? It is my preference to not be under such bishops; however, in fairness, those times were hard times and I have no business in judging them. Instead, I simply made a choice...the Matthewite bishops have been consistent in their following of the canons and Anathemas and thus the choice was easy.

To be honest, I hope that the current Florinites can acknowledge the Apostolicty of the Matthewites and allow at the discussion table the events prior to the 1971 cheirothesia of the Matthewites by ROCOR. If the Kiousis Synod can do this, then half the battle is won. (I'm not holding my breath on this though.)

in Christ,
Nectarios

I coincide in many points with you, and I know that "Mathewites" many times they were attacked wrongly. On the other hand I want to emphasize something, in my previous Posts I didn't refer to "Mathewites" but to "some Mathewites."

I also believe that geunine "Traditional Churches" we should unite, because disunion suits our detractors.

Then, and even now, there is very little of the "Matthewite" perspective available in English. Maybe in your native Spanish language there is more available, but I find that unlikely.

Some people, here in South America are not so misinformed as you think.

[1937 Miraculous Cross]

Dear Fr. Siluan,

You wrote:

I coincide in many points with you, and I know that "Mathewites" many times they were attacked wrongly. On the other hand I want to emphasize something, in my previous Posts I didn't refer to "Mathewites" but to "some Mathewites."

I stand corrected. You are right. There have been very hard-line "Matthewites" and fortunately most of them have split off from the mainline TOC/Matthewite bishops.

Overall, it is my hope that the Florinites and Matthewites can patch it up and come together, especially since all Florinites accept the 1935 Declaration. It will take a lot of humility and forgiveness on both sides, but preferrably without distortions of the Truth.

I think a similar situation exists with the current ROCOR(V) and ROAC. As an "old Calendar ecumenist", I would like to see all of these groups come together and make a unified Church.

in Christ,
nectarios

[Joshua F]

Overall, it is my hope that the Florinites and Matthewites can patch it up and come together, especially since all Florinites accept the 1935 Declaration. It will take a lot of humility and forgiveness on both sides, but preferrably without distortions of the Truth.

I think a similar situation exists with the current ROCOR(V) and ROAC. As an "old Calendar ecumenist", I would like to see all of these groups come together and make a unified Church.

in Christ,
nectarios

Unfortunately the administrative ability to facilitate such a unification is almost non-existent in the ROCOR(V) and there are some serious charges against the ROAC that haven't really been satisfactorily answered. Metropolitan Valentine was defrocked by the ROCOR prior to his departure and that rankles with ROCOR(V), not to mention the matter of Fr. Gregory Lurye. Of course, I am an ignoramus and can't speak with any authority about these things. I certainly sympathize with the idea of a community of old-calendar churches.