Dear AMDG,
You said:
I understand that the difference between TOC of the Matthewites and GOC of Chrysostomos now have the same ecclesiology, but fight over other issues as the validity of the consecration of a Matthewite bishop with just one bishop who performed the service. Or am I wrong? I also dont understand how the Matthewites canonically could seek communion with other patriarchates who in their turn were in communion with the State Church?
There are two parts to your statement:
1) TOC and GOC "fighting" over the issue of the single handed
consecration by Bp. Matthew.
Code: Select all
This is just one facet of the division. From the point of view of the GOC, yes, the single handed consecration is viewed as uncanonical and
unwarranted. From the TOC/Matthewite perspective, there were not any bishops available in Greece who maintained the original ecclessiology of the 1935 Declaration, including the former bishop of Florina, Chrysostom, himself. The only other bishop who maintained
the same position was Bp. Germanos of Cyclades who was in prison. (The only reason bp. Matthew was not also in prison was because of his poor health.) The "Matthewites", sensing bp. Matthew's imminent repose, and not being able to find a suitable co-consecrator who was available or willing, the Matthewites, being the only ones left who maintained the 1935 ecclessiology resorted to the Apostolic Injunctions as well as historical preceedent, that in times of duress and persecution, a bishop may consecrate single handedly another bishop in order to maintain the Apostolicity of the Church. Maintaining the Church is one of the prime aspects of being a bishop. In 1948 when this occured, Bp. Chrysostom had already made it a point to not consecrate bishops for the Old Calendar Church...hence, the "Florinites" were left bishopless.
(BTW, I'd also like to add that many people think that Bp. Matthew single handedly consecrated 4 new bishops. what he did was single handedly consecrated bp. Spyridon. Then with Spyridon,together they consecrated Bp. Andreas, and then Bp. Kallistos -- of later Florinite/Cyprianite fame.
As a complete aside, the ROAC is in a way also derived from a single handed consecration. The consecration of bp. Lazarus by former ROCOR bishop, Barnabas, which took place in 1982.)
From the Matthewite perspective, they view the "Florinite" consecrations as uncanonical (as they violated several canons in this process with ROCOR bishops). Further, one of the co-consecrators of the Florinte, Bp. Akakios was Bp. Theophilis -- a new calendarist associated with ROCOR. Also, Bp. Akakios and the later Archbishop Auxentios were former defrocked Matthewite priests.
BTW, I'm not trying to start a fight with OCD or any of the Florinites, but just trying to present both views here.
The matter gets more complicated with the cheirotonia of the 2 Matthewite bishops in 1971, done by ROCOR. The cheirotonia was performed on the remaining bishops back in Greece. So, differences in opinion arise over this. Where is the apostolicity of the TOC, from 1935 by Greek bishops, or in 1971 by ROCOR. The GOC insists it was from ROCOR. Then to further complicate matters, the GOC and others insist that the Matthewites renounced the cheirotonia in 1976 (?) and reverted back to an uncanonical status. In fact, the cheirotonia was never renounced, but former Abp Andreas simply reaffirmed that the TOC apostolicity derived from 1935. How can you undo a cheirotonia? Can you undo a baptism? Of course not.
Anyway, it is a complicated mess. In past dialogues, from what I'm told, the GOC insist on the talks starting from 1971, while the TOC insist on starting the dialogue from 1935. Hopefully, this sad situation can be bridged. Since I've been in both camps and was even married in the GOC, I hope the divide is bridged in our lifetime, as I know there is no difference in ecclessiology and practice in either side.
- The second part of your question is regarding how the Matthewites could seek out jurisdictions that were in communion with the State Church. This did seem odd to me as well, when if first read of this. The secretary of the Matthewite "synod" did make contact with the Jerusalem partriarchate if I recall correctly. Perhaps it goes to show that the Matthewites are not the "kooks" we're portrayed as all the time. I'm sure of course, that this was an issue, and I recall reading something that the other Patriarchates did not want to participate with Matthew because it would strain relations with the State Church. It went both ways in other words.
sorry for this long winded response.
yours in Christ,
Nectarios