Genuine GOC of America: A Proclamation on Ecclesiology

[Orthodox New England]

Regarding New Calendarists...if you have the opportunity, please read VERY carefully, Metropolitan Pavlos' response in an interview he gave in the early 2000s. I believe it was in both "Orthodox Life" and in a specific pamphlet entitled (if my memory serves me) "History of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia."

Does anyone know where I can find this? I am very interested in what Met. Pavlos says.

Gregory

[John Haluska]

I am sorry for the title; I warned about my memory…sorry.

The actual title is:

“The Truth About the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad”
In Response to the Orthodox Christian Witness
By Dr. M.E. Kontzevich

A SUPPLEMENT TO ORTHODOX TRADITION
VOLUME XII, NUMBER 4
ISSN 0742-4019

The monograph is extremely well written, totally objective, and, most importantly, honest.

Metropolitan Pavlos’s own words are on pages 10 thru 12 inclusive.

To me, personally, the words which come to mind which describe Metropolitan Pavlos are:

Orthodox
Honest and
Love

I read his words, at the end of the exceptional monograph, and was amazed at such openness, honesty and love; not to mention True Orthodoxy.

I would have to believe that this monograph is available through:

CENTER FOR TRADITIONALIST ORTHODOX STUDIES
SAINT GREGORY PALAMAS MONASTERY
POST OFFICE BOX 398
ETNA, CALIFORNIA, 96027-0398

The ‘cost sticker’ from our parish bookstore had a price of $1.00 on it. I cannot say what the exact price is, sorry.

I will not quote a “bit” or “piece” of the Metropolitan’s words, as one has to read the entire article to understand. I hope you understand.

I will state, from a personal, spiritual standpoint,

"Metropolitan Pavlos is a man totally full of love"!

John Haluska

Ps:
I do remember seeing the Metropolitan’s words elsewhere; whether they were in Orthodox Life, I do not know. They were, however, verbatim with respect to the article I’ve referenced.
jth

[尼古拉前执事]

I was gonna post something and decided it wasnt my place, as im a wretched sinner- there are things on the site you quoted from that are untrue about Those who followed Bishop Matthew of Eternal Memory...

Are you speaking of the following? If you believe there are errors, feel free to share your thoughts with the group. After all, it is a discussion forum.

+++++++ +++++++ +++++++

THE TRUE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF GREECE

In 1924, the Church of Greece ushered in the pan-heresy of Ecumenism in a form tangible to every believer•by changing the Church•s traditional Julian calendar. It adopted the papal Gregorian calendar, thereby evincing a desire to concelebrate, not with the Church Triumphant in heaven, but rather with the heretics of the fallen West. About one quarter of the Greek population refused to accept the innovation and cut itself off from the hereticizing hierarchy, but it was not until 1935 that any bishops espoused the cause. In that year, three bishops of the New Calendar Church declared for the Old Calendar, and immediately assumed leadership of the movement. The New Calendarists responded by launching a violent and often bloody persecution.• With the aid of the police, they brutalized and banished the leaders of the Old Calendar, and even went so far as to throw chalices to the ground and trample upon the Holy Eucharist. At this time (1935) the Old Calendar bishops issued an encyclical to the effect that the New Calendar Church had separated itself from the Body of Christ and no longer possessed valid Mysteries. Two years later, however, Metropolitan Chrysostomos (I) of Florina, later head of the Old Calendar Church, wrote a private letter to another bishop stating that, in his opinion, the New Calendarists were only in a state of potential schism and that their Mysteries were still valid. Two other bishops (of a number that had been ordained), upon learning this opinion, separated themselves from the Old Calendar Synod, believing this view to be a fall from true Orthodoxy. In 1948, one of them, Matthew of Bresthena, believing he was the last Orthodox bishop left on earth, ordained (by himself) a whole new synod of bishops, thus forming a synod parallel to the main Synod. This group is called the •Matthewites• and was the first schism from our Church.

Eventually, as other bishops died or returned to the New Calendar, Metropolitan Chrysostomos (I) of Florina, now head of the Church, felt it necessary (in 1950) to restore unity among the Old Calendarists by synodically revoking his letter of 1937 and officially declaring (again) that the New Calendar was graceless. This, however, failed to heal the Matthewite schism, and in 1955 Chysostomos (I) died, leaving the main body of Old Calendarists without any bishops. This situation was partially remedied in 1960 and 1962, when several hierarchs were consecrated by bishops of the Russian Church Abroad. It was altogether resolved in 1969, when these private consecrations were officially recognized by the Russian Synod and full communion was established between the Greek Old Calendar Church and the Russian Church Abroad.

In 1963 Auxentios, a good but incompetent man, was elected Archbishop. Under his mismanagement, numerous scandals broke out as immoral clergy were ordained or accepted from the New Calendar. Relations with the Church Abroad deteriorated, and many people quietly left the Old Calendar. Several events of this period were:

Code: Select all

1.) In 1969, Archimandrite Cyprian and his monastery at Fili, formerly New Calendarists, joined the Old Calendar under Auxentios. 

2.) In 1974, the Synod of Auxentios renewed its condemnation of the New Calendarists as graceless. 

3.) In 1977, Callistos, a bishop of the Matthewite Synod, joined the Synod of Auxentios, in order to be in communion with the Russian Church Abroad. 

Discouraged because of the scandals taking place in the Church, a number of bishops stopped attending synod meetings and, in February 1979, two of the remaining five bishopsof the Synod (the above-mentioned Callistos and his cohort Anthony) proceeded to consecrate eight new bishops, one of whom was Cyprian of Fili. These ordinations were made without the permission or even the vote of the Synod, were performed by a minority of the Synod•s members, and took place at nighttime in the monastery of Fili. The breakaway bishops claimed they had the oral permission of Archbishop Auxentios, but Auxentios denied ever having made such a statement and with his hierarchs immediately condemned and deposed the ten new bishops. The new bishops declared themselves to be the only legitimate synod of Old Calendarists and immediately invited the hierarchs who had been avoiding synod meetings to join them, but the other bishops (such as Petros of Astoria and Chrysostomos (II), the future Archbishop) refused to join the schismatic group. In 1983, the president of the new synod Callistos retired. Shortly thereafter, all the surviving bishops consecrated by Callistos and Anthony, except for Cyprian (one had died), repented of their uncanonical consecrations and were accepted back into Auxentios• Synod. At this time (1984), Metropolitan Cyprian presented his own ecclesialogical theories in a coherent form, stating definitively that the New Calendarist Church was the Mother Church and that its mysteries were valid until condemned by a pan-orthodox council. On the basis of this position, he refused to rejoin the bishops under Auxentios. He remained by himself and, with the help of John of Sardinia (the only other bishop remaining of the Callistos group•not one of the original schismatics, but consecrated later), organized his few followers into what he called the Synod in Resistance.

We should note that Cyprian joined the Old Calendar knowing that the official position of the Church was that the New Calendar was graceless. He accepted consecration to the episcopacy, not in objection to that position (since Callistos, who ordained him, was the most avid and public proponent of the idea), but rather hoping new and more responsible bishops would restore order to the Church. It was not until several years later that Cyprian, already a bishop, began using the issue of grace as an excuse to remain separate from the other hierarchs of the Old Calendar. He claimed that it was impossible for him or any of his followers to have communion with a church holding the official doctrine that the New Calendar was without grace. In Cyprian•s eyes, thus, his is the canonical Old Calendarist Church, while the true Synod is schismatic for holding to the same thing it has declared since 1935 when the Old Calendar first received its episcopacy. At no time before did anyone feel it necessary to create a schism in order to defend the mysteries of the New Calendarists. Cyprian himself never declared invalid the Old Calendar movement as it was in 1935 or 1950 or 1974 (the years when proclamations were made about the gracelessness of the New Calendar). Had he done so, the entire movement from its very inception and throughout its whole history would have been (following his line of reasoning) •fanatical•, •extremist•, and •impossible to join with•, as he now calls the Synod under Chrysostomos. Meanwhile, in the canonical Synod, the ineptitude of Auxentios soon became an issue again, and he was deposed for having made a notoriously immoral man bishop without synodal approval. In his place, the revered Chrysostomos (II) was chosen to the Archbishopric (in 1986), which post he occupies to this day.

The difference between the Matthewites, the Cyprianites, and the canonical True Orthodox Church of Greece can be summed up as follows: the Matthewites say that the New Calendar is graceless and heretical, and that anyone who ventures a private opinion to the contrary (as did Chrysostomos in 1937) is graceless and a heretic as well. The Matthewites are also uncanonical, being schismatic and having their ordinations from only one bishop, which the canons strictly forbid. The Cyprianites state that the New Calendar is the •Mother Church• of the Old Calendarist Church; that its mysteries are fully valid until condemned by a Pan-Orthodox council, and that anyone who says otherwise is a gravely mistaken fanatic with whom it is impossible to have communion. The Cyprianites are also schismatic, having their roots in the Callistos schism. Finally, the canonical Church of Greece, which comprises about 70% of the Old Calendarist movement, maintains the traditional position that the New Calendar is graceless; but actual opinion in the Church is not necessarily unilateral on this question. Its bishops reject the New Calendar church not so much because they view it as graceless, but because it has abandoned the truth. Since it does not adhere to an Orthodox confession of faith, it is impossible for the True Orthodox to recognize it, a schismatic body, as the Mother Church, or officially to declare it, a schismatic and hereticizing group, to possess the fullness of the grace of Christ•as Cyprian teaches.

We admire the pastoral and anti-ecumenical activities of the Cyprianites, as well as the zeal and piety of the Matthewites, and we look forward to the day both groups will end their schisms and return to the canonical Church. In this way, our united forces will present a coherent opposition to Ecumenism, which, with God•s help, will prove impossible for the heretics to ignore or withstand.

+++++++ +++++++ +++++++

[joasia]

John,

Your quote from Bp Paul: "We cannot/should not judge anyone, nor can we say where any individual will be after the dread Day of Judgment".

This is the main struggle amongst the people in the church. We have to recognize when something is being done against the church doctrines, but many people tend to judge the person also.

Yes, there are many ill decisions made by the hierachs, but until they die...I believe that mistakes can be rectified. Yes, we are dealing with serious issues in ROCOR, but we do not know how God will lead them and us.

Bp. Paul indicated "individuals" and not judging them, but there is a measuring stick for hierachal actions that would be a detriment to their decisions(for weakening the faith in the laity)...but we don't know what they are going through..and all we can pray, is Lord have mercy on their souls. They will have to answer to Christ for the souls that they have lost, but we still would have to answer to God for being judgmental because it's not our right.

Jesus Christ taught us that we cannot judge a person(only God can), but He also taught us what is right in the Father's eyes and therefore, when we see that the hierarchs and clergy are not following it...we have the right to confront them about it. Afterall, St. Paul confronted St. Peter about the circumsicion issue. There ARE conflicts of brothers but St. Paul didn't JUDGE St. Peter, he just told him that he was wrong.

This is my two-cents(CDN),

Joanna

[John Haluska]

Joasia,

The statement you referenced:

..."We cannot/should not judge anyone, nor can we say where any individual will be after the dread Day of Judgment."...

is NOT from Metropolitan Pavlos.

It is mine, and mine alone, and I take full responsibility for it, and...

The statement:

"God Alone is Judge"

is also mine.

I would not presume to quote from Metropolitan Pavlos.

I believe I stated that in my response containing the address to purchase the monograph.

I apologize for any misunderstanding.

John Haluska

[spiridon]

Well as much as I would like to discuss what I think is incorrect about the statement you posted( it wasnt necessary, but I remind you what you copy and paste becomes your responsibility aswell)...
I simply cannot say much, other than Bishop Matthew of Eternal Memory was right, and the accusations he endured in the 1930`s is ever so strong today- May his memory be Eternal

[尼古拉前执事]

At this point, I should probably direct anyone wanting to discuss comparisons of the Florinites vs. the Matthewites to our thread on this topic at http://EuphrosynosCafe.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2754