Constantine, I appreciate your devotion to Bishop Matthew. I know you have good intentions and are doing what you believe is right by following him.
I thank-you for your kind words, and I really pray, we can keep this conversation civil, but I am not devoted to Bishop Matthew, I admire what he did, and I believe he was a Orthodox Bishop that fullfilled his duties as a hierarch, I do not follow Bishop Matthew, I follow the teachings of the Orthodox church , just as Bishop Matthew did. 
In those days ecumenism was not as it is today.
In those days, the EP recognized grace in the Anglican church and gave a blessing to Orthodox laypeople to attend a Anglican church and partake of their mysteries if a Orthodox church was not available, in those day ecumenism was just as much a pan-heresy as it is today.
Metropolitan Chrysostomos did not "leave the Church" as you said, just for changing his position about the grace [or lack of grace] in the other churches.
Actually yes he did, and if you read greek, I can send you the letter he sends the state church asking to be received back to it. Also he did not belive the GOC was a church but a "reisistance", and this was after he had stated the GOC was a church, therfore, he not only changed his ecclesiology about grace in the new calendar, but denied the existance of the Genuine Orthodox Church.
The Church is built on dogmas, not a calendar.
I belive I have already shown you the relation between the new calendar and ecumenism.
(1) Matthew was consecrated a Vicar-Bishop of Bresthena by men who were themselves not bishops and thus not able to ordain and give that authority to others;
Code: Select all
(2) since Matthew was only a priest, not having truly been ordained, any 'ordinations' to any ecclesiastical order that he made were not ordinations;
(3) consequently, the Matthewites have neither episcopacy nor priesthood nor diaconate nor any mysteries derived from them whatsoever.Matthew was consecrated a Vicar-Bishop of Bresthena
Have you seen Bishop Matthew's consecration certificate? I have, he was not a vicar-bishop, if you like give me a fax number, I will have a copy faxed to you so you can see yourself.
by men who were themselves not bishops and thus not able to ordain and give that authority to others
Please explain, why these men were not bishops, as I believe this statement you made is completely false and the foundation for your next 2 comments, I will not address you next 2 comment but deal with the source, the above comment.
Based on your comments I would like to ask you, please explain to me how you believe the Kiousis Synod to be canonical?
Incognito,
Two issues here, from the original post.
1) The Tsar-Martyr Nicholas II. There are several classifications of Orthodox saints, as you probably know. One such class are the martyrs and confessors. Have you read any biographies of Tsar Nicholas II, or his published correspondence? He was a devout Orthodox Christian, and a remarkably humble man, despite being the wealthiest person on the planet in 1917. He attended the divine liturgy almost daily. He and his family had the opportunity to flee from Tsarskoe Selo to Livadia during the early days of the October Revolution, but he deliberately chose to stay in Holy Russia, where he was the annointed, Orthodox sovereign of the Empire. He was born on the day of St. Job the Righteous, and had been advised by an elder in his youth that this was a portent that he was destined for martyrdom. His ultimate fate was strikingly parallel to that of St. Job. Unfortunately, most of our Western ideas about the Tsar have come to us from Bolshevik propagandists, who also denied for decades that Lenin had personally ordered the execution of the Tsar and his family.
2) Father Seraphim Rose. The saints are those who have acquired the Holy Spirit through the sacramental life of the Church, and the keeping of Christ's commandments. Some have also acquired crowns of martyrdom. It appears to me that the life of blessed Father Seraphim was a living sacrifice to God, which bore much fruit. I know, anectdotally, of at least one major miracle attributed to the intercession of Father Seraphim, and there may be many others. He is certainly venerated by many of the Orthodox faithful as a saint, which has always been the pattern of "beatification" in the Orthodox world--rather than having smoke signals sent from a chimney in the Vatican. If the ethnic Russians appreciate him, good for them. He certainly seemed to be a pivotal figure in bringing the grace of Russian Orthodoxy to modern America.
TSAR NICHOLAS 2.
I don't deny he was a pius humble man. My point was that he did not die for Orthodoxy, so he is not a martyr. Much of contemporary Orthodoxy today is built on prophecies and statements by guru "elders." Not on anything objective or dogmatic. The only reason they made Nicholas a saint, is because he was wealthy. Orthodox esteem the powerful of the world. But God thinks differently.
FATHER SERAPHIM
He didn't do anything any other monk didn't or wouldn't do. He wrote some books, but I fail to see how this makes him a saint. Much of the veneration we see toward him comes from people in the MP. That he had one or two miracles attributed to him, does not make him a saint. This grace comes from the Church, not from any particular holiness from Father Seraphim.
I believe many Russians love him because hs is a good example of the "Russianization" of America. Russians do not love Christ or the Church. They only care about ethnocentricity and the preservation of their culture and national identity.