From: Fr Parthenius
Subject: Fwd: reply to Fr. Basil
Date: September 13, 2012 1:27:30 PM EDT
To: monks@thehtm.org
Father Basil has been spreading a great deal of
misinformation about the Synod of the GOC under Archbishop Kallinikos.
First of all, HOCNA recognized the GOC as the canonical church of Greece in
October 2010. In so doing, it simply recognized what was already the
reality: namely, that the vast majority of the Old Calendarists in Greece
belong to the GOC. And why is that? Obviously, because the GOC is the
linear continuation of the Old Calendar Church of Greece. Archbishops
Chysostomos (Kiousis) and Kallinikos are the successors to Arch. Auxentius,
and there is no rival claimant to the throne of Athens who possesses any
canonical legitimacy. This should all be obvious, because the Synod of
Auxentius ceased to exist as a separate body, and almost all of its churches,
clergy, and bishops were incorporated into the GOC.
It is not necessary to bring up here the fact that Archbishop Auxentius of
blessed memory himself stood on weak ground after 1985. After all, the
Holy
Synod's vote carried 15 (for Chrysostomos Kiousis) to 5 (for Auxentius).
This was
the case because apart from his misadministration, it is no secret that
Arch. Auxentius did in fact ordain immoral men to the episcopacy – witness
Paisius, Vikentius, and Euthymius. Whatever was left of the synod of
Auxentius joined up with the GOC under Chysostomos, because the GOC has no
toleration for immorality (unlike HOCNA, whose founding members were
engaged in immoral behavior over a period of decades.)
The “ecumenist” statements you mention from the GOC bishops are mostly
hearsay and are completely out of context, to the point that they have no
force or meaning. You know very well that the GOC bishops are not
ecumenist, and would not defend any such statement from an ecumenist point
of view. None of your quotes which you are so obsessive to track down can
change the clear fact that the bishops of the GOC are unshakable in their
confession of the Orthodox faith and their opposition to ecumenism. This is
easily proven from the official documents of the Synod, such as the
anathemas against ecumenism of 1998; the statements from the dialogue with
the Cyprianites; and the statements from the dialogue with the Tikhonites.
All these documents are crystal clear in their exposition of an Orthodox
anti-ecumenist ecclesiology.
Furthermore, your accusations against the GOC are really just hypocrisy,
because the same sort of statements and actions which you so oppose in the
GOC were occurring during the time of Archbishop Auxentius--but not a word was
said. Specifically, Fr Panteleimon called him a "semi-ecumenist" and
published it in "The Orthodox Christian Witness," just a little while before joining with
him.
There was never a recantation.
Moreover, it was Archbishop Auxentius who accepted the Portuguese
bishops, and the Free-Serb bishops (thanks to Paisios of NY) who were
masons.
Do people know that when Metropolitan Makarios served in
Petroupouli (the residence of Archbishop Auxentius) and made an announcement that
only those who follow the
traditional calendar can come forward to take Communion, the nuns told him,
"PLEASE do not make that announcement again"!
Also, a very faithful archimandrite of the Archbishop who was a very
reliable source told us that Abbess Xenia herself (the abbess of the aforementioned
convent)
took Communion in the
new-calendarist Churches. When asked "did the Archbishop know," he said,
"of course he knew"!
Or perhaps you didn't see the article which was written by Archbishop Auxentius'
official periodical in Greece praising the Patriarch of Jerusalem with his
entourage, and welcomed them to Greece after their arrival.
On the other hand, maybe you do remember that after St Photios the Great
was exiled, when he returned to Constantinople he went to the "adulterer
bishop" Ignatius and made a full prostration to him! It was the same St
Photios who said "let God consign all previous events to oblivion."
Not to mention as well the differences of opinion concerning
strictness and leniency throughout the centuries. For example, Archbishop Demetrius
Homatianos of Bulgaria was the one who (during the 13th century) said
that we allow the
Latins to take Communion "for their enlightenment." Not
because such a thing is correct, it clearly is not, but, according to your mentality,
the Church should have ceased to exist
centuries ago.
Finally, you praise Archbishop Tikhon to the skies, while overlooking the
fact that his Synod espoused a Cyprianite ecclesiology until 2010, when
they deliberately changed their ecclesiology at the insistence of the GOC,
as a precondition for entering into communion with the GOC. In any case, if
you wish to join Archbishop Tikhon, keep in mind that he has
name-worshippers in his Church as well.
It would be wiser if you kept your criticisms to a minimum Father, because
you may be forced one day to join the Synod of the GOC, which is the
canonical Church of Greece.
From: Fr P.
Subject: Fr Basil's False Assertions
Date: September 13, 2012 12:49:37 PM EDT
To: monks@thehtm.org
Reply of Metropolitan Moses to Fr. Basil's false assertions:
We were ordained as bishops of the Church of Greece. That is our canonical Mother Church. The priests were ordained by bishops of the Church of Greece.
When we went under the omophorion of Archbishop Auxentius the Church in Greece was in schism. The legitimate way of describing this schism is GOC-Auxentius and GOC-Chrysostomos Kiousis.
Archbishop Auxentius did not grant any official status of autonomy to the Church in North America.
Everyone in Greece knows that Maximos of Cephalonia ordained Tsakos, the homosexual. Maximos denied this and lied to his Holy Synod and vowed on his panagia, the symbol of his episcopate. For this Maximos was defrocked and excommunicated.
Archbishop Auxentius was summoned to spiritual court three times to defend himself regarding the ordination of Tsakos and he refused to appear. Archbishop Auxentius was defrocked for ignoring the authority of the Holy Synod.
I ask Fr. Basil, do the canons give the authority to a Holy Synod to defrock an Archbishop who ignores the canons? It is my understanding that an Archbishop of a Holy Synod is not an unassailable personality that is above the canonical order of the Church. Perhaps Fr. Basil has a different understanding.
At the time of Archbishop Auxentius' defrockment, Metropolitan Chrysostomos Kiousis had withdrawn from participating in the actions of the Holy Synod. He did not participate in the defrocking of Archbishop Auxentius. He was later asked to lead the GOC and accepted.
At the time of the schism in 1985 only 4 bishops went with Archbishop Auxentius, one of which was Maximos. The 17 other bishops did not follow Archbishop Auxentius. ( A rational person would ask, why did Archbishop Auxentius have so few who remained with him?) Metropolitan Maximos, the ordainer of Tsakos did follow Archbishop Auxentius.
Metropolitan Maximos, the ordainer of Tsakos was the second ordaining bishop of Metropolitan Ephraim, with Archbishop Auxentius. All of the GOC-HOCNA ordinations are from Metropolitan Ephraim's ordination.
Archbishop Auxentius reposed in 1994. Maximos was made the Archbishop and subsequently "ordained" men "bishops," with the help of Demetrios Bifas, a man from Alexandria who was not a bishop of any Church and some say he was not even a priest.
The Holy Synod consisting of Metropolitan Ephraim, Metropolitan Makarios and Metropolitan Athanasios of Larissa summoned Archbishop Maximos to spiritual court in order to investigate and try the case. After Archbishop Maximos was summoned three times and he refused to appear before this Holy Synod, they defrocked him.
I ask Fr. Basil, did this action of defrocking Archbishop Maximos automatically make Metropolitan Ephraim, Metropolitan Makarios and Metropolitan Athanasios of Larissa schismatics or did they actually have the authority to form a spiritual court to judge Maximos?
All of the ordinations in HOCNA come from the ordination of Metropolitan Ephraim, who was ordained by Maximos. The reason why chierothesia was performed over Bishop Sergios and me was "so as to remove all doubt."
We were told that if Metropolitan Ephraim's ordination was by the hand of Archbishop Auxentius and Metropolitan Athanasios of Larissa, things would have been otherwise.
I was never told by any of the bishops in Greece that we were viewed as "graceless schismatics." We were treated as separated brethren who were encouraged to return to unity. I have been treated as a brother bishop during the whole process of my joining the GOC and to this day. There is a camaraderie among the bishops of our Church that has been a source of consolation to me.
The canonical penalties, etc. have been removed form Archbishop Auxentius and his name is in the dyptics of the GOC. I commemorate him at every liturgy.
The canonical penalties against Maximos have not been lifted either by the GOC in Greece or the synod of Metropolitan Ephraim. I was very willing to have the prayer read over me, especially because I knew I was not given the whole history of the Auxentius synod or Maximos before I was ordained.
Fr. Basil speaks in ignorance. He stays in his room at the monastery and constructs a theoretical world that does not exist in reality. In his world the Church has ceased to exist in Greece. His writings on this issue have a veneer of rationality and he uses the word "canonical," when in fact he seems to have an obsession with the personality of the reposed Archbishop Auxentius and a great dislike of being Greek or perhaps of things Greek.
The GOC-Chrysosotmos Kiousis and the GOC-Auxentius both had the same culture and spirituality when we joined Archbishop Auxentius. The only difference was that Archbishop Chrysotomos Kiousis reestablished canonical order and his Holy Synod was actually functioning as a Holy Synod. Archbishop Auxentius was a notoriously bad administrator. I was in Aegina on 7 September and I visited the hermitage of the Elder Ieronymos. While I was there, Mother Eupraxia was talking about the past and, without my prompting, said that the Elder Ieronymos said that "Archbishop Auxentius had the face of a saint, but did not know how to lead." I know that this is a quote from a man who reposed in 1966, but it is the type of quote that one would remember, at least the substance of what was said.
I could point out that Archbishop Auxentius ignored his Holy Synod, when he unilaterally and uncanonicaly "established" the autonomous Metropolis of Portugal, Spain and Western Europe. This group, now called the Milan Synod has a sorry history of serving with anyone and has been a source of confusion to many. I saw a letter from the early 1980's addressed to Archbishop Auxentius, signed by Metropolitan Akakios, Metropolitan Gabriel and Metropolitan Chrysostomos, imploring Archbishop Auxentius to work with and through the Holy Synod and stop by passing them, making unilateral decisions.
Archbishop Chrysostomos provided stability to the Church. The Holy Synod functions as a Holy Synod. The GOC is the largest and only legitimate Old Calendar Group in Greece. I think that the clergy who are moving away from HOCNA should look to the example of Metropolitan Athanasios of Larissa, who united himself to the GOC in 2008 and ended the schism in Greece, rather than a monk who resides in the United States and ponders the fate of Churches from his library.
In Christ,
+Moses
