www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Are Holy Apostles Convent & Dormition Skete Schismatic groups?

Dear friends,

I have the Orthodox New Testament which I enjoy quite a bit. But today as I was researching Holy Apostles Convent & Dormition Skete, the publishers of this bible, I noticed that they refer to themselves as "the Genuine Greek Orthodox Church."

Are they considered schismatic? Are they out of communion with the Orthodox Church? I notice on their web site that they have an article called, "The Apostasy of Orthodoxy in the 20th century."

Also, what about the Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies?

What are some safe, canonical Orthodox information sites?

Blessings,

Lance

They are not in communion with the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, the EP, or any SCOBA church to my knowledge. I don't even think they are in communion with HOCNA.

WARNING! BIASED OPINION FOLLOWS. SOME LACK OF CHARITY PERHAPS EVIDENT.

Yes, they are fanatical schismatics centred around the leadership of the monk Gregory Abu-Assaly, who styles himself 'Archbishop' Gregory (though perhaps he is already Metropolitan or even Patriarch by now, it's hard to tell. )

The story of an Antiochian boy, who became a novice at Holy Transfiguration Monastery in Boston, who left there (charging Fr Panteleimon with abuse) to form his own Skete in Colorado under the Russian Church Abroad, who left them to go into a Greek Old Calendarist Group, who left them to go under the so-called Russian Autonomous Church under the infamous Valentine of Suzdal, who then left Valentine claiming he was immoral and set up his own Church, is a long one.

All this, however, does not invalidate the admirable publishing efforts the poor nuns who are the thumb of Fr Gregory. Their Hagiographical and Scriptural works are very helpful, including their Orthodox New Testament. (I've often found nuns in these schismatic groups to be much more level-headed and helpful than the men who are leading them.)

The problem with the ONT is that no one in the leadership of dreaded "World Orthodoxy" will ever endorse it because of where it comes from. But it is still very useful.

Fr David Straut

He is separated from ecumenist "World Orthodoxy" for a dogmatic reason. Therefore, he does not meet the definition of one in schism (from them) since a schismatic is separated for a non-dogmatic reason. People use the term "schismatic" so much today, that they rob it of any true meaning.

With the exception of HOCNA (heretical and schismatic)All the groups you mentioned are under the ROCOR's 1983 Anathema against Ecumenism. They're apostates and traitors that took the easy rout, because their souls (like most Americans today) have been crippled by society, and desensitized to evil and accustomed to apostasy. EP, Greek Archdiocese and SCOBA are not Orthodox Churches. They are apostates under anathema. Canonicity ceases to exist when a church loses the faith. They lost the faith, and consequently canonicity. But since most people have been corrupted by society, are psychologically (not spiritually) motivated, and are authority driven, they follow their leaders instead of their own eyes, ears, and the rules of the Church.

Why the true Orthodox are truly Orthodox
http://www.hotca.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=236:why-the-true-orthodox-are-truly-orthodox&catid=50:orthodox-awareness

HOCNA Exposed
http://hocna.info/

Please don't start this Euthymios Valdez or Pilgrim 1411 or your new name zealot 1411. Your venom need not be spilled here. This is a place of dialog that tries to stay away from the crazy.

Arms length super ultra-traditional beyond even where the Mathewites make a stand wont wash here. So please lurk somewhere else.

Since when did telling the truth become venom? The only reason why you consider it venom, is because you were born into the matrix of the new world order, and your soul was formed in the "politically correct" concepts of antichrist (religious tolerance, religious indifference, modernism, ecumenism, etc). Since you claim to be Orthodox, it is your duty to know and defend the truth.

Glory be to Jesus Christ!!

I could not have said it better. I would ask everyone here to take a moment and re-read this. We can state our positions with charity, but venom and hatred have no place here. If anyone wants that, he can go to so many sites on the Internet and poison himself and others. I applaud Father David for the way he states his position. He begins by saying that he has a biased position--understandable because he represents his Church and his bishop wherever he goes. We in the laity, on the other hand need to make sure that we do not try to speak with an authority we do not have.

The sad truth is that this kind of exchange only makes the Enemy happy and the Lord sad at those who call themselves His followers.

Bob
Moderator

Their publications are absolutely superb! I own their Psalter and New Testament Books (Gospels and Epistles). The Patristic references are very helpful. I am slowly collecting the entire series of the Great Synaxaristes. I highly recommend their publications.

I agree. I particularly like the publications that cover all the saints and the Theotokos. I always seem to go back to "The Pillars of Orthodoxy," such a good book.

Glory be to Jesus Christ!!

I looked at this thread again and wondered why the question could not have been phrased in a more positive way.

My understanding of Orthodox terminology is that groups or Churches are considered "canonical" or "uncanonical." The word "schismatic" is another way to state that a group is "uncanonical," but "uncanonical" seems to me to be less loaded--liable to make people angry or light the fire that semed to blaze up above. It boils down to who are we in communion with and who are we not in communion with.

Certainly, even designating a group "uncanonical" can cause a fight, but it seems to me to be a bit less likely to ignite the tensions that "schismatic" does. That said, I am not an Orthodox Christian at this writing, but I have a great deal to thank members of the Orthodox Church who have supported me on my pilgrimage--long story for another day.

Just my two copper coins this afternoon.

Bob

Oddly enough the terms in Orthodoxy can be loaded...very loaded.

Schismatic still implies canonical ordination for the clergy and bishops. My synod would be considered by most as schismatic.

Vagante implies the defrocked or lone bishop that has questionable ordination or some serious issues from his past.

And we all know the heretical, that is rather across the board.

The key is a synod.