PDF Archive search engine
Last database update: 24 May at 23:21 - Around 230000 files indexed.
Results for «bishop»:
Total: 150 results - 0.03 seconds
1948consecrationsovervieweng The Creation of the Matthewite Hierarchy On the 26th of August 1948, Bishop Matthew of Bresthena together with only a handful of clergy consisting of only one archpriest, six archimandrites, seven hieromonks and two priests (hardly anything compared to the remaining four bishops and 300+ Old Calendarist priests alive in Greece at this time), decided that Bishop Matthew was permitted to create a provisional “Holy Synod” with himself as president and four priests (who he was to select) to be members. Bishop Matthew selected the four priest‐members of his provisional “Holy Synod” to be Fr. Gideon Pasios, Fr. Eugene Tombros, Fr. Athanasius Anestis and Fr. Callistus Makris. On the 28th of August 1949, Bishop Matthew together with the four priest‐members of his provisional “Holy Synod” took part in the election of one of the members, Fr. Gideon Pasios, to fill the roll of “Bishop of Trimythus in Cyprus.” Bishop Matthew then performed the consecration with five archimandrites, seven hieromonks and one archpriest serving as “witnesses” in the place of a second bishop (since Bishop Matthew was the only bishop present at the consecration, just as he was the only bishop present at the election). The consecration took place at Prophet Elias chapel, Kroniza, Attica. At the consecration, Fr. Gideon was renamed Spyridon, so that he became “Bishop Spyridon of Trimythus.” In the next few weeks, Bishops Matthew of Bresthena and Spyridon of Trimythus took part in the elections and consecrations of Bishops Andrew of Patras, Demetrius of Thessalonica and Callistus of Corinth. Standing (left to right):
EarlyFactionalismofGOCeng The Division of the G.O.C. Into Factions The first division among the Old Calendarists occurred in 1936, when three of the seven bishops returned to the New Calendarist State Church of Greece. The fallen hierarchs were Metropolitan Chrysostom Demetriou of Zacynthus, Bishop Christopher Hatziz of Megara and Bishop Polycarp Liosis of Diaulia. The remaining hierarchs of the Synod of the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece were Metropolitan Germanus Mavromatis of Demetrias, Metropolitan Chrysostom Kavouridis of Florina, Bishop Germanus Varykopoulos of the Cyclades and Bishop Matthew Karpathakis of Bresthena. The second division among the Old Calendarists also occurred in 1936, when the government‐recognized entity of the “Religious Community of the Genuine Orthodox Christians” (a group of laymen theoloigians without any bishops or priests) severed communion with the President of the Holy Synod, Metropolitan Germanus, and also severed communion with all the remaining hierarchs of the Synod, and went off alone, forming a parasynagogue. The third division among the Old Calendarists occurred in September 1937, when Bishop Matthew of Bresthena severed communion with the Synodal President, Metropolitan Germanus, and instead formed his own party, and took over the leadership of the schismatic “Religious Community of the Genuine Orthodox Christians” which had severed communion from the Church a year earlier. Bishop Matthew left for ecclesiological reasons. The fourth division occurred in October 1937, when Bishop Germanus of the Cyclades severed communion with the President of the Holy Synod, Metropolitan Germanus of Demetrias, and instead joined Bishop Matthew. The fifth division occurred in 1942, when Bishops Germanus of the Cyclades and Matthew of Bresthena severed communion with one another due to dogmatic reasons. Bishop Germanus of Cyclades condemned Bishop Matthew for his writings and publications, which included a statement that if it were not for the birth of St. John Chrysostom, there would have needed to be a “second incarnation of Christ,” and another statement that Christ’s teeth
pre1924ecumenism8eng Orthodox Bishop Raphael Hawaweeny Accepted the Mysteries of the Anglicans In 1910 and Then Changed His Mind in 1912. He Was Not Judged By Any Council For This Mistake. Did He and His Flock Lose Grace During Those Two Years? His Grace, the Right Reverend [Saint] Raphael Hawaweeny, late Bishop of Brooklyn and head of the Syrian Greek Orthodox Catholic Mission of the Russian Church in North America, was a far‐sighted leader. Called from Russia to New York in 1895, to assume charge of the growing Syrian parishes under the Russian jurisdiction over American Orthodoxy, he was elevated to the episcopate by order of the Holy Synod of Russia and was consecrated Bishop of Brooklyn and head of the Syrian Mission by Archbishop Tikhon and Bishop Innocent of Alaska on March 12, 1904. This was the first consecration of an Orthodox Catholic Bishop in the New World and Bishop Raphael was the first Orthodox prelate to spend his entire episcopate, from consecration to burial, in America. [Ed. note—In August 1988 the remains of Bishop Raphael along with those of Bishops Emmanuel and Sophronios and Fathers Moses Abouhider, Agapios Golam and Makarios Moore were transferred to the Antiochian Village in southwestern Pennsylvania for re‐burial. Bishop Raphaelʹs remains were found to be essentially incorrupt. As a result a commission under the direction of Bishop Basil (Essey) of the Antiochian Archdiocese was appointed to gather materials concerning the possible glorification of Bishop Raphael.] With his broad culture and international training and experience Bishop Raphael naturally had a keen interest in the universal Orthodox aspiration for Christian unity. His work in America, where his Syrian communities were widely scattered and sometimes very small and without the services of the Orthodox Church, gave him a special interest in any movement which promised to provide a way by which acceptable and valid sacramental ministrations might be brought within the reach of isolated Orthodox people. It was, therefore, with real pleasure and gratitude that Bishop Raphael received the habitual approaches of ʺHigh Churchʺ prelates and clergy of the Episcopal Church. Assured by ʺcatholic‐mindedʺ Protestants, seeking the recognition of real Catholic Bishops, that the Anglican Communion and Episcopal Church were really Catholic and almost the same as Orthodox, Bishop Raphael was filled with great happiness. A group of these ʺHigh Episcopalianʺ Protestants had formed the American branch of ʺThe Anglican and Eastern Orthodox Churches Unionʺ (since revised and now existing as ʺThe Anglican and Eastern Churches Association,ʺ chiefly
1957MatthewiteEncylclicalEng The Matthewite Encyclical of March 1, 1957, Accepts a Synodical Regularization for the 1948 Consecrations (Which Became a Reality By Cheirothesia in 1971) …And the portion of those who disagree, being led astray and leading others to stray, causes division by preaching that the Bishops not be recognized because of the taking place of the supposedly anticanonical consecration of a Bishop by one Bishop. Children beloved in the Lord, this refusal to recognize is an error; it is an excuse for division. It has been witnessed scientifically and historically that dogmatically the consecration is valid. Dogmatically, the Bishops are in order. They are Bishops having the fullness of Episcopal authority. The matter is solved. For the sake of ecclesiastical order from the standpoint of administration in this matter the question is judgeable before the appropriate Synod for investigation if the consecration was justified, and if it was not, then the application of the appropriate penalties. Therefore there might be some justification to contend that there is here a matter yet to be judged, which neither invalidates, nor impedes, nor suspends the full exercise of the Episcopal authority. All of our Episcopal activities and deeds are absolutely valid canonically and dogmatically until the calling‐together of an Orthodox Synod in which circumstance we might be condemned administratively. Therefore it is an excuse which is put forward as an unjustified reason to justify the work of division. Even though this canonical and not dogmatic pretext is offered, it is not generally accepted, yet, for the sake of unity, for the sake of the Struggle, for the sake of love, for the sake of peace, we accept being administratively subject to trial, eager to come before a Canonical Orthodox Synod, whenever it might come together to render an account and to be judged for the administrative rationale of the consecration of a Bishop by one Bishop, which took place in a time of circumstantial need for the sake of the faithful… Your Fervent intercessors before the Lord, The Holy Synod + [Metropolitan] Demetrius of Thessalonica, President + [Bishop] Spyridon of Trimythus + [Bishop] Andrew of Patras + [Bishop] Callistus of Corinth + [Bishop] Bessarion of Tricala and Stagae + [Bishop] John of Thebes and Lebadia + [Bishop] Meletius of Attica and Megaris
110 Details Contributor Contributor full name address Bishop, David J Bishop, David J Bishop, David J Bishop, David J Bishop, David J
1935ConsecrationsEng The First Synod and the Consecrations of 1935 In 1935, two hierarchs of the Orthodox Church of Greece (Metropolitan Germanus Mavromatis of Demetrias and Metropolitan Chrysostom Demetriou of Zacynthus) and one retired hierarch of the Ecumenical Patriarchate (Metropolitan Chrysostom Kavourides of Florina) joined the Sacred Struggle and assumed the leadership of the Old Calendarists of Greece. Germanus of Demetrias became the President of the Holy Synod and the Locum Tenens of the Metropolis of Athens. This act was most canonical because the innovative “Archbishop” Chrysostom Papadopoulos of Athens had illegally usurped the Archdiocesan throne in 1923, whereas the lawful Archbishop was Theocletus Menopoulos (+1931). Assisted by the Metropolitans Chrysostom of Florina and Chrysostom of Zacynthus, Metropolitan Germanus of Demetrias, as the canonical and lawful President of the Synod, performed, in Keratea of Attica, the consecrations of four new bishops. Those consecrated were Bishop Germanus Varykopoulos of the Cyclades, Bishop Christopher Chatzis of Megaris, Bishop Polycarp Liosis of Diaulia, and Bishop Matthew Karpathakis of Bresthena. The first three Metropolitans and the abovementioned newly‐ordained four Bishops constituted the first re‐establishment of the canonical Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church of Greece since the time of Archbishop Theocletus Menopoulos of Athens, who had been dismissed in 1923 and reposed in 1931.
PhilaretSorrowfulEpistle1972eng PRESIDENT OF THE SYNOD OF BISHOPS OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH OUTSIDE OF RUSSIA 75 EAST 93rd STREET, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10028 Telephone: LEhigh 4‐1601 A SECOND SORROWFUL EPISTLE TO THEIR HOLINESSES AND THEIR BEATITUDES, THE PRIMATES OF THE HOLY ORTHODOX CHURCHES, THE MOST REVEREND METROPOLITANS, ARCHBISHOPS AND BISHOPS. The People of the Lord residing in his Diocese are entrusted to the Bishop, and he will be required to give account of their souls according to the 39th Apostolic Canon. The 34th Apostolic Canon orders that a Bishop may do ʺthose things only which concern his own Diocese and the territories belonging to it.ʺ There are, however, occasions when events are of such a nature that their influence extends beyond the limits of one Diocese, or indeed those of one or more of the local Churches. Events of such a general, global nature can not be ignored by any Orthodox Bishop, who, as a successor of the Apostles, is charged with the protection of his flock from various temptations. The lightening‐like speed with which ideas may be spread in our times make such care all the more imperative now. In particular, our flock, belonging to the free part of the Church of Russia, is spread out all over the world. What has just been stated, therefore, is most pertinent to it. As a result of this, our Bishops, when meeting in their Councils, cannot confine their discussions to the narrow limits of pastoral and administrative problems arising in their respective Dioceses, but must in addition turn their attention to matters of a general importance to the whole Orthodox World, since the affliction of one Church is as ʺan affliction unto them all, eliciting the compassion of them allʺ (Phil. 4:14‐16; Heb. 10:30). And if the Apostle St. Paul was weak with those who were weak and burning with those who were offended, how then can we Bishops of God remain indifferent to the growth of errors which threaten the salvation of the souls of many of our brothers in
Church Administration Methodist Church Ghana Home The Church 3/10/11 11:30 AM The Church Events / News Projects Downloads Photo Gallery Contact us Archives Church Administration The Chief Executive of the Church is The Presiding Bishop who presides over the Conference that previously met once a year, but since 2000 has been meeting biennially.
livingsynodofbishops HERESIES, SCHISMS AND UNCANONICAL ACTS REQUIRE A LIVING SYNODICAL JUDGMENT An Introduction to Councils and Canon Law The Orthodox Church, since the time of the Holy Apostles, has resolved quarrels or problems by convening Councils. Thus, when the issue arose regarding circumcision and the Laws of Moses, the Holy Apostles met in Jerusalem, as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles (Chapter 15). The Holy Fathers thus imitated the Apostles by convening Councils, whether general, regional, provincial or diocesan, in order to resolve issues of practice. These Councils discussed and resolved matters of Faith, affirming Orthodoxy (correct doctrine) while condemning heresies (false teachings). The Councils also formulated ecclesiastical laws called Canons, which either define good conduct or prescribe the level of punishment for bad conduct. Some canons apply only to bishops, others to priests and deacons, and others to lower clergy and laymen. Many canons apply to all ranks of the clergy collectively. Several canons apply to the clergy and the laity alike. The level of authority that a Canon holds is discerned by the authority of the Council that affirmed the Canon. Some Canons are universal and binding on the entire Church, while others are only binding on a local scale. Also, a Canon is only an article of the law, and is not the execution of the law. For a Canon to be executed, the proper authority must put the Canon in force. The authority differs depending on the rank of the person accused. According to the Canons themselves, a bishop requires twelve bishops to be put on trial and for the canons to be applied towards his condemnation. A presbyter requires six bishops to be put on trial and condemned, and a deacon requires three bishops. The lower clergy and the laymen require at least one bishop to place them on ecclesiastical trial or to punish them by applying the canons to them. But in the case of laymen, a single presbyter may execute the Canon if he has been granted the rank of pneumatikos, and therefore has the bishop’s authority to remit sins and apply penances. However, until this competent ecclesiastical authority has convened and officially applied the Canons to the individual of whatever rank, that individual is only “liable” to punishment, but has not yet been punished. For the Canons do not execute themselves, but they must be executed by the entity with authority to apply the Canons.
Episcopal Church of the Resurrection 2017 Annual Report 2017 Annual Report January 21st, 2018 The Episcopal Church of the Resurrection Bishop's Warden’s Report 2017 was a busy and productive year for The Episcopal Church of the Resurrection.
RomaniansReBaptismEng The Position of Bp. Kirykos’ Romanian Counterparts Regarding Re‐Baptism is Extremely Hypocritical The Romanians who are in communion with Bp. Kirykos require all New Calendarists, Florinites, Glicherians, ROCOR faithful, etc, to be re‐ baptized, even if their baptism was performed in the canonical manner, by triple immersion and invocation of the Holy Trinity. They have even begun re‐baptizing people who had already been received into the Matthewite Church by chrismation. Thus, in Cyprus, several laymen who had been received even decades ago by chrismation, are now being rebaptized by the Romanian bishop Parthenios! So then, one might ask, all of these years were they communing or not? If they were communing as members of the Church, then how is it that they are now being regarded as foreign to the Church and in need of baptism? This isn’t Orthodox ecclesiology, it is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, a crime that the Lord has declared to be unforgivable. But this very act of rebaptizing by the Romanians is extremely hypocritical considering their own origins. The truth is that according to their own principles, they themselves are very much in need of being rebaptized. This is because the Romanian bishops derive their Apostolic Succession from Bishop Victor Leu, who was consecrated in 1949 by three bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. The main consecrating hierarch who actually passed the Apostolic Succession (for the other two were mere witnesses, as is the case), was Metropolitan Seraphim (Lyade) of Berlin. Metropolitan Seraphim was actually born into a Protestant family and was “baptized” by sprinkling in the Lutheran Church. When he was received into the Russian Orthodox Church, he was received by mere chrismation, despite not having the correct form of baptism. He was then elevated to the deaconate and priesthood within the Russian Orthodox Church. However, on 1st of September, 1923, he was “consecrated” as a “bishop” by Renovationist hierarchs who had been anathematized a year earlier by Patriarch St. Tikhon. In 1929, the Renovationist “bishop” Seraphim Lade was received into communion by the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, but he was not reordained nor was a cheirothesia read on him, but he was received by mere repentance. Thus, according to the strict point of view, Metropolitan Seraphim Lyade was both un‐baptized and un‐consecrated! Yet this Metropolitan Seraphim is the very source of priesthood of the Romanian hierarchs. Thus, if they have their origins from a bishop who was un‐baptized and un‐consecrated, how is their baptism and priesthood valid? If the
Anathema1983eng ANATHEMA AGAINST ECUMENISM ʺTo those who attack the Church of Christ by teaching that Christʹs Church is divided into so‐called ʺbranchesʺ which differ in doctrine and way of life, or that the Church does not exist visibly, but will be formed in the future when all branches or sects, or denominations, and even religions will be united into one body; and who do not distinguish the priesthood and mysteries of the Church from those of heretics, but say that the baptism and eucharist of heretics is effectual for salvation; therefore, to those who knowingly have communion with these aforementioned heretics or who advocate, disseminate, or defend their new heresy, commonly called ecumenism, under the pretext of brotherly love or the supposed unification of separated Christians, Anathema!ʺ The Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia President: + PHILARET, Metropolitan of New York and Eastern America Members: + SERAPHIM, Archbishop of Chicago and Detroit + ATHANASIUS, Archbishop of Buenos Aires and Argentina‐Paraguay + VITALY, Archbishop of Montreal and Canada + ANTHONY, Archbishop of Los Angeles and Texas + ANTHONY, Archbishop of Geneva and Western Europe + ANTHONY, Archbishop of San Francisco and Western America + SERAPHIM, Archbishop of Caracas and Venezuela + PAUL, Archbishop of Sydney and Australia‐New Zealand + LAURUS, Archbishop of Syracuse and Holy Trinity Monastery + CONSTANTINE, Bishop of Richmond and Britain + GREGORY, Bishop of Washington and Florida + MARK, Bishop of Berlin and Germany + ALYPY, Bishop of Cleveland and Ohio
Awotwi Pratt The Presiding Bishop of the Methodist Church Ghana, the Most Reverend Titus K.
Bishop Pawn Shop Dallas Bishop Pawn Shop Dallas If you need a loan, or if you are looking for great deals, please let us help you!
WitnessMichaelEng The Witness of Bishop Michael Kampourellis The following letter was sent by email on 28th of March, 2009, from Bishop Michael Kampourellis to a layman in Australia called Nicholas: Translation from the Greek: Beloved Brother, Kirykos is an extremist individual.
Facts & Figures 83%
Consequently we have a Chief Executive of the Church, the Presiding Bishop who presides over Conference, the highest body of the Church hierarchy.
GOCDemetrias1935eng ENCYCLICAL OF METROPOLITAN GERMANUS OF DEMETRIAS, PUBLISHED AND DISTRIBUTED IN MAY 1935 The following flyer was published and distributed throughout the Metropolis of Demetrias in May, 1935, after Metropolitan Germanus of Demetrias and two other hierarchs had officially returned to the old calendar. The section has been emphasized in bold print where Metropolitan Germanus describes that he and his fellow hierarchs have the purpose of collaborating with the Old Calendarist Patriarchates and Autocephalous Churches. This proves that although the three hierarchs did denounce the State Church of Greece as schismatic, they did not regard the Churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Mt. Sinai, Mt. Athos, Russia, Poland, Serbia, etc, to be schismatic, but on the contrary, they viewed them as “collaborators.” Bishop Matthew accepted consecration at their hands despite this, and he was also fully aware of the fulfilment of this obligation when the Holy GOC Synod (to which Bishop Matthew belonged) decided to send Metropolitan Chrysostom of Florina to Jerusalem and Antioch for this very purpose in 1936. Is this not “Old Calendarist Ecumenism” as described in the mind of Bp. Kirykos Kontogiannis? The below document was taken from Bp. Kirykos’ own archive at Koropi. This document has been hidden in this archive for several decades. It cannot be said that Bp. Kirykos is unaware of it, because together with the original document there was also a photocopy of the same document, upon which the controversial statement is underlined with a pen. Whose pen might that be? For it to be underlined it means it was not only read but attention was also drawn towards it. So the question remains: Why has Bp. Kirykos failed to publish such an important document? What could be his excuse other than the fact that he hides such documents on purpose in order to get away with falsifying GOC history to suite his fanatic one‐sided positions? A true Orthodox bishop does not hide the truth from his flock by choosing to reveal only the documents that suit him. A true Orthodox bishop reveals the truth, be it in his favour or not. Thus, Bp. Kirykos proves to be a false bishop. His own archive betrays him. The original document in Greek is available as a scanned image, while the below is an English translation: HELLENIC REPUBLIC METROPOLITAN OF DEMETRIAS Pious priests, honourable wardens of the Churches, and remaining blessed Christians of our most holy Metropolis. A qualification sine qua non for every pastor is to have love towards our Saviour and Lord, Jesus Christ. “Do you love me?” our Saviour asked Peter,
Presiding Bishop of Methodist Church calls for peace Presiding Bishop of Methodist Church calls for peace in New Juaben Traditional Area GBC Ghana Search Home TV Radio Headlines Politics Thursday October 24, 2013 1:55:12 PM The Web Business 10/24/13 1:55 PM Sports International Video Photo Gallery Podcast About GBC Contact us Staff Mail
POSTER CHARLIE MONROE CINEMA PORTA POSNANIA ICHOT BISHOP JORDAN’S BRIDGE „SPANISH” STAIRS IN POZNANŃ HOUSE OF COFFEE ASTRA FLEA MARKET OLD SLAUGTHERHOUSE KONTENERART BLUBRY LEGENDS OF POZNAN 6D CROISSANT’S MUSEUM OF POZNAŃ BREAKFASTMARKET NEW GAS BOARD STORE WITH QUOTES OFF GARBARY FREEDOM MOUND TANDEM PUB BISHOP JORDAN’S BRIDGE CENTRE OF BUSIENSS AND ART OLD BREWERY
Germanus1935OldCalendaristEcumenismEng The Bishop Who Consecrated Bishop Matthew of Bresthena Was An “Old Calendarist Ecumenist” Metropolitan Germanus of Demetrias, who consecrated Bishop Matthew of Bresthena in 1935, did not have the Gkoutzidis‐style ecclesiology. On the contrary, Metropolitan Germanus of Demetrias believed that all of the Patriarchates and Autocephalous Churches that continued to retain the Patristic Calendar were still canonical and Orthodox, even if they had not severed communion with the New Calendarists. Accordingly to this quite moderate ecclesiology, Metropolitan Germanus of Demetrias published a Pastoral Encyclical in 1935, in which he writes that the very PURPOSE of the Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece was to CO‐OPERATE with the Patriarchates and Autocephalous Churches that kept the Old Calendar! In the said Encyclical we read: “…Remaining faithful to the tradition of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the ordinances of which our Church respects and unwaveringly retains, we shall collaborate [Greek: synergazometha] with the Orthodox Churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Mt. Sinai, Mt. Athos, Russia, Poland, Serbia and the remaining Orthodox Churches that keep the Patristic Old Festal Calendar, not acquiescing to remain under the curses and anathemas of the Holy Fathers and the Orthodox Patriarchs, who in Ecumenical and Regional Councils, appointed what is befitting…” The original text in Greek reads: «...Ἐμμένοντες πιστοὶ εἰς τὰς παραδόσεις τῶν ἑπτὰ Οἰκουμενικῶν Συνόδων, τῶν ὁποῖων τὰς διατάξεις σέβεται καὶ διακρατεῖ ἀπαρασαλεύτως ἡ ἡμετέρα Ἐκκλησία [τῶν Γ.Ο.Χ. Ἑλλάδος], θὰ ΣΥΝΕΡΓΑΖΟΜΕΘΑ μετὰ τῶν ΟΡΘΟΔΟΞΩΝ Ἐκκλησιῶν Ἱεροσολύμων, Ἀντιοχείας, Ὄρους Σινᾶ, Ἁγ. Ὅρους, Ρωσσίας, Πολωνίας, Σερβίας καὶ λοιπῶν ΟΡΘΟΔΟΞΩΝ Ἐκκλησιῶν, αἴτηνες κρατοῦσι τὸ πάτριον παλαιὸν ἑορτολόγιον, μὴ στέργοντες νὰ διατελῶμεν ὑπὸ τὰς ἀρὰς καὶ τὰ ἀναθέματα τῶν Ἁγίων Πατέρων καὶ τῶν Ὀρθοδόξων Πατριαρχῶν, οἴτινες ἐν Οἰκουμενικαῖς καὶ Τοπικαῖς Συνόδοις ὡρισαν τὰ συμφέροντα...» Since Metropolitan Germanus of Demetrias believed that the
Names and terminology will be coming from multiple sources but will ultimately be determined by what I feel makes the most sense or sounds most appealing to me (ie, Witch names use the English spelling of Greek/Roman mythical figures, Bishop names use the English spelling of stars, Puck is Puck and not Pack because I hate Pack, etc).