PDF Archive search engine
Last database update: 07 December at 16:34 - Around 76000 files indexed.
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 Romanian hierarchs are so strict that they reject economia, should they not be the first to re‐enter the baptismal font before they dare to re‐baptize others?
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 Patriarchates of Jerusalem, Antioch, Russia, Serbia, etc, were valid Orthodox Churches, and that the role of the G.O.C. was to collaborate with them, does this not make him an “Old Calendarist Ecumenist” according to the extremist Gkoutzidian ecclesiology? If so, then that would make Germanus a graceless heretic even at this time that he was consecrating Bishop Matthew. So then, with which grace did he perform the consecration? Behold the original document in Greek, as it was found in the archive of Bp. Kirykos Kontogiannis, and criminally hidden for all of these years:
The Matthewite Bishop Kirykos Kontogiannis Is Himself An “Old Calendarist Ecumenist” Bp. Kirykos Kontogiannis is responsible for the Matthewites separating from communion with the ROCOR in 1976 on the charge of “old calendarist ecumenism.” He is also the one who warred against the theological dialogue between the Matthewites and the Kiousis Synod from 1985 to 2005, again on the charge of “Old Calendarist Ecumenism.” Bp. Kirykos also even severed communion with the holy Archbishop Andrew (Anestis) of Athens and the remaining Matthewite hierarchs, and created his own personal schism (the “Kirykite” faction), again on the charge that all other Matthewite hierarchs had supposedly fallen into “Old Calendarist Ecumenism.” But now it has been proven that this charge has always been false, because Bp. Kirykos is HIMSELF exactly what he would describe an “Old Calendarist Ecumenist.” Thus it becomes apparent that Bp. Kirykos’ reasons for schism were entirely personal, in order to promote his egotistic self‐esteem, and also as a rage of anger that he did not get elected as Archbishop of Athens instead of Nicholas. There are many proofs that Bp. Kirykos is an Old Calendarist Ecumenist. The main proof is the fact he united with the Romanian Victorite hierarchy, which traces its apostolic succession from Bp. Victor Leu (+1980) who was consecrated in 1949 by three ROCOR hierarchs, whereas Bp. Kirykos believes that the ROCOR was void of grace from 1924 onwards, and claims that anyone who believes the ROCOR had grace during this time is an “Old Calendarist Ecumenist.” Bp. Kirykos received the Romanian hierarchy into communion without re‐consecrating them, without reading a cheirothesia or prayer of absolution, but by a simple recognition! This very act is a clear sign of “Old Calendarist Ecumenism” as Bp. Kirykos himself would describe it. Another proof of Bp. Kirykos’s “Old Calendarist Ecumenism” is his recent official glorification of St. John the Romanian of Hozeva, a priest of the Jerusalem Patriarchate, who was ordained in 1947 by a bishop of the Jerusalem Patriarchate, and never severed communion with the Jerusalem Patriarchate. According to Bp. Kirykos’ own definition, St. John the Romanian was most definitely an “Old Calendarist Ecumenist.” Yet, by glorifying him and consecrating a chapel in his honour, Bp. Kirykos has proven himself to also be an “Old Calendarist Ecumenist,” thereby negating all the reasons for the schisms he has caused in the past. This therefore proves that Bp. Kirykos’ schism (the “Kirykites”) is nothing more than an egotistic parasynagogue. And it cannot be said that Bp. Kirykos was unaware that St. John the Romanian was ordained and belonged to the Jerusalem Patriarchate, because no sound hierarch glorifies a Saint without first reading the Saint’s life! And a copy of St. John the Romanian’s life was found in Bp. Kirykos’ own archive, in one of his recent folders which contained the decision of his Synod to glorify St. John the Romanian. In that book, it is clearly written in Greek that “The Patriarch of Jerusalem approved the ordination and on the 13th of May, 1947, the feastday of St. Glycheria, he was ordained as a hierodeacon by Bishop Irenarchus. On the 14th of September of the same year, he was ordained as a hieromonk and abbot of the Romanian Church in Jordan. His ordination took place in the Church of the All‐ holy Sepulchre.” A scan of the section follows: Below are photographs of Bp. Kirykos’ glorification of St. John the Romanian: Bp. Kirykos believes that the Jerusalem Patriarchate lost grace in 1924, yet at the same time he believes grace was somehow “provided” for the ordination of St. John the Romanian in 1947, and that the latter therefore performed valid mysteries and belonged to the True Church, despite having been a member of the Jerusalem Patriarchate until his very repose! In other words, grace doesn’t exist anywhere until Bp. Kirykos fancies to “grant” it a whole 61 years later! This theory that the Holy Spirit sanctifies only “wherever Kirykos wants” is NOT an example of Orthodox ecclesiology. On the contrary, it is a satanic, egotistic blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. It is not an Ecclesiology, but rather a “Kirykology.” It is an ecclesiological heresy that is not based on the Holy Fathers, but rather on the egotistic whims of a deluded man, Mr. Kirykos Kontogiannis, who for 30 years has prevented the unity of the Genuine Orthodox Christians, and has even caused several schisms (including his current Kirykite schismato‐heretical parasynagogue), supposedly due to saving the Church from “Old Calendarist Ecumenism,” whereas in actual fact among “Old Calendarist Ecumenists” is none other than Bp. Kirykos himself! May God enlighten him to repent, and for his followers to denounce his treacherous schism and work towards the unity of the G.O.C.