My last word on Abp Auxentios for the present

The Feast!

The argument against the 1985 coup is not really complete just on the basis of Fr Basil’s letter in English or Greek, but Bp Makarios’ book. It is available in English (and in the original Greek with footnotes and documents) and is the first book on this page.

I was going to write an argument to settle this once and for all, but it would appear even Bishop Moses understands that Abp Auxentios was the valid Archbishop (and that the reason for his reception with Sergios by chierothesia was the defrockment of Maximos, which frankly isn’t much better, but at least they are ceding the facts.)

Unfortunately, waiting for someone’s dead to declare that all penalties were removed implies unresolved canonical issues for the current Synod. Further, Auxentios had open support from the Westerners (10 Bishops total). Moss discounts this by arguing they weren’t Bishops of the Greek Church. (Which begs the question as to whether he selectively recognizes the autonomy document when it’s convenient.)

The basic reasons I can’t accept the 1985 trial as valid and that it was not a canonical trial are for a number of reasons: First, the canonical president left considering it schismatic, and the group which wanted to depose him worked on their own– technically once he walks out, if he or his assigned deputy is not in charge, the session must end or it is considered conspiracy. Further accusers cannot vote as judges (see Palladius on the Synod of the Oak). The innovators of 1979 moved themselves up illegally in the hierarchy during the reunion without Auxentios’ notice because they would’ve lacked the authority to continue the convention of Bishops with Auxentios or his assigned deputy (see Bp Makarios’ book). And that’s not touching the fact that none of the witnesses got their facts straight, the documents were forgeries (See Fr Basil’s letter), and they moved straight to deposition without trying a second or third attempt to convene with the president (See Bp Makarios’ book). Some of these reasons were the same reasons that the Synod of the Oak failed to legally depose St John Chrysostom (see Palladius).

Further, they elected an Archbishop who was technically under suspension for years and whose see had already been replaced.

In short, I don’t doubt that the Bishops of the GOC-Kallinikos are real Bishops; I just think their Synodical house remains out of order, because of a refusal to honestly assess their own guilt in the events of 1985. Either they believe they rightly deposed Auxentios or they didn’t. Their official position is that they did. For the above mentioned reasons, I believe they are completely wrong and acted to gain control of the Synod and the Church fund. When I bring these up, I usually get “well, we did reverse the deposition”. Fabulous. Now they should place charges on the remaining who are living who are guilty of illegally deposing their Archpastor. God is not mocked.

A joyous feast to all.