Zealot Walling-Off: Further Clarification

The Purpose and Deviation of the G.O.C.

Greek source: Ἀποστασία καὶ Διχασμός [Apostasy and Division], by Fathers of Mount Athos (Hieromonk Maximos Agiovasileiatis and Monk Basil Agiovasileiatis), Athens, 1981, pp. 69-82.

 

 

2. Purpose of the Sacred Struggle of the G.O.C.

Such, from the beginning (1902) until the present day, has been the state of apostasy created by the shepherds of the Church—both its direct perpetrators and their collaborators—which, when viewed canonically, is utterly condemnable and unacceptable to the genuine “Conscience of the Church,” together with the inexcusable and characteristic indifference of the Hierarchs of the individual Churches. These, in no way responding to the duty incumbent upon them “in piety and righteousness,” have to this day disdained to take the position required of them in the face of this situation. These things justly aroused the sacred indignation of the abandoned Pleroma of the Church and compelled it to raise an uninnovating voice of active protest and canonical disapproval. [43]

The uninnovating Pleroma of the Church of Greece, consisting of the truly Genuine Orthodox Christians (G.O.C.), from the very creation of the Calendar Schism, began to resist, with a distinctive Patristic spirit of struggle and boldness, the apostasy which has continued ever since and has increased day by day. Thus, through its walled-off separation in 1924 from its then-innovating Hierarchy, in accordance with what is canonically enjoined by the Church, it laid full canonical and ecclesiological foundations for the purpose of the Old Calendarist struggle which it had undertaken.

The exact and unalterable observance of the objective purpose of the sacred struggle of the G.O.C., which secures unimpeachable ecclesiological foundations, concerns the preservation of the Orthodox character of the Uninnovating Pleroma of the Church. This purpose is achieved so long as, through its walled-off separation, this Pleroma remains uninvolved in the Calendar Schism and in the Ecumenist heresy now being proclaimed, in which the already condemned Hierarchy of the Church of Greece is implicated. It is likewise achieved so long as the uninnovating course of the Pleroma canonically continues “its mission and its history in the Orthodox sense.” The ultimate purpose of this active protest by the Uninnovating Pleroma of the Church is the definitive restoration of canonical good order and unity, given that the disruption of liturgical unity within the universal Church, caused by the Calendar Schism, has destroyed the external mark of her unity. [44] This theological foundation renders the purpose of the Old Calendarist struggle unassailable, firmly established, and valid. For this reason, the uninnovating Pleroma of the Church (the G.O.C.) engaged in this struggle, precisely on the basis of this purpose, finds itself and remains proceeding “within the Church,” insofar as it thereby safeguards and preserves, without innovation, her Orthodox understanding and standing.

Accordingly, the “Uninnovating Pleroma” of the Church of Greece (the G.O.C.), by pursuing a course in accordance with the canonical and traditional Patristic course, became the guardian and “protector of its Faith,” in accordance with the aforementioned declaration of the Patriarchs of the East (1848), provided, of course, that it remains wholly unrelated to and independent of the ecclesiologically erring “Church of the G.O.C. of Greece.”

The canonically grounded act of the walled-off separation of this Pleroma from its ecclesiastical Hierarchy, which is erring “in piety and righteousness,” and which frees it from the guilt, responsibility, and liability to judgment arising from the schism and heresy existing “potentially,” constitutes a complete and clear means of safeguarding the “Orthodox understanding” and ecclesiological reality of its Church, within which, according to every principle of divine and ecclesiastical law, it duly stands.

Hence, in the present case, the “Orthodox understanding” and ecclesiological identity of the Church of Greece are safeguarded ONLY through the uninnovating line and direction of her Pleroma. Only on this SOLE condition is the existence of the “Uninnovating Pleroma” (of the G.O.C.) within the Church of Greece, and its ecclesiological standing within her, to be understood. In other words, the Church of Greece cannot be constituted, ecclesiologically and canonically and “in the Orthodox sense,” either by the “erring...” Hierarchy of Greece, or by its innovating Pleroma, or by the self-styled “Church of the G.O.C. of Greece,” but, by Divine Law, ONLY by her “Uninnovating Pleroma,” even if this consists of “two or three gathered together in the Name of Christ... and abiding in the truth of the Orthodox Faith.”

The right arising from the “Orthodox understanding,” character, and ecclesiological standing of the Uninnovating Pleroma (of the G.O.C.) of the Church of Greece is, when considered from both the ecclesiastical and legal standpoints, inalienable. Accordingly, this right may be freely exercised and asserted before every lawful ecclesiastical and civil authority and power, as constituting the “Genuine Conscience of the Church,” that is, her “supreme authority,” which, according to the “Practice of the Church,” is capable of ratifying or invalidating even decisions of Ecumenical Councils, whose “ecumenical authority it seals.” [45]

And this is so because the Hierarchy of the Church of Greece, having deviated through the aforementioned acts—as continuing the schism of 1924 and being in communion with the Ecumenist heresy—ceased to preserve without innovation the Orthodox understanding and character of the Church of Greece, since it no longer safeguards the UNITY of the Church. For both the Constitution presently in force and Ecclesiastical and Canon Law “do not protect whichever particular Synod happens to exist at a given time, but rather the Synod that observes the Canons... unwaveringly.” (And especially those Canons relating to the dogmatic condition of the unity of the Church, which unity, in the present case, is safeguarded by the “Uninnovating Pleroma” of the Church—emphasis ours.) (Cf. the Report of A. N. Marinos, Councillor of State, in Orthodoxos Typos, 1981, no. 452, p. 4.)

3. Deviation of the G.O.C. “Leadership”

The general conception and significance of the above-mentioned purpose—upon which, it should be noted, the act of walled-off separation of this Uninnovating Pleroma of the Church of Greece from its innovating Hierarchy in 1924 is founded in Canon Law, and in accordance with which the founding Episcopal Leadership of the sacred struggle of the G.O.C. proceeded during the first years of its canonical, unerring, and uninfluenced pastoral governance—is radically OVERTURNED and REPUDIATED, in an entirely uncanonical and arbitrary manner, with all the ecclesiological ramifications and consequences arising therefrom, by the PRESENT-DAY “LEADERSHIP” of the G.O.C. of Greece. It should be noted that this entire “Leadership”—of all the parties—is of one mind among itself and remains a faithful adherent of the erroneous position concerning the “... Mysteries,” even to the present day!

This was officially proclaimed as a decision by the above-mentioned “Leadership” of the G.O.C. in its published Encyclical no. 1191/5 June 1974, by which the Mysteries celebrated by the New Calendarists are declared to be devoid of Divine Grace. Consequently, the Church of Greece is also declared by it to be schismatic “in actuality,” while it is further emphasized that “whoever does not accept this Encyclical is not an Old Calendarist, but deceives and exploits the Old Calendarists”!

The position proclaimed through this “decision,” “openly and publicly in the Church,” is judged canonically to be seriously contrary to the relevant provisions in this matter and to the polity of the Church. Consequently, being devoid of any ecclesiological foundation, it is condemnable and unacceptable for the following reasons:

1. Because the “Leadership” of the G.O.C. of Greece does not acknowledge that it constitutes the ecclesiastical leadership of the Uninnovating Pleroma of the Church of Greece, without rights of “hierarchical authority,” but has proclaimed itself to be another, separate Church of its own, the so-called “Church of the G.O.C. of Greece.”

2. Because this act constitutes, on the one hand, a usurpation of synodal right and authority, and, on the other, an overstepping of the canonical right of walled-off separation, so that, instead of the “salutary” result for the Church that should come through such separation, the opposite results—namely, “divisions and schisms” within her (Canon 15 of the First-Second Council).

3. Because, canonically, no individual Local Church possesses the right, by a decision of “Synodal judgment,” to declare the Mysteries of a Church invalid (or to declare that grace has been lost from them)—much less an unrecognized body such as the so-called G.O.C.—but only a Council representing the universal Church, Ecumenical or Pan-Orthodox, which would first declare a Church to be Heretical or Schismatic (that is, “in actuality”—what had previously been latent), thereafter out of communion, and finally devoid of sacramental grace.

4. Because, while it proclaims the loss of grace... and mandates rechrismation in connection with the Mystery of Baptism, nevertheless it regards its own episcopacy as valid, even though this derives in part from a New Calendarist hierarch; while, furthermore, it receives New Calendarist priests by means of a simple absolution prayer for penitents, which, as is natural, is read with the laying on of the spiritual father’s hand—the so-called “cheirothesia” according to them—and by means of a “confession.” *

5. Because the act of the “Leadership” of the G.O.C.—that is, its self-proclamation as a Church—apart from lacking ecclesiastical authority and validity, utterly destroys the aforementioned purpose and mission of the Old Calendarist struggle, upon which depend the existence and establishment of the Uninnovating Pleroma within the Church of Greece, whose aim, as stated above, is to safeguard her ecclesial identity and to continue her mission and “her history in the Orthodox sense” and character. Furthermore, the declaration, by the G.O.C. as a Church, “by Synodal judgment” of the invalidity of the New Calendarist Mysteries clearly constitutes a blasphemous expression against the Holy Spirit, while at the same time rendering the grounds for their walled-off separation from the Church of Greece devoid of canonical foundation.

6. The arbitrary and erroneous character of the aforementioned decision of the G.O.C. concerning the “... Mysteries” is evident, in addition to the foregoing, from the fact that even the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad, which the “Leadership” of the G.O.C. ** supposes to be of one mind with it and considers to be in communion with it, holds a position entirely contrary to its own, declaring in this regard: “With respect to the question of whether grace exists among the New Calendarists or not, the Orthodox Church Abroad does not consider any official or Local Church to possess the authority to render a final decision, until a definitive ruling on this matter is made solely by a canonically convened competent Ecumenical Council, with the necessary participation of a free Russian Church” (September 12/25, 1974).

As regards the actual and true position of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad, and the direction and course followed by it, it should be noted that until the beginning of 1970, these were not precisely known, since this Synod was in fact regarded by the Uninnovating Pleroma of the G.O.C. in Greece, as well as by us Athonite Fathers, as the sole Orthodox Church proceeding without innovation and as a faithful adherent of “Canonical Ecclesiastical Exactitude” in confronting both the Calendar Schism existing since 1924 and the Ecumenist heresy subsequently proclaimed down to the present day. The various actual events that followed thereafter, however, as they unfolded, revealed the ecclesiastical situation presently prevailing in the Church Abroad to be entirely different from what had been supposed above, owing to its manifest departure from the standard of applying “Canonical Ecclesiastical Exactitude” in the pressing and most fundamental matter of its ecclesiastical communion with other Churches that do not proceed without innovation.

The fact that the Ecumenist-minded Archbishop Anthony of Geneva (who had been accused as such by Presbyter Basil Sakkas of Geneva) was vindicated by the Great Council of the Hierarchy of the Church Abroad held in Canada in 1974, together with the condemnation of the latter and the inclusion therein of the “report” submitted there by the former, attests to and confirms the certainty that such communion is being maintained (see the relevant discussion of this matter in Memorandum–Report..., Mount Athos, 1979, pp. 4–7).

For this reason, the Uninnovating Pleroma of the Church (the G.O.C.) of Greece is unable to maintain ecclesiastical communion with the aforementioned Russian Diaspora, or to place itself under and become ecclesiastically dependent upon it. Nevertheless, it would be highly desirable, and indeed the fulfillment of a just aspiration of the Uninnovating Pleroma, if the binding canonical considerations concerning ecclesiastical communion were seriously and duly taken into account by the Holy Synod of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad, so that, through a forthright declaration and confession on this matter, it might thereby be enabled to preserve the uninnovating Apostolic Succession within the universal Church.

Only in this way could the Uninnovating Pleroma of the Church of Greece (the G.O.C.), which is already canonically separated from its present “erring” “Leadership,” conscientiously entrust its complete ecclesiastical dependence and spiritual guardianship to the aforementioned Holy Synod (of the Diaspora), in the event that no Orthodox Hierarch proceeding without innovation should appear in Greece, or if none of the Bishops of the present-day “Leadership” of the G.O.C. should be willing to recognize the enormous responsibility arising from the manifest decline of the sacred struggle of the G.O.C. through their own fault, and resolve openly and clearly to repudiate the reasons and causes of this decline, with a view to the emergence of a new, worthy, and canonical Leadership of the sacred struggle of the G.O.C., that is, of the Uninnovating Pleroma of the Church.

It should be noted here that, with regard to all the matters discussed in this Chapter—namely, the purpose of the struggle, the right of walled-off separation, the erroneous situation, and so forth—the entire present-day “Leadership” of the G.O.C. of Greece has in the past been duly informed through successive written communications and oral reminders and admonitions. Nevertheless, despite all the foregoing, it continues, as it ought not, along its own ideological line and course, showing no disposition whatsoever to retract its erroneous position—the Lord knows for what reason—and, as usual, always invoking in this regard considerations of expediency, which admittedly place it outside the bounds of canonical conscience.

In this way, the “Leadership” in question appears to have been wholly unwilling to understand the indisputable ecclesiological truth according to which its walled-off separation from its erring ecclesiastical Hierarchy is canonically grounded, in accordance with the aforementioned canonical provisions, ONLY insofar as it constitutes the Uninnovating Pleroma of the Church of Greece (comprising clergy and laity of every rank and order, together, of course, with its corresponding ecclesiastical Leadership), and not as the “Church of the G.O.C. of Greece.” For the latter constitutes an overstepping of canonical jurisdiction, which inevitably creates a situation gravely contrary to the relevant provisions of the Church. [46] This, moreover, was sufficiently censured by the one-time rightly proceeding Leader of the sacred struggle of the G.O.C., the late Metropolitan Chrysostomos, formerly of Florina, in his detailed “Clarification” of his Pastoral Encyclical dated January 18, 1945—a “Clarification” which, it should be noted, could not be revoked for any canonical reason, not even by its own author—in which the following characteristic statements are made, highly pertinent to the extremely chaotic and deplorable present-day condition of the “Leadership” of the G.O.C. [47]:

“According to the spirit of the divine and sacred Canons and the administrative polity of the Orthodox Eastern Church, in the event that a portion of the clergy and laity, for ecclesiastical and canonical reasons, breaks ecclesiastical communion with the presiding Authority and, for reasons of religious conscience, separates from the governing Hierarchy and establishes its own altar, however much, through its separate worship, its own houses of prayer, and its own ministers, it may appear to constitute a separate Church from that from which it separated, nevertheless, canonically, it does not cease to belong to that same one and indivisible Church... (as constituting) an undefiled and inseparable part of her... (that is, her Uninnovating Pleroma), whose history it continues in the pure and uncorrupted form of the genuine and Orthodox understanding... And this until the dispute (between the Pleroma proceeding without innovation and the Hierarchy that introduced the innovation)... is adjudicated by a Greater Council, in which all the individual Orthodox Churches are represented.”

“But until this is done, ... insofar as (the Pleroma proceeding without innovation) has not received from the Greater Council the right and authorization to represent and exercise authority over the Church, it is indeed entitled to break ecclesiastical communion with the former and to cease commemorating him; nevertheless, although entirely Orthodox in all respects, ... it cannot maintain that it, and it alone, constitutes the one and indivisible Local Orthodox Church” (see the above-mentioned Clarification, pp. 8–9).

The position concerning the “... Mysteries” officially proclaimed in this case by the “Leadership” of the G.O.C. is judged not only to be erroneous and condemnable. It is also regarded as unacceptable because it is based on purely opportunistic considerations, as is evident from the very words of those who hold this position, for they say:

“It should not be said, much less written, that the Hierarchs who introduced the calendar innovation will be deprived of grace and of the right to impart it to the faithful only when they have been declared Schismatics ‘in actuality’ and deposed by a Greater Council, because this not only fails to benefit our sacred struggle, but actually harms it through the defection of our followers from our Orthodox faction, who are held within it by the idea that the New Calendarist clergy, even before being declared Schismatics by a Council, lack the power validly to perform any sacred rite. But this assertion, besides being erroneous, also contains a certain element of demagoguery and deception of the faithful, which is contrary to the divine mission of the Church, which is obliged everywhere and always rightly to divide the word of truth, as well as to the honor and ideology of our sacred struggle.... The error of this assertion lies in the mistaken notion that the Old Calendarists remained faithful to the traditions of their fathers because the Church of the New Calendarists had thereby been deprived of Divine Grace.... The informed Old Calendarists of our Orthodox party (and not Church), however, know well that adherence to the old festal calendar does not derive from whether the Mysteries of the New Calendarists are valid or invalid, a matter upon which ONLY a legitimate Council has the right to pronounce....”

“The demagogic and exploitative character of the contrary opinion lies, on the one hand, in the hope of gaining additional adherents to the traditional calendar by brandishing as a threat the invalidity of the Mysteries of the New Calendarists, and, on the other hand, in retaining their existing adherents, especially those who are credulous and lukewarm in our sacred struggle. But the use of such demagogic and illicit means to recruit adherents to our Orthodox party may perhaps be permitted by the Latin Church, which adopts as an ethical maxim the Jesuit saying, ‘the end justifies the means,’ but not by the Orthodox Eastern Church, which always rightly divides the word of truth” (Clarification, cited above, pp. 11–12).

By virtue of the canonical and ecclesiological reasons and criteria set forth above, it is clearly demonstrated that the present-day “Leadership” of the G.O.C. of Greece, as a whole, stands in complete opposition to the fundamental purpose and mission of the sacred struggle of the Uninnovating Pleroma of the Church. Consequently, when judged according to the Canonical Practice of the Church, it is also liable to judgment before a legitimate Orthodox-minded Synod. For this reason, it can no longer rightfully represent, as its Leadership, the sacred struggle of the G.O.C. of Greece.

And since this “Leadership” may perhaps characterize as “headless” the Uninnovating Pleroma of the Church, consisting of Old Calendarist faithful, clergy and laity, which is no longer subject to it and which, by virtue of the aforementioned canonical reasons, has duly broken ecclesiastical communion with it, the following must be emphasized: this “Leadership,” as has been duly explained above, insofar as through its ecclesiological decline in both its thinking and its conduct of the sacred struggle of the Pleroma of the G.O.C. it stands canonically “condemned” and “denounced” by the genuine Conscience of the pious Pleroma of the faithful, [48] HAS FOR THAT REASON CEASED TO CONSTITUTE ITS CANONICAL LEADERSHIP! And this quite apart from its manifold decline and fragmentation into NUMEROUS “LEADERSHIPS,” culminating in the complete degradation of the episcopal office through the episcopal consecrations recently carried out by it, and in the general undermining of the spiritual prestige of the pious, struggling, Uninnovating Pleroma of the truly Genuine Orthodox Christians.

The Uninnovating Pleroma, therefore, until the emergence of its proper Orthodox-minded and irreproachable episcopal Leadership, being ecclesiologically grounded as stated above, is not justified in maintaining any ecclesiastical communion with the aforementioned fallen “Leadership,” except with the pious and irreproachable clergy of the G.O.C. who think and proceed rightly and without error, and who repudiate the erroneous positions of the aforementioned “Leadership”; by such clergy it ought also to be shepherded. For only in this way can this Pleroma not be regarded as headless, without a bishop, or as a parasynagogue, insofar as, “distinguishing” itself from its “erring” bishops, it seeks the true Bishop who thinks and proceeds without innovation, as the healthy and living Head of the Church. [49]

For this reason, the faithful Pleroma of the G.O.C., clergy and laity, must make it a matter of conscience to secure the theological purification and safeguarding of its sacred struggle and to establish it upon an unimpeachable canonical foundation, as has been extensively set forth above. For only when it becomes free from the responsibility arising from its ecclesiastical communion with the aforementioned deviant “Leadership” will it be able to preserve its Orthodox character; and only then will it truly constitute a genuine part of the Uninnovating Pleroma of the Church of Greece, thereby ecclesiologically safeguarding both the purpose of the sacred struggle and that of its walled-off separation from the deviant Hierarchy of Greece, and thus securely placing itself on a course WITHIN the Church.

This obligatory duty has particular significance for the clergy of the Pleroma of the G.O.C., which, by virtue of its position, performs the Church’s preeminent pastoral work and, together with suitable representatives from among the laity, is called upon today responsibly to UNDERTAKE the salutary REORGANIZATION of this sacred struggle and the Orthodox guidance, without innovation, of its flock, since, for the present at least, there can be no question of subjecting the rightly believing Pleroma (clergy and laity) to the present-day “Leadership” of the G.O.C., which stands canonically “condemned.”

Parallel to the position and mission of the clergy, corresponding obligations and rights also belong, in this matter, to the lay faithful of the pious Pleroma of the G.O.C. Hence, in view of the deplorable situation that has thus developed, it is an incumbent duty upon them duly to REQUIRE of their pious clergy that they undertake, fully and in every respect, THEIR SPIRITUAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL PASTORAL CARE AND, IN GENERAL, THEIR GUIDANCE AND OVERSIGHT, so that in this way they may render the purpose of the sacred struggle of the G.O.C. truly unimpeachable.

After the fulfillment of this sacred obligation, which the mission of the clergy duly enjoins and requires, it will surely be directed toward a canonical and worthy Episcopal Leadership, whenever and however the Divine Counsel of the Lord knows. This, moreover, also occurred during the first years of the sacred struggle (1924–1935), when the Lord deemed the pious Pleroma of the G.O.C. worthy of its uninnovating founding Leadership.

If today it should choose to follow the uninnovating line and course laid down by that Leadership, free from “deviations and extremes,” what is impossible for the Divine Counsel and Providence of the Lord, that He should “bring forth one worthy from among the unworthy,” even from the Hierarchy of Greece itself, and thus once again deem this pious Pleroma worthy, as in the past, of an Orthodox-minded, lawful, and canonical Ecclesiastical Leadership?

Thereafter, both the clergy and the pious Pleroma of the G.O.C., by thus safeguarding their Orthodox identity, will assuredly preserve an “Uninnovating Altar” and a “pure sacrifice,” being freed from every notion and character of a parasynagogue.

Finally, this constitutes an element and an indispensable prerequisite for safeguarding the canonical standing and the overall purpose and mission of the sacred struggle of the “Uninnovating Pleroma” of the Church, for her good and for the safeguarding of our Holy Orthodox Faith.

 

NOTES

* But the “confession” certainly restores the one making it—and repudiating the innovation, schism, or heresy (whether priest or lay believer)—to the right faith and mindset, while the prayer of absolution places him within the Uninnovating Pleroma of the faithful of the Church.

The question of the New Calendarist priest, however, if considered on the basis of the position proclaimed by the “Leadership” of the G.O.C.—namely, the loss of Divine Grace from the New Calendarist Mysteries—must be examined as to whether the ordained New Calendarist priest possesses the priesthood or not. For if he does possess the priesthood (as in fact he truly does), then he certainly celebrates valid Mysteries, irrespective of whether this priest, “because of his own sins”—in the present case, because of the sin of his communion with those who are schismatics and heretics “potentially”—is himself personally “hindered from [receiving] the grace of the Holy Spirit from the Gifts set forth” (Divine Liturgy of St. Basil the Great), that is, from the Divine Mysteries, which he has validly celebrated by virtue of the priesthood that has not yet been “suspended” in his case by a Synodal decision, something which could occur by reason of deposition, excommunication, or exclusion from communion.

But how is it possible, according to the position of the “Leadership” of the G.O.C., for the Hierarch who ordains the New Calendarist priest to perform a valid ordination, if—according always to the aforementioned position—the grace of the Holy Spirit does not operate in the Mystery of the Priesthood performed by him, having been lost?

** We say “supposes” because, as we explain below, the Russian Church Abroad in no way agrees or proceeds in accord with the position and course of the present-day “Leadership” of the G.O.C. of Greece, either with regard to the invalidity of the Mysteries (among the New Calendarists) or with regard to its ecclesiastical communion with other Churches, whether of the New or Old Calendar. Nevertheless, the “Leadership” in question endeavors and seeks to maintain communion with the Russian Church Abroad, apparently for reasons of expediency.

Hence, according to the belief of the “Leadership” of the G.O.C., the Priesthood of New Calendarist priests cannot be regarded as valid, owing to the absence of the “lost” grace of the Holy Spirit necessary for the completion of this Mystery! This theory and position cannot but be judged erroneous, for only an Ecumenical Council, by a specific act and decision, can decree the “suspension” of the always indelible Priesthood from a Local Church and declare its Mysteries devoid of Divine Grace—something which, in the present case, the “Leadership” of the G.O.C. has done entirely arbitrarily, as though acting as a super-synod! Nevertheless, in complete inconsistency with its own belief, it recognizes the validity of the Priesthood of New Calendarist priests, as stated above, by means of a simple prayer of absolution!

The fact, moreover, that this “Church” of the G.O.C. is devoid of canonical standing is evident from the consideration that the Hierarchy of the Church of Greece, which is liable to judgment—as likewise are all the innovating Hierarchies and those in communion with them—has not been judged by an Orthodox-minded Ecumenical or Pan-Orthodox Council and has not undergone a “suspension” of the sanctifying grace operative within it (that is, in other words, the Priesthood within these Churches has not been rendered inoperative). This indicates and signifies that these Churches are not “in actuality” out of communion, nor “in actuality” Schismatic or Heretical.

For this reason, the case of schism or heresy existing “potentially” does not constitute a prerequisite providing lawful grounds for the creation of another Church possessing canonical authority and ecclesiological standing, as the parasynagogue-forming “Leadership” of the G.O.C. of Greece has done in an entirely arbitrary manner.

The above-described course and position of the present-day “Leadership” as a whole of the so-called Church of the G.O.C. of Greece constitutes the fundamental cause of its self-proclamation as a Church, thereby depriving it of the dogmatic condition of unity with the universal Church and of recognition even by a single individual Local Church, given that even the Russian Church Abroad itself differs radically, both in principle and in practice, from this position and course.

Furthermore, the belief of the “Leadership” of the G.O.C. as a Church, besides rendering its very existence devoid of any canonical foundation, as stated above, and depriving it of every valid ecclesiastical-synodal right, also renders unacceptable and rejectable for it the ONLY basic and fundamental ecclesiological justification and theological basis of the G.O.C.: namely, that, according to Canon Law, they constitute the “Uninnovating Pleroma” of the Church of Greece. This, however, constitutes and signifies nothing other, for the “Leadership” in question, than a self-willed and deliberate act on its part, which inevitably places it OUTSIDE the universal Church, in the sense of the condition of her indivisible unity.

The foregoing clarification now clearly sets forth the entirely different direction and position that exist between the “Church of the G.O.C. of Greece” and the “Uninnovating Pleroma” (of the G.O.C.) of the Church of Greece (both being Old Calendarist), as well as which of them possess canonical ecclesiological standing and which, likewise, are devoid of it, as being in a parasynagogue.

It should therefore be emphasized, in view of the foregoing, that all the Churches of Orthodoxy, taking into account the aforementioned differing situation of the Old Calendarists of Greece, are OBLIGED to DISTINGUISH properly which of them they may IGNORE, as they themselves suppose, although the preeminent work of the Church is not to ignore those who have gone astray, but rather to strive to seek them out and gather them in, with a view to their restoration and salvation within the rational flock of Christ.

In view of the foregoing, it is inconceivable that the individual Orthodox Churches should IGNORE the Old Calendarists of Greece (even those among them who have gone astray), since their ecclesiological deviation is due, to a considerable extent, to the wrongly understood and applied “ecclesiastical economy” of ecclesiastical communion maintained by the aforementioned Churches among themselves—an economy which they continue to apply, with such harmful consequences, toward the Hierarchy of Greece and the other New Calendarist Hierarchies, resulting in the consolidation of the Calendar Schism and the Ecumenist Heresy.

 

FOOTNOES

43. S. Karamitsos, The Agony..., Athens, 1961, p. 73.

44. Monk Theodoretos, A Canonical Consideration of the Calendar Schism, Athens, 1976, pp. 20–21.

45. Ioannis Karmiris, Orthodox Ecclesiology, cited above, p. 349, n. 2.

46. Athonite Fathers, Memorandum–Report, cited above, pp. 1–4.

47. Athonite Fathers, Confession–Appeal, cited above, pp. 38–40.

48. Athonite Fathers, Confession–Appeal, cited above, pp. 36–38.

49. Athonite Fathers, Confession–Appeal, cited above, p. 42.

In Old Calendarist History: A Zealot Walling-Off from the G.O.C. (1975)

A Declaration of Athonite Monks

Concerning: a) the contemporary canonical irregularities and inconsistencies in the sacred struggle of the Genuine Orthodox Christians (G.O.C.) of Greece; b) the measures required for the restoration of its prestige; and c) the impending division of its Ecclesiastical Leadership.

March 25, 1975 | Mount Athos

 

 

“And if a man also strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned,
except he strive lawfully.”

With great and lively interest, we have been following the division within the leadership of the G.O.C. of Greece, which began already a year ago, and whose dramatic scenes and phases are presented to its readership by the militant periodical Orthodoxos Logos. The feelings aroused in us by the above dispute are mixed: sorrow, on the one hand, at the banishment of the blessing of peace and unity from among the Hierarchs of the sacred struggle; and, on the other, the beginnings of satisfaction, in the hope that a leadership more capable in every respect may emerge, worthy of its past and of its flock, as well as of the critical nature of the historic times through which we are passing. The contents in particular of the January–February issue of this year of Orthodoxos Logos constitute a vivid and most accurate picture of the feelings set forth above. Among its brighter aspects are not only the presence of a select body of laity at the side of the four Bishops [i.e., Metropolitans Chrysostomos (Kiousis) of Thessaloniki, Akakios of Diavleia, and Gabriel of the Cyclades, with Bishop Petros of Astoria], who, as they maintain, desire the restoration of the prestige of the Church of the Genuine Orthodox, but also the decisions of the Thessaloniki conference of January 20, 1975, which simply and sincerely point out to all the ulcer and the hemorrhaging of the great patient...

All the paragraphs of the resolution of the conference in question find us in complete agreement, and we rejoice particularly because, after nearly three decades, self-criticism is being undertaken vigorously and sincerely, with sufficient grounds for a return to the path of canonical order and good order. Unfortunately, however, there are also unfortunate aspects in the picture and situation described above which—and we say this with great sorrow—unless they are duly eliminated through correction, will not only render the above efforts fruitless, but positively harmful, adding evil upon evil and confusion upon confusion. We shall explain.

The Scriptural sayings are very well known: “Physician, heal thyself,” and “if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.” In other words, an indispensable prerequisite for anyone undertaking moral purification and the restoration of canonical good order in the Church is that he himself be pure and above reproach; that is, not only that he refrain from participating in the sins and canonical irregularities which he proposes to correct—at least during the period of this sacred undertaking—but also from every other kind of transgression, even a single one, since, according to Scripture, “he that offendeth in one point is guilty of all.” Only under such prerequisites and conditions can the purification being undertaken readily provide the faithful with the necessary guarantees that it is a sincere effort, whose results will certainly be beneficial and in the interests of the Church. On this crucial point, with great sorrow and sincerity, we wish to set forth the following three basic and fundamental conditions.

1. Communion with the Russian Church Abroad

The sacred struggle of the G.O.C. of Greece was formed and continues to exist because its purpose is to preserve itself aloof from every uncanonical and anti-traditional theory and practice—that is, aloof from the fall of the “Orthodox” Churches of today—in order precisely to safeguard the uninnovated character and genuineness of the sacred deposit handed down to us. We ask, however: Is it possible to achieve this so long as the communion of the G.O.C. with the Russian Church Abroad continues, which, as has now been conclusively demonstrated—although itself having no part in the calendar innovation—nevertheless continues to maintain communion with Churches which indiscriminately commune with or accept both the calendar innovation and the most grievous ecumenist heresy of our age? When the Primate of the above Church RECEIVES COMMUNION from the Chalice of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, while its sacred establishments there COMMEMORATE Patriarch Benedict in their divine services to this very day, how is it possible, we repeat, for us to regard Philaret as being in communion with us and virtually first among the Hierarchy of the Genuine Orthodox Bishops, while regarding Benedict as one with whom we have no communion and as an ecumenist!... What could be more inconsistent than this, and more capable of rendering the entire sacred cause of the struggle reprehensible—not to say an exploitation—in the eyes of our elders? When will it finally be understood that, so long as the above communion is maintained, the present leaders of the struggle can in no way claim that they are continuing the line of their ever-memorable leader and predecessor, the holy Chrysostomos [of Florina], and that they therefore worthily represent the sacred struggle, since the ever-memorable hierarch maintained no communion of this kind whatsoever with any of the Orthodox Churches? The use of double standards should be, and indeed is, a characteristic of the ecumenists alone, but never of those who desire to pride themselves on being Genuine Orthodox Christians...

2. The Recent Transmission of the Matthewite Error

From 1937 until today, the unsound proclamation that Grace was lost on account of the calendar innovation has caused innumerable evils within the ranks of the G.O.C. The most distressing thing in this connection, however, is that the present leadership of the struggle, having completely disregarded and scorned the abundant experience furnished by the sorrowful past in this matter, as well as the recent canonical recommendations made in order to prevent its repetition, has lately proceeded to issue the well-known Encyclical No. 1191 of June 5, 1974, in which the erroneous mindset of Matthew, which from the outset had doomed the sacred struggle, is repeated—this time with Archbishop Auxentios as its chief exponent!

Consequently, the present leadership of the G.O.C. of Greece under the aforementioned hierarch, Archbishop Auxentios, HAS NOW CEASED TO REPRESENT OUR SACRED STRUGGLE, since it has completely abandoned the original genuine spirit and purpose which, for so many consecutive years (1937–1947), the hierarchs gathered around the former Metropolitan of Florina—the leading founders of the struggle—steadfastly followed and by which they shepherded the people of God. IT HAS CEASED, we say, and can no longer lay claim to its SUCCESSION and LEADERSHIP, since it has become in every respect assimilated to Matthew, the originator of the schism among the G.O.C., while remaining, entirely without justification, separated from his successors. For through the above Encyclical it has done nothing other than embrace in its entirety his erroneous mindset, which was also the original and sole cause of the division of the pleroma of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece.

And Matthew—irrespective of his erroneous conception—was sincere in his beliefs, since from 1937 onward he was in communion with no Orthodox Church whatsoever. Thus, standing alone in the midst of the “graceless” New Calendarists and the Old Calendarists who, because of their communion with them, were gravely culpable and condemnable, he had the right, on the basis of his convictions, to proclaim as correct that which he believed and consistently put into practice, regardless of the fact that, following the “laying-on of hands” of his successors, his faction continues to this day, through the Russian Church Abroad, to be in communion even with New Calendarists! The Synod around Archbishop Auxentios, however, by means of its latest Encyclical, while accepting the Matthewite mindset and at the same time remaining in communion with the Russian Church Abroad, displays neither consistency nor sincerity, since it believes one thing, acts differently, and finally preaches the opposite! This contradictory policy inevitably places it within the following tragic dilemma: either it accepts the Encyclical of 1950, in which case it automatically renders itself liable to deposition, since the consecration it received was performed—according to the Encyclical of 1950—by uncanonical hierarchs who were themselves liable to deposition because of their communion with the impious New Calendarists; or it rejects that Encyclical, together with the similar recent Encyclical of 1974, as well as its communion with the Russian Church Abroad, in which case, and only then, is it entitled to shepherd the Orthodox flock of the G.O.C. of Greece, which desires to have a leadership that is above reproach and canonical.

Consequently, if those undertaking the work of purification and reorganization of the affairs of the Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians do not properly perceive and assess the immense damage inflicted upon the prestige of the sacred struggle by their recent Encyclical and by the matters mentioned above, we regret to say—but are obliged to declare—that they are building upon sand, concerning themselves only with the embellishment of their future edifice while disregarding its foundations! We insist upon this point because the Encyclical published in the aforementioned issue of Orthodoxos Logos equivocates in the clearest possible manner, by referring simultaneously both to the relevant decision of the Russian Church Abroad concerning the Mysteries and to “the principles and convictions” of Chrysostomos of blessed memory! For who is unaware that the departed leader, despite his firm and unwavering opposition for a full decade (1937–1947) to the erroneous Matthewite mindset, ultimately, under various moral pressures from his associates and from certain “ignorant super-Orthodox” members of his flock, accepted—at least in writing only, in the Encyclicals of 1948 and 1950—the aforementioned erroneous mindset? (For details, see Monk Theodoretos, The Calendar Schism, p. 15 ff.)

How, then, is it possible for it to interpret the Creed of the struggle in this manner, when even the Keratea faction can very easily shelter behind what it has written?... Is it possible for nectar and vinegar, milk and water, to flow from the same spring? For this reason, we firmly believe, as we have emphasized on other occasions as well, that those among the Chrysostomites—clergy and laity—who accept the beliefs of the Matthewites and unite with them will render a very great service to the sacred struggle. What service? Quite simply, they will help to bring together at last, in one faction, all those who hold and proclaim the condemnable mindset of Matthew, so that those who disagree may form the other faction, possessing a healthy mindset and confession of faith. Thus, through the above realignment, the division of the Old Calendarists will at last be justified not only canonically but also logically, and there will cease to exist not only the present grotesque situation of divided factions which nevertheless hold the same mindset and beliefs, but also the inexcusable exploitation and inconsistency being perpetrated to the detriment of the sacred struggle!

Consequently, unless this FALL of the otherwise noble and great blessed Chrysostomos is clearly REPUDIATED, the above four Most Reverend Hierarchs accomplish nothing! We write “fall,” and indeed a grave one, because, whereas according to his own declarations he undertook the sacred struggle with the purpose of curbing the extremes into which the calendar struggle was lapsing after being left without pastoral guidance, in the end he himself, yielding to the pressures and opinions of others, invested the above canonical irregularities with prestige and authority through his Encyclicals of 1948 and 1950, thereby demolishing the beautiful edifice which, with innumerable labors, he had built up over the course of an entire decade! Consequently, the declaration of the four Hierarchs that they follow the “principles and convictions” of the ever-memorable Chrysostomos is something akin to the policy pursued by Kaningos 32, which from 1960 until today has vacillated according to expediency and circumstances! Proof of what we are saying is furnished by its consecrations, its communion with the Russian Church Abroad, and the introductory remarks to the recently circulated Encyclical No. 1191, signed by Archbishop Auxentios, which state at one point as follows: “In the first part of the present booklet we publish, on the one hand, the Encyclical of the former Holy Synod of our Church, whose President was our ever-memorable Archbishop and Confessor, the former Metropolitan of Florina, Chrysostomos, and, on the other hand, the pastoral Encyclical recently issued by us, through which the Orthodox confession of faith is proclaimed with boldness and clarity, a confession which must be one and the same, identical and common to every clergyman and layman struggling within our Church.” In other words, it is as though they were saying—to recall for a moment the folk wisdom of our people, suitably adapting one of its sayings—“Do you want Grace? Take it; do you want the loss of Grace? Take that too”...

Consequently, the four Hierarchs, as well as all their collaborators, must clearly understand that half-measures no longer have any place in this matter, nor are they even permissible! It is therefore imperative that they make the clearest possible repudiation not only of the latest Encyclical, which unfortunately also bears their signatures—with the exception of that of the Bishop of Astoria [Petros]—but also of its precursor, the Encyclical of 1950, if they wish in this respect to differ from their remaining colleagues at Kaningos 32, who have now become Matthewites... No timidity or fear should possess them lest those who oppose them call them traitors and babblers on account of this stance, as they have lately been doing so profusely, precisely for lack of any other canonical and theological arguments. This has been and will remain the method employed by the sons of error and falsehood against truth and light when confronted with sound criticism. If the Synod around Archbishop Auxentios persists in its positions and in its Ieronymos-style systems of administration, and especially in its teaching concerning the loss of Grace, this gives the aforementioned Bishops and their collaborators, clergy and laity alike, every right henceforth to repudiate the Matthewite situation represented at Kaningos 32, in order to preserve the sacred baton handed down to them, even at the last moment.

The division of the faithful which will necessarily arise will, moreover, constitute the beginning of the final purification of the pleroma of the G.O.C. of Greece, with the only way open to the Auxentian Synod being the road leading to... Keratea, as we have already indicated since 1973... Certainly, some of the faithful, not being properly acquainted with the facts, will follow this course as well; no one should be distressed on this account. It will be a salutary realignment, since immediately thereafter a considerable number of New Calendarist faithful will join the ranks of the sacred struggle—people who until today had refrained from doing so precisely because of the erroneous teaching concerning the Mysteries. Furthermore, we personally believe that beneficial cooperation will soon be achieved with leading figures and members of the New Calendar, who, desiring to free themselves from responsibility for the condemnable course of their Church, will with great joy behold the canonical restoration of the sacred struggle of the Church of the G.O.C. of Greece.

* * *

Here, with sorrow, we consider it our duty to add that a considerable number of today’s Zealot Athonite Fathers, instead of continuing the work of their predecessors, those pioneers of the sacred struggle, on the contrary imitate them wholly indiscriminately—not their virtues and the rich experience gained through their struggles, but whatever was spurious and uncanonical that, together with the baton of the struggle, they left to them as an unfortunate legacy owing to their limited education. For this reason, no prophetic gift is required to foresee that the aforementioned monks will oppose this regenerative and salutary movement, should God ever be pleased that it come into being under the conditions and with the aims set forth above. To confirm our suspicions, it is enough to note the fact that, although several months have passed since the circulation of the condemnable Encyclical, they have taken no courageous action against it. On the contrary, some of them, through culpable silence, and others through scandalous activity in support of the mindset of the Auxentian Synod, are seeking once again to become responsible for, and advocates of, the propagation of the erroneous Matthewite mindset, which they are now attempting to revive and establish as the Creed and Statutory Charter of the struggle!!

And while Archbishop Auxentios writes to them in a personal letter dated February 2, 1975, which was also recently published in The Voice of Orthodoxy (Issue 709, p. 9), that “whoever does not accept this Encyclical is not an Old Calendarist, but deceives and exploits the Old Calendarists,” not one of those who disagreed dared to say to him: “We are Old Calendarists, and we reject your Encyclical; and we fraternally urge you to go to Keratea, where you belong”!

The most distressing thing, however, is that the same may also be observed in their attitude toward the continuing culpable communion—on the basis of what has been said above—of the leadership of the G.O.C. with the Russian Church Abroad. For although the Zealot Athonite Fathers here have been struggling heroically since 1924 against every form of innovation and false teaching, and for this reason have even severed ecclesiastical communion with their superior ecclesiastical authorities, nevertheless they have shown no corresponding concern or zeal regarding the aforementioned canonical irregularities, thereby rendering, as it were, their own struggle and confession vain and fruitless. Thus, these otherwise praiseworthy Fathers appear timid and speechless before those who undermine the struggle and exploit its healthy mindset, forgetting, surely, that such conduct inevitably places them, on the one hand, on the same footing as the schismatic conventicle of the Matthewites and, on the other, brings them into communion with those very persons whom they repudiated whole decades ago...

As for the conduct of the Zealots described above—fortunately, not of all of them—we were not greatly surprised, since we know well that in 1937 they too were the principal supporters of the Matthewite schism. We are perplexed, however, by the stance of the Holy Monastery of Esphigmenou, which, despite the fact that nearly a year has elapsed since the issuance of the Encyclical by the leadership at Kaningos 32, and despite its continuing communion with the Russian Church Abroad—as we also emphasized above—continues, wholly without justification, to aggravate its position through an impermissible silence and indifference, thereby compromising the prestige of its praiseworthy anti-unionist confession.

3. The Scandalous Uncanonical Practice of Unmarried Clergy Residing in Convents

As we observed at the outset, notwithstanding our agreement with all the articles of the resolution of the conference held in Thessaloniki, let us be permitted to point out here one most serious omission: namely, its failure to condemn the residence (including overnight stays) of unmarried clergy in convents—the practice of the syneisaktoi. Moral purification can never be achieved so long as this unlawful practice continues, which, according to the testimony of competent persons, keeps the sacred clergy in a state of continual corruption and decline.

A clergyman who is constantly moving about among nuns can accomplish nothing good! The words of the sacred Canons and the Holy Fathers on this matter are perfectly clear, and every justification offered by those who think and live otherwise testifies to nothing other than the existing malady, which, the more it is concealed and justified under countless and varied pretexts, the more clearly reveals both its seriousness and the grievous condition of its victims. A bishop, and indeed every clergyman in general, must devote all his diligence, care, and dedication wholeheartedly and equally to his entire flock, and not restrict and expend them upon a monastery which, to the scandal of the faithful, in violation of the sacred Canons, and—more tragically still—to the neglect of the general duties of his Diocese and Church, he has made his base and residence!

Consequently, the continuation of the above canonical irregularity can bring about not purification, but moral decline and the complete collapse of the prestige of the sacred struggle, as is clearly demonstrated by an assessment of its fruitless and corrupting results.

Concluding Remarks — Conclusions

These are the observations we wished to make briefly and in all sincerity, as spokesmen for God, concerning the existing inconsistencies and canonical irregularities and the painful crisis in the leadership of the struggle. We would add, finally, that if those who, as they maintain, desire the purification and regeneration of the Church of the G.O.C. succeed in implementing, together with what was proclaimed by the Thessaloniki conference, the above three fundamental requirements as well, then they may rest assured that, even if their fellow hierarchs ultimately reject the hand of cooperation so fraternally extended to them, they have every right and obligation to proceed with the completion of the reorganization of the struggle, BUT ALWAYS UNDER THE ABOVE THREE BASIC CONDITIONS, which alone are capable of demonstrating the degree of sincerity in their declarations. Any reaction or movement on their  part lacking the healthy and indispensable elements described above will contribute nothing to the sacred cause of the Old Calendarist movement except the creation of a harmful and culpable schism—a situation new in name only, while in reality it will be the same malady...

Nor should the pious pleroma (clergy and laity, and especially the holy monasteries) fail to realize that, if it shows partiality or remains silent in the face of such a critical situation, or fails to take care to inform itself and, to the best of its ability, to defend the truth in this matter without any ulterior motive or personality cult, it will not remain free from responsibility and guilt! For it is precisely the indifference of the flock that, as always happens, emboldens bad leaders and thus makes the flock itself an accomplice, allowing error and lawlessness to persist—just as is happening to a great extent with the New Calendarist people, who today, after the uncanonical calendar innovation, are reaping the fruits of the ecumenist tempest...

FOR THESE REASONS

Just as, years ago, we duly acted toward our local superior ecclesiastical authority, to which we canonically belong, on account both of the calendar innovation and of the contemporary false teaching of Ecumenism, so now also we consider it incumbent upon us to declare by the present statement that:

We sever all ecclesiastical communion with the Hierarchy of the Church of the G.O.C. of Greece under Archbishop Auxentios—which until today we regarded as being in communion with us—on account of its deviation and fall from canonical order and from the purpose of the sacred struggle, as has been sufficiently set forth in sections 1 and 2 above. Henceforth we shall commune only with those among its clergy and laity who, not accepting the above canonical irregularities, will cooperate in accordance with the positions set forth in the present Declaration.

We believe that the Builder of the Church, Who at the outset blessed the sacred struggle through various signs, both manifest and hidden, will not ultimately permit it today—when heresy is brazenly raising its head—to be ingloriously destroyed on account of its unworthy leaders, but will soon raise up men of aspiration and prudence, capable and worthy of shepherding the elect remnant of the new Israel of Grace. These may come from the ranks of the New Calendar or the Old Calendar respectively, but with one desire and one longing: to preserve the uninnovated character and genuineness of the Orthodox proclamation, far removed from every adulteration or exploitation of sacred and holy things...

Finally, greeting in the Lord everyone who embraces this Declaration of ours, we pray that the Lord our God may soon raise up our sacred struggle from its fall, once again to the glory of His Name and of the Church, “which He hath purchased with His own blood” (Acts 20:28).

On the Holy Mountain, March 25, 1975

Hieromonk Maximos
Monk Kallinikos
Monk Theodoretos
Monk Basil

 

Greek source: Ὀρθόδοξος Λόγος, Athens, No. 14, May 1975.

Who Are “Within the Church”? An Exchange Between Fr. Theodoretos (Mavros) and theologian Nikolaos Sotiropoulos

(From the Greek periodical, The Hagiorite, written and published by the ever-memorable Hieromonk Theodoretos [Mavros], Issue 8, September–October 1994 edition.)

 

 

 

A few months ago, the well-known spiritual father of the Sinai desert, Fr Adrian, repudiated the ecumenism of the New Calendar and joined the Church of the Old Calendar, after having ascertained in practice as well the erroneous teachings of today’s bishops of “Orthodoxy.” This, as was natural, did not please many New Calendarists, both clergy and lay theologians, since it calls their course into question and leaves them exposed before their spiritual children, who will rightly wonder what is happening.

For this reason, the periodical The Cross published an extensive comment (Aug. 1994, p. 134), observing with regard to Fr Adrian that “he did not exhaust all the means available.” In the writer’s opinion, before breaking communion with the Church of the New Calendar, he ought “to have sent circular letters to Christians throughout the world, in which he would have denounced the drift toward ecumenism of those persons who ought to have been guardians of the Orthodox faith.” The writer’s proposal concerning written protest had been employed extensively by those who, for many years, had struggled against erroneous teaching, and it produced no result; only the breaking of communion troubles them and exposes them. Thus, Fr Adrian preferred the path of action. To this end, he visited Australia and Canada, where the Greek diaspora flourishes, in order to denounce the heresy. The result? He was immediately expelled by the “Orthodox” archbishops and bishops of those regions!

For this reason, having perceived that they had by now become hardened, in the words of the divine Paul, he decided to safeguard himself by walling himself off and joining the ranks of the Old Calendarists.

Saint Theodore the Studite, whom The Cross cites as a struggler “within the Church,” applied an economy that was sufficiently strict even in the matter of the emperor’s unlawful marriage alone, breaking communion with all those chiefly responsible for the adulterous union and with those in communion with them. During the period of the Iconoclast heresy, however, the break in communion was universal: no Iconophile communed with the Iconoclasts, since the opposing sides were clearly divided, and everyone who confessed faith in and reverence for the holy icons was relentlessly persecuted. This was the situation in the Church of Byzantium. There were, however, other Local Churches and Patriarchates that did not participate in the heresy and that remained in communion with the Iconophiles.

Today, however, matters are far worse than during the Iconoclast period. The Pentarchy of the Patriarchates and all the Autocephalous Churches are in communion and cooperate with one another, persecuting those who resist the heresy of Ecumenism. Consequently, the only path remaining for anyone who wishes to remain uninvolved in the heresy and in condemned communion is the path of walling-off and communion with the Churches of the Old Calendar. The venerable tradition of Orthodoxy and the sacred Canons approve the above stance, regarding those who act in this manner as “worthy of honor”!

Unfortunately, the editors of The Cross, despite all that has been written over the course of thirty years, persist in maintaining that they can be Orthodox, like the confessors of the past, while at the same time remaining in communion with all the Churches that teach error or are in communion with such error! They call this a struggle “within the walls of the Church,” whereas it means precisely the opposite: they are within error and outside the truth! There were also certain abbots in the time of Saint Theodore who, possessing their monasteries and commemorating the heretics, thought that they were doing something pleasing to God and exercising discernment, just as the editors of The Cross do. To them the Venerable Father wrote:

“And now permit me, most honored Father, to speak more freely. You are not without responsibility simply because you were arrested by the emperor’s men and nevertheless remained free... If, after your arrest, your reverence suffered none of the things mentioned above [that is, the torments to which the faithful were subjected], forgive me, but you were deceived, brother. And do not justify yourself to me by saying that you are preserving the churches and the sacred images in the temples unharmed, as well as the commemoration of the Patriarch. Others who have fallen babble the same things. These things cannot be preserved unless there has been a betrayal of the Orthodox confession. For, I ask you, what benefit is there if we, who are called and are the temple of God, have been destroyed [through failure to confess the faith], while we take care of lifeless temples?… Alas! Others are dying, others are being exiled, others are being scourged, others are being imprisoned; others are being given refuge by the mountains, the deserts, the rocks, and the caves; and we, remaining in our homes, imagine that we shall remain unharmed. By no means…”

“I have said these things out of love for you and as a reminder that those who act in this way are deserving of punishment…” (P.G. 99, 1365 A–C).

And to Abbot Theophilos:

“...And you, most wretched man, having been ensnared by soul-destroying communion and remaining in that place of destruction—for so it should be called, and not a monastery—say that all is well... And what brethren have you preserved, when you have corrupted them through your destructive communion, even if you have kept them supplied with food? A scandal to the world, an example of denial, an incitement to perdition, flesh and not spirit, darkness and not light...” (Ibid., 1337 C).

Behold how the true Fathers of the past thought and acted, and above all the great Theodore, whom Fr Justin Popović regards as the “fearless confessor of the theanthropic truths.” Blessed are those who humbly imitate his course; truly wretched, however, are those who distort his words in order to justify their remaining in the heresy...

* * *

“Who Are ‘Within the Church’?”

(From the periodical, The Cross, Issue no. 391, November–December 1994)

 

The Old Calendarist hieromonk Fr Theodoretos Mavros criticized our comment entitled “He Did Not Exhaust the Means Available” (August 1994 issue, p. 134). That comment concerned the well-known spiritual father of the Sinai desert, Fr Adrian, who abandoned that spiritual outpost and joined the respected Old Calendarist group of Fr Cyprian of Phyle and Oropos. His criticism was published in the periodical The Hagiorite (Issue 8), which he himself publishes, under the title “Who Are ‘Within the Church’?”

In this text, Fr Theodoretos, using excerpts from letters of Saint Theodore the Studite, attempts to demonstrate “who are within erroneous teaching and outside the truth.” And, in his opinion, these are those of us who follow the New Calendar.

At first, we thought of replying on the theoretical level. Since, however, every argument admits of a counterargument, we avoided that temptation. Besides, toward the end of the above-mentioned text, Fr Theodoretos himself refutes what he has written, since, in support of his assertions, he cites the opinion of the great Serbian theologian of our century, the blessed Fr Justin Popović, writing as follows: “Behold how the true Fathers of the past thought and acted, and above all the great Theodore, whom Fr Justin Popović regards as the ‘fearless confessor of the theanthropic truths.’”

An Answer to Himself

It would perhaps be sufficient to stop here and not continue developing our thoughts, since the passage just quoted constitutes, for those who know the persons and circumstances involved, an answer by Fr Theodoretos to himself. For those, however, who are unfamiliar with Fr Justin Popović, we note the following. Fr Justin Popović had studied the Fathers of the Orthodox Eastern Church as deeply as very few others had, and Saint Theodore the Studite in particular. And since the ever-memorable Father united theory and practice in his life, we would have expected him to have walled himself off and to have had no communion either with the Patriarchate of the Serbian Church or, consequently, with the other Patriarchates. Nevertheless, he did not wall himself off, but fought his battle within the bosom of the Church, being among the first to combat the heresy of Ecumenism and to characterize it as a “pan-heresy.” Are we to suppose that Fr Justin failed to understand the deeper meaning of the words and deeds of Saint Theodore the Studite, that “fearless confessor of the theanthropic truths”? We dare not even whisper such blasphemy.

Then the Lord also granted our Church men endowed with spiritual sight, among whom were the ever-memorable Elders Porphyrios and Paisios. These grace-filled Elders never advised those who followed the New Calendar to wall themselves off, “safeguarding themselves through walling-off and joining the ranks of the Old Calendarists.” The reason is self-evident.

But let us also turn to those Elders who possess the gift of spiritual fatherhood. There are Old Calendarist spiritual fathers who hear the confessions of New Calendarist faithful without regarding them as heretics or compelling them to wall themselves off. And, so as not to create friction within the most sympathetic ranks of the Old Calendarists, we shall refer to two departed spiritual fathers, Fr Neophytos Kalofountis and Fr Niphon Astyfides, beneath whose epitrachelia many New Calendarist souls found spiritual rest. Indeed, during the first years of the schism, Fr Neophytos followed a strict policy toward New Calendarists and would not receive them for confession, until the Lord Himself rebuked him, saying: “Why are you driving away My children?”

Bringing our reflections to a close, we have this, in conclusion, to say to our beloved Fr Theodoretos, who, admittedly, has struggled for thirty years, including with his pen, in defense of the sacred things of our faith:

Reverend Father, Fr Justin and the other Fathers did not regard the safeguarding of the salvation of New Calendarists as consisting in their walling themselves off from the Church and joining one of the Old Calendarist groups, as Fr Adrian did. We do not know whether this has ever occupied your thoughts. You, of course, defend what you write on each occasion, armed with the learning you have acquired through studying the thought of the Fathers of our Church. But perhaps, in addition to this, you also need something else—something that will bring into harmony within you the thought of the Fathers with the God-pleasing way of life of the aforementioned holy men. Examine this.

* * *

Contemporary “Seers”

By Hieromonk Theodoretos Mavros the Hagiorite

 

My dear Mr Sotiropoulos, I would not have returned to the subject had you not noted in your commentary (The Cross, Dec. 1994, p. 198) certain things foreign to the Tradition of our Orthodoxy. In the above commentary, you express admiration for the “seers,” as you call them—that is, those endowed with foresight, as they are commonly described—such as Fr Paisios, Fr Porphyrios, and others. You then emphasize that the aforementioned Elders never advised the faithful of the New Calendar to follow the Old Calendar. But did they ever advise them to do anything that would protect them from the anti-Orthodox actions of the Ecumenical Patriarch and his satellites? Never! On matters of faith, they maintained silence—a silence culpable and condemnable according to the Holy Fathers. Yet they spoke at great length about prayer and almsgiving, traveling kilometers to locate good-quality water underground and hidden treasures (!), while remaining indifferent to the treasure of Orthodoxy being plundered by its supposed guardians! Nor did they miss an opportunity to exhort the faithful to obey the Church—that is, the Ecumenical Patriarch, Iakovos of America, Parthenios of Alexandria, Sotirios of Canada, Stylianos of Australia, and all those in communion with them. According to this line of conduct, neither should you have criticized Stylianos of Australia or Sotirios of Canada, just as your “seers” did not!

You forget that when Fr Paisios was asked by a journalist “how he viewed the presence of Bartholomew on the Ecumenical Throne”—Bartholomew, I repeat, who excommunicated you—he replied in all seriousness: “God, in His providence, has given us the best Patriarch for these difficult years”!! (Kathimerini, 27 November 1993). Surely you too, dear Nikolaos [Sotiropoulos], must feel ashamed on behalf of the… “seer”! I also remind you that the Athonite Fathers who supported Stylianos of Australia in his erroneous teachings received their blessing from these very “seers”!

Do not the bishops and clergy of the New Calendar continue to follow this same policy to this day, calling the Old Calendarists heretics while at the same time embracing the actual heretical Papists (and only them?), considering it a great honor to concelebrate with the arch-ecumenist and Latin-minded Bartholomew, or with Methodios Fouyas, who even prayed together with fire-worshippers at Assisi?

Is it ever possible for these “seers,” who remain indifferent to the above erroneous teachings, to constitute a criterion of Orthodoxy? Do you not see that they had become playthings of the Evil One, since nothing they said is in harmony with the patristic, anti-heretical teaching, thereby becoming a cause for so many souls to remain in communion with the heresy? Do you not remember that in the past as well, certain men who were truly saints, in their simplicity, followed a heresy, without the confessing Fathers who were then the luminaries of the Church imitating them in their slippery course?

Consider the “courtesy” and “kindness” of contemporary heretics—Jehovah’s Witnesses and Protestants, Evangelicals, Pentecostals, and so forth—especially of their teachers. Why are we not moved in the least by this “courtesy” of theirs? Because we know that their doctrines and teachings are unsound. We ought to do something similar with the words of the “seers.” Since they stand in glaring contradiction to the venerable Tradition of Orthodoxy, we should pay no attention whatsoever to their words. We should regard them as snares leading simple souls to perdition—souls for whom Christ died!

Consequently, in matters of faith and confession, we should not examine which path Fr Justin or Fr Porphyrios follows or followed, but which path ought to be followed in accordance with the Sacred Canons. This is precisely why they are called canons: so that we may regulate ourselves according to what they enjoin.

With regard to the Old Calendarist Fr Neophytos, concerning whom you write that “he followed a strict policy toward New Calendarists and would not receive them for confession until the Lord Himself rebuked him, saying, ‘Why are you driving away My children?’,” I have the following to observe. By the above, you yourself acknowledge that Fr Neophytos was within the Church, since the Lord Himself urges him to receive His children—and not only Fr Neophytos, but also all those who imitate the ecclesiastical course of this good spiritual father!

To the above you will surely reply: “And where are we to go, Fr Theodoretos? Do you not see how many factions there are among the Old Calendarists?” I agree that their divisions constitute their “Achilles’ heel,” but I by no means accept this objection of yours as a logical or theological argument, and here is why: Let us suppose that there were no Old Calendarists; what, then, should the New Calendarists do? Should they continue indefinitely and indifferently in communion with erroneous teaching, tolerating everything, as they do today? And something else: in your opinion, WHEN should New Calendarist clergy and laity break communion with those who teach error? WHAT ELSE, in your judgment, must the Ecumenists do before the bishops and clergy who are called “conservatives” repudiate them?

You urge me to search for and find something “that will bring into harmony within me the thought of the Fathers with the God-pleasing way of life of the ‘seers.’” I am unable to find it! And this is because the words and deeds of the Holy Fathers were on the same wavelength: they taught by doing and acted by teaching. But the words of the “seers” whom you admire stand in complete opposition to the teaching of the Holy Fathers! And this is because the Saints emphasized that “we cannot be saved if we live an upright life but neglect the right doctrines” (Chrysostom, Homily 13 on Genesis).

What we need, therefore, is another kind of harmony: the harmonizing of our life with the truth-bearing teaching of the Holy Fathers of the Church, if we wish to belong to Her, since, according to the great Palamas, “those who are of the truth are of the Church.”

Those who are of the truth, then, are of the Church—not those who are in communion with the Greek Patriarchates, as is continually emphasized. We must all learn that the Church has mystical and sacramental, not administrative, foundations, lest we suffer what the Westerners suffered, who followed the Pope into error so as not to find themselves outside the Church!

I remind you, on this occasion, that the Patriarchate of Antioch has already entered into communion with the heretical Monophysites, and the event passed unnoticed! Moreover, in the Church of the Life-Giving Spring in Athens (Akadimias Street), a Monophysite priest serves the Liturgy! These things do not trouble the bishops of the New Calendar; they only hasten to seal the private church of Fr Adrian in Zakynthos because he adopted the traditional calendar!

Reflect on all these things, dear Nikolaos, and pray that God may strengthen you to follow the path of our Holy Fathers, for it is deeply sorrowful to struggle throughout one’s life against various heretics and, in the end, to find oneself in communion with the “pan-heresy” of our age—Ecumenism!

 

Greek source online: https://orthodox-voice.blogspot.com/2015/03/blog-post_973.html

 

 

 

Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Attica and Boeotia of the G.O.C. Visits America and Speaks to The National Herald

Theodore Kalmoukos | October 2, 2026

 

 

BOSTON. Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Attica and Boeotia of the G.O.C., of the Archdiocese of the G.O.C. of Greece under Archbishop Kallinikos, speaks for the first time in an interview with The National Herald (“TNH”) about the remarkable work being carried out in his Metropolis, which is supported exclusively by the faith and love of the faithful. It should be emphasized that the Church of the G.O.C. receives no financial or other support whatsoever from the state, unlike the Church of Greece, whose hierarchs and priests are salaried as civil servants.

He is visiting the G.O.C. Metropolis of New York because Gerontissa Synkletiki is to be honored at the Cathedral of Saint Markella in Astoria. She taught the Greek language and the Orthodox Faith to hundreds of children of the Greek-American community.

The interview is as follows:

TNH: Your Eminence, thank you for your willingness to speak with The National Herald. What is the purpose of your visit to New York?

Metropolitan Chrysostomos: I, too, thank you for giving me this opportunity, and I pray that you may have the strength to continue the work you carry out among the Greek-American community through The National Herald—a work of preserving our Romiosyne identity under difficult circumstances. The principal purpose of my coming to America is the Hierarchical Concelebration of the Divine Liturgy that will take place at the Holy Cathedral of Saint Markella in Astoria, New York, on Sunday, October 4. There, following a decision of the Holy Synod, a special tribute will be paid to the ever-memorable Gerontissa Synkletiki Strati, that emblematic figure of the Greek-American community who devoted her life to the education of thousands of children and to nourishing them with the life-giving streams of Orthodoxy and Hellenism, while making a significant contribution to the broader society of New York.

TNH: When was your Metropolis founded?

Metropolitan Chrysostomos: It was initially founded as the “Diocese of Attica and Diavleia” in 1971, with the ever-memorable Akakios Pappas [the Younger] as its first hierarch, while the following year it was designated a “Metropolis.” It received its present name in 1999, when I was elected its ruling hierarch. It comprises twenty-five parish churches, sixteen chapels, and thirty holy monasteries. Within our metropolitan district are, among others, monasteries well known in ecclesiastical life, such as the Monastery of Venerable Irene Chrysovalantou in Lykovrysi, the Dormition of the Theotokos Monastery in Thrakomakedones, the Panachrantos Monastery in Megara, and the Monastery of Saint Sophronios in Kouvaras. Twenty-one priests, two deacons, and one hundred and fifteen monks and nuns serve within the Metropolis.

TNH: How is the Metropolis supported financially? From where are the salaries of the Metropolitan and the priests paid, and, more generally, how are the churches and monasteries maintained, since, as far as I know, you receive no financial support from the state?

Metropolitan Chrysostomos: Indeed, we receive no financial support from the state. We are sustained through the sacrifices and love of our flock. One thing that moves me in connection with our livelihood is that quite a few of our priests have large families. When we carry out our duty with love and the fear of God, the Lord does not abandon us.

TNH: Approximately how many thousands of faithful comprise your flock?

Metropolitan Chrysostomos: About thirty-six thousand. This is due to the fact that, with God’s help, we succeeded in incorporating into our fold the large influx of repatriated Greeks from Pontus, who followed the traditional calendar.

TNH: How was this made possible?

Metropolitan Chrysostomos: When I was consecrated a bishop, a devout man came and asked me to visit Aspropyrgos, where there was the Church of the Holy Trinity, saying that the people there were in need of spiritual guidance and, moreover, were outside any Synod. I visited the small church and immediately came to love both the people and the place. The church was received into our Synod, and every week I would give a talk. For a long time, the audience did not exceed five faithful. I persevered. In time, the five became ten, the ten became twenty, until it became necessary to enlarge the church and, initially, to build three more churches to meet the needs of the growing flock. For several years, every week I gave a talk in all four churches, with large numbers of the faithful attending. Also, for eight years, every week I visited four homes where families would gather, and I would convey two spiritual messages, while giving them copies of Holy Scripture, icons, and the Greek flag.

It should be noted that the first time I visited Aspropyrgos, knowing that many Pontians lived there, I thought, “A Soumela must be established here.” I did not confide this thought to anyone until 2013. In the end, this dream was truly fulfilled as if by a miracle in 2022, when the opening of the doors of the Holy Pilgrimage Church of Panagia Soumela in Aspropyrgos took place. There God deemed us worthy to enshrine the holy relics of the Holy New Martyr Kassandra of Trebizond (1677), an ancestor of the great heroes of the Greek Revolution, Alexandros and Dimitrios Ypsilantis.

TNH: What does your pastoral ministry include?

Metropolitan Chrysostomos: With the invaluable cooperation of dedicated volunteers, we care for the formation of our young people through the Catechetical Schools. Every week, material prepared according to academic standards is distributed to the catechists for three different age groups. Alongside ecclesiastical subjects, we have also incorporated topics from Greek history into the curriculum. Furthermore, since 2017 we have organized the “Garden of Soumela” Camps in Vilia, Attica. This year they were dedicated to the 200th anniversary of the Exodus of Mesolongi, as part of the Metropolis’s commemorative activities under the title “Έξοδος στην αιω‘ΝΙΟΤΗ’τα” [“Exodus into Eter‘YOUTH’nity”, a Greek wordplay combining eternity and youth].

A noteworthy cultural initiative consists of the large-scale productions we stage on religious, national, and literary themes, several of which have been posted online, as well as the free provision of Byzantine chant lessons. Our social outreach also includes the distribution of goods and blood drives, which are held three times a year with significant results.

TNH: Your Eminence, to which Archiepiscopal “faction” of the Genuine Orthodox Christians do you belong? If I am not mistaken, there are more than five.

Metropolitan Chrysostomos: I would prefer not to use the term “faction,” but rather to say that I belong to the Church of the G.O.C. of Greece under Our Beatitude, Archbishop Kallinikos. Unfortunately, the “factions” are far more than five, a situation due to the absence of legal protection. The struggle of the Old Calendarists began with great purity of intention, but this most unfortunate fragmentation has undermined that just struggle. Nowadays, anyone can put on a mitre and pose as the “Archbishop of the G.O.C.”

TNH: How many Metropolises make up your Synod? Where is it headquartered?

Metropolitan Chrysostomos: It is headquartered in Athens and consists of the Archdiocese and thirteen Metropolises within Greece, as well as sixteen Metropolises and Dioceses abroad. Of these, in America there are the Holy Metropolises of America and Toronto, and the Dioceses of Boston, and Etna and Portland.

TNH: Why do you think this “schism” between the Old and New Calendars has continued to exist for more than a century, given that the New Calendar is essentially the Old Calendar “corrected”?

Metropolitan Chrysostomos: The calendar was changed not out of concern for correction or astronomical accuracy, but for the sake of the “simultaneous celebration of the great feasts by all the Churches” (meaning also the heterodox communities), according to the 1920 encyclical of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Yet, as we have seen, this simultaneous celebration was disrupted within Orthodoxy itself. What, then, was the benefit? If astronomical accuracy had been the objective, the calendrical practice of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem could very easily have been maintained. The truth is that, if the Church of Greece had treated the first Old Calendarists with the appropriate love and understanding, the situation might have been different. Unfortunately, mistakes were made on both sides. As for why the schism continues to exist, this is directly connected, on the one hand, with Ecumenism and, on the other, with the self-interest of many who make a source of gain out of the piety of unsuspecting faithful.

TNH: Has a century not been enough to heal the wounds?

Metropolitan Chrysostomos: Unfortunately, the wounds of the first five decades after 1924 widened the divide. Even today, there are elderly people scattered throughout Greece who still speak of the harsh persecutions.

TNH: What do you think should be done today, in an age of dialogue with every kind of Christian confession, and even with non-Christian sects and factions? Can the power and dynamic of love, goodwill, and unity still be brought to bear?

Metropolitan Chrysostomos: “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and for ever.” He continually exhorts us to let our inner light shine before men, so that they may see our good works and glorify our heavenly Father. This must be our direction. The world needs to see the light with which the human soul can be flooded only through Orthodox Theology. We see this in countless examples from the lives of the Saints.

 

Greek source: https://www.ekirikas.com/o-mitropolitis-attikis-kai-voiotias-g/