MP Academic: “The Rapprochement between the Russian Church Abroad and the Old Calendarist Movement under Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky)”

A. A. Kostryukov

Russian source: Bulletin of the St. Philaret Institute, 2021, Issue 38, pp. 160–179.

 

 

The article is devoted to the history of the rapprochement and subsequent rupture between the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR) and the Greek Old Calendarist movement during the lifetime of Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky). As a supporter of ROCOR’s isolation and of preserving tradition, he effectively abandoned unity with world Orthodoxy, preferring communion with Greek Old Calendarist bodies as those most “steadfast” in matters of faith. Statements began to be heard from the leadership describing the Church Abroad as a “small island” amid universal “apostasy.” The voices calling upon the Church’s leadership to abandon such ideas went unheard. The negative attitude toward the new calendar manifested itself in the condemnation of ROCOR’s Bulgarian parishes, as well as in the rejection of the position of St. John (Maximovich), who advocated a “universal path” for the Russian ecclesiastical emigration and broad application of oikonomia in matters of traditions and rites. In 1970, the Synod Abroad recognized one branch of the Greek Old Calendarist movement—the “Florinite” branch; in 1971, the other branch—the “Matthewite”—was also recognized. At the same time, at the conciliar level, the possibility of recognizing this body, which had been founded by only a single hierarch, was discussed. Before long, however, the Old Calendarist bodies began drawing the Church Abroad into their internal conflicts and also demanding a definitive separation from world Orthodoxy. The latter was unacceptable to ROCOR, which led to a rupture with the Greek Old Calendarist churches in 1975–1976.

 

The years of rule of the third First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR), Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky) (1964–1985), became a period of its radicalization. The “zealot” course adopted by the Church Abroad was expressed above all in the deterioration of its relations with the Moscow Patriarchate and in its distancing from the other Local Churches. Speaking at the Third All-Diaspora Council (1974), Metropolitan Philaret observed that, on its much-suffering path, the Russian Church Abroad had many enemies and virtually no friends. Its task, however, was, despite everything, to bear witness to the truth and defend the purity of Orthodoxy [Third All-Diaspora Council, 13].

The First Hierarch’s words are key to understanding ROCOR’s ideology. Insularity, combined with conservatism, was leading it toward a self-isolation that would have been impossible under the first metropolitans—Anthony (Khrapovitsky) and Anastasy (Gribanovsky). Formed within the synodal system, they regarded the necessity of maintaining communion with the Local Churches as axiomatic and sought to keep their distance from marginal movements. Unlike those hierarchs, Metropolitan Philaret had been formed spiritually on the periphery of the Russian emigration, in the non-Orthodox Chinese environment, and did not possess the same reverence for world Orthodoxy that had distinguished his predecessors.

The “zealot” faction that gained strength under Metropolitan Philaret—Archbishop Averky (Taushev), Archimandrite Constantine (Zaitsev), and Protopresbyter George Grabbe—placed the Moscow Patriarchate and the Local Churches on essentially the same footing. An even more uncompromising position toward world Orthodoxy, however, was adopted by Archimandrite Panteleimon (Metropoulos), abbot of Holy Transfiguration Monastery in Boston, who had gained the favor of the First Hierarch. [1]

Those who had only recently come from non-Orthodox backgrounds, and who were often distinguished by excessive zeal, likewise insisted on breaking communion with the Local Churches. Representatives of other Local Churches, dissatisfied with the “modernism” of their own leadership, also joined ROCOR. All these groups regarded the Church Abroad as a center of conservatism, zealously monitoring its purity and the “proper standard” of its ecclesiastical leadership. They saw the Old Calendarist groups as the alternative to the “fallen” Churches. Such groups began to emerge in the 1920s and 1930s after certain Local Churches adopted the new calendar.

The question of ROCOR’s relations with the Old Calendarist churches has been addressed in a number of studies, [2] but the details of the Church Abroad’s drift in this direction, the internal opposition to this course, and the reasons for the rupture with the Old Calendarists that soon followed have not yet received adequate treatment. Nevertheless, official and administrative documents, together with materials of a personal nature, make it possible to trace this development and identify its characteristic patterns. The history of the Church Abroad’s contacts with Old Calendarist bodies can be reconstructed with the aid of the minutes of the 1971 ROCOR Council of Bishops, the journals of the meetings of the ROCOR Synod of Bishops (Archive of the ROCOR Synod of Bishops), the correspondence of Protopresbyter George Grabbe (the “Grabbe” Collection at Stanford University), documents from the archive of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, as well as the periodical press of the Russian Church Abroad—Church Life, Orthodox Russia, and Bulletins of the Department of External Relations under the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia.

Initially regarding the introduction of the new calendar as a violation of tradition, the Russian Church Abroad nevertheless did not consider it a heresy during the 1920s–1940s and concelebrated with representatives of New Calendarist Churches. ROCOR’s position began gradually to change in the postwar years. Sympathizing with the Greek Old Calendarists, who had been left without a hierarchy, three ROCOR bishops—Seraphim (Ivanov), Theophil (Ionescu), and Leonty (Filippovich)—between 1950 and 1960 restored the hierarchy of one of the Old Calendarist branches, the “Florinite” branch. [3] Although the consecration of a bishop for a schism constituted a canonical offense, the ROCOR leadership limited itself merely to censuring its hierarchs [Slesarev, 134]. Meanwhile, sympathy for the Old Calendarists among ROCOR bishops continued to grow. At the 1964 Council of Bishops, Archbishop Averky (Taushev) described the Greek and other Old Calendarists as “the people most steadfast in the faith” [True Orthodoxy, 10]. Protopresbyter George Grabbe shared this view. Orthodox Russia was no less outspoken, its contributors seemingly competing with one another in their criticism of the new calendar. [4] Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky), however, was still wary of damaging relations with the New Calendarist Local Churches or of regarding them as heretical. The First Hierarch, for example, concelebrated with clergy of the Romanian Orthodox Church [Bartoshevich 1974]. Another interesting example may be noted. The communities of the Church Abroad in Tunisia were pastorally served by the Greek priest George Funtenekas. The fact that he belonged to a New Calendarist Church was actually convenient for the Russian émigrés: in the Greek church, Fr. George celebrated the festal services according to the new calendar and was therefore able to celebrate the same services in the Russian church according to the old calendar [Russian, 1296].

Nevertheless, the anti-modernism of the zealots made itself felt with increasing frequency. One occasion for an offensive against the new calendar arose from the situation in the Bulgarian parishes in the United States that were under ROCOR. Bulgarian émigrés, especially the younger generation, favored celebrating the Nativity of Christ according to the American civil calendar. The leadership of the Church Abroad opposed such sentiments. After the Bulgarian Orthodox Church adopted the new calendar in 1968, however, the possibility arose that the Bulgarian émigrés in America might resolve the issue simply by transferring to the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Bulgaria. For this reason, ROCOR’s Bulgarian Diocese in the United States, headed by Bishop Kirill (Yonchev), effectively adopted the new calendar. The Synod Abroad regarded this as virtually a heresy, condemned the actions of the Bulgarian parishes, and referred the final decision to the Council of Bishops [Journal 401-a].

The dispute over the calendar unfolded at the 1971 Council of Bishops, when the hierarchs considered the question of the Dutch mission. Although by no means inclined toward modernism, the mission had celebrated according to the new calendar since the time of St. John (Maximovich), which drew criticism from the zealot camp [Protocol 6, 13]. The immediate occasion for a genuine conflict, however, was precisely the “Bulgarian” problem. Archbishop Vitaly (Ustinov) spoke out against any concessions regarding the calendar. In his view, all leniency on this question had to be rejected, since the calendar was merely the first step toward modernism. He was strongly supported by Archbishop Anthony (Sinkevich) of Los Angeles and Archbishop Averky (Taushev) of Syracuse and Holy Trinity [Monastery]. The latter declared that “if the new style cannot be called a heresy, it is in any case a very harmful phenomenon.” Without awaiting a decision from the higher ecclesiastical authorities, the archbishop himself broke communion with Bishop Kirill (Yonchev) [Protocol 1, 3].

References to St. John (Maximovich) persuaded few. The “zealots” explained his leniency regarding the calendar merely as a matter of oikonomia and a temporary measure. Bishop Kirill, however, also appealed to oikonomia. He pointed out that many of his parishioners had come from Northern Greece, where they had already become accustomed to the new calendar. Such parishes constituted about half of his diocese. The hierarch also drew attention to the younger generation, who wished to celebrate the Nativity in accordance with the civil calendar. At the same time, the bishop firmly stated that he himself served only according to the old calendar and was trying to bring his entire flock back to it [Protocol 3, 1–4]. The Council found his explanations satisfactory and reaffirmed that the Julian calendar was to be used in ROCOR without any alteration [Resolutions, 3]. Despite this conciliatory decision, subsequent relations with Bishop Kirill nevertheless failed to develop satisfactorily. On October 6, 1976, the Council of Bishops resolved to expel him from ROCOR. The reason for this decision was precisely the calendar question. Bishop Kirill subsequently joined the Orthodox Church in America [Decisions 1976, 40; Psarev, 186].

Some representatives of ROCOR, however, viewed an alliance with the Old Calendarists negatively, regarding it as a betrayal of the ideals of the Russian Church Abroad and as a distortion of its ecclesiological consciousness. Such, for example, was the view of Archbishop Anthony (Bartoshevich) of Geneva and Western Europe. The hierarch wrote that ROCOR must remain “on the universal paths” followed by Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky), Archbishop Gabriel (Chepur), and St. John (Maximovich). Recalling the latter, Archbishop Anthony wrote:

“He was the last universal-minded archpastor of our Church, like Metropolitan Anthony. He understood the Church in a broadly universal sense; he lived by her and felt her living breath throughout the whole universe. He was far removed from shutting himself up in isolation, or from fear of anyone or anything. He even dared to adopt the Paschalion according to the New Style—something which we unworthy ones, of course, ought not to imitate. He understood that Orthodoxy does not consist in the calendar, for he lived Orthodoxy, and the external forms of the calendar could not trouble him” [Bartoshevich 1975b].

Archbishop Anthony (Bartoshevich) warned that association with the zealots would turn the Church Abroad into a sect. The archbishop wrote:

“I cannot trail along behind the Greek Old Calendarists… From my point of view and according to my deepest conviction, that would be a betrayal of the Church. <…> And now, seeing how far the Greek Old Calendarists have gone, to what absurdity they have come, we nevertheless continue trying to accommodate ourselves to them and please them, while ourselves sliding toward becoming a sect that cuts itself off from universal unity” [Bartoshevich 1975a].

Another ROCOR hierarch, Bishop Laurus (Škurla) of Manhattan, pointed out that it was praiseworthy to struggle against deviations, but that this should be done not by entering into schisms, but from within one’s own Local Church [Psarev, 191]. Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose) expressed a similar view. He believed that ROCOR should be open to everyone and should admit all Orthodox Christians to the Chalice, including New Calendarists. In his view, by maintaining relations with Churches whose leadership was inclined toward modernism, ROCOR became a source of strength for those who, from within their own Churches, were struggling against negative tendencies [Seraphim (Rose), 151–152]. Archbishop Anthony and Bishop Laurus, however—not to mention Fr. Seraphim—did not possess sufficient influence to have the final say on this question.

Protopresbyter George Grabbe, replying to Archbishop Anthony, wrote that he understood his concern over ROCOR’s growing isolation, which was felt more keenly in small Geneva than in vast New York. At the same time, however, he could not ignore the views of the zealots, who closely watched every step taken by the Church’s leadership. Fr. George wrote that conservatives had been displeased by his congratulations to P. Anderson [of the American YMCA- Blog Admin.] on his eightieth birthday, as well as by the establishment, by Archpriest Alexander Kiselev, of a committee for the defense of Christians persecuted by the Communist authorities. In the latter case, the zealots were indignant that representatives of other jurisdictions were included on the committee. The protopresbyter himself favored a strict approach to the calendar. In objecting to Archbishop Anthony, he recalled that Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) had in his time supported the Romanian Old Calendarists. In the same letter, Protopresbyter George Grabbe defended the necessity of rebaptizing the non-Orthodox [Grabbe 1975]. On other occasions, the protopresbyter was even more candid than in his correspondence with Archbishop Anthony. He made no secret of the fact that he regarded the path of self-isolation as normal. In a letter from Fr. George to his sister, we read:

“You write about the ‘Eastern Patriarchs.’ Alas, there are now almost no Orthodox patriarchs left. The Serbian remains; the Jerusalem Patriarch is still formally Orthodox, but is already slipping. There is no one upon whom we can rely… Any isolation is always accompanied by difficulties, but our separation is inevitable” [Psarev, 190].

Fr. George Grabbe’s rhetoric was self-destructive. In 1971 he wrote:

“The development of ecumenism not only among Protestants and Catholics, but also among a considerable portion of the Orthodox, now makes our Church, as it were, a small island amid the spreading sea of ecumenism” [Grabbe 1971].

Ten years later, by then Bishop Gregory, he declared: “One cannot close one’s eyes to the fact that, in reality, only our Church Abroad continues to preserve Orthodoxy” [Gregory].

In the Bulletins published by Bishop Gregory, participants in ecumenical events were already being referred to as “Orthodox” in quotation marks. [5] Such ideas led the Church Abroad to withdraw even from inter-Orthodox forums. Unwilling to recognize that ROCOR’s isolation benefited the Soviet regime above all, the leadership of the Church Abroad continued deliberately to retreat from the international arena, severing its ties with the Orthodox world more and more. According to a statement from the Synodal Chancery, ROCOR rejected “all forms of ecumenism” and therefore had no communion with the Church of Constantinople and “a number of other Churches.” One example was ROCOR’s refusal to participate in the “Standing Conference of Orthodox Churches in Australia” [Bulletin 31, 1].

The Old Calendarists appeared more attractive to ROCOR’s leadership. In some minds there also arose the temptation to become the leader of all the world’s “zealots.” Such an idea was promoted, for example, by Archimandrite Panteleimon (Metropoulos). In a report delivered at the Third All-Diaspora Council, he stated that ROCOR should become the foundation of an alternative worldwide jurisdiction of the True Orthodox [Psarev, 190].

By that time, the process of creating such a worldwide “pure” Church had already begun. On June 12, 1969, the Synod of Bishops sent a letter to the “Florinite” Synod stating that it recognized the canonical status of their hierarchy and the possibility of sacramental communion with them [Slesarev, 141]. On December 31, 1969, the Synod of Bishops recognized as valid all the episcopal consecrations performed by ROCOR hierarchs for the Greek Old Calendarists in the early 1960s [Psarev, 189].

On January 1, 1970, the Synod resolved to address a letter to Archbishop Auxentios (Pastras), head of the “Florinite” branch of the Greek Old Calendarists, stating that the Synod regarded their hierarchy as lawful. The text of the letter read:

“The Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia recognizes the validity of the episcopal consecrations of your predecessor, the late Archbishop Akakios, and of the subsequent consecrations of bishops of your Holy Church. Accordingly, and taking into consideration various other circumstances, our Synod of Bishops regards your hierarchy as brethren in Christ who are in full communion with us” [Decisions 1970, 14].

The letter was signed by Metropolitan Philaret; Archbishops Nikon (Rklitsky), Seraphim (Ivanov), Vitaly (Ustinov), Anthony (Sinkevich), Averky (Taushev), and Anthony (Medvedev); and Bishops Sava (Saračević), Nektary (Kontzevitch), Andrei (Rymarenko), and Laurus (Škurla) [Letter].

In August 1970, Bishop Laurus (Škurla), while in Greece, concelebrated with the “Florinites.” A year later, in July–August 1971, bishops of this branch visited America, where they concelebrated with representatives of ROCOR [Slesarev, 142].

But by preferring the Old Calendarists to the canonical Churches, the Church Abroad became hostage to a problem characteristic of all breakaway communities. Such groups sooner or later begin to fragment, competing with one another in “purity” and “truth,” while suspending and anathematizing one another.

There was not long to wait—the scandal broke out in that same year, 1971. The background to the conflict went back nine years, to 1962, when the spiritual son and subdeacon of Archbishop Vitaly (Ustinov) of Montreal and Canada, Elias Ntouskos, unexpectedly informed him that he had received the monastic tonsure with the name Akakios and had been ordained to the priesthood. Ntouskos did not tell his spiritual father the name of the bishop who had performed the ordination. There were reasons for this secrecy. The ordaining bishop proved to be another ROCOR hierarch, Archbishop Leonty (Filippovich) of Santiago. Concealing the matter from his fellow bishops, the archbishop had performed the ordination, contrary to the canons, within the territory of another diocese—in New York. None of the canonical penalties prescribed for such an offense followed. On the contrary, one violation led to another: Hieromonk Akakios established a parish in Montreal composed of his own followers and began commemorating not the ruling hierarch, Archbishop Vitaly, but Bishop Leonty [Protocol 463-a]. In 1971, the “Florinites,” who had professed their devotion to ROCOR, consecrated Akakios (Ntouskos) Bishop of Montreal and Canada, even though that title was already borne by Archbishop Vitaly (Ustinov). The Greek portion of ROCOR’s flock in Canada gradually passed over to the “Florinites” [Slesarev, 142]. Archbishop Vitaly’s demands that the Synod of Bishops declare Ntouskos’s tonsure and priestly ordination unlawful had by then come too late. The “Florinites” themselves had been informed that Ntouskos’s priestly ordination was unlawful, but they ignored the notification.

The “Florinites’” lack of respect for ROCOR was the lesser of the evils. They also began issuing ultimatums—for example, that monks from Mount Athos not be ordained and that the non-Orthodox be received only through rebaptism. Otherwise, they refused to regard ROCOR as Orthodox [Vestnik 1979, 39]. In the Russian Church Abroad, these demands were considered excessive. Moreover, the Old Calendarists began drawing ROCOR into their internal disputes. For example, the “Florinites” sought arbitration from the Synod Abroad in the conflict that had arisen between Archbishop Auxentios and Bishop Akakios (Pappas the Younger). By that time, the latter regarded himself as a special guardian of Orthodoxy and had begun accusing the “Florinites” themselves of modernism. ROCOR, however, had no desire to involve itself in the matter [Protocol 14, 4].

The “Florinites” did not stop there. They began, for example, receiving ROCOR clergy into their jurisdiction without notifying the Synod Abroad. Moreover, one of the defectors, Archimandrite John (da Rocha), was received from ROCOR into the Old Calendarist schism through baptism, after which he was tonsured anew as a monk, reordained through all the ranks of the priesthood, and consecrated a bishop for Portugal [Slesarev, 163].

The fanaticism of the “Florinites” reached its height in 1974, when they declared that the Mysteries of the canonical Church of Greece were devoid of grace. This declaration provoked protests from a considerable portion of the “Florinite” camp. ROCOR likewise regarded the decision as excessively radical. In 1975, Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky) announced the severing of communion with the “Florinite” Synod, “with the exception of Metropolitan Petros (Astyfides) of Astoria, the monks of the Holy Mountain, and the pious people” [Stolp, 59–60].

 

 

At the same time, ROCOR became embroiled in dealings with another branch of the Greek Old Calendarists—the “Matthewites.” This hierarchy, founded in 1948, was manifestly uncanonical, since it had been established by a single hierarch, Matthew (Karpathakis). Representatives of this body approached ROCOR, which inevitably gave rise to discussion. First, the fact of the unilateral episcopal consecration from which the “Matthewite” hierarchy derived required careful consideration. Second, contacts with this group threatened to draw ROCOR into yet another whirlpool of intrigues and scandals. It was unclear, for example, how their opponents, the “Florinite” followers of Auxentios, would react to friendly relations with the “Matthewites.”

On September 28, 1971, a “Matthewite” delegation arrived at the ROCOR Council of Bishops, consisting of Metropolitans Kallistos (Makris) and Epiphanios (Panayiotou), together with Protopresbyter Eugenios Tombros. Negotiations began.

When asked how they explained the origin of their hierarchy, the “Matthewites” replied that they did not insist upon its canonical status, that they sought its regularization, and that they left the decision to the ROCOR Council of Bishops. When asked about the “Florinites,” the delegates answered that they had appealed to Archbishop Auxentios thirteen times, but without success.

The anti-ecumenist and calendar position of the “Matthewites” was, of course, close to that of the Council of Bishops. But was it possible to recognize a hierarchy founded by a single hierarch? Finding itself between oikonomia and akribeia, the Council sought to examine the question from various angles. Although the First Apostolic Canon states that an episcopal consecration must be performed by no fewer than two bishops, exceptions to this rule are known. Thus, the Council referred to the Apostolic Constitutions, where it is stated that, in times of persecution, an episcopal consecration by a single bishop is permissible. [6] The Council also pointed to a number of historical precedents. In the Russian Church, for example, there was Bishop Joasaph (Bolotov), who was appointed by the Synod to America in 1799. Because the necessary number of bishops was unavailable in Irkutsk, the archimandrite was consecrated by Bishop Benjamin (Bagryansky) of Irkutsk alone [Protocol 16, 3]. Similar cases also occurred in Greece during its struggle for independence and its rupture with Constantinople. Consideration was also given to the fact that Patriarch Christophoros of Alexandria had received priests ordained by “Matthewite” bishops in their existing rank.

On the other hand, the Council had no intention of defending consecrations performed by a single bishop. It was pointed out that the Apostolic Constitutions were an uncertain source and that the Council in Trullo had not recognized them as a canonical authority. Nor are historical precedents always worthy of imitation, even when they occurred during times of persecution. It was not without reason that Canon 4 of the First Ecumenical Council and Canon 3 of the Seventh Ecumenical Council prescribed that a bishop should be ordained by all the bishops of the province. If this should prove impracticable, then, at the very least, the consecration itself must be performed by three bishops, while the others are to express their consent by written letters. Thus, even in the most difficult circumstances, the Church must send more than one bishop for an episcopal consecration. Moreover, the First Apostolic Canon itself was formulated precisely during a period of persecution.

The members of the Council explained the importance of having at least two bishops for an episcopal consecration by the principle that “the lesser is blessed by the greater.” When a bishop ordains a priest, this principle is observed. But for a bishop, a single consecrating bishop is not “greater” than he is. For him, the “greater” is the assembly of bishops. The consecration of a bishop by one bishop alone therefore violates the principle of ecclesiastical hierarchy.

Having weighed all the arguments for and against, the Council concluded that a consecration performed without observance of the canons was invalid. Among Roman Catholics, for example, the correct form alone is sufficient, even if the consecration itself is the result of someone’s arbitrary action; in Orthodoxy, however, it is also essential that it be performed with the blessing of the Church (Canon 6 of the First Ecumenical Council). It was therefore quite natural that the “Matthewite” consecrations were regarded with suspicion in the Orthodox world.

Nevertheless, oikonomia could also be applied. Canon 8 of the First Ecumenical Council was taken as a precedent: it permitted the Cathari (Novatians) to remain among the clergy after the “laying on of hands.” Among the various interpretations of the words “laying on of hands” was the explanation given by St. Tarasios at the Seventh Ecumenical Council, according to which they were to be understood not as ordination but as a blessing. Bishop Nikodim (Milaš), a canonist, interpreted these words as referring to the Mystery of Repentance. The ROCOR Council of Bishops also recalled Canon 79 of the Council of Carthage, according to which, in a case of great necessity, for the sake of the peace and benefit of the Church, Donatists could be received in their existing rank.

If oikonomia was possible in the case of the Donatists and Novatians, why could it not be applied to the Old Calendarists? The conciliar decision stated:

“In their teaching they have in no way erred against Orthodoxy, but in their striving to defend it they violated hierarchical order by having an episcopal consecration performed by a single bishop, Matthew of Vresthena [Resolutions, 27].

A simple recognition of their consecrations would have violated a number of canons, but oikonomia, according to other canons, was also possible. The Council therefore concluded that the performance of an additional laying on of hands—a cheirothesia—would be an acceptable and canonical solution.

The question of the possible reaction of the ‘Florinites” was also addressed. Metropolitan Philaret and Archbishop Averky proposed that, after the restoration of the “Matthewite” hierarchy, they should be encouraged to unite, after which they could themselves determine their future course. The Council also kept in mind that the “Florinites” themselves had expressed a desire for unity [Protocol 14, 3–6].

The following decision was adopted:

“In view of all the foregoing, as well as the desire expressed by Archbishop Auxentios that all those faithful to pure Orthodoxy in Greece should be united, the Council of Bishops resolves:

1. To deem it possible to grant the petition of Metropolitans Kallistos and Epiphanios, for which purpose two bishops are to perform over them the rite of the laying on of hands. They, in turn, are to perform the same rite over their fellow bishops, and all the bishops over the priests.

2. To require Metropolitans Kallistos and Epiphanios, as well as their fellow bishops, to take every measure toward the unification of their hierarchy, clergy, and laity with the corresponding hierarchy, clergy, and laity headed by His Beatitude Archbishop Auxentios.

3. To notify His Beatitude Archbishop Auxentios of all the foregoing.

4. To entrust the performance of the rite specified in paragraph 1 of this decision, at Holy Transfiguration Monastery in Boston, to Their Graces Archbishop Philotheos and Bishop Constantine” [Protocol 16, 6–7].

The “Matthewite” Metropolitans Kallistos and Epiphanios, who had come to the United States, agreed to the cheirothesiai. On September 30 and October 1, 1971, at Holy Transfiguration Monastery in Boston, Archbishop Philotheos (Narko) and Bishop Constantine (Essensky) performed the cheirothesiai over the Greeks [Stolp, 235]. In essence, these were actual episcopal consecrations: each was performed at a separate Liturgy, the episcopal omophoria were removed from those being consecrated, and the prayers of episcopal ordination were read in full [Slesarev, 153–154]. Upon their return, Metropolitans Kallistos and Matthew [sic; Epiphanios] performed the laying on of hands over their fellow bishops. For a time, communion between ROCOR and the “Matthewites” was established [Bochkov, 169].

But the unity proved fragile. The “Matthewites” considered ROCOR too tolerant of the new calendar and expressed dissatisfaction that New Calendarist parishes remained within its jurisdiction. Inclined toward isolation, the “Matthewites” attempted to drag the Russian Church Abroad down with them. In 1975, they demanded that ROCOR sign a “Confession of Faith” anathematizing ecumenism and the new calendar. Since ROCOR refused to sign this document, in May 1975 the “Matthewites” announced a provisional rupture of relations with ROCOR. On February 20, 1976, the “Matthewite” Synod declared that it was definitively severing communion with ROCOR [Slesarev, 157].

The Church Abroad itself, having plunged into the maelstrom of Old Calendarist scandals, for a time abandoned any further rapprochement with them, returning to this course only under the next First Hierarch, Metropolitan Vitaly (Ustinov).

The history of the rapprochement with the Old Calendarist Churches under Metropolitan Philaret thus became the logical outcome of the Russian Church Abroad’s developing self-isolation. ROCOR’s policy of isolationism was its own choice and not the result of rejection by world Orthodoxy. At the same time, during the period under consideration, the ROCOR leadership departed from the “universal” principles of Orthodox Christianity and sacrificed pan-Orthodox unity, placing the emphasis instead on “zealotry” and the preservation of traditions.

On the other hand, ROCOR’s rupture with the Old Calendarist Churches was just as natural an outcome, since, despite the radicalism of the “zealot faction,” the Church Abroad as a whole retained Orthodox ecclesiology and consisted to a considerable extent of people who categorically rejected the path of “alternative Orthodoxy.” The conceptions of the canonicity and universality of Orthodoxy that had been laid in its foundations from the very beginning of its existence preserved it from a lamentable fall and fragmentation.

 

FOOTNOTES

1. For further details, see [Kostryukov 2020a; Kostryukov 2020b].

2. See, for example, the following works: [Bochkov; Psarev; Slesarev; Stolp].

3. The Florinites are a branch of the Greek Old Calendarists, so called after the title of their leader, Metropolitan Chrysostomos (Kavouridis) of Florina.

4. See, for example: [Orthodox Russia 1982a; Orthodox Russia 1982b].

5. See, for example: [Bulletin 17, 1; Bulletin 18, 3].

6. In the Apostolic Constitutions (8.27), the following is stated on this subject: “Let a bishop be ordained by three or two bishops. If, however, anyone is ordained by a single bishop, let both he and the one who ordained him be deposed. But if necessity compels him to be ordained by a single bishop, because a greater number of bishops cannot be present during a persecution or for some other similar reason, then let him produce the consent of a greater number of bishops” [Constitutions, 195].

 

Sources

1. Bartoshevich 1974 = Anthony (Bartoshevich), Archbishop. Letter to Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky), February 23, 1974 // Stanford University. Special Collections. Grabbe Collection. Box 1. Folder 7.

2. Bartoshevich 1975a = Anthony (Bartoshevich), Archbishop. Letter to Protopresbyter G. Grabbe, February 3, 1975 // Stanford University. Special Collections. Grabbe Collection. Box 1. Folder 7.

3. Bartoshevich 1975b = Anthony (Bartoshevich), Archbishop. Letter to Protopresbyter G. Grabbe, July 25, 1975 // Stanford University. Special Collections. Grabbe Collection. Box 1. Folder 7.

4. Vestnik 1979 = “The Greek Old Calendarists” // Bulletin of the Western European Diocese. 1979. No. 13. pp. 38–39.

5. Grabbe 1971 = Grabbe, George, Protopresbyter. “Contemporary Ecumenical Renovationism and Our Attitude Toward It: A Report to the 1971 Pastoral Conference” // Stanford University. Special Collections. Grabbe Collection. Box 4. Folder 3.

6. Grabbe 1975 = Grabbe, George, Protopresbyter. Letter to Archbishop Anthony (Bartoshevich), March 9, 1975 // Stanford University. Special Collections. Grabbe Collection. Box 1. Folder 7.

7. Gregory = Gregory (Grabbe), Bishop. Report to the 1981 ROCOR Council of Bishops // Stanford University. Special Collections. Grabbe Collection. Box 3. Folder 8.

8. Journal 401-a = Journal No. 401-a of the ROCOR Synod of Bishops, January 21, 1969 // Archive of the ROCOR Synod of Bishops. File 212-a (Journals of Meetings and Minutes, 1969–1971).

9. Bulletin 17 = “A New Betrayal of Orthodoxy” // Bulletin No. 17 of the Department of External Relations under the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia. July 1978. p. 1.

10. Bulletin 18 = “It Is Not Easy to Reach Agreement” // Bulletin No. 18 of the Department of External Relations under the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia. August 1978. p. 3.

11. Bulletin 31 = “Clarification from the Synodal Chancery” // Bulletin No. 31 of the Department of External Relations under the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia. June–July 1980. p. 1.

12. Decisions 1970 = “Decisions of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia” // Church Life. 1970. Nos. 1–4. pp. 9–23.

13. Decisions 1976 = “Decisions of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia” // Church Life. 1976. Nos. 7–12. pp. 35–46.

14. Letter = Letter of the ROCOR Synod of Bishops to Archbishop Auxentios, December 31, 1969 // Archive of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate. File: Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia. Folder “1969.”

15. Constitutions = The Apostolic Constitutions, Handed Down through St. Clement, Bishop of Rome. St. Petersburg: [n.p.], 2002. 208 pp.

16. True Orthodoxy = Averky (Taushev), Archbishop. True Orthodoxy and False “Orthodoxy”: On Standing Firm in Orthodoxy under Contemporary Conditions / Report of Archbishop Averky to the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, May 13/26, 1964. Jordanville, NY: Holy Trinity Monastery, 1969. 16 pp.

17. Orthodox Russia 1982a = “The Apostles’ Fast and the New Calendarists” // Orthodox Russia. 1982. No. 13. pp. 1–2.

18. Orthodox Russia 1982b = “The Old and New Styles” // Orthodox Russia. 1982. No. 13. p. 3.

19. Protocol 1 = Protocol No. 1 of the meeting of the ROCOR Council of Bishops, September 8, 1971 // Archive of the ROCOR Synod of Bishops. File: Council of Bishops, 1971. Protocols.

20. Protocol 3 = Protocol No. 3 of the meeting of the ROCOR Council of Bishops, September 10, 1971 // Archive of the ROCOR Synod of Bishops. File: Council of Bishops, 1971. Protocols.

21. Protocol 6 = Protocol No. 6 of the meeting of the ROCOR Council of Bishops, September 14, 1971 // Archive of the ROCOR Synod of Bishops. File: Council of Bishops, 1971. Protocols.

22. Protocol 14 = Protocol No. 14 of the meeting of the ROCOR Council of Bishops, September 24, 1971 // Archive of the ROCOR Synod of Bishops. File: Council of Bishops, 1971. Protocols.

23. Protocol 16 = Protocol No. 16 of the meeting of the ROCOR Council of Bishops, September 28, 1971 // Archive of the ROCOR Synod of Bishops. File: Council of Bishops, 1971. Protocols.

24. Protocol 463 = Protocol No. 463-a of the Synod of Bishops, January 10, 1972 // Archive of the ROCOR Synod of Bishops. File 212-a (Journals of Meetings and Protocols, 1969–1971).

25. Resolutions = Resolutions and Decisions of the 1971 Council of Bishops // Archive of the ROCOR Synod of Bishops. File: Council of Bishops, 1971. pp. 1–32.

26. Seraphim (Rose) = Letters of Father Seraphim (Rose). Jordanville: Holy Trinity Monastery Press, 2005. 318 pp.

27. Third All-Diaspora Council = “The Third All-Diaspora Council” // Church Life. 1974. Nos. 7–12. pp. 13–51.

Literature

1. Bochkov = Bochkov, Pavel, Priest. A Survey of Non-Canonical Orthodox Jurisdictions of the 20th–21st Centuries. In 4 vols. Vol. 4: The Greek Old Calendarist Schism and the Non-Canonical Jurisdictions Derived from It. St. Petersburg: Svoe Izdatelstvo, 2018. 282 pp.

2. Kostryukov 2020a = Kostryukov, A. A. “On the Question of Relations between the Serbian Church and the Russian Church Abroad in the 1960s–1980s” // St. Tikhon’s University Review. Series II: History. History of the Russian Orthodox Church. 2020. Issue 92. pp. 144–157.

3. Kostryukov 2020b = Kostryukov, A. A. “The Attitude of the Russian Church Abroad toward the Non-Orthodox under Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky)” // Bulletin of the St. Philaret Institute. 2020. Issue 35. pp. 248–269.

4. Psarev = Psarev, A. V. “The Development of the Russian Church Abroad’s Outlook regarding the Local Churches and the Non-Orthodox” // Proceedings of the Fourth All-Diaspora Council of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia. Moscow: Publishing House of the Moscow Patriarchate, 2012. pp. 180–205.

5. Russian = The Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia: 1918–1968 / Edited by A. Sollogub. In 2 vols. Vol. 2. New York: ROCOR Publishing House, 1968. 690 pp.

6. Slesarev = Slesarev, A. The Old Calendarist Schism in the History of the Orthodox Church (1924–2008). Moscow: Publishing House of the Krutitsy Metochion; Society of Church History Enthusiasts, 2009. 562 pp.

7. Stolp = A Pillar of Fire: Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky) of New York and Eastern America and the Russian Church Abroad (1964–1985) / Compiled and annotated by Nun Kassia (T. A. Senina). St. Petersburg: Art of Russia, 2007. 606 pp.

 

Russian source online:

https://psmb-neos-resources.hb.bizmrg.com/target/sfi/b6ae6ad530abcf626a47158702e92314e156088e/%D0%92%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA38%2B-160-179.pdf

 

 

St. Philaret the New Confessor: On the Three-Fold Composition of the Life-Giving Cross and Our Earthly Cross

 

On the day when the Church glorifies the Life-Giving Cross, it is not superfluous for us, brothers and sisters, to remember how the Church, how the holy fathers and instructors in piety teach us to see the Life-giving and the carrying of one’s cross.

The great instructor in faith and piety among our nation, the holy hierarch Theophan the Re­cluse, used to say that the Cross of Christ is three-fold in composition; the cross which a Christian must bear in his life is three-fold in composition, just as the very wood of the Cross, according to the prophet’s prediction was comprised of the wood of three types of trees. Likewise in the mat­ter of the bearing of one’s cross we see three sides, as if three crosses which merge into one, as the holy hierarch Theophan said.

The first of these crosses is the cross of fallen mankind. The holy apostle Paul spoke of it briefly, precisely and powerfully, saying concerning him­self, “I don’t know what I do; the good which I wish to do I do not; the evil which I do not want, I do,” I become a prisoner of my sin — this is the cross of fallen man which no one can escape, of which again the holy hierarch Theophan had said, “Imagine a person who has a decomposing, stinking body tied tightly behind his shoulders; no matter where he runs or tries to wriggle out, he cannot unload this terrible stench of decom­position. It will invariably follow him, constantly pursue him.”

The second cross is that which people com­monly understand to be the earthly cross of life: this is the combination of all sorrows, all troubles, all difficulties of which our life is so rich. This is what people understand as the bearing of one’s cross — and this is right, but this is not all there is to it. One must remember as the holy fathers say: a person who is surrounded by sorrows, illnesses, troubles, but yet as soon as he turns himself over to God with all his heart with all his soul, saying, the Lord does everything to good and therefore no matter what He sends me on my life’s path, I believe that this is toward good, as soon as he says this in his heart (said the holy hierarch Theophan), ev­erything will change as if by the wave of a wand. Around him everything seems the same — all the same sorrows, the same difficulties, but he has changed and receives all of this in a completely dif­ferent way. This is how a cross-bearer must be, with firm conviction that the Heavenly Father will not give a stone instead of bread and if he sends some kind of a cross, difficulties and sorrows, that means these are beneficial for us.

I have already quoted many times the remark­able words of the elder Amvrossy of Optina who said, “What will be will be, but what will be is what God grants, and God does everything to­ward good.”

The third form of the cross. The holy hier­arch Theophan spoke about it humbly, with his characteristic profound humility. He said, “That cross is known only to those who are already on a high spiritual level, who have already overcome all temptations, who easily overcomes all tribulations. But the highest temptations — the temptations of pride, the temptation to elevate oneself over others, the temptation of thinking oneself better and higher than others because of one’s labors and feats — this cross is the heaviest, said the holy hi­erarch Theophan, and it is known only by those who have been perfected in all other things.

So we must then remember that a Christian must be a cross-bearer. As we had talked of this yesterday, the human life begins under the cross: he is baptized and a cross is put around his neck at the very moment when he enters the Church through the mystery of baptism. When he is bur­ied into the earth from whence he came, over the grave a cross is placed signifying the bearing of the cross by this faithful Christian of the Church.

Let us remember this, beloved, and let us remember about the power of the cross which strengthens a man and saves him in earthly dif­ficulties. Don’t forget, Christian soul, about this power and may the Lord, through the power of His cross, preserve you from every onslaught. Amen.

 

Source: Living Orthodoxy, Vol. XXXV, No. 1; Jan-Feb 2015, #205, pp. 24-25.

The Invincible Power of the Cross: A Great and Fearful Sign

 

The power of the Cross is a Mystery; however inexplicable it may be, it is nevertheless true and indisputable.

Nevertheless, Saint John Chrysostom refers to a custom of his time, according to which the sign of the Cross was affixed “to the emperor’s diadem, to the equipment of soldiers, and likewise to parts of the body—to the head, the breast, and the heart—as well as to the table with votive offerings and above beds.... If we must cast out demons, we make use of the Cross, just as we also do for the healing of the sick.”

Saint Benedict made the sign of the Cross over a cup containing poison, and the cup shattered as though it had been struck by a stone. Saint Julian made the sign of the Cross over a cup of poison that had been brought to him; afterward he drank it and suffered no harm. The Holy Great-Martyr Basilissa of Nicomedia protected herself with the sign of the Cross, stood amid the flames, and was preserved unharmed. The Holy Martyrs Audactus and Callisthenes made the sign of the Cross when the wild beasts that had been let loose rushed upon them, and immediately the beasts became as gentle as lambs.

From the time of the ancient ascetics down to the present day, the sign of the Cross has been the most powerful weapon against the temptations of the demons. The most fearsome devices of the devil vanish like smoke when a person makes the sign of the Cross.

Thus, it is a proof of the love of the Lord Jesus Christ for the human race that the Cross—once a sign of dishonor and shame—became, through His Crucifixion and Resurrection, a great and fearful sign, a treasury of every victorious power and might.

 

- Saint Nikolai Velimirovich, The Prologue of Ohrid [Greek edition], August 25, pp. 221–222, 1st ed., 2015, Stamoulis S.A. Publications. Shared by the G.O.C. Metropolis of Oropos and Phyle:

https://www.imoph.org/pdfs/2026/09/27/20260927aDinamisStayrou.pdf

 

Blessed Theodoretos Mavros and the Old Calendar Church

Hieromonk Theodoretos Mavros, the G.O.C., and the “Newly Walled-Off”

Nikolaos Mannis | May 22, 2016

[Note: For those who are unaware, Hieromonk Theodoretos Mavros (+2007) was an Athonite zealot well-known – in both Greece and America, through articles in St. Seraphim of Platina’s The Orthodox Word – as an advocate of the “moderate” and prudential Orthodox ecclesiology of St. Chrysostomos the New. He was a graduate of the University of Athens School of Theology and a spiritual disciple of Elder Kallinikos of the Skete of Saint Anna. He also was publicly in agreement with the ecclesiology of the Holy Synod in Resistance, though he never was a member of that community. It is noteworthy that he was selected (as mentioned below) as a theologian by Metropolitan Chrysostomos Kiousis of Thessalonika (along with Metropolitans Gabriel of the Cyclades, Akakios of Diavleia, and Petros of Astoria) to give an analysis of the contemporary state of the G.O.C. in 1985, prior to Metropolitan Chrysostomos’s union with and election as Archbishop of the G.O.C. – Blog Admin.]

 

 

On a blog of the “newly walled-off,” [1] we saw a post concerning the ever-memorable Hieromonk Theodoretos Mavros and his relationship with the G.O.C. Specifically, the following was written:

“With great sorrow, we have for some time been witnessing the systematic efforts of certain people to identify the great struggler for Orthodoxy, Hieromonk Theodoretos Mavros, with the factions of the G.O.C. The time has therefore come to restore the truth concerning the confessor Elder. For this reason, we are publishing a Divine Liturgy which he himself celebrated as a priest, and at which no bishop was commemorated, whether of the New or the Old Calendar!” [2]

Although we have not identified any “systematic efforts” to identify the late Fr. Theodoretos with the G.O.C., for the sake of truth his relationship with them should nevertheless be presented, after first posing the question that ought above all to concern the esteemed administrator of the blog Apoteichisis Now:

“What was your personal relationship, dear sir, with the ever-memorable Fr. Theodoretos? Did you perhaps know him personally, or at least read his writings, so as to understand what his position regarding the G.O.C. actually was before crudely presenting him as an adherent of the theory of the two extremes?” [3]

* * *

a. Fr. Theodoretos, together with his ever-memorable Elder Kallinikos, broke communion with the Ecumenists in 1970 and aligned themselves with the company of the Zealot Fathers (those in communion with the Synod of the G.O.C. under Archbishop Auxentios). In 1972, he wrote in a work defending the Old Calendarists:

First of all, I must state that I have never been in communion with the Matthewite faction; I am in communion only with the Chrysostomite faction (now under Archbishop Auxentios). Nevertheless, the latter faction happens to maintain a reserved attitude toward me and those who share my views. The reason? Nothing other than the disagreement that has existed for years between us and the Zealots, especially the Athonite Fathers, concerning the time and manner of approaching the most divine Mystery of the Holy Eucharist. Regarding this disagreement, you may learn every detail from our recently published work, Eucharistic Participation on the Holy Mountain. Consequently, I decided to appeal to the Russian Church Abroad, which is in communion with the Chrysostomite faction, in order to avert a rupture between the Zealot Fathers here and the hierarchy of Archbishop Auxentios.

Reply to the newspaper, Ecclesiastical Struggle – 1972.

And in another work of his from the same year:

As is well known, the whole of the Holy Mountain is subject to (= belongs to) the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and indeed is directly dependent upon it, having as its proper bishop the Ecumenical Patriarch for the time being. In the event that the Ecumenical Throne should proclaim some false doctrine or heresy—as is happening today—every Athonite who wishes to preserve the Orthodox Traditions is obliged to sever all ecclesiastical communion with it, notwithstanding his now merely formal dependence upon it, and henceforth to be in communion only with any Orthodox Church that, for the aforementioned reason, is not in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

In our view, at the present time, such Orthodox Churches are the Russian Church Abroad (under Metropolitan Philaret), the Church of the G.O.C. of Greece (under Chrysostomos), and the martyric Church of the Catacombs in Russia.

Second Open Letter to Protopresbyter Eugenios Tombros

Thus, the Synod of the G.O.C. (the successors of Metropolitan Chrysostomos, formerly of Florina), with which he had been in communion, was an Orthodox Church, and not a “Schism,” as the “newly walled-off” would have it.

b. In 1975, together with his Elder, Fr. Kallinikos, and his spiritual father, Fr. Maximos Agiovasileiatis, he broke communion with the episcopal leadership of the G.O.C. for specific reasons: (a) communion with the Russian Church Abroad, which at that time was still in communion with certain official Churches; (b) the Matthewite error concerning the invalidity of the Mysteries; and (c) bishops and hieromonks keeping syneisaktoi [women living with them]. He did not, however, break communion with those clergy or laypeople of the G.O.C. who were of like mind with them on the issues raised by these objections:

FOR THESE REASONS

Just as, years ago, we duly acted toward the ecclesiastical authority presiding over us here, 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 hereby 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 had regarded as canonical—because of its deviation and fall from canonical order and from the purpose of the sacred struggle, as sufficiently explained in sections 1 and 2 above. Henceforth, we shall be in communion only with those among its clergy and laity who, rejecting the aforementioned uncanonical practices, unite themselves with the positions set forth in the present Declaration.

We believe, moreover, that the Builder of the Church, Who in the beginning blessed the sacred struggle by various signs, both visible and invisible, will not ultimately permit it, today, when heresy brazenly raises its head, to be brought to an inglorious end because of its unworthy leaders; rather, He will soon raise up men of aspiration and discernment, capable and worthy of shepherding the elect remnant of the new Israel of Grace. These may come from the ranks of either the New Calendar or the Old Calendar, but with one desire and one consuming passion: the preservation of that which is free from innovation and of the genuineness of the Orthodox proclamation, far removed from every adulteration or exploitation of things sacred and holy.

Finally, greeting in the Lord everyone who embraces this present 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).

Holy Mountain, March 25, 1975

Hieromonk Maximos
Monk Kallinikos
Monk Theodoretos
Monk Vasileios

Orthodox Word — May 1975

c. In 1985, following the deposition of Auxentios and before the election of the new Archbishop, Chrysostomos Kiousis—with whom he maintained relations throughout their lives—he was invited, together with other theologians, by the four independent hierarchs of the G.O.C. (Akakios of Diavleia, Chrysostomos Kiousis of Thessaloniki, Gabriel of the Cyclades, and Petros of Astoria), to give his opinion concerning the further course of the Sacred Struggle of the G.O.C.:

ADVISORY OPINION

We, the undersigned theologians, having been called upon by Their Eminences the Hierarchs Akakios, Chrysostomos, Gabriel, and Petros to express our opinion as to what position the aforementioned Hierarchs should adopt with regard to the present crisis of the Sacred Struggle, respectfully submit the following:

Archimandrite Chrysostomos Spyrou [A walled-off member of the Official Church, interestingly enough – Blog Admin.]
Protopresbyter Chrysostomos Oikonomakos
Monk Theodoretos [Mavros]
Stavros Karamitsos
Vasileios Premos
Avraam Tsimbrikas

d. In 1990, he wrote the following in his book The Antidote (I wonder whether his supposed “successors” have read it):

(Whether Fr. Nikodemos will place himself under the G.O.C. or not is purely a matter of personal choice, in view of our “ecumenical” times, given that the G.O.C. do not constitute a parasynagogue, as some maintain, but rather the continuation of the uninnovated Church of Greece.)

For, as one pious priest of the Russian Church Abroad also writes: “The purpose of the Most Holy Church of the G.O.C., Fr. Nestor, is not the observance of STRICTNESS, but the SALVATION OF MEN AND THEIR SANCTIFICATION.” The Most Holy Church of the G.O.C. recognizes no other purpose.

Your attempt to tarnish the righteous struggle of the G.O.C. on account of certain deviations that have occurred and continue to occur within this noble resistance places you beside the point and outside the substance of the matter. We are all aware of the weaknesses and passions of the leaders and people of the G.O.C.... This, however, by no means signifies that the New Calendarists are characterized by strength and dispassion.

Let us not, then, confuse ideas with those who represent them!

In any case, it would be highly desirable for the various “irregularities,” “human teachings,” and “administrative disorders” soon to disappear completely from among the G.O.C. The times demand it, the people demand it, and so does the “symbol” of their struggle. Only in this way will every critical tongue and malicious disposition be silenced which, relying on the foregoing, seeks to diminish the overall theoretical position of the Old Calendarist movement.

From the book, The Antidote (1990)

e. But the Church of the G.O.C. also regarded him as one of its own clergymen, and not as an enemy, as is evident from an article published in what was then (1998) its official periodical:

Hieromonk Theodoretos the Athonite, The Antichrist and His Mark.
Published by the Monastery of the Annunciation, Paros, 98 pp., Athens 1998.

The author, Fr. Theodoretos, an accomplished theologian, is one of the most prolific clergymen of our Church and has, over the years, dealt with many important and pressing issues.

In this book, he refutes the erroneous views concerning the Antichrist held by the New Calendarist bishop Meletios Kalamaras, well known for his ecumenist positions in connection with the Chambésy Agreement with the Monophysites, as well as the corresponding views of Protopresbyter Vasileios Voloudakis.

Fr. Theodoretos’s work is indeed a very serious one, and is the fruit not only of the author’s well-known piety, but also of his extensive learning and scholarly training. We warmly recommend the reading of this book, as well as its further dissemination for the benefit of souls. We congratulate Fr. Theodoretos and pray that he may give us other works of such importance.

Church of the G.O.C. of Greece (September–October 1998)

f. In 2003, he published in Orthodoxos Typos the following, indeed very instructive, reply to a commemorator, in which the differing understanding of the G.O.C. held by the ever-memorable Fr. Theodoretos and by the “newly walled-off” is clearly evident:

Dialogue with Zealots

Dear Editor,

Greetings in the Lord,

My dear Fr. Maximos, commenting on my article concerning the calendar innovation, concludes that “Fr. Theodoretos speaks quite well against the New Calendar....” He does, however, have a few questions, which I answer here.

1. He is perplexed by the many factions of the Old Calendarists and asks in which one he will be saved. The answer is simple. It is a thousand times preferable for him to follow one of the existing Synods than to commemorate a heretical patriarch. The difference is an immense abyss! And let him not forget that, as I have written many times in the past, most of the divisions were created and perpetuated by the New Calendarists, in order to bring this splendid movement into disrepute—a movement far superior in significance and importance to that of the Kollyvades.

Since behind Fr. Maximos’s above question lies the position, “We of the New Calendar, by virtue of our unity, demonstrate the correct position regarding the calendar question,” we inform him that unity has importance and significance only when it serves the truth; otherwise, it degenerates into Papism—that is, unity in falsehood and manifold wrongdoing.

2. He then adds: “The calendar is not a dogmatic issue, and for that reason Christians should not be divided over it.”

By this statement he shows that he did not pay due attention to my article, which proves precisely this point: namely, that even for reasons that are not dogmatic, cessation of commemoration is required.

With regard to the Old Calendar Synods, which he criticizes, he should know that their ordinations are dogmatically valid and that they are fully covered by the Sacred Canons, since they do not maintain communion with the New Calendarists, who since 1924 have been following the heresy of Ecumenism. In proof of the above, I refer him to the recent and comprehensive articles by Mr. D. Chatzinikolaou (St. Agathangelos, April 2003, pp. 11–19) and Fr. N. Dimaras (The Holy Kollyvades, April 2003). Let him study them carefully, and he will see to what degree of heresy Mr. Bartholomew and his followers have led him; and let him not stop at the calendar innovation, which constitutes the beginning of the ecumenist false teaching and scourge.

3. For the New Calendarists simply to return to the Old Calendar would not remedy the situation, just as the lifting of the anathema of 1054 by itself does not remedy the Pope’s position.... Since 1924, so many heresies have followed that one would now need a computer just to keep track of them....

4. His final conclusion, that the G.O.C. must come to terms with one another, “otherwise they remain outside the Church,” is ecclesiologically unacceptable; for if each Synod does not constitute a saving Church, neither will they create such a Church by uniting with one another.

Finally, with regard to the “contemporary miracle-working saints” whom he mentions, I have dealt with this subject almost exhaustively in my book When the Guardians Betray, pp. 63–68, in response to a related question by the theologian Mr. N. Sotiropoulos.

Thank you for the hospitality.

I remain, with love in the Lord,

Hieromonk Theodoretos
Holy Monastery of the Annunciation
84400 Paros – P.O. Box 27

Orthodoxos Typos, June 27, 2003

g. The fact that Fr. Theodoretos did not commemorate aloud any particular bishop of the G.O.C. (but commemorated “EVERY ORTHODOX BISHOP”) has nothing whatsoever to do with the reason invoked by the “newly walled-off” for doing the same—namely, their appeal to Canon 16 of the First-Second Council of Constantinople, which the late Fr. Theodoretos never cited in order to attack the G.O.C. [4]

On the contrary, this unifying practice that he followed with regard to commemoration arose both from the division of the G.O.C. (the successors of Chrysostomos, formerly of Florina) into more than one Synod—a fact over which he grieved, since, unlike the self-styled “newly walled-off,” he was not indifferent to the Sacred Struggle—and from the fact that, at that time, none of these Synods was beyond reproach, whether with respect to ecclesiological views or to canonical order, so that he could attach himself exclusively to one of them while rejecting communion with members of the others.

The ever-memorable Fr. Theodoretos, whom we had the blessing to know personally and from whom we benefited greatly, never distanced himself from the Sacred Struggle of the G.O.C., nor was he ashamed to bear the marks of the reproach directed against them. Let the “newly walled-off” keep this firmly in mind. They have the right to believe whatever they wish, but not to present as sharing their views that unforgettable struggler for Orthodoxy, with whose spirit, unfortunately, they have no connection whatsoever, as has been clearly demonstrated by the evidence presented above.

 

NOTES

1. By “newly walled-off” (to distinguish them from those who walled themselves off earlier), we mean a significant group of faithful who walled themselves off from the official Church following the Pope’s visits to Athens (2001) and the Phanar (2006). They are divided into two groups:

a. the New Calendarist “newly walled-off,” under Fr. Euthymios Trikaminas; and

b. the Old Calendarist “newly walled-off,” who express their views online through the blog Apoteichisis Now.

2. http://apotixisis.blogspot.gr/2016/05/blog-post_59.html

3. According to this “theory of the two extremes,” which was taught by Fr. Epiphanios Theodoropoulos, the Ecumenists and the G.O.C. constitute two extremes. Fr. Theodoretos opposed this theory in his books Dialogues of the Desert Concerning Ecumenism and The Antidote.

4. Indeed, if the “newly walled-off” wish to be consistent with their “ecclesiology,” they should not commemorate “every episcopate of the Orthodox” (since they recognize no bishop as Orthodox), but rather “For our Archbishop,” omitting the name.

 

Greek source: https://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2016/05/blog-post_22.html

Metropolitan Petros: To the Priest in a Foreign Land

 

A priest upon a foreign shore
hides in his heart a wound he bore...
He is not only Christ’s devoted
servant and minister.
In the open-hearted light of dawn,
he is the Apostle of that land...
a star pursued by the rainstorm
of the night.

As a priest in foreign lands,
he lives with longing, without solace,
a laborer in the vineyard and in
the service of Christ;
he scatters light and joy,
but his... broken wings
cannot fly as far as the distant
motherland...

And so, no one speaks of it anymore;
yet sometimes there falls
into the chalice the tear
of the homesick priest...
Upon the bed of faith,
the lambs of longing are sacrificed;
and the soul dozes lightly
at the edge of expectation.

 

Greek source: Ἀπό τό περιβόλι τῆς Παναγίας τήν Μυροβόλο Χίο καί τήν Ἀμερική [Sacred Memories from the Garden of the Theotokos, Fragrant Chios, and America], Metropolitan Petros of Astoria, Athens, 1990, pp. 98-99.

Concerning Canonical Order, Ecclesiastical Confession, and the Responsibility of Pastors

Ioannis N. Paparrigas | September 26, 2026

 

 

Every clergyman certainly has the right to formulate personal theological or canonical views and to express reservations or disagreements. There is, however, an institutional reality that personal assessments cannot set aside: decisions already taken by the competent ecclesiastical bodies remain binding elements of ecclesiastical order until revoked, corrected, or replaced by a new ecclesiastical decision. However much a clergyman may believe that expressing his personal disagreement constitutes “confessing the Faith,” he should remember the distinction between inward conviction and actual ecclesiastical action. Confession is not exhausted by stating a theological position one personally considers correct. It also entails the responsibility to struggle within the Church to restore what one believes has deviated, accepting, when necessary, the cost of one’s stance.

The Fathers of the Church did not treat major ecclesiastical problems as personal disagreements that could simply be placed on record and then set aside. When they perceived that the faith or the canonical order of the Church was at stake, they were not content merely to state their opposition privately, nor did they consider that their personal disagreement, by itself, marked the end of their responsibility. They struggled, appealed to the competent ecclesiastical authorities, requested that the matter be examined, presented their testimony, and insisted upon the need to correct the problem. For this reason, the severing of ecclesiastical communion was not, for them, the first or easy solution. It came as a last resort, when it had become clear that there was no longer any possibility of healing the situation through the ordinary ecclesiastical means, or when persistence in a particular error had assumed such proportions that the continuation of communion itself created a serious ecclesiological problem.

There is an essential difference between saying, “I disagree,” which expresses a personal position, and saying, “I am striving to have the matter with which I disagree corrected,” which denotes ecclesiastical responsibility, personal cost, and concrete action. Greater still is the difference between declaring that one is “confessing the Faith” and actually assuming all the consequences of that confession when it comes into conflict with an already established ecclesiastical situation. True confession, therefore, cannot be confined to words that soothe the personal conscience while, in practice, everything remains exactly as it was before. If someone believes that an ecclesiastical decision or practice is mistaken, the matter does not end simply with his stating that he personally disagrees with it. The real question is what he does in order to seek the restoration of order, what ecclesiastical means he employs, and, above all, how far he is prepared to go when he sees that efforts at correction are bearing no fruit. The history of the Church presents to us as a model neither unconditional submission nor facile withdrawal. It presents the difficult path of struggle: first, the effort to heal the problem within the Church and, when this becomes impossible and the requisite ecclesiological conditions are present, the acceptance of the necessary consequences of confession as well. Confession without a struggle for the restoration of truth risks remaining merely a personal disagreement, while confession that is never accompanied by action and sacrifice may ultimately become a convenient form of inward dissent without any real ecclesiastical consequence.

 

Greek source: https://entoytwnika1.blogspot.com/2026/09/blog-post_26.html