Protocol No. 1096
Fili, Attika
12 December 1998 (Old Style)
St. Spyridon of Trimythous
AN INFORMATORY EPISTLE
Most Reverend and Right Reverend
beloved Brethren in the Holy Spirit and concelebrants with me, the unworthy
one: greeting you with a holy kiss in Christ our Incarnate Savior, it is with
the greatest pleasure that I address you.
I
A Very Serious
Matter Has Arisen
1. I hasten, through the present Informatory
Epistle, to share some of my opinions with you in a timely manner—in a
condensed form, of course, and with the prospect of a more wide-ranging
discussion in Synod at a suitable time, with the coöperation of the Lord—on a
very serious matter that has recently arisen.
2. The matter in question is the
synodal endorsement of the “Constitutional Charter and Regulations” (18
September 1998) of the [Old Calendarist] jurisdiction of Archbishop
Chrysostomos (Kiousis) and of its “Synodal Condemnation and Anathematization of
the Heresy of Ecumenism” (25 September 1998), which is now in force.
3. The documents at issue were
published in the “official journal” of this jurisdiction, i.e., in the
periodical Ἐκκλησία Γ.Ο.Χ. Ἑλλάδος [The True Orthodox Church of Greece] (No.
23 [November-December 1998], pp. 25-40 and p. 45, respectively), and they provoked—primarily
the first, namely, the “Constitutional Charter and Regulations”—a strong
reaction in its ranks.
4. It is almost certain that the
waves of the tempest that has been stirred up will also strike the ship of our
own Holy Synod in Resistance, and especially at the level of our spiritual
children, some of whom are pious, but naïve and ill-informed.
5. For this reason, I am setting
forth for you, Most Reverend and Right Reverend Brethren, some general
observations regarding the aforementioned texts and decisions, in order that we
might have a common understanding regarding matters of such ecclesiological
gravity and importance, and that in this way unity among us, and also sobriety,
might be preserved, so that, by the Grace of the Lord, we might continue
working positively and constructively for the unity of the Most Holy Orthodox
Church.
6. A fruitful and constructive
discussion of the ecclesiological views set forth in what follows is assuredly
to be wished for and desired, since it will certainly contribute to our
discerning clearly and unerringly “what is that good and acceptable and perfect
will of God.” [1]
7. To this end, and for a more
detailed exposition of the issues dealt with in the present Informatory
Epistle, we are also sending three earlier ecclesiological texts of ours,
to wit, the following:
(i) “The ‘Lawful’ Character of
the Struggle Against Ecumenism.”
(ii) “On the Status of
Uncondemned Heretics”
(iii) “The Nature of the
Condemnation of the Papal Calendar.”
8. Finally, I would remind you
that the ecclesiological precepts in question, based on the aforementioned
works, were presented by me on the Sunday of Orthodoxy and published under the
title, The Heresy of Ecumenism and the Patristic Stand of the Orthodox,
Number IV in the Series “Contributions to a Theology of Anti-Ecumenism” (Etna,
CA: Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 1998).
* * *
II
Basic
Ecclesiological Precepts
1. In order that you might
understand more fully all of the points that will subsequently be set forth,
let me remind you of the following basic ecclesiological precepts:
(a) The Old Calendarist Orthodox
in resistance, who have walled themselves off on account of ecumenism, are the
anti-innovationist flock of the Orthodox Church and, in the words of St. Basil
the Great, constitute the “healthy part” of the Body of Christ. [2]
(b) This “healthy part” of the
Church, to be sure, has fullness in Christ, which is expressed in the Mystery
of the Divine Eucharist, and consequently it embodies in itself—as is also the
case in each Eucharistic community or parish—the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic
Church, because, according to St. Ignatios, “wherever Jesus Christ is, there is
the Catholic Church.” [3]
(c) In spite of this, the
“healthy part” in resistance neither constitutes the Church in Her totality
nor even the local Church—the Church of Greece, in our case—, and all the more
because the anti-innovationist flock today is unfortunately divided into many
jurisdictions and is prone to fragmentation and infighting.
(d) Strictly speaking, the
“healthy part” constitutes only the anti-innovationist segment— walled off and
in resistance—of the “Church of God that sojourns in Greece.” [4]
2. This anti-innovationist
Orthodox community in resistance, in Greece, ought, in love and humility, and
in anticipation of a unifying Orthodox general synod,
(a) not to have communion with
the “diseased” part of the Church; [5]
(b) to make the rest of the
members of the Body sensitive to the need to break communion, too, lest they
likewise become diseased;
(c) to aid in the repentance and
cure of the ailing members, so as to avoid the worsening of their illness and
their final excision from the Body; and
(d) to contribute, finally, to
the convocation of a competent Synod, which would take measures to prevent the
disease from spreading to the entire Body.
3. (a) Of course, whoever
“preacheth any other Gospel unto you than that ye have received” is subject to
the Apostolic anathema: “let him be accursed.” [6]
(b) The proclamation of an
anathema, however, is not the business of individuals among the Faithful, and
he who “dares” to do such a thing, according to St. John Chrysostomos, does
things that are “contrary to the Master’s death and forestalls the King’s judgment,”
usurping “a great dignity” belonging only to the Holy Apostles and their worthy
successors. [7] Abba Barsanouphios adds this telling comment: “Do not be hasty
to anathematize anyone at all,” but say only, “if I anathematize Satan himself,
insofar as I do his works, I anathematize myself.” [8]
(c) Likewise, the right to issue
an anathema does not belong to ecclesiastical administrative bodies which have
a temporary synodal structure, but which do not possess all the canonical prerequisites
to represent the Church fully, validly, and suitably for the proclamation of an
anathema—a right and “dignity” which is “granted” only to the choir of the
Apostles “and those who have truly become their successors in the strictest
sense, full of Grace and power.” [9]
(d) In any case, one way or
another, automatic enforcement of an anathema that may have been previously
proclaimed, and simultaneous excision from the Body of the Church, are not our
goal; for, the Seventh Holy OEcumenical Synod, in its Ὄρος, provides for
a judicial process leading to “deposition” and “excommunication,” and this by
a competent Synodal body, of course:
We order that
those who dare to think or teach differently, or, in accordance with the
abominable heretics, to overthrow the Traditions of the Church and devise some
innovation..., if they be Bishops or clergy, should be deposed, and if
monastics or laymen, should be excommunicated. [10]
4. (a) We can understand what a
serious matter it is to proclaim an anathema—something which postulates the
existence of a synodal body of unequivocal and indisputable ecclesiastical
authority—, when we take into account how the Saints respond to this crucial
question: What is an anathema?
(b) “What else, therefore, do you
mean by ‘anathema,’” inquires St. John Chrysostomos, “than: let this man be
consigned to the Devil, let him no longer have any possibility of salvation,
and let him be estranged from Christ?”; “for anathema cuts one off from Christ
completely.” [11]
(c) St. Tarasios of
Constantinople makes this striking remark: “Anathema is a terrible thing; it
casts a man far away from God and banishes him from the Kingdom of Heaven,
leading him away into the outer darkness.” [12]
(d) Finally, the Blessed
Theodoretos of Cyrus interprets the Apostolic phrase, “let him be anathema,”
[13] thusly: “let him be estranged from the common body of the Church.” [14]
5. (a) The extremely serious
implications of an anathema, coupled, first, with the absence, in our day, of a
synodal body endowed with all of the aforementioned canonical prerequisites for
proclaiming an anathema and, secondly, with the immense confusion that
prevails, on account of ecumenism, in the ranks of the local Orthodox Churches,
constitute, today, a major restraint on, and an insurmountable impediment to,
such a momentous and, at the same time, historic action.
(b) Aside from anything else,
this view is substantiated by the very noteworthy fact that during the period
of turmoil that occurred in the second wave of Iconoclasm, St. Theodore the
Studite advised a certain “Presbyter who,” out of weakness, “had signed a
statement opposing the iconic depiction of Christ,” but who was already deeply
repenting for this deed, that he should “desist completely from serving as a
Priest”; although at that time there existed Orthodox Confessor-Hierarchs, he
provides the fallen Presbyter with absolute assurance that it is not possible
for him to be released from his suspension by any Hierarch whomsoever, “and
this, until peace is restored to the Church of God, at which time every single
one of such matters will be appropriately settled by synodal judgment and will
receive a verdict ordained by God.” [15]
6. Now, with regard to the
prerequisites for a synodal body, they are primarily the following:
(a) a profound awareness that it
canonically, fully, and unconditionally represents the One, Holy, Catholic,
and Apostolic Church and functions in Her name;
(b) the power to arraign those
who “preach any other gospel than that we have received,” i.e., to summon and
judge them, unwaveringly preserving the established synodal procedures and
having as its criterion the theological and canonical Tradition of Orthodoxy;
(c) the supreme authority to
depose those of wrong belief, in the event that they remain unrepentant, to
banish them from their Thrones, and, ultimately, to anathematize them.
• Such a synodal body, however,
with such sweeping powers and broad jurisdiction, does not exist, at least at
present; but the segment of the Church that maintains a correct and healthy
resistance is working assiduously and prudently towards this end.
7. With regard to the tremendous
confusion caused by ecumenism, we should avoid indiscriminate generalizations
deriving from undiscerning zeal, and we should never forget that the local
Churches cannot be characterized, today, in their entirety as ecumenist,
taking into consideration, on the one hand, that only a small portion of them
consists of out-and-out ecumenists, while the overwhelming, albeit silent,
majority is anti-ecumenist; and, on the other hand, that no local Church has
proclaimed synodally that the primary dogma of ecumenism is a teaching of the
Orthodox Church, which must be believed and is necessary for salvation; neither
has there ever been any pan-Orthodox proclamation to this effect.
8. This thesis has strong
Patristic support in St. Theodore the Studite, who asserts that if a
Metropolitan falls into heresy, it is not the case that all of those who are in
direct or indirect communion with him are regarded automatically and without distinction
as heretics, despite, of course, the fact that by this stand of theirs “they
bring upon themselves the fearful charge of silence.” [16]
9. Given these
considerations—expressed, of course, with the utmost concision—, there remains
the possibility, attested, moreover, by Holy Tradition, that only heretical
doctrines (the anathema of an opinion), and not their purveyors (a personal
anathema), should be anathematized and refuted, in order that our flock might
be protected, out of fear of their safety, [17] and not led astray by the
corruption of wrong belief.
(a) The Holy Apostle Paul,
according to the Divine Chrysostomos, “appears to utter this expression [i.e.,
“anathema”] out of necessity only in two places, and without bringing it to
bear on a particular person. In his First Epistle to the Corinthians, he says:
‘If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema’; and [in the
Epistle to the Galatians]: ‘If any man preach any other gospel unto you than
that ye have received, let him be accursed [anathema].’” [18]
(b) St. John offers the following
advice: “We must anathematize heretical doctrines and refute impious teachings,
from whomsoever we have received them, but show mercy to the men who advocate
them and pray for their salvation.” [19]
10. (a) But this non-personal
anathematization is already occurring on a continuing basis, because
whenever we proclaim a completely Orthodox ecclesiology, not only in practice,
through walling-off, but also in writing and orally, we potentially
anathematize every heretical or ecumenist impiety.
(b) This position derives
directly and clearly from St. Theodore the Studite, who states that “everyone
who is Orthodox in every respect anathematizes every heretic potentially, even
if not verbally.” [20]
***
III
Fundamental
Pastoral Principles
1. However, even if the potential
anathematization that is already in effect is not considered pastorally
sufficient, we must, at least for the time being, avoid directly and explicitly
proclaiming any anathema aimed solely at heretical and impious doctrines (the
anathema of an opinion), on the one hand, because our pious flock is not in
immediate danger of being seduced by the false teaching of the ecumenist
innovation and, on the other hand, for the following two serious pastoral
reasons.
2. With regard to the “healthy
part” of the Church, that is, our flock.
(a) The fact that the Faithful
generally do not have any profound knowledge either of the Patristic and
Synodal teaching of our Church, or of the polymorphous heresy of ecumenism,
coupled with their at times undiscerning zeal, will cause them confusion, because
they lack the criteria for distinguishing between a personal anathema
and the anathema of an opinion and, likewise, for distinguishing between
one who is truly an ecumenist and one who is not, since in their simplicity
they indiscriminately mix together and equate all of these things.
(b) It is certain that this
confusion concerning those who are ailing in conscience will intensify and
multiply the divisions and schisms in the “healthy part” of the Body of the
Church and that it will not be long before it starts to have retroactive
effects, with unforeseen consequences, because deceased family members, as well
as persons of acknowledged sanctity, who, by judgments which the Lord alone
knows, reposed nonetheless in the New Calendar Church, will be regarded as
liable to anathema.
(c) At any rate, there is a
spiritual solution for the difficulty faced by the Faithful, when pressure is
put on them by the over-zealous to anathematize someone, in order to prove
their Orthodoxy; in such a case, they can repeat, with minor alterations, the
advice given by Abba Barsanouphios: “Brother, to anathematize someone seems to
me to be a form of condemnation; but I tell you this: I know of no other Faith
than that of the Holy Fathers; and he who thinks contrary to this Faith,
consigns himself to anathema.” [21]
3. With regard to the “diseased
part” of the Body.
(a) Similarly, the dearth of
spiritual knowledge and discernment on the part of our brothers who commune
with those that are caught up in innovation and heresy, but have not yet been
condemned, combined with the proclamation of an anathema against the heretical
doctrine [of ecumenism] (the anathema of an opinion), will bring about their
total estrangement from the “healthy part” of the Church; moreover, it would
erect an impenetrable wall between them and us, and in this way the missionary
dimension of Orthodox resistance would be completely destroyed, and any hope
of their returning to the Faith that knows no innovation would be lost.
(b) It should be noted that our
hitherto brotherly relations with them, and accommodating behavior towards
them, have contributed substantially to informing them and to promoting a
gradual awareness on their part of the rightness of our stand, which has often
led them to join the Orthodox resistance and to accept “sound doctrine.” [22]
• The Patristic grounds for this
charitable pastoral stand of ours are very strong; in what follows, we will
mention three compelling examples.
4. St. Basil the Great, in order
to win over to Orthodoxy the Homoeousians, that is, the moderate Arians, first
and foremost “employed οἰκονομία,” says St. Nicodemos the Hagiorite,
“and for quite some time did not openly call the Holy Spirit God,” [23] for
which reason he was unjustly accused of being a “crypto-Pneumatomachian”(!);
[24] secondly, he did not make excessive demands on the “weaker brethren,”
i.e., the Homoeousians, for he was convinced that “by longer association and
mutual experience without strife,” whatever else was necessary would be given
them by the Lord. [25]
5. Similarly, St. Cyril of
Alexandria, in order to bring into unity with the Church those who were in
danger of being engulfed by the error of Nestorianism, used a good deal of οἰκονομία
and wrote to various zealous Orthodox Hierarchs: “There are times when, in the
administration of affairs, certain people are constrained to veer slightly off
the proper course, in order to achieve some greater gain”; “so also, in
practical matters, when it is not possible to maintain absolute strictness, we
overlook certain points, so as not to suffer the loss of the whole.” [26]
And, in speaking about
“condescensions that are not unprofitable,” [27] the Saint insists that “the
nature of present circumstances sometimes compels us, against our will, to put
up with situations that are contrary to our intention and our better judgment;”
[28] “the matter requires great οἰκονομία,” [29] “which is applied to
them like a remedy; for in a short time, they themselves will arrive at a
sincere state of mind; and these are the ‘helps’ and ‘governments’ which the
Blessed Paul mentioned,” “for we do not wish to amputate, but to join
together.” [30]
6. Finally, the Divine
Chrysostomos, this sweetest and most charitable Pastor, addressing those who
were overly zealous and who wanted to anathematize the heretics of their era,
invokes the Apostle’s words, “[The servant of the Lord...must be gentle unto
all men...] in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves, if God
peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth, and
that they might recover themselves out of the snare of the Devil, who are taken
captive by him at his will,” [31] and hands on to us an everlasting example of
how to deal pastorally, “in the manner of the fishermen,” with those who are
weaker:
‘Spread out
the net of love, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way, but let it
rather be healed’; ‘throw out the sweet bait of compassion, and thus, having
searched what is hidden, snatch from the depth of perdition him who has let his
mind drown therein’; ‘simply bear witness with forbearance and goodness, lest
his soul be required from your hand by the Judge’; ‘we implore and adjure you
to refrain from such an evil [that of anathematizing],’ because ‘you commit
impiety in cutting off one who is mutable and capable of changing from evil to
good.’ [32]
***
IV
Dogmatizing and
Anathematizing Ignorantly
1. (a) On the basis of the
aforementioned “Basic Ecclesiological Precepts” and “Fundamental Pastoral
Principles,” we are in a better position to make critical comments on the two
recent and complementary documents issued by the jurisdiction of Archbishop
Chrysostomos (Kiousis), to wit, the “Constitutional Charter and Regulations”
and the “Synodal Condemnation and Anathematization of the Heresy of Ecumenism.”
(b) The first of these documents
is dominated by an intensely legalistic spirit, is devoid of Grace, freedom,
and love, literally causes suffocation, is an instrument of repression and
destruction rather than a “schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ,” and, in the
end, transforms the assembly of the “True Orthodox Church of Greece” into a
body that passes itself off as religious, centralized like the Vatican, and
totalitarian in character.
(c) The second document is
literally riddled, from a theological point of view, with canonical, pastoral,
historical, logical, and grammatical errors, in spite of its relative brevity.
2. With regard both to the
authors and to those who endorsed and signed these documents, the very timely
and apt remarks of the Divine Chrysostomos are apropos:
For as I go
on, I see men who neither possess minds educated by Divine Scripture, nor
understand anything whatsoever of this Scripture, and in spite of my great
embarrassment I keep silent, as they rave and quarrel, ‘knowing neither what
they say, nor whereof they affirm,’ ignorantly daring to pronounce this very
teaching alone as a dogma, and to anathematize things of which they have no
knowledge, such that those who are strangers to the Faith ridicule our affairs,
for we are neither concerned about living a good life nor have we learned to do
what is good. [33]
3. (a) Those who belong to the
jurisdiction of Archbishop Chrysostomos, though manifestly aware that only the
Church could take the most daring step of “Condemning and Anathematizing,”
hasten to proclaim themselves to be in “canonical and unbroken continuity with
the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church founded by Christ” and to assert
that the assembly of the “True Orthodox Church of Greece” is “the local
Orthodox Catholic Church in Greece, which Christ founded,” and which is “autocephalous,”
to boot. [34]
(b) This is a clear transgression
of the sole canonical limits within which the anti-innovationist flock in
resistance, that has walled itself off, is permitted to act, until a “synodal
decision,” [35] that is, a “final decision,” [36] against the purveyors of
false teaching by a competent synodal body is convened, in accordance with
synodal tradition, “for the union and harmony of the Church” [37] and “for the
union of the Holy Catholic Church of God.” [38]
4. (a) By virtue of this
aforementioned ecclesiological self-understanding, promulgated by the
jurisdiction of Archbishop Chrysostomos, the well-nigh insurmountable chasm
that already exists between ourselves and them has now turned into an abyss.
(b) This state of affairs clearly
arises from the other very clear sentiment of the “Constitutional Charter and
Regulations,” that the assembly of the “True Orthodox Church of Greece” is “the
only sure way of salvation for her members,” as being the One Church, from
which “certain groups belonging to our Church, which follow various deposed
former clergy of ours,” have broken away. [39]
(c) It goes without saying that
they consider us to be explicitly outside the Church, that is, outside the
“only sure way of salvation”!
5. (a) It was to be expected,
therefore, given these ecclesiological views, that the jurisdiction of
Archbishop Chrysostomos would usurp the prerogatives of an OEcumenical Synod
and proceed to a full “Synodal Condemnation and Anathematization of the heresy
of ecumenism”; i.e., it has both “applied it to particular persons” (a personal
anathema) and anathematized “heretical dogmas” (the anathema of an opinion).
[40]
(b) We will make only the
following critical and selective comments on this document, i.e., on its twofold
anathema.
6. (a) The first and principal
section contains a patently false teaching: It is asserted that “the One,
Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, which is the Church of the firstborn in
Heaven,” became “the Body of Christ at the advent of the Holy Spirit on Holy
Pentecost”!
(b) That is to say, the Holy
Spirit “descended” (read: “ascended”) upon the “Church in Heaven,” not upon the
historical community of the Holy Apostles, “with Mary the Mother of Jesus, and
with His brethren,” who were all in the upper room of the house where they were
staying in Jerusalem. [41]
(c) According to this line of
thinking, the Church has not hitherto existed on earth!
7. (a) In this labyrinthine and
syntactically awkward first section, teachings are ascribed to the
“newly-manifest ecumenists” which none of them has ever actually expressed, at
least not officially, jointly, or in this extreme form.
(b) This absurdity underscores
our own view, that in order for the heresy to be judged, deep knowledge of the
false doctrine of ecumenism in its many forms is required, lest we align
ourselves, as the Divine Chrysostomos puts it, with those who “ignorantly dare
to make dogmatic pronouncements,” and “to anathematize things of which they
have no knowledge, such that those who are strangers to the Faith ridicule our
affairs.” [42]
(c) It is worth noting that the
Seventh OEcumenical Synod draws it to the attention of the Faithful that they
should read the heretical writings under consideration “searchingly and not
cursorily,” [43] if they are to draw the correct conclusions and formulate a
“just judgment.”
8. Following on from this, one is
perplexed as to why, among the “pioneers of the false teachings of ecumenism,”
many others were not included, such as Metropolitan Nicholas of Cæsarea, who,
as “locum tenens of the OEcumenical Throne,” signed the “Synodal Epistle
to the Delegation of the Faith and Order Movement” (Protocol No. 2672 [10 April
1919]), which constitutes the first openly ecumenist official text of the
Patriarchate of Constantinople; [44] also not included were “the locum
tenens of the Patriarchal OEcumenical Throne of Constantinople,” Dorotheos
of Proussa, and the other members of the Synod who signed the 1920 Encyclical,
which, as is well known, “constitutes a definitive expression of Orthodox
ecumenism, and also a milestone in the history of the ecumenical movement”;
[45] also overlooked were Patriarch Gregory VII of Constantinople, who
implemented the calendar reform, and its great theoretician, Anthimos of Bizya
(and subsequently of Maroneia), and Patriarchs Athenagoras, Demetrios, and
Bartholomew—to dwell on the more important figures—, who give and have given
great impetus to ecumenism in both word and deed—although a multitude of other
clergy and laity ought to be mentioned, including, of course, those belonging
to other Orthodox jurisdictions.
• At any rate, these omissions,
as well as those of the ensuing paragraph, bear witness to the reliability of
what we said in §7 regarding “anathematizing things of which they have no
knowledge.”
9. Consequently, while the
congress held on the Holy Mountain in 1931 is numbered among the “congresses
that acted arrogantly against the Orthodox Faith” (and does anyone know in what
way this congress “acted arrogantly” against Orthodoxy?), oddly enough, the
Patriarchal Synods of 1920, which signed the well-known Encyclical, and 1965,
which decided on and brought about the lifting of the anathemas against Papism,
are passed over in silence; likewise, no mention is made of the two Synods held
under Archbishop Chrysostomos (Papadopoulos) of Athens, the Fourth (April 1923)
and the Fifth (December 1923), which decided to introduce the calendar reform
in Greece; and finally—not to belabor the point—there is no mention of the
successive “Pre-Synodal Pan-Orthodox Consultations” (Rhodes and Geneva, 1961-),
which have been preparing, in an ecumenical spirit, for the so-called “Holy and
Great Synod.”
10. Next, what pastoral purpose
is served by the fourth anathema—one that is truly “off the wall”—concerning
those who say that “Christ had two sanctities, a Divine and a human, and that
His human sanctity experienced progress,” since among the Old Calendarists such
views have never been espoused; nor are the Faithful, who are fully aware that
these Nestorian beliefs have repeatedly been condemned in the past by the
OEcumenical Synods, at risk from them?
11. Similarly, what connection
can the laudatory reference to the OEcumenical Patriarch and “those who took
part in the Synod in Constantinople in the year 1848” possibly have with anti- ecumenism?
And if this is perhaps an attempt to link it to anti-Papism, despite the fact
that, paradoxically enough, the “Anathematization” concerns anti-ecumenism, why
was there no mention of the countless Synods and Fathers who resolutely
struggled against the multifarious heresy of Papism and in fact, pronounced
anathemas against it?
12. (a) Finally, the reference to
the well-known Synods of the sixteenth century is equally erroneous, as well
as misleading.
(b) These Synods did indeed
“condemn the calendar innovation,” but they condemned that of Pope Gregory
XIII, which directly affected the Orthodox Paschalion, and certainly not
the partially implemented innovation of 1924, which did not alter the four
“Stipulations” concerning Pascha, and for this reason, as the
Confessor-Hierarch, Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina stated, “is an issue
that appears for the first time in the history of the Orthodox Church.” [46]
(c) Likewise, these
sixteenth-century Synods did not “cut off from the Body of the Church those who
accepted this innovation,” for the simple reason that none of the Orthodox of
that time accepted it; in fact, it was rejected at a pan-Orthodox level.
(d) There was certainly never any
possibility of any Synod in the sixteenth century “proleptically” cutting off
from the Body of the Church “those who would accept” an innovation in the
distant future, because excision, when it is deemed necessary, according to
St. Nicodemos the Hagiorite, is always “put into actual effect by a Synod of
living,” that is, present “Bishops,” while “the imperative force of Canons
remains unexecuted and does not act of itself, either immediately or before a
decision.” [47]
(e) This issue is extremely
serious, if one takes into account that any acceptance of the erroneous idea of
the automatic efficacy of Patristic and Synodal penalties and anathemas, prior
to a specific ruling by a competent synodal body, would entail, for example,
that the various Synods which have hitherto been convoked in order to condemn
heretics and schismatics were wrongly convoked, since all of these persons
would already have been cut off from the Body of Christ, on the basis of the
Apostolic anathema: “If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye
have received, let him be accursed”; [48] furthermore, it would entail that, in
essence, all of those Christians who in other respects are truly Orthodox in
outlook are already cut off from the Church and have been handed over to Satan,
on the basis of the other Apostolic anathema: “If any man love not the Lord
Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema.” [49]
(f) Besides, the mere idea that
these Synods held in the sixteenth century “cut off from the Body of the Church
those who would” in the future accept this innovation, aside from being
inherently absurd, demonstrates the perversity of those who accepted and
endorsed the idea, for the following very simple reason: if it really is the
case that, at the time of the calendar change in 1924, all those who accepted
it—and, of course, those in communion with them—were automatically and
indiscriminately cut off from the Body of the Church, then the proclamation,
seventy-four years later, of an anathema against them and the ecumenists who
came after them would be completely devoid of meaning, because, as is well
known, the Church does not judge those outside Her, according to the Apostle
Paul, [50] of whose words St. Theophylact offers an excellent interpretation:
“‘For what have I to do to judge them also that are without?’ says [Paul];
therefore, it is superfluous to apply the ordinances of God to those outside
Christ’s fold; for whatever the Law says, it says to those under the Law.” [51]
***
V
The Presuppositions
of Orthodox Theology
Most Reverend and Right Reverend
Hierarchs:
1. By going on at such length, I
have undoubtedly wearied you; but I hope that you will forgive me, because, as
you will appreciate, the issue that has emerged is truly very serious.
2. We have approached only
certain aspects of this issue, so that you might understand, by way of example,
where an Old Calendarist jurisdiction can be led, when it does not have a
correct and clear understanding of its ecclesiology, when it is not aware of
its limitations, and finally, when it tackles questions of great importance in
a slipshod and superficial manner, without pastoral discretion and without the
requisite theological, spiritual, and intellectual qualifications.
3. To anticipate any objection
you may have regarding the related condemnation of ecumenism by the Russian
Orthodox Church Abroad (1983): in spite of the analogous and comparable
problems that were presented when that much-discussed and controversial
condemnation was issued—problems which still continue to bother our Russian
brethren—, it is noteworthy that the Russian Synod at least did not take this
step in the full and avowed belief that she constitutes the One, Holy,
Catholic, and Apostolic Church; nor did she “impose” the condemnation “on any
definite person.”
4. Hence, in view of these two
recent documents and actions on the part of the jurisdiction of Archbishop
Chrysostomos, it behooves us to delve more deeply into our ecclesiological
identity; to maintain a stricter stand towards this jurisdiction, which
regards us as being already officially outside the Church; and to become more
missionary-minded towards our brothers in the innovationist New Calendar
Church, who expect us to act with sobriety and responsibility, in a spirit of
love and humility.
5. We believe unshakably that
this grave deviation on the part of the jurisdiction of Archbishop
Chrysostomos, as the culmination of a series of many other deviations, is due
to its inability to theologize in an Orthodox manner, primarily because it
lacks the spiritual prerequisites for this, i.e., as St. Athanasios the Great
puts it, “the modeling of one’s life after the Saints”; [52] it lacks, in
particular, love and humility.
6. Here are the wondrous words of
the OEcumenical Luminary of Alexandria:
‘For the
searching of the Scriptures and true knowledge of them, a good life is needed,
and a pure soul, and that virtue which is according to Christ’; ‘for, without a
pure mind and a modeling of one’s life after the Saints, a man cannot possibly
comprehend the words of the Saints’; ‘he who wishes to comprehend the mind of
those who speak of God must begin by washing and cleansing his soul by his way
of life, and approach the Saints themselves by imitating their works.’ [53]
7. It is, moreover, significant
that Nestorios was unable to understand Orthodox Christology, although he was a
very competent theologian, because he did not have a “pure mind,” on account
of his haughtiness, arrogance, and hatred for his brothers; [54] in vain did
the other Luminary of the inhabited earth, St. Cyril of Alexandria, remind this
heresiarch of the very clear Christology of the Symbol of Faith, which the
hapless Nestorios vehemently upheld, but did not understand correctly. [55]
8. Both then and at all times,
and today, the Divinely inspired saying of Holy Scripture is constantly
fulfilled: “For into a malicious soul wisdom shall not enter.” [56]
9. A dearth of love and humility
has always been the principal characteristic of the jurisdiction of Archbishop
Chrysostomos, a characteristic which is daily displayed in all areas and which
creates problems upon problems, and for this reason his jurisdiction “has been
given over to a reprobate mind.” [57]
10. But let us, by the Grace of
the Lord, conducting ourselves in a missionary spirit towards the “weaker” and
“ailing” part of the Church, never forget that “the nature of present
circumstances” “requires great οἰκονομία” and condescension, for “we do
not wish to amputate, but to join together,” as St. Cyril puts it.
11. Let the exhortation of St.
John Chrysostomos, replete with brotherly love, ever be a luminous signpost on
our journey: “Spread out the net of love,” “throw out the sweet bait of
compassion.”
***
After all this, again extending
my greetings in Christ our Incarnate Savior to Your Eminences and Your Graces,
I remain, with deep love in the Lord and all respect,
Your beloved brother
in Christ,
Metropolitan
Cyprian of Oropos and Fili,
President of the
Holy Synod in Resistance
NOTES
1. Romans 12:2.
2. St. Basil the Great, Epistle 251, “To the People of
Evæsæ,” §4, Patrologia Græca, Vol. XXXII, cols. 937C-938A.
• See also the following epistles of St. Basil: 82, 90, 91,
113, 204, 242, 243, and 251.
• See also St. Theodore the Studite, Epistle II.65, “To
Navkratios, His Spiritual Child,” Patrologia Græca, Vol. XCIX, col.
1288A.
3. St. Ignatios of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnæans VIII.2, Patrologia
Græca, Vol. V, col. 713B.
4. Cf. St. Clement of Rome, First Epistle to the Corinthians
I, Patrologia Græca, Vol. I, cols. 201B-204A.
5. See note 2.
6. Galatians 1:8, 9.
7. St. John Chrysostomos, “That We Should Not Anathematize
the Living or the Dead,” §3, Patrologia Græca, Vol. XLVIII, col. 948.
• See also Πηδάλιον [The Rudder], p. 397, n.
(“Prolegomena Concerning the Local Synod of Gangra”).
8. Abba Barsanouphios and John, Βίβλος ψυχωφελεστάτη [A
Most Soul-Profiting Book], §§700, 701, 702 (Volos: S. Schoinas, 1960), pp.
320b-321a.
• See also Πηδάλιον, p. 397, n.
9. See note 7.
10. Mansi, Vol. XIII, col. 380B/Πρακτικά τῶν Ἁγίων καὶ Οἰκουμενικῶν
Συνόδων [Proceedings of the Holy OEcumenical Synods], ed. Spyridon
Melias (Holy Mountain: Kalyve of the Venerable Forerunner Publications, 1981),
Vol. II, p. 874b (Seventh Session).
11. St. John Chrysostomos, “That We Should Not Anathematize
the Living or the Dead,” §3, Patrologia Græca, Vol. XLVIII, col. 948.
• See also Πηδάλιον, p. 397, n.
12. St. Tarasios, Mansi, Vol. XII, col. 987C/ Πρακτικά,
Vol. II, p. 724a (“Apologetic Discourse”).
• See also Πηδάλιον, p. 397, n.
13. I Corinthians 16:22.
14. Theodoretos of Cyrus, Patrologia Græca, Vol.
LXXXII, col. 373B.
15. St. Theodore the Studite, Epistle II.6, “To a Presbyter
Who Had Signed an Heretical Statement,” Patrologia Græca, Vol. XCIX,
col. 1128CD.
16. Idem, Epistle I.49, “To Navkratios, His Spiritual
Child,” Patrologia Græca, Vol. XCIX, col. 1089A, and Epistle I.48, “To
Athanasios, His Spiritual Child,” ibid., col. 1076C.
17. St. Theophylact of Bulgaria, in his interpretation of the
Apostolic injunction, “If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be
Anathema” (I Corinthians 16:22), points out the instructive fear deriving from
an anathema: “By this one word he put fear into” sinners and “in general into
all those among the Corinthians who were living without regard for the teaching
and tradition that he had imparted to them; for all such people have no love
for the Lord” (Patrologia Græca, Vol. CXXIV, col. 793A).
18. St. John Chrysostomos, “That We Should Not Anathematize
the Living or the Dead,” §3, Patrologia Græca, Vol. XLVIII, col. 948; I
Corinthians 16:22; Galatians 1:8, 9.
19. St. John Chrysostomos, “That We Should Not Anathematize
the Living or the Dead,” §4, Patrologia Græca, Vol. XLVIII, col. 952.
• See also Πηδάλιον, p. 397, n.
20. St. Theodore the Studite, Epistle I.49, “To Navkratios,
His Spiritual Child,” Patrologia Græca, Vol. XCIX, col. 1088B.
21. Cf. Abba Barsanouphios and John, Βίβλος ψυχωφελεστάτη,
§702, p. 321a.
22. I St. Timothy 1:10; II St. Timothy 4:3; St. Titus 1:9,
2:1.
23. Πηδάλιον, p. 53, n. St. Nicodemos the Hagiorite, Ἑρμηνεῖαι
εἰς τὰς Ἑπτὰ Καθολικὰς Ἐπιστολάς [Interpretation of the Seven Catholic
Epistles], footnote on I St. John 3:1.
• With regard to St. Basil, “who maintained silence about the
Divinity of the Spirit” and “dispensed his doctrines judiciously,” and, in
general, with regard to the sundry “οἰκονομίαι” of the Holy Fathers, see
St. Photios the Great, Treatise Concerning the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit,
Patrologia Græca, §§78, 66-78, Vol. CII, cols. 357B-360A, and also
Epistle I.24, “To the Metropolitan of Aquileia,” §§16-22, Patrologia Græca,
Vol. CII, cols. 344B-360A and cols. 809BC-816A.
• See also, regarding St. Basil’s tactics in this matter and
the accusations leveled against him: St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 43,
“Funeral Oration on St. Basil the Great,” §§68-69, Patrologia Græca,
Vol. XXXVI, cols. 585C-589C; idem, Patrologia Græca, Epistle 58,
“To Basil,” Patrologia Græca, Vol. XXXVII, cols. 113A-117B.
24. Panagiotis K. Chrestou, “Introductory Remarks” on the
Epistles of St. Basil, Ἕλληνες Πατέρες τῆς Ἐκκλησίας (Thessaloniki: 1972),
Vol. I, p. 37.
• Regarding St. Basil’s tactics, see also, more broadly, the
section dealing with his “Theological and Ecclesiastical Teaching” (ibid.,
pp. 34ff.).
25. St. Basil the Great, Epistle 113, “To the Presbyters of
Tarsus,” Patrologia Græca, Vol. XXXII, col. 528A.
26. St. Cyril of Alexandria, Epistle 56, “To Gennadios the
Presbyter and Archimandrite,” Patrologia Græca, Vol. LXXVII, col. 320B.
27. Idem, Epistle 43, “To Rufus, the Bishop of
Thessalonica,” Patrologia Græca, Vol. LXXVII, cols. 220D-221A.
28. Idem, Epistle 58, “To Maximos, a Deacon of
Antioch,” Patrologia Græca, Vol. LXXVII, col. 321C.
29. Idem, Epistle 57: “To Maximos, a Deacon of
Antioch,” Patrologia Græca, Vol. LXXVII, col. 321A.
30. Idem, Epistle 58, Patrologia Græca, Vol.
LXXVII, col. 321CD; I Corinthians 12:28.
31. II St. Timothy 2:23-26.
32. St. John Chrysostomos, “That We Should Not Anathematize
the Living or the Dead,” §§3, 4, Patrologia Græca, Vol. XLVIII, cols.
949, 950.
33. Ibid., §1, col. 947; I St. Timothy 1:7.
34. “Constitutional Charter and Regulations,” Article 1, §§1,
2, 3.
35. Fifteenth Canon of the First-Second Holy Synod of
Constantinople (861, in the time of St. Photios the Great).
36. Balsamon, Patrologia Græca, Vol. CXXXVII, col. 1068D.
37. Seventh OEcumenical Synod, Mansi, Vol. XII, col. 1118E/ Πρακτικά,
Vol. II, p. 758b (Third Session).
38. Idem, Mansi, Vol. XII, col. 1126B/Πρακτικά,
Vol. II, p. 760b (Third Session).
39. “Constitutional Charter and Regulations,” Article 1, §§5,
2.
40. Cf. St. John Chrysostomos, “That We Should Not
Anathematize the Living or the Dead,” Patrologia Græca, Vol. XLVIII,
cols. 948, 952.
41. Acts 1:14.
42. St. John Chrysostomos, “That We Should Not Anathematize
the Living or the Dead,” Patrologia Græca, Vol. XLVIII, col. 947.
43. Seventh OEcumenical Synod, Mansi, Vol. XIII, col. 208C/Πρακτικά,
Vol. II, p. 826b (Sixth Session); Mansi, Vol. XIII, col. 293D/Πρακτικά,
Vol. II, p. 851a (Sixth Session).
44. Great Protopresbyter George Tsetsis, Οἰκουμενικὸς
Θρόνος καὶ Οἰκουμένη: Ἐπίσημα Πατριαρχικὰ Κείμενα [The OEcumenical
Throne and the Oikoumene: Official Patriarchal Texts] (Katerine: Tertios
Publications, 1988), pp. 47-51.
45. Ibid., p. 57.
46. Resistance or Exclusion? The Alternative
Ecclesiological Approaches of Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina and Bishop
Matthew of Vresthene (Etna, CA: Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies,
2000), p. 59 (a letter of 9 November 1937 from Metropolitan Chrysostomos to
Bishop Germanos of the Cyclades).
47. Πηδάλιον, pp. 4-5, n. 2, p.xxxix, n. 3, §10.
48. Galatians 1:8, 9.
49. I Corinthians 16:22.
• St. Nicodemos the Hagiorite, in his interpretation of the
present passage, makes these telling comments: “In writing these words, I
cannot say anything other than ‘woe’ and ‘alas’ to us Christians of today!
Because we do not truly love Christ, we deserve the anathema of which Paul
speaks in this passage; and consequently, we deserve to be separated and
excommunicated from the Church” (Ἑρμηνεία Ἐπιστολῶν [Interpretation
of the Epistles] [Venice: 1819), Vol. I, pp. 400-401, n.).
• Note: “we deserve”: i.e., “we are not already,” but “we are
liable to,” “we are potentially, not actually.”
50. I Corinthians 5:12-13.
51. St. Theophylact, Patrologia Græca, Vol. CXXIV,
col. 628AB.
52. St. Athanasios the Great, On the Incarnation of the Word,
§57, Patrologia Græca, Vol. XXV, cols. 196CD-197A.
53. See note 52.
54. See the article, “The Unity of Dogma and Love: From
Misguided Zeal to the Cesspool of Heresy,” Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XVI,
No. 1 (1999), pp. 2-5.
55. Third OEcumenical Synod, Πρακτικά, Vol. I, p.
4347a (Epistle of St. Cyril to Nestorios: “I hear that some are rashly
talking…”).
56. Wisdom of Solomon 1:4.
57. Cf. Romans 1:28.
