I. Introduction:
The Central Ecclesiological Question
The section entitled Ἐκκλησιολογικὴ
Πλάνη καὶ Ἀλήθεια (Ecclesiological Error and Truth) is arguably the most
important theological portion of [theologian] A. D. Delimbasis's Pascha of the Lord (1985) for understanding the ecclesiology of the Greek Old Calendarist movement.
Although the preceding chapters
vigorously condemn the calendar innovation of 1924 and its association with
Ecumenism, this final section addresses a different and more precise question:
What is the ecclesiastical and
sacramental status of Orthodox bishops, clergy, and faithful who have embraced
an innovation or fallen into doctrinal error but have not yet been definitively
condemned by the Church?
Delimbasis approaches this
question through the controversy between the official Church of Greece and the
Genuine Orthodox Christians (G.O.C.), paying particular attention to the
consequences of the interruption of communion.
His fundamental contention is
that opposition to heresy and ecclesiastical innovation must not be confused
with the assertion that uncondemned clergy have automatically lost the grace of
the priesthood or that their Mysteries have become invalid.
He regards the latter position as
a serious ecclesiological error, regardless of whether it is advanced by the
innovating hierarchy against the Old Calendarists or by Old Calendarists
against the innovating hierarchy.
The six subdivisions
The section is organized as
follows, using the author's exact headings:
|
Pages |
Original Greek heading |
English translation |
|
767–782 |
Ἡ ἐκκλησιολογικὴ κακοδοξία περὶ ἀκύρων Μυστηρίων |
The Erroneous Ecclesiological Teaching Concerning Invalid
Mysteries |
|
783–788 |
Ἀντιφάσκουσα καινοτομία |
The Self-Contradictory Innovation |
|
789–794 |
Ἡ ἐν ἐνισταμένοις ἀντιφωνία |
Disagreement Among Those Resisting |
|
795–803 |
Ὀρθοτόμησις τοῦ λόγου τῆς ἀληθείας |
Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth |
|
804–807 |
Ἀτέλεστος λόγος οἰκονομίας |
The Incomplete Argument from Economia |
|
808–815 |
Ἔνστασις καὶ ἕνωσις ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησιολογίᾳ τῶν Πατέρων |
Resistance and Union in the Ecclesiology of the Fathers |
The argument progresses from an
examination of historical and canonical evidence to criticism of contradictory
ecclesiastical practices, and finally to the author's proposed solution for the
division within the Church of Greece.
II. Detailed
Analysis
1. The Erroneous
Ecclesiological Teaching Concerning Invalid Mysteries (pp. 767–782)
Ἡ ἐκκλησιολογικὴ κακοδοξία περὶ ἀκύρων
Μυστηρίων
A. The controversy over
sacramental grace began with the innovating hierarchy
Delimbasis begins by arguing that
the ecclesiastical authorities who imposed the calendar reform of 1924 did not
merely alter the festal calendar.
They also claimed exclusive
legitimacy as the governing Church of Greece and treated the Orthodox
Christians resisting the innovation as schismatics outside the Church.
According to Delimbasis, this led
to the assertion that the Old Calendarists were deprived of divine grace and
that their Mysteries were invalid.
His objection is twofold.
First, he maintains that those
resisting the calendar reform were acting in defense of Orthodox Tradition and
therefore could not automatically be considered outside the Church merely
because they refused obedience to the innovating hierarchy.
Second, he rejects the
proposition that ecclesiastical separation necessarily entails the
disappearance of sacramental grace.
He considers this teaching
incompatible with the practice of the ancient Church.
B. The Seventh Ecumenical
Council and the reception of clergy from heresy
Delimbasis's first substantial
historical argument concerns the Seventh Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (787).
He draws upon the Council's
discussion of the reception of bishops and clergy who had been associated with
Iconoclasm.
The specific question was whether
clergy ordained by bishops implicated in heresy could be received into Orthodox
communion without repetition of their ordinations.
Delimbasis emphasizes that the
Council did not treat every ordination performed by an uncondemned heretical
bishop as automatically invalid.
Rather, the Fathers examined the
ecclesiastical circumstances and the canonical precedents governing reception.
The author quotes the conciliar
discussion in which it was argued that the Orthodox Church receives clergy
ordained by those whose heresy had not yet been adjudicated.
For Delimbasis, this establishes
an important distinction:
- An uncondemned bishop may profess erroneous doctrine
without his ordinations thereby becoming automatically invalid.
- The Church must distinguish the bishop's doctrinal
condition from a definitive canonical judgment depriving him of
ecclesiastical office and authority.
The argument is not that heresy
is harmless or that the faithful must remain in communion with those professing
it. Rather, Delimbasis insists that the Church's treatment of the Mysteries
cannot be governed by an automatic theory of sacramental extinction.
C. St. Theodore the Studite
and the consequences of automatic invalidity
Delimbasis next appeals
extensively to St. Theodore the Studite.
St. Theodore addresses questions
concerning clergy ordained by bishops compromised by heresy or violations of
the sacred canons.
Delimbasis emphasizes the
distinction between an ordination performed by an uncondemned bishop and the
subsequent judgment of that bishop's ecclesiastical position.
An especially important argument
appears on pp. 768–769.
If every violation of the sacred
canons by a bishop were assumed to invalidate his priesthood immediately, the
consequences would extend far beyond the individual offender.
Priests ordained by him would
likewise be considered deprived of grace, together with clergy subsequently
ordained by those priests or bishops.
The entire sacramental succession
could thus be called into question.
Delimbasis interprets St.
Theodore as rejecting this consequence.
He argues that automatic
invalidity would eventually destroy confidence in the Church's own priesthood
and Mysteries, since every previously uncorrected canonical violation could
potentially invalidate an indefinite succession of ordinations.
The author's reasoning is
therefore both historical and ecclesiological: a theory that undermines the
continuity of the Church's sacramental life cannot be accepted as Orthodox
simply because it appears to defend canonical strictness.
D. St. Nicodemus the
Hagiorite and the case of the Russian Old Believers
Delimbasis then considers the
Russian Old Believers (Raskolniki).
He discusses their rejection of
the seventeenth-century liturgical and ritual reforms associated with Patriarch
Nikon.
The controversy eventually
produced competing claims concerning the validity of ecclesiastical authority
and the Holy Mysteries.
Delimbasis records that certain
Old Believers regarded the official Russian hierarchy as deprived of authentic
priesthood and grace.
He criticizes the resulting
practice of rebaptizing Christians already baptized within the official Church.
He invokes St. Nicodemus the
Hagiorite, who rejected the tendency to declare ordinations invalid merely on
account of uncondemned canonical irregularities.
He also refers to the
condemnation of similar rigorist tendencies by Orthodox writers such as
Neophytos Kavsokalyvites.
The relevance to Greece is
deliberate.
Delimbasis regards the Russian
controversy as a warning against the development of the same ecclesiological
error within the Old Calendarist movement.
He does not deny that the Russian
liturgical reforms occasioned serious controversy. His objection concerns the
conclusion that ecclesiastical irregularity necessarily produces an immediate
and total deprivation of sacramental grace.
E. The official Church of
Greece and the denial of Old Calendarist Mysteries
Delimbasis returns to the Greek
controversy by examining statements made by the innovating hierarchy.
He cites a 1926 synodal
encyclical associated with Archbishop Chrysostomos Papadopoulos, which treated
the decisions of the Church's governing hierarchy as absolutely obligatory.
The encyclical asserted that
those refusing ecclesiastical obedience had placed themselves outside the
Church and deprived themselves of its grace.
Delimbasis argues that this
statement wrongly identifies the governing hierarchy with the Church in such a
way that disobedience to an unlawful innovation becomes equivalent to
separation from Christ.
He finds the reasoning especially
objectionable because the same hierarchy had introduced the innovation that
gave rise to the disagreement.
The author maintains that the
hierarchy's ecclesiastical authority does not make every decision of that
hierarchy unconditionally binding, particularly when a decision contradicts
established Orthodox Tradition.
F. The innovators'
application of the same error
The author examines other
instances in which the official hierarchy declared Old Calendarist clergy and
their Mysteries invalid.
Particularly important is a
decision of Archbishop Damaskinos of Athens dated July 28, 1948, concerning the
reception of Old Calendarist priests.
Delimbasis records that the
decision required reception by ordination of clergy who had been ordained by
bishops whom the official hierarchy considered deposed or self-appointed.
He regards this as evidence that
the official hierarchy did not recognize the sacramental validity of the Old
Calendarist priesthood.
He also discusses the practice of
rebaptizing Christians baptized by Old Calendarist clergy.
For Delimbasis, such practices
constitute a grave ecclesiological mistake and a denial of the Orthodox
teaching concerning the uniqueness of Christian Baptism.
He appeals to the historical
condemnation of rebaptizing Orthodox Christians, including the example of
Patriarch John XIV Kalekas and the opposition of St. Gregory Palamas.
G. The most important
conclusion of the first subdivision
The fundamental proposition
established in this opening discussion is:
Sacramental grace is not
automatically extinguished by the private or public wrongdoing of a bishop,
even where that wrongdoing involves heresy or an ecclesiastical violation prior
to authoritative condemnation.
Delimbasis therefore opposes two
propositions simultaneously:
- That those who legitimately resist an innovating
bishop have automatically become schismatics whose Mysteries are invalid.
- That the innovating bishop, simply by introducing an
innovation, has automatically lost the grace of the priesthood and become
incapable of celebrating valid Mysteries.
This dual rejection prepares the
argument developed in the remaining subdivisions.
2. The Self-Contradictory
Innovation (pp. 783–788)
Ἀντιφάσκουσα καινοτομία
A. The official hierarchy
contradicts its own teaching
Delimbasis begins this subsection
with the claim that the calendar innovation has contradicted itself.
He means that the official Church
of Greece, while declaring the Mysteries and ordinations of the Old
Calendarists invalid, has sometimes acted as though those same ordinations were
valid.
He offers specific historical
examples.
On March 9, 1953, an
ecclesiastical court of the official Church accepted Bishop Christophoros
Chatzis, who had been consecrated by the Old Calendarist bishops in 1935, into
the episcopal rank without repeating his consecration.
On March 12, 1953, the same
ecclesiastical judicial authority accepted Bishop Polykarpos Liosis, likewise
formerly associated with the resistance, into the episcopate.
Delimbasis stresses that these
were not simply instances of pastoral tolerance toward laypeople. They involved
recognition of episcopal consecrations previously performed within a movement
whose ordinations the official hierarchy had condemned.
He therefore asks how the same
hierarchy could simultaneously maintain that the Old Calendarist priesthood was
devoid of grace.
B. Economia cannot explain
away the contradiction
An important aspect of his
reasoning concerns the invocation of οἰκονομία.
The argument that an invalid
episcopal consecration can somehow become valid through economia would require
a coherent theological and canonical explanation.
Delimbasis instead maintains that
the official hierarchy's reception of Old Calendarist bishops without
reconsecration demonstrates that it implicitly recognized the reality of their
episcopal ordinations.
He distinguishes this from the
use of economia as a legitimate pastoral accommodation.
The author also discusses
unsuccessful attempts to establish broader procedures for receiving Old
Calendarist clergy without repeating their ordinations.
For him, these events demonstrate
that even the innovating hierarchy could not consistently sustain its own
rigorist ecclesiology.
C. State intervention and
the persecution of the resistance
Delimbasis next examines the
relationship between the official hierarchy and the Greek state.
He argues that the hierarchy
attempted to employ political and legal mechanisms to suppress the Old
Calendarist movement.
He particularly criticizes the
claim that the state should recognize only the official ecclesiastical
organization and deny legal protection to the resistance.
His argument is that the Old
Calendarists did not seek to establish another state Church, but to preserve
the traditional Orthodox worship of the Church of Greece.
Their resistance was directed
against the introduction of an unlawful innovation, not against the Orthodox
Church itself.
This distinction underlies his
criticism of the official hierarchy's attempts to classify the resistance as an
extraneous religious organization.
D. The deeper inconsistency
The most important conclusion
appears toward the end of the subsection.
Delimbasis argues that the
innovators adopt contradictory positions regarding communion, heresy, and
ecclesiastical grace.
On the one hand, they maintain
ecclesiastical relations with heterodox Christians whom Delimbasis regards as
manifestly outside the Orthodox Church.
On the other hand, they deny the
validity of the Mysteries celebrated by Orthodox Christians who have refused
the calendar innovation.
He considers this an inversion of
Orthodox ecclesiology.
The official hierarchy, he
contends, is prepared to recognize ecclesiastical standing outside the
boundaries of Orthodox doctrine while denying it to those defending the
received Orthodox tradition.
Conclusion: The official
hierarchy's contradictory actions undermine its claim that the Old Calendarist
resistance has automatically lost sacramental grace.
3. Disagreement Among Those
Resisting (pp. 789–794)
Ἡ ἐν ἐνστάσει ἀτυχὴς ἀντιφώνησις
The exact heading is better
rendered “The Unfortunate Counter-Response Within the Resistance.” This conveys
the author's criticism more clearly than simply “Disagreement Among Those
Resisting.”
This subsection introduces the
second major problem: the acceptance by some Old Calendarists of the very
ecclesiological error initially advanced against them.
A. The rupture of 1937
Delimbasis traces the controversy
to the division of 1937.
He identifies Bishop Germanos of
the Cyclades and Bishop Matthew of Vresthena as having discontinued
ecclesiastical relations with Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina and
Metropolitan Germanos of Demetrias.
The underlying question was the
ecclesiastical status of the New Calendarist hierarchy.
Metropolitan Chrysostomos
maintained that the hierarchy had incurred a schismatic condition
δυνάμει—potentially—but had not yet been definitively declared schismatic ἐνεργείᾳ,
in actuality, by the competent ecclesiastical authority.
His opponents rejected this
distinction in its practical application to the calendar innovation.
They interpreted the 1935
declaration of the three Old Calendarist bishops as establishing that the
official hierarchy was already schismatic in actuality.
B. The implications for
sacramental grace
Delimbasis explains that this
disagreement was not merely terminological.
It affected the reception of
converts or returnees from the New Calendar.
The rigorist position treated the
official hierarchy as deprived of grace and consequently regarded its Mysteries
as invalid.
This led to demands for
rebaptism, or, by concession, reception through Holy Chrismation.
Delimbasis strongly opposes both
the underlying ecclesiology and its sacramental consequences.
His concern is that the Old
Calendarist movement, which had arisen to resist an ecclesiastical innovation,
was adopting a doctrine of sacramental invalidity that had no adequate
foundation in the Fathers.
C. The central paradox:
Both sides deny each other's Mysteries
Delimbasis draws a significant
comparison between the innovators and the rigorist Old Calendarists.
The innovators assert that their
hierarchy constitutes the Church in Greece and that the resistance lies outside
it.
The rigorists assert that the
resistance constitutes the Church in Greece and that the innovating hierarchy
lies outside it.
Both therefore claim exclusive
possession of sacramental grace, with each condemning the other as lacking
valid Mysteries.
Delimbasis argues that both
positions commit the same fundamental ecclesiological error, even though their
historical circumstances and motivations differ considerably.
He emphasizes an important moral
distinction:
- The innovators introduced an unlawful reform and
employed ecclesiastical and political power against those resisting it.
- The rigorists responded defensively, in circumstances
of weakness and persecution, but adopted erroneous conclusions about the
Mysteries of their opponents.
He therefore treats the
rigorists' position as a serious mistake within an otherwise legitimate
struggle, rather than equating the intentions of the persecuted with those of
their persecutors.
D. The 1935 declaration and
the distinction between potential and actual schism
Delimbasis returns to the
language of the 1935 declaration by the three bishops.
In that declaration, the
innovating hierarchy was described as having declared itself schismatic κατ᾽ οὐσίαν—in
substance or essentially.
The author insists that this
phrase must be interpreted in the context of Metropolitan Chrysostomos's
subsequent explanations.
He does not believe the
declaration constituted the formal adjudication of the hierarchy's canonical
status.
The fact that the innovating
hierarchy had acted contrary to the sacred canons did not, in his
interpretation, give the Old Calendarist bishops authority to execute a
definitive judgment on behalf of the entire Orthodox Church.
This distinction becomes explicit
in the next subsection.
E. The danger of treating
polemical language as dogma
Delimbasis argues that some Old
Calendarist statements concerning gracelessness were not conclusions of careful
Patristic theology.
Rather, they developed within the
heated polemics of the ecclesiastical struggle.
He considers their adoption
especially unfortunate because they gave the innovating hierarchy an
opportunity to portray the resistance as extreme and schismatic.
He also criticizes the use of the
traditional anti-Gregorian synodal statements as though an anathema necessarily
took effect automatically against every subsequent offender, without
ecclesiastical adjudication.
His position is that a canonical
condemnation may establish the objective seriousness of an offense without
eliminating the necessity for its lawful application.
Conclusion: The Old Calendarist
movement was justified in resisting the calendar innovation, but some of its
members fell into ecclesiological error when they declared the official
hierarchy's Mysteries automatically invalid.
4. Rightly Dividing the Word
of Truth (pp. 795–803)
Ὀρθοτόμησις τοῦ λόγου τῆς ἀληθείας
This subsection presents
Delimbasis's positive alternative to the two mutually exclusive theories of
ecclesiastical legitimacy.
His principal witness is
Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina.
A. Metropolitan
Chrysostomos's authoritative explanation
Delimbasis emphasizes that the
three bishops responsible for the 1935 declaration were themselves the
appropriate interpreters of its intended meaning.
He particularly invokes
Metropolitan Chrysostomos's pastoral encyclical of June 1, 1944.
In this text, the Metropolitan
explains the distinction between describing an ecclesiastical authority as
schismatic in principle and declaring that authority formally schismatic in
actuality.
The decisive passage, quoted by
Delimbasis on p. 795, states that the innovators had been called schismatics
and could continue to be described as such:
οὐχὶ ὅμως ἐνεργείᾳ, ἀλλὰ δυνάμει
μόνον.
That is:
"Not, however, in actuality,
but only potentially."
The Metropolitan explains that
the actual declaration of an offending cleric or layperson as schismatic
belongs to a Synod assembled and judging in the Holy Spirit.
Delimbasis regards this statement
as decisive for interpreting the 1935 declaration.
B. What does δυνάμει mean
in this context?
The distinction does not mean
that the innovation is harmless or that the offending hierarchy remains in good
canonical standing.
Rather, Delimbasis understands
δυνάμει to signify that the offense has created grounds for ecclesiastical
condemnation, but the competent ecclesiastical authority has not yet executed
the corresponding judgment.
The hierarchy's condition is
therefore objectively compromised, but its formal canonical status remains
unresolved.
By contrast, ἐνεργείᾳ refers to
the actual execution of that ecclesiastical judgment.
The distinction may be summarized
as follows:
|
Question |
Δυνάμει (potentially) |
Ἐνεργείᾳ (in actuality) |
|
Has the bishop committed an ecclesiastical offense? |
Yes, potentially incurring condemnation |
The offense has been formally adjudicated |
|
Has the bishop been definitively deposed? |
Not necessarily |
Yes, where deposition is the sentence |
|
May the faithful interrupt communion? |
Yes, where the canonical grounds are present |
The condemned bishop must not be treated as possessing
legitimate ecclesiastical authority |
|
Are his Mysteries automatically invalid? |
No |
The consequences follow from the Church's definitive
judgment |
This table expresses the
distinction as Delimbasis applies it. It should not be read as an exhaustive
statement of every canonical consequence of deposition.
C. The difference between
separation and deposition
Delimbasis distinguishes between
two ecclesiastical acts.
First, an Orthodox Christian may
interrupt communion with a bishop publicly teaching heresy.
Second, a competent Synod may
pronounce judgment upon the bishop and impose the appropriate canonical
penalty.
The first does not necessarily
accomplish the second.
Delimbasis emphasizes that the
right of resistance exists before the completion of the synodal process.
Otherwise, Orthodox Christians
could be compelled to remain in communion with openly heretical bishops until
the very authorities implicated in the controversy agreed to condemn them.
At the same time, the right of
resistance does not confer upon every individual or faction the authority to
execute ecclesiastical deposition.
D. The Old Calendarists did
not establish a second Church
Delimbasis reproduces
Metropolitan Chrysostomos's insistence that the Old Calendarist movement did
not constitute another independent Orthodox Church in Greece.
According to the Metropolitan,
the resistance continued within the historically recognized Autocephalous
Church of Greece.
It represented those Orthodox
Christians who preserved the traditional calendar and refused the unlawful
decisions of the governing hierarchy.
He describes the Old Calendarists
as a guard or bulwark preserving the Orthodox traditions of the Greek Church.
Delimbasis regards this
understanding as essential.
The restoration of unity does not
require one supposedly independent Church to absorb another. Rather, it
requires the healing of a division within the Church of Greece through the
restoration of Orthodox faith and canonical order.
E. The canonical
distinction between accusation and judgment
The author invokes the Third and
Seventh Ecumenical Councils, St. Theodore the Studite, St. Nicodemus the
Hagiorite, and other canonical authorities.
His argument is that the Church
distinguishes between identifying a doctrinal or canonical offense and
pronouncing a binding ecclesiastical judgment against the offender.
The example of Nestorius is
especially important.
Before his definitive
condemnation, Nestorius could still be referred to according to the
ecclesiastical office he occupied.
Following the Council's judgment,
he was treated as deposed from that office.
Delimbasis appeals to this
distinction to reject the claim that the formal consequences of deposition
invariably occur automatically at the first public manifestation of heresy.
F. The theological meaning
of Canon 15
Delimbasis appeals to Canon 15 of
the First-Second Council to establish the legitimacy of separation before
synodal condemnation.
He does not interpret the canon
as conferring automatic judicial authority upon those who separate.
Instead, he distinguishes the
protection afforded to Orthodox confessors from the Church's authority to
condemn the offending bishop.
This is one of the most important
canonical distinctions in the entire section.
For Delimbasis, the person who
ceases commemoration acts to preserve Orthodox faith and communion with the
Church, not to replace the Church's synodal judgment with a personal sentence
of deposition.
G. The Mysteries before and
after synodal condemnation
The author returns to the Seventh
Ecumenical Council and its reception of clergy associated with heresy.
He argues that the Church
recognized the ordinations of uncondemned clergy even where their doctrinal
positions were seriously compromised.
By contrast, a bishop
definitively deposed by the Church no longer possesses the canonical authority
to exercise the episcopal ministry.
The distinction between an
uncondemned and a condemned hierarch is therefore fundamental to his treatment
of sacramental grace.
Delimbasis does not regard this
as an accommodation to Ecumenism.
He considers it a necessary
consequence of the Patristic ecclesiology that the Old Calendarists claim to
defend.
H. Resistance must seek an
Orthodox Synod
The subsection concludes by
explaining that resistance to heresy is directed toward the eventual judgment
and healing of the Church.
The faithful who separate from a
compromised hierarchy must not assume that their own ecclesiastical judgment is
the final act of the Church.
They should seek the restoration
of canonical order through a competent Orthodox Synod.
The author consequently
distinguishes genuine Orthodox resistance from the creation of rival
ecclesiastical systems.
Conclusion: Metropolitan
Chrysostomos's distinction between δυνάμει and ἐνεργείᾳ provides, in
Delimbasis's interpretation, the theological basis for simultaneously rejecting
innovation, defending non-commemoration, and acknowledging the continued
sacramental validity of uncondemned clergy.
5. The Incomplete Argument
from Economia (pp. 804–807)
Ἀτέλεστος λόγος οἰκονομίας
This subsection addresses the
most difficult historical problem for Delimbasis's interpretation of
Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina: the encyclical of May 26, 1950, which
appears to contradict the Metropolitan's earlier ecclesiology.
A. The 1950 encyclical
Delimbasis identifies four
hierarchs as signatories:
- Metropolitan Chrysostomos, formerly of Florina.
- Bishop Germanos of the Cyclades.
- Bishop Christophoros of Christianoupolis.
- Bishop Polykarpos of Diavleia.
The encyclical reaffirmed the
1935 declaration that the New Calendarist hierarchy was schismatic.
However, it also declared that
the Mysteries celebrated by New Calendarist clergy were deprived of sanctifying
grace.
It prescribed reception of
Christians baptized by New Calendarist priests through Holy Chrismation.
Furthermore, the encyclical
required the rejection of the scandalous disagreements that had arisen among
the Old Calendarists since 1937.
These statements present an
obvious problem.
If Chrysostomos had previously
taught that the innovators were schismatic only δυνάμει, pending definitive
synodal judgment, how could he now declare their Mysteries devoid of grace?
B. The encyclical as an
attempt at reconciliation
Delimbasis interprets the
document in light of the division that had existed among the Old Calendarists
since 1937.
He maintains that its principal
purpose was to facilitate reunion between the opposing factions.
The encyclical's declaration that
it remained faithful to the 1935 confession is therefore especially important.
Delimbasis insists that the
Metropolitan had not abandoned the ecclesiology he had previously defended.
Instead, he interprets the
problematic statements concerning sacramental grace as a form of οἰκονομία τοῦ
λόγου—a concession or accommodation in the formulation of the text.
In his reading, the encyclical
was intended to overcome obstacles to reunion by employing language acceptable
to the rigorist faction.
The author does not regard this
as a satisfactory theological formulation. Indeed, the title The Incomplete
Argument from Economia indicates that the attempted accommodation remained
defective.
C. The distinction between
the stated purpose and the theological consequences
Delimbasis maintains that the
declaration concerning invalid Mysteries cannot be reconciled with the
Metropolitan's earlier statements when interpreted as an absolute theological
proposition.
He emphasizes that Chrysostomos
had already explained the distinction between potential and actual schism.
Consequently, the declaration of
1950 should not be treated as a new and definitive ecclesiological doctrine
overriding the earlier statements.
Delimbasis also draws attention
to the text's affirmation that the 1935 declaration remained unchanged.
For him, this establishes that
the encyclical was intended to represent continuity rather than repudiation.
Nevertheless, an important
distinction remains between the author's interpretation of the encyclical's
purpose and what the encyclical actually declares.
The 1950 document does contain
language denying grace to New Calendarist Mysteries. Delimbasis's argument is
that this language should not be understood as Metropolitan Chrysostomos's
definitive theological conviction.
D. Metropolitan
Chrysostomos's subsequent statements
Delimbasis cites later
declarations attributed to Chrysostomos, particularly those made in December
1950, approximately six months after the encyclical's publication.
According to the material
reproduced by the author, Chrysostomos explained that the encyclical had been
signed in self-defense.
He also maintained that the Old Calendarists
had not established another independent Orthodox Church and that their
resistance remained within the historical Autocephalous Church of Greece.
Delimbasis further refers to
statements from 1953.
These testimonies are intended to
demonstrate that Chrysostomos did not regard the 1950 encyclical as a
theological repudiation of his earlier teaching.
However, the evidence reproduced
here is better understood as demonstrating the Metropolitan's subsequent
explanation of his position than as establishing that the encyclical was
formally revoked by a Synod.
E. The failure of the
attempted accommodation
Delimbasis argues that the
concession did not achieve its intended purpose.
Rather than bringing about the
desired restoration of ecclesiastical unity, the 1950 encyclical became a
source of further controversy.
It supplied critics of
Chrysostomos with material for accusations of inconsistency and enabled
rigorists to claim that he had accepted their teaching concerning invalid
Mysteries.
The author nevertheless
distinguishes a problematic formulation adopted during an ecclesiastical
struggle from a deliberate abandonment of Orthodox dogma.
He invokes St. Basil the Great's
distinction between doctrinal teaching and expressions employed in the course
of controversy, arguing that polemical statements should not automatically be
regarded as definitive dogmatic pronouncements.
He also emphasizes that the
Metropolitan had continued to struggle against both calendar innovation and
erroneous ecclesiology.
F. The Russian parallel:
Hieromartyr Cyril of Kazan
Immediately preceding this
subsection, Delimbasis introduces an illuminating comparison from Russian
ecclesiastical history.
He describes the persecution of
Patriarch Tikhon, the activities of the Renovationists, and the subsequent
divisions associated with Metropolitan Sergius.
Particularly noteworthy is his
quotation of Hieromartyr Cyril of Kazan, who separated from Metropolitan
Sergius but refused to declare the Sergianist Mysteries automatically
graceless.
Delimbasis cites Cyril's
explanation:
Δεν ισχυρίζομαι ουδόλως, ότι
απουσιάζει η Χάρις από τα Μυστήρια των σεργιανιστών.
Translation:
"I do not at all maintain
that grace is absent from the Mysteries of the Sergianists."
Cyril adds that he refuses
communion because he does not wish to participate in the sins of others.
This testimony is especially
important because it expresses, in remarkably concise form, the distinction
Delimbasis seeks to establish throughout the entire section:
The refusal of ecclesiastical
communion does not necessarily imply a judgment that the Mysteries of the
clergy from whom one separates are invalid.
The example of Cyril of Kazan
therefore supports the broader argument concerning the legitimate interruption
of communion prior to definitive synodal judgment.
G. Conclusion of the fifth
subdivision
Delimbasis's final judgment is
that the 1950 encyclical represented an unsuccessful attempt to reconcile
divided Old Calendarists.
Its problematic sacramental
declarations should not, in his interpretation, be regarded as a definitive
repudiation of Metropolitan Chrysostomos's earlier ecclesiology.
He regards the Metropolitan's
consistent theological position as the distinction between potential and actual
schism, together with the conviction that final ecclesiastical judgment belongs
to a competent Orthodox Synod.
This interpretation is central to
the author's defense of Chrysostomos, but it remains a historical and
theological interpretation rather than an independently established formal
rescission of the encyclical.
6. Resistance and Union in the
Ecclesiology of the Fathers (pp. 808–815)
Ἔνστασις καὶ ἕνωσις ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησιολογίᾳ
τῶν Πατέρων
The concluding subdivision
presents Delimbasis's constructive ecclesiological solution.
Here he moves beyond criticism of
the innovators and rigorists to explain how the divided Church of Greece might
recover its unity.
He refers to recently published
ecclesiological positions of a hierarch of the Orthodox resistance. The book's
own English summary identifies this hierarch as Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos
and Phyle, whose ecclesiological exposition appeared in 1984.
A. The One Church is
indefectible
Delimbasis begins with the
Orthodox confession of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
The Church is one in heaven and
on earth, possessing one Lord, one faith, and one Baptism.
He distinguishes the
indefectibility of the Church as the Body of Christ from the possibility that
individual Christians, bishops, and even Local Churches may fall into doctrinal
error.
This distinction is essential.
The Church herself cannot
disappear or become heretical in her entirety.
Nevertheless, members of the
Church, including those occupying positions of ecclesiastical authority, may
become compromised by heresy.
Delimbasis invokes the history of
the Western Church as an example of an ecclesiastical body that departed from
Orthodox doctrine.
Thus, the holiness and
indefectibility of the Church do not guarantee the indefectibility of every
Local Church or bishop.
B. The sacraments of
uncondemned clergy
The next proposition concerns the
continued validity of Mysteries celebrated by uncondemned clergy.
Delimbasis argues that the
Seventh Ecumenical Council recognized the ordinations and Mysteries of clergy
who had been implicated in heresy but had not yet been definitively condemned.
He maintains that a similar
principle applies to the modern Greek controversy.
The innovating hierarchy has not
yet been condemned by a competent Orthodox Synod.
Consequently, its clergy cannot
simply be treated as deprived of the grace of the priesthood.
This does not mean that their
ecclesiastical conduct is justified.
It means that ecclesiastical
error and sacramental invalidity must not be treated as automatically
identical.
C. The right of canonical
resistance
The author then returns to the
canonical legitimacy of separating from bishops publicly preaching heresy.
He invokes Canon 15 of the
First-Second Council and Apostolic Canon 31.
The faithful may interrupt
communion with an offending bishop before synodal condemnation, provided the
canonical grounds for such separation are present.
Such resistance is not schism.
Indeed, Delimbasis emphasizes the
canonical teaching that those who separate from publicly heretical bishops do
not divide the Church but seek to protect her from division.
He accordingly regards resistance
as a positive ecclesiastical action aimed at the preservation of Orthodoxy.
D. The division of the
Church of Greece into healthy and ailing members
This is one of the most
significant passages in the entire work.
Delimbasis describes the Church
of Greece after 1924 as divided into two categories:
The ailing members (νοσοῦντες)
are those who have accepted the ecclesiastical innovation and the accompanying
doctrinal errors.
The healthy members (ὑγιαίνοντες)
are those who preserve Orthodox Tradition and resist the innovation.
The author does not mean that
these two groups constitute two Churches.
Rather, they are parts of the
same historically divided ecclesiastical body, although they differ radically
in their fidelity to Orthodox doctrine and ecclesiastical order.
He associates the healthy members
with the Orthodox resistance and the ailing members with the innovating
hierarchy.
The importance of this
terminology cannot be overstated.
Delimbasis is rejecting two
opposing extremes:
- That the official hierarchy alone constitutes the
Church, with the Old Calendarists entirely outside it.
- That the Old Calendarists alone constitute the
Church, with all New Calendarist Christians automatically outside it.
Instead, he argues that the
division exists within the historical Church of Greece and requires an Orthodox
ecclesiastical remedy.
E. The official Synod does
not represent the complete Church of Greece
Delimbasis maintains that the
governing Holy Synod of the officially recognized Church of Greece cannot be
identified with the complete ecclesiastical body.
It represents the innovating
portion of the divided Church.
He therefore rejects the
proposition that the official hierarchy possesses exclusive authority to
determine the ecclesiastical status of those resisting its innovations.
He also criticizes the
ecclesiastical decisions and penalties imposed by that hierarchy against the
resistance.
He argues that the participation
of the hierarchy in the innovation compromises its judgments concerning the
resistance.
F. Neither do the Synods of
the resistance constitute the complete Church
Delimbasis applies the same
principle to the various Old Calendarist Synods.
He does not regard any one of
them as the complete ecclesiastical body of the Autocephalous Church of Greece.
Their legitimacy rests upon their
defense of Orthodox doctrine and their participation in the struggle for
restoration.
They should not claim that their
separate ecclesiastical administration constitutes a new and independent
Church.
This is an especially important
qualification.
For Delimbasis, the resistance
possesses a legitimate ecclesiastical purpose, but it must not absolutize its
own organizational form.
Its ultimate objective is not the
perpetuation of separate jurisdictions but the recovery of Orthodox unity.
G. The reception of the
ailing members through repentance
The author then examines the
means by which members of the innovating hierarchy may return to Orthodox
ecclesiastical order.
His principal model is the
reception of clergy and bishops from heresy by the Ecumenical Councils.
He cites the Fourth, Sixth, and
Seventh Ecumenical Councils as examples of the Church receiving clergy who
repented of erroneous teaching.
He emphasizes that their
ordinations were not necessarily repeated.
For Delimbasis, these examples
establish the possibility of receiving contemporary New Calendarist bishops,
priests, and laypeople through repentance and correction of their
ecclesiastical position.
Such reception does not require
treating every previous Mystery as nonexistent.
He therefore rejects the routine
imposition of rebaptism or reordination upon those returning from the
innovating hierarchy.
The exact form of reception
belongs to the competent ecclesiastical authority, but the principle is that
uncondemned clergy may be restored without assuming that their priesthood had
already disappeared.
H. The necessity of a Synod
of Union
The author now reaches his
principal practical conclusion.
The division within the Church of
Greece cannot be healed simply by the official hierarchy imposing obedience
upon the resistance.
Nor can it be healed by one Old
Calendarist Synod declaring itself the sole legitimate Church and demanding
unconditional submission from all others.
What is required is a Synod of
Union (Σύνοδος Ἑνώσεως).
Delimbasis understands this as a
lawful Orthodox synodal assembly capable of restoring agreement in the faith
and healing the ecclesiastical division.
He draws a historical analogy
with the Seventh Ecumenical Council.
Just as that Council restored
unity following the Iconoclastic controversies, a future Orthodox Synod could
restore unity in Greece following the calendar innovation and the subsequent
development of Ecumenism.
The purpose of the Synod is not
to invent a compromise between Orthodoxy and heresy.
It is to restore Orthodox unity
through agreement in the truth.
I. The proper role of the
resistance
Delimbasis is careful to explain
that the restoration of unity requires more than the eventual convocation of a
Synod.
The resistance must prepare for
such a Synod through fidelity to the Fathers.
He emphasizes several necessary
conditions: preservation of Orthodox doctrine, legitimate resistance to heresy,
avoidance of ecclesiological extremes, cooperation among those defending
Orthodoxy, and charity toward those who have been led into error.
The various Old Calendarist
Synods should therefore understand themselves as temporary ecclesiastical
structures serving the wider purpose of Orthodox restoration.
They must not transform the
preservation of Orthodoxy into a justification for permanent jurisdictional
division.
J. The final appeal
The work concludes by placing the
responsibility for ecclesiastical restoration upon the faithful who continue
the struggle for Orthodox doctrine.
Delimbasis invokes the history of
the Ecumenical Councils, emphasizing that they were the fruit of the struggles
of Orthodox confessors.
His ultimate objective is the
restoration of the Church of Greece through fidelity to Orthodox Tradition.
He calls for a lawful struggle
against the calendar innovation and Ecumenism, conducted according to the
Gospel, the sacred canons, and the example of the Fathers.
The final ecclesiological
proposition is that resistance and reunion are not opposing objectives. Genuine
Orthodox resistance exists precisely to preserve the possibility of authentic
ecclesiastical reunion.
III. The Essential
Ecclesiological Distinctions
The section's argument can be
condensed into several distinctions that must be maintained if its author's
position is to be represented accurately.
|
Distinction |
Delimbasis's position |
|
Heresy versus canonical condemnation |
A bishop may publicly profess heresy before the Church has
pronounced its definitive judgment. |
|
Separation versus deposition |
The faithful may discontinue communion without possessing
the authority to depose the bishop. |
|
Δυνάμει versus ἐνεργείᾳ |
Liability to condemnation is not identical with the formal
execution of that condemnation. |
|
Doctrinal error versus sacramental invalidity |
The former does not automatically establish the latter. |
|
The Church versus the governing hierarchy |
The officially recognized governing Synod is not
necessarily identical with the complete Church. |
|
Orthodox resistance versus a separate Church |
Resistance does not inherently constitute the
establishment of another Church. |
|
Healthy versus ailing members |
The ecclesiastically compromised and those resisting the
compromise may belong to the same historical ecclesiastical body before
definitive judgment. |
|
Economia versus doctrinal compromise |
Pastoral accommodation must not be used to establish a
false ecclesiology. |
|
Resistance versus reunion |
Canonical resistance should serve the restoration of
Orthodox unity rather than permanent separatism. |
IV. The Most
Important Implications of the Section
1. The position is not one of
automatic gracelessness
This is the clearest conclusion.
Delimbasis rejects the teaching
that the Mysteries of the New Calendarist hierarchy became invalid
automatically in 1924.
He does not minimize the
seriousness of the calendar innovation.
Rather, he insists that the
validity of the Mysteries must be understood according to the Church's received
canonical tradition.
2. The position does not
require continued communion with innovators
The author distinguishes
recognizing the validity of Mysteries from maintaining ecclesiastical communion
with those celebrating them.
This distinction is illustrated
particularly well by his reference to Hieromartyr Cyril of Kazan.
In Delimbasis's understanding,
one may legitimately refuse communion with a compromised hierarch while
declining to pronounce the hierarch's Mysteries devoid of grace.
These are separate theological
and canonical questions.
3. The 1935 resistance was
intended to preserve, not replace, the Church of Greece
Metropolitan Chrysostomos's
ecclesiological writings are indispensable to Delimbasis's argument.
The original Old Calendarist
movement is presented as the traditional portion of the Autocephalous Church of
Greece.
Its interruption of communion did
not entail the foundation of another Church.
This provides the historical
basis for Delimbasis's criticism of later Old Calendarist jurisdictional
exclusivism.
4. The 1950 encyclical is the
principal historical difficulty
Delimbasis does not deny that the
encyclical contained language declaring New Calendarist Mysteries devoid of
grace.
Instead, he interprets that
language as an unsuccessful conciliatory concession during the struggle to
restore Old Calendarist unity.
Whether this interpretation is
historically sufficient is a separate question. In particular, demonstrating
the Metropolitan's intentions is not the same as demonstrating the formal
rescission of the encyclical.
The difficulty remains central to
any rigorous historical assessment of Chrysostomos's ecclesiology.
5. The ecclesiology has an
explicitly restorative purpose
The division of the Church of
Greece into healthy and ailing members is not intended to justify the
indefinite maintenance of two ecclesiastical systems.
It is intended to explain the
provisional condition of the divided Church pending the restoration of Orthodox
order.
Delimbasis's proposed Synod of
Union is therefore not an incidental conclusion but the culmination of the
entire argument.
V. Critical
Assessment
The strongest feature of this
section is its insistence upon distinguishing the canonical status of a bishop
from the doctrinal errors he may publicly profess.
The appeal to the Seventh
Ecumenical Council, St. Theodore the Studite, and the historical reception of
clergy from heresy provides substantial material for examining the question of
sacramental validity before definitive condemnation.
Its treatment of the original
ecclesiology of Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina is also particularly
valuable. The passages from the Metropolitan's 1944 encyclical provide direct
documentary evidence that he distinguished between potential and actual schism.
Nevertheless, three questions
remain open to further theological and historical examination.
First, the precise relationship
between public heresy, ecclesiastical office, and sacramental validity is more
complicated than the assertion that every sacrament remains valid until a
formal sentence is pronounced. The Church's canonical tradition includes
distinctions concerning the nature of heresy, ecclesiastical communion, the
status of the celebrant, and the mode of reception of clergy.
Second, Delimbasis's treatment of
the 1950 encyclical depends upon his interpretation of the Metropolitan's
intentions and subsequent statements. The historical evidence does not
eliminate the apparent contradiction between the encyclical's explicit
declarations and the position that Chrysostomos had previously defended.
Third, the theory that the
innovating and resisting hierarchies remain parts of the same historical Local
Church before definitive synodal judgment raises further questions concerning
jurisdiction, the authority of competing Synods, and the practical boundaries
of ecclesiastical communion. Delimbasis establishes the broad principles of his
position more clearly than he resolves every practical consequence.
These qualifications do not
negate the importance of the section. They identify the principal issues that
would require further examination in a comprehensive canonical study.
VI. Final
Synthesis
The section Ecclesiological Error
and Truth represents Delimbasis's attempt to reconcile three propositions that
some participants in the Old Calendarist controversy had come to regard as
mutually incompatible.
First: The calendar innovation of
1924 was unlawful and provided legitimate grounds for Orthodox resistance and
interruption of ecclesiastical communion.
Second: The interruption of
communion did not automatically invalidate the Holy Mysteries celebrated by
uncondemned clergy belonging to the innovating hierarchy.
Third: The division of the Church
of Greece must ultimately be healed through a lawful Orthodox Synod, rather
than perpetuated by rival claims to exclusive ecclesiastical legitimacy.
His historical defense centers
upon Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina, whose distinction between δυνάμει
and ἐνεργείᾳ he regards as the correct interpretation of the original Old
Calendarist ecclesiology.
His theological foundation rests
upon the practice of the Ecumenical Councils, particularly their reception of
clergy associated with heresy before definitive condemnation.
His practical conclusion is the
necessity of an Orthodox Synod of Union capable of restoring the divided Church
of Greece to unity in faith and canonical order.
The most significant insight of
the section is that the author regards both the calendar innovation and the
automatic denial of grace to uncondemned clergy as ecclesiological errors. He
considers the second error especially tragic when adopted by those whose
original purpose was to defend Orthodoxy against the first.
Thus, in Delimbasis's
understanding, genuine Orthodox resistance must preserve not only the purity of
the faith but also the Orthodox doctrine of the Church and her Mysteries,
including the possibility of repentance, restoration, and eventual reunion.
Generated by ChatGPT-6.0 on October 29, 2026.
