The Distortion of the Ecclesiological Views of Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Phlorina and Its Consequences

In Memory of Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Phlorina, a Struggler Betrayed

by Nikolaos Daskalos

Source: Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XXX (2013), No. 1, pp. 34-44.

 

“And if a man also strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned, except he strive lawfully” (II St. Timothy 2:5)

 

Author’s Introductory Note. This essay, which deals with specific ecclesiological topics in the struggle of the Old Calendarist Orthodox of Greece, is addressed to readers familiar with such ecclesiological issues. For those not conversant with certain fundamental facts, it might be a good idea to keep this work on file and return to reading it after having satisfactorily investigated any more rudimentary questions that you might have. [1]

However, if you are familiar with the facts, read the present work attentively, and forgive me the indignation that I feel in writing it, an indignation assuredly not concerning persons—whom I pray that the Lord will acquit at the Great Judgment—but concerning the fragmentation of the struggle, a struggle so pure and noble that it has been debased more by certain of its exponents than by its virulent persecutors.

The purpose of this work is not so much to persuade those who are in disagreement as to redress a grave injustice, which you will understand as you read it. May the ever-memorable Confessor, Metropolitan Chrysostomos (Kabourides), who laid down his life for his sheep in imitation of our Lord Jesus Christ, intercede for the success of our struggle, the sole purpose of which is to bring peace to the Church and to eradicate heresy and schism.

 

Two Views of Ecclesiology. After the arbitrary change of the calendar by the Orthodox Church of Greece in 1924, and with the tremendous growth of the confessional struggle of the Old Calendarist Orthodox, in the ranks of those contending against this innovation two ecclesiological views were gradually formed with regard to the “official” or New Calendar Church, which had introduced the innovation.

According to the first view, the moderate one, the principal exponent of which was Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Phlorina, [2] the innovationist Church was potentially (ἐν δυνάμει), but not actually (ἐν ἐνεργείᾳ) schismatic, since a Pan-Orthodox Synod had not been convened to condemn it. In practical terms, this means that while it is correct to sever communion with it for canonical (and now also for dogmatic) reasons, its members should not be treated as actual schismatics (or heretics); that is, in the case of those returning to the Old Calendar, their Mysteries (e.g., Baptisms) should not be repeated.

According to the second view, the extreme one, which was put forth primarily by certain Athonites—such as the titular Bishop of Bresthene, Matthew (Karpathakes)—when the innovationist Church uncanonically altered the calendar, it automatically forfeited Divine Grace and its members became schismatics and heretics in actuality. (From this viewpoint, in fact, the calendar change was not only a schism, but also a heresy.) Thus, the extremists began to apply the procedure appointed by the Fathers (chiefly by St. Basil the Great) to condemned schismatics for the reception of New Calendarists returning to the Old Calendar; that is, they rebaptized them, re-chrismated them, and in general repeated their Mysteries.

When, in 1935, the former Metropolitan of Phlorina, [3] together with the other two Hierarchs who had walled themselves off from the innovationist Church [of Greece], [4] assumed the pastoral supervision of the Old Calendarist Orthodox, they confronted the practical consequences of this extreme view—a view that aimed not so much at the removal of the potential schism as its perpetuation—though the Hierarchs were not themselves responsible for the creation of this extremism.

Thus it was that Metropolitan Chrysostomos developed the distinction between “in posse” and “in esse,” whereby in essence he presented Orthodox ecclesiology in the spirit of the Divine and sacred Canons, and also in conformity with the interpretations of St. Nicodemos the Hagiorite [5] and of yet another representative of the Kollyvades, Neophytos Kavsokalyvites. [6] Unfortunately, the adherents of the extreme view, not only then but also today, have not grasped the fundamental meaning of the canonical terms “potentially” and “actually,” but confuse them with the Aristotelian philological interpretation of the words. In order that this point might be understood correctly, we will venture a very simple interpretation, in a few lines, by means of an example, in which the well-intentioned reader will gain a sufficient understanding of these terms, as well as their relationship to ecclesiastical penalties.

Suppose a man is caught red-handed in the act of stealing. All of the eyewitnesses of the event, that is, those who saw the theft, discuss it among themselves. One says: “Let us scourge him.” Another says: “Let us confine him in prison for such-and-such a time.” A third says: “Let him be fined such-and-such an amount of money.” The policeman who arrested him then turns to them and says: “The law appoints such-and-such a penalty for theft. Therefore, a court should be convened and the judges should decide the penalty to be imposed and served. You are not competent to do this, gentlemen.”

Now, substitute for “law” the Divine and sacred Canons, for “court” a Pan-Orthodox Synod, for “judges” the Hierarchs who will make up the Synod, and for “penalty” the condemnation that will thereafter be actual. So it is with the calendar innovation. Whoever does not wish to be condemned must wall himself off, but he is not competent to impose any penalty, even if the judges have proved hitherto to be corrupt.

A Pan-Orthodox Synod would not be convened to decide whether the introduction of the New Calendar is or is not a schism and whether ecumenism is or is not a heresy, as the Matthewites wrongly suppose, but in order to impose the appropriate penalty and to give those who are to be tried for schism and heresy the opportunity to defend themselves, and those who acted in ignorance the opportunity to return to Orthodoxy. Thenceforth and thereafter, the Mysteries of such schismatics and heretics would be invalid. Until then, no one is able to yield a licit decision. This is precisely what “potentially” and “actually” mean. We know that the crime (the calendar schism) was committed by the defendant (the Hierarchy of the Church of Greece), and when the competent court (the Pan-Orthodox Synod) finally passes sentence on it, if it does not repent (by returning to the Old Calendar and condemning ecumenism), the punishment will take effect; that is, they will become actual schismatics and heretics, with Mysteries that will then be invalid.

The rejection of the distinction between “potentially” and “actually” is ruinous. It leads to a new Papalizing or Protestantizing ecclesiology, according to which an individual, a group of individuals, or even a local Church has the right to declare heretical and schismatic whomsoever it wishes. The Old Calendarist Orthodox still experience the pernicious consequences of this ecclesiology through the contemporary fragmentation of their movement into factions. It is certain that, if a true Pan-Orthodox Synod is ever convened, it will condemn this ecclesiological deviation in addition to ecumenism.

A Misleading Question. “But if the Mysteries of the New Calendarists are valid, what is the reason for our being walled off and not staying with the New Calendar?” Before we set forth our response to this ostensibly reasonable but misleading question, we might, rather, ourselves ask: “But if the Mysteries of the New Calendarists are invalid, for what reason do you protest that they give them to heretics?” [7]

In order to clarify matters, we must heed the following points:

(1) The Old Calendarist Orthodox have walled themselves off for the purpose of delivering the Church from divisions and schisms stemming from the New Calendar and ecumenism; they have not done so because the Mysteries of the innovators are, supposedly, invalid.

(2) That the Mysteries of the innovators are valid is devoid of significance. No one is saved simply because he is baptized or married in the Orthodox Church. Salvation is attained through faith and works. If a New Calendarist who has been validly baptized, married, or ordained believes that this alone will save him, as long as he still communes with heretics, or believes that there is salvation in other religions, or thinks that the Pope is the holiest of bishops, he is very much mistaken. In the prayers before Holy Communion we read: “For Thou art Fire that consumeth the unworthy.” Now, when one knowingly communes with heretics by virtue of the communion that the Priest, Bishop, and Patriarch has with heretics, does he receive Christ unto salvation or unto condemnation? [That is now the issue, not the future issue of the validity of New Calendarist Mysteries—Trans.]

The Contrived Sigillion. The main argument of those who think that the innovators themselves are already condemned is based on a Sigillion that anathematizes all who follow the Latin Paschalion and Calendar. However, although the Latin Paschalion and Calendar were anathematized (according to the Dodekabiblos of Patriarch Dositheos), censured (according to the Church History of Meletios of Athens), condemned (according to the Church History of Philaretos Bapheides), or rejected (according to Athanasios Comnenos in his The Aftermath of the Fall of Constantinople) at three Pan-Orthodox Synods (1583, 1587, and 1593), the only documents that have been found hitherto in the Tomos Agapes of Patriarch Dositheos demonstrate clearly that the aforementioned Sigillion is a contrivance. It is, in essence, an epistle of Patriarch Cyril (Loukaris) of Alexandria, which was doctored—God alone knows why—and presented as a Sigillion, “accompanied by sanctions and anathemas.”

The argument that Father Iakovos of New Skete, who transcribed this document, had no reason to falsify it, since at that time (in the nineteenth century) the calendar was not at issue, is erroneous, since from 1583 onwards the calendar has constantly been an issue, as we see in writings from that era, in which [the Orthodox] acceptance of the Gregorian Calendar was the burning desire of all Papists. [8] The question we should be asking is not why Iakovos perpetrated the forgery, but whether he contrived it. Research to date shows that the document was tampered with, as we have said. But pay attention: the contrived Sigillion was used not—as certain New Calendarist websites falsely and triumphalistically assert [9]—to justify the walling-off of the Old Calendarist Orthodox in 1924, but subsequently and specifically to put forth and bolster this view that we are examining, namely, that those who introduced the innovation of the New Calendar are anathematized, and are therefore actually schismatics and heretics.

Even if we suppose that the Sigillion is genuine, again, its anathematizations do not take effect automatically. A new synodal judgment is required to condemn the unprecedented case of an acceptance solely of the Papal calendar and not of the Papal Paschalion. [10]

New Calendarist Persecutions Reinforce Extremism. This second ecclesiological view has also acquired popular support for a very important reason. The Old Calendarist Orthodox faithful were unable to accept that those who murdered, excommunicated, and exiled them and who forcibly shaved their Priests, overturned Holy Chalices and trampled on the Divine Mysteries, closed their Churches, beat them with clubs, and subjected them to so many torments, were not schismatics and heretics. For the poor common people, who were now experiencing all that they read in the Lives of the Saints and suffering so much, it was very easy to accept this view, which applied a little balm to their wounds. Such was the origin of the fanaticism and extremism that we see the New Calendarists so hypocritically ridiculing.

The Matthewite Schism. In 1937, adherents of the extremist ecclesiology formed a conventicle [11] under the leadership of Bishop Matthew of Bresthene, with the coöperation of the misguided Bishop Germanos of the Cyclades [who soon separated from Bishop Matthew and eventually reunited with Metropolitan Chrysostomos in 1950—Trans.], Hieromonk Akakios (Pappas), Monk Mark (Chaniotes), and other advocates of this injudicious ideology. They denounced and anathematized (in accordance with their cherished ecclesiology) Metropolitans Germanos of Demetrias and Chrysostomos of Phlorina. In this way, they created the so-called “Matthewite Schism,” the bane of the sacred struggle of the Old Calendarist Orthodox, who were thenceforth divided into two factions: the right-thinking “Phlorinite” faction of Metropolitan Chrysostomos and the breakaway “Matthewite” conventicle.

Remaining faithful to Orthodox ecclesiology, Metropolitan Chrysostomos continued to expound it through his writings, these contemporary monuments of Orthodoxy. In 1940, at a meeting of the divided parties, and also in 1942, at another meeting to which he had invited the breakaway group, he refused to be coerced into accepting their extremist ecclesiological viewpoint. In 1944, in a momentous pastoral encyclical, [12] and shortly thereafter in a clarification thereof, [13] he provided a detailed analysis of the terms “potentially” and “actually” and called his extremist brethren to repentance.

In 1948, Matthew, who signed himself as “Least among Bishops,” reckoning himself to be the sole Orthodox Bishop upon earth, undertook on his own initiative to perform uncanonical Consecrations of “Bishops.” In 1949, his “Bishops” set the seal of approval on his ecclesiology by appointing him “Archbishop of Athens and All Greece.” At his death in 1950, he made his way to the impartial Tribunal, while his devotees proclaimed him to be a “Myrrh-gushing Saint.”

An Ecclesiological Synopsis. “Matthewite ecclesiology,” as we shall henceforth denominate it, may be summarized by the following three points:

(1) The Church of Greece has become schismatic and heretical on account of the calendar change and ecumenism.

(2) Its Mysteries are invalid.

(3) The Church of the True Orthodox Christians of Greece is the real Orthodox Church of Greece.

Orthodox ecclesiology, as set forth by Metropolitan Chrysostomos, may be summarized by the following three points:

(1) The Church of Greece has become liable to judgment by a Pan-Orthodox Synod for schism and heresy on account of the calendar innovation and its ecumenism, respectively.

(2) With regard to its Mysteries, it is up to a Pan-Orthodox Synod to pronounce a decision. Until such a time, they are NOT to be repeated, nor is there any provision for the use of Chrism, supposedly for the sake of œconomy. [14]

(3) The Old Calendarist Orthodox do not constitute a separate Church, but are the anti-innovationist congregation of the Church of Greece.

The Distortion. Such were the ecclesiological views of the Old Calendarist Orthodox under Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Phlorina. And if, only in a very particular instance—that of the notorious encyclical of 1950—there was an apparent contradiction of these views, this was for the good purpose of healing the rupture: a goal which was not only not accomplished, but which indirectly gave rise to a distortion of Orthodox ecclesiology, not so much by reason of the admittance of Matthewites into the Phlorinite faction (for they had entered it even prior to 1950), as through the exploitation of the encyclical in question by those who distorted it, presenting this ill-considered declaration as, allegedly, the authentic view of Metropolitan Chrysostomos and blatantly ignoring his works as a whole, not to mention his practice (he never re-chrismated anyone during the twenty years of his Episcopate in the Old Calendar movement).

Thus have we come to the point, following the death of Metropolitan Chrysostomos, at which, within the Phlorinite faction, Matthewite ecclesiology was peddled as the teachings of Metropolitan Chrysostomos! A total distortion, indeed. But let us see how it came to pass.

• Akakios (Pappas). [15] Hieromonk Father Akakios (Pappas) of Iveron preached a Matthewite ecclesiology, from the inception of the struggle, in his books and articles. The exiles and persecutions inflicted upon him by the innovators naturally reinforced these convictions in him. In particular, the New Calendar Bishop Athanasios of Phokis went so far as to enter the Church with gendarmes at the hour when Father Akakios was celebrating the Liturgy and to pour the Holy Communion down the sink. Such was the demonic behavior that these people experienced, and this is why they were confirmed in their extreme views.

In 1937, he followed Bishop Matthew of Bresthene in his schism by signing a document, together with others, that anathematized Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Phlorina as a putative traitor—on two occasions, in fact (November 6, 1937 and December 1937).

In 1940, he condemned Metropolitan Chrysostomos, in a letter, as being responsible for the rift, since at the aforementioned meeting he did not accept Matthewite ecclesiology.

In 1943, he condemned Bishop Germanos of the Cyclades for agreeing with Metropolitan Chrysostomos.

In 1945, he published in Kῆρυξ τῶν Ὀρθοδόξων an article against Metropolitan Chrysostomos, in which he attempted to refute the concepts of “potentially” and “actually.” In the same year, he was the prime mover in the composition of a letter to Bishop Matthew, in which the latter is urged to consecrate Bishops on his own!

A few days later, he approached Metropolitan Chrysostomos, repudiating all that he had written against him. He tried to persuade him to perform Consecrations, which the ever-memorable Hierarch refused to do, abiding by his ecclesiology. [16]

Following the repose of Metropolitan Chrysostomos, after certain setbacks, he received Episcopal Consecration—canonically compromised, albeit valid—and became leader of the Phlorinite faction.

• Auxentios (Pastras). The subsequent leader of the Phlorinite faction, Auxentios (Pastras), was the first to use the title “Archbishop of Athens and All Greece.” In 1938 (or 1939), he was ordained Deacon and Priest by Bishop Matthew, to whose jurisdiction belonged the monastery in which he was tonsured a monk, the Holy Monastery of the Transfiguration in Koubara. He dissociated himself from Bishop Matthew, not for ecclesiological reasons, but because, to his credit, he realized the illicitness of Consecrations by a single Bishop.

During his term as Archbishop of the Phlorinite faction, he issued, in 1974, the Matthewite encyclical, “Oὕτω λαλοῦμεν, οὕτω φρονοῦμεν” (“Thus do we speak, thus do we think”).

• Chrysostomos (Kiouses)—Kallistos (Makres). The next leader, Chrysostomos (Kiouses), though more discerning, was also an adherent of Matthewite ecclesiology, being a spiritual son of Bishop Matthew. Indeed, following the desire of the latter, he was tonsured a monk at the Holy Monastery of Evangelistria (Athikia, Corinth), under the future Matthewite Bishop, Kallistos (Makres) of Corinth, who, having received the imposition of hands (χειροθεσία) from the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad—thereby correcting his illicit Consecration by Bishop Matthew—aligned himself in 1977 with the Phlorinite faction, from which he eventually broke away, since he disagreed with the ecclesiology of certain of its Hierarchs (that is to say, those who upheld the ecclesiology of Metropolitan Chrysostomos, such as the then Bishop Cyprian of Oropos and Phyle).

• Matthew (Langes)—Victor (Matthaiou)—Antonios (Thanases). Hierodeacon Father Matthew (Langes), later Bishop of Oinoe in the Phlorinite faction, and Monk Victor (Matthaiou), whom Bishop Matthew had made a monk even though he was engaged to be married, were part of the “windfall” of the 1950 encyclical, since twelve days after the death of Bishop Matthew they aligned themselves with Metropolitan Chrysostomos, or, rather, invited themselves into his faction. As well, Hieromonk Antonios (Thanases), later Bishop of Megara in the Phlorinite faction, was a co-editor, together with Monk Victor, of the Matthewite periodical Πολύτιμος Θησαυρὸς Mετανοίας.

With so many former Matthewite Hierarchs, how could there not have been a distortion of the ecclesiology that Metropolitan Chrysostomos preached?

• Kalliopios (Giannakoulopoulos). Another former Matthewite, who is reckoned, in fact, to have played a pivotal rôle in the formation (i.e., distortion) of the ecclesiology of the contemporary successors of the Phlorinite faction, was Kalliopios (Giannakoulopoulos), who served as a Deacon under Bishop Matthew and later became Bishop of Pentapolis in the Phlorinite faction.

In his books (he was the editor of Tὰ Πάτρια, an excellent publication from an historical point of view), he championed and promoted a Matthewite ecclesiology, presenting even Metropolitan Chrysostomos as an adherent thereof.

• Mark (Chaniotes). One of the chief proponents of the Matthewite schism, he subsequently aligned himself with Metropolitan Chrysostomos. In his book, Tὸ Ἡμερολογιακὸν Σχίσμα (The Calendar Schism), he presented Matthewite ecclesiology as, supposedly, the authentic teaching of Metropolitan Chrysostomos. Naturally, he did this, as did Bishop Kalliopios, some years after the death of Metropolitan Chrysostomos.

• Kallinikos (Sarantopoulos). The present Archbishop of what is numerically the largest “Church of the True Orthodox Christians,” the now divided Phlorinite faction (regarding the consequences of Matthewite ecclesiology in practice, see below), Kallinikos (Sarantopoulos) was a spiritual child of Kalliopios of Pentapolis and Kallistos of Corinth, at whose monastery he became a monk and a Priest.

He was among the pioneers in trying to heal the rift between the only two Old Calendarist factions at that time (the Phlorinite faction under Archbishop Auxentios and the Matthewite faction under Archbishop Andreas), an endeavor which ran contrary to the divisive nature of Matthewite ecclesiology itself.

Who, Today, Professes the Views of Metropolitan Chrysostomos?

Those who follow, whether in knowledge or in ignorance, the Orthodox ecclesiology expressed by Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Phlorina are:

(1) among the so-called factions, quite evidently only the Synod in Resistance, under Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Phyle;

(2) various Priests, monks, and laypeople who belong to some of the other Phlorinite factions, chiefly those of Archbishop Kallinikos and Archbishop Makarios and who, notwithstanding the many years of deviation on the part of their leadership, constitute a bulwark against the Matthewite plague, and;

(3) those walled off from the New Calendar and ecumenism who, severing communion with their superiors, celebrate the Feasts of the Church according to the Old Calendar, without joining any particular faction.

The Consequences of Matthewite Ecclesiology. According to Matthewite ecclesiology, in practice every Orthodox Christian who observes anything that is in his opinion (based, of course, on Patristic texts) “anti-Christian” can, like a pope or likewise like a Protestant, undertake to declare his adversaries to be estranged from the Church and arrogate to himself the title of “Church.” Thus, in proclaiming the Church of Greece to be actually schismatic and heretical (“schismato-heretical”), he arrogates to himself the title of “Church of Greece.” The Hierarchs of the Phlorinite faction, too (with very few exceptions), have succumbed to the same deviation. Consequently, what is there to prevent each Bishop, with his particular group, from raising his own banner in every dispute and founding a new “Church of the True Orthodox Christians of Greece” as the only genuine and authentic one? Thus, the ruinous consequence of this Papalizing and Protestantizing ecclesiology has been the division of the Old Calendarist Orthodox into factions, the debasement of their sacred struggle, and the perpetuation of the New Calendarist schism.

A Return to the Correct Path—The Anti-Innovationist Congregation. At any rate, regardless of how many of the Old Calendarist Orthodox define themselves as such, they do in essence constitute the anti-innovationist congregation of the Church of Greece. If Orthodox ecclesiology is put into practice, the anti-innovationist congregation will judge the innovators guilty of the schism and heresy of New Calendarist ecumenism only at a Pan-Orthodox Synod. The Phlorinite factions should either disband or unite into a single faction, taking on the character of an ecclesiastical community, which the anti-innovationist congregations of Metropolitan Chrysostomos did. Resistance to innovations, combined with a refusal to usurp the rights that belong to others, will lead to the return of many of our New Calendarist brothers and sisters who are in communion with ecumenists. From this return, and from the correction of the deviation that we have described in the present work, there will be good and beneficial results for the suffering and beleaguered Eastern Orthodox Church. With all my heart I pray that this will come about, unto the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.*

* To the original Greek text of this essay the following comment is appended: “In the event that all or part of this article is reproduced, the source should be clearly indicated, since it is not unknown for certain devious persons, concealing their sources, deliberately to use only those points that serve their Machiavellian purposes.”

 

Notes

1. For the historical and theological background to the issues covered in this essay, see Resistance or Exclusion? The Alternative Ecclesiological Approaches of Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina and Bishop Matthew of Vresthene, trans. Hieromonk Patapios and ed. Archbishop Chrysostomos (Etna, CA: Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 2000). Also see Archbishop Chrysostomos, Bishop Ambrose, and Bishop Auxentios, The Old Calendar Orthodox Church of Greece, fifth edition (Etna, CA: Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 2009)—Trans.

2. For further details, see the forthcoming book Ἡ Ἐκκλησιολογία τοῦ πρώην Φλωρίνης Xρυσοστόμου (The Ecclesiology of Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Phlorina).

3. Metropolitan Chrysostomos was, strictly speaking, no longer Metropolitan of Phlorina after his retirement from this see, in 1932, for reasons of ill health. However, in order to avoid needless repetition, for the remainder of our translation of the present essay we will refer to him simply as “Metropolitan Chrysostomos” or “Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Phlorina”—Trans.

4. Metropolitans Germanos of Demetrias and Chrysostomos of Zakynthos—Trans.

5. See his “Interpretation” of the Third Apostolic Canon in the Πηδάλιον (The Rudder).

6. Concerning the terms “potentially” and “actually” in the sacred Canons, see his Ἐπιτομὴ Ἱερῶν Kανόνων.

7. For example, during the “Fourth Interfaith Ecological Conference,” held in Ravenna and Venice in June of 2002 under the aegis of Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, in the context of an Orthodox Divine Liturgy celebrated in the historic Church of Sant’Apollinare Nuovo in Ravenna by Patriarch Bartholomew, assisted by Archbishop Anastasios of Tirana, Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon, and Metropolitan Ignatios of Demetrias, among others, “certain Roman Catholic lay people were communed of the Immaculate Mysteries...[and] Antidoron was given to the Roman Catholic Bishops and Cardinals and to all of the Lutherans, Anglicans, and other participants in the ecological symposium. The Orthodox Bishops exchanged the Kiss of Peace with the non-Orthodox” (“Pαβέννα–Bενετία 2002: Ἡ Oἰκουμενιστικὴ Aἵρεσις τῆς Kοινῆς Διακονίας” [Ravenna-Venice 2002: The Ecumenist Heresy of Common Service], Ὀρθόδοξος Ἐνημέρωσις, No. 38 [September 2002]. p. 167)—Trans.

8. See, for example, “Thoughts Concering the Union of the Eastern and Western Churches” by the Roman Catholic Markos Zallones, in his Σύγγραμμα περὶ τῶν ἀπὸ τὴν Kωνσταντινούπολιν Πριγκίπων τῆς Bλαχομολδαβίας (Treatise Concerning the Princes of Wallacho-Moldavia from Constantinople) (Paris: 1831), p. 165.

9. Typical examples of such websites on the Internet are the falsely-named “Ἀντιαιρετικὸ Ὲγκόλπιο” site maintained by a former Pentecostalist, the equally falsely-named “Στῶμεν Kαλῶς” site of a former “Old Calendarist” (a Matthewite, to be precise), and the insidious “Συγχώρησις” site, which is dedicated, with ostensibly charitable intent, to the “missionary work” of bringing the errant Old Calendarists back to the official Church (i.e., the pro-Papal New Calendarist Hierarchy).

10. For more information on the critical issues raised by the Sigillion, see the insightful article by Bishop Cyprian of Oreoi, “The ‘Sigillion’ of 1583 Against ‘the Calendar Innovation of the Latins’: Myth or Reality?” at: http: //hsir.org/p/j4t—Trans.

11. “Conventicles” are defined by St. Basil the Great in his First Canon as “gatherings held by insubordinate Presbyters or Bishops or by uneducated laypeople” (Σύνταγμα τῶν Θείων καὶ Ἱερῶν Kανόνων [Collection of the Divine and Sacred Canons], ed. G. Ralles and M. Potles [Athens: G. Chartophylax, 1852–1859], Vol. IV, p. 89)—Trans.

12. See http://hsir.org/p/p—Trans.

13. See http://hsir.org/p/bx—Trans.

14. We are not talking about cases in which it is permissible to correct a Baptism, to wit, when it was not performed correctly (for example, through aspersion instead of threefold immersion), whether it be a New Calendarist or an Old Calendarist who carried out such an uncanonical Baptism.

15. The reliable data cited hereinafter, accompanied by photographs, come from the Matthewite periodical Kῆρυξ Ἐκκλησίας Ὀρθοδόξων (September-October 2008).

16. Regarding the Consecrations of 1935, see the forthcoming book Ἡ Ἐκκλησιολογία τοῦ πρώην Φλωρίνης Xρυσοστόμου.

 

Select Bibliography

Chrysostomos, Metropolitan of Phlorina. Ἅπαντα πρώην Φλωρίνης Xρυσοστόμου Kαβουρίδου (1871-1955) (The Complete Works of Chrysostomos Kabourides, Former Metropolitan of Phlorina). 2 vols. Gortynia, Greece: Ekdosis Hieras Mones Hagiou Nikodemou, 1997.

Georgantas, Monk Antonios. 80 Ἔτη Φωτὸς καὶ Σκότους (80 Years of Light and Darkness).

Kῆρυξ Ἐκκλησίας Ὀρθοδόξων (September-October 2008).

Theodoretos, Hieromonk.Tὸ Ἡμερολογιακὸν Σχίσμα: Δυνάμει ἢ Ἐνεργείᾳ; (The Calendar Schism: Potential or Actual?), Athens: Holy Mountain, 1973.

______. “Ἀνοικτὴ Ἐπιστολὴ πρὸς Eὐγένιον Tόμπρον” (Open Letter to Evgenios Tombros).

 

Clarification: While the author of this insightful article writes intelligently and quite objectively about the witness of our Bishops, his views do not necessarily express those of the Holy Synod in Resistance or of the American Exarchate of the Holy Synod. We should also point out that the author is not known to us personally and is not a member of our ecclesiastical jurisdiction.