The Incorruptible Pleroma and the G.O.C.

Sunday, March 30, 2014

The Incorruptible Pleroma of the Church of Greece and the Holy Synod of the G.O.C. of Greece

~ An Historical Retrospective ~

by Nikolaos Mannis

 

In 1924, with the anti-canonical calendar change, thousands of faithful, as is well-known, reacted to this innovation, which they saw as [a manifestation of] the heresy of papism (ecumenism was not yet a condemned heresy).

The “Old Calendarists” (as they were derogatorily called) or “G.O.C.” (“Genuine Orthodox Christians,” as they referred to themselves) essentially constituted and continue to constitute the Incorruptible (meaning they did not accept the calendar innovation) Pleroma of the Church of Greece, of which they are part of "its radiant and unsullied side," as former Metropolitan of Florina Chrysostomos Kavourides put it.

The purpose of the Holy Struggle of the Incorruptible Pleroma is and has been the peace and unity of the Church. This struggle will be completed when a Great Synod of the Orthodox Church convenes, or if, beforehand, the innovation-prone hierarchy reinstates the Old Ecclesiastical Calendar and condemns the heresy and proponents of Ecumenism (within whose framework the calendar reform took place), both in word and deed. At that time, the members of the Incorruptible Pleroma will fully restore communion with this hierarchy because it will have returned to the uncorrupted Faith from which it had deviated. Until then, however, the faithful have the right not only to separate themselves from the innovating hierarchy but also to form a separate ecclesiastical community with their own bishops and priests, provided that this administrative structure is of a temporary nature and does not contradict the achievement of the objective of walling off (see Canon 15 of the First-Second Synod), which is, as we mentioned, restoring the peace and unity of the Church through the convocation of a genuine Pan-Orthodox Synod (since the term “Pan-Orthodox Synod” is also sought by the Ecumenists for different purposes and intentions).

During the years 1924-1935, there were no bishops in the Incorruptible Pleroma. The faithful had organized themselves into the “Greek Religious Community of the G.O.C.”

In 1935, three bishops, Chrysostomos, formerly of Florina, Germanos of Demetrias, and Chrysostomos of Zakynthos, separated themselves from the rest of the hierarchy, returned to the Old Calendar, and assumed leadership of the Incorruptible Pleroma. They also consecrated four other (titular) bishops with the ultimate goal of pressuring the innovating hierarchy to reintroduce the Old Calendar. However, Archbishop Chrysostomos Papadopoulos of Athens, with the assistance of the state authorities (which played its own dark role in the calendar schism), imposed his will and maintained the schism that he himself had created in 1924.

Furthermore, three out of the seven bishops abandoned the Holy Struggle. Simultaneously, another issue arose. The leaders of the Greek Religious Community at that time were unwilling to relinquish leadership of the struggle to the bishops and separated themselves from them. Moreover, many of the ordinary faithful, after 11 years of persecution, imprisonment, and humiliations, had the conviction that their persecutors, the New Calendarists, were schismatic and heretical, from a canonical perspective, that is.

These views were also advocated by two of the newly consecrated bishops, Matthew of Bresthena and Germanos of the Cyclades, who were subsequently excommunicated by the bishops who had ordained them (Germanos of Demetrias and Chrysostomos of Florina) for ecclesiological reasons. They believed that the New Calendarists, by changing the calendar, had automatically placed themselves outside the Church, and that Divine Grace no longer operated within them, rendering their Mysteries invalid.

Chrysostomos of Florina thoroughly refuted this erroneous ecclesiology, which essentially abolishes the conciliar system of Orthodoxy. He did so both in theory, through his Pastoral Encyclical of June 1, 1944, and its Clarification in 1945, as well as in practice, as he did not re-administer any Mystery to anyone coming from the New Calendar. He emphasized that such an ecclesiology also undermines the purpose of walling off, which is, in truth, the reunion of the separated.

With this schism in 1937, there appeared to be two factions of “Old Calendarists” on the surface: the so-called “Florinites” and the “Matthewites.” In reality, however, the Incorruptible Pleroma continued to exist under the leadership of Chrysostomos of Florina and opposed the New Calendar schism in accordance with canonical norms. Unfortunately, the Matthewite schism resulted in a regrettable parasynagogue.

In 1948, the only remaining figure in this parallel group, Matthew of Bresthena (since Germanos of the Cyclades had already broken communion with him and later joined the former Chrysostomos), consecrated bishops by himself and declared himself “Archbishop of Athens and All Greece,” thus practically implementing his own ecclesiology.

In 1971, the bishops of the Matthewite faction reached out to the Synod of the Russian Church Abroad, based in America, and received cheirothesia [“laying on of hands”] from them, thereby correcting the anti-canonical consecrations, according to the Holy Canons. The Russian hierarchs set the condition for recognizing the Matthewite consecrations that they return to communion with the rest of the Orthodox Christians who they had separated from in 1937. However, after receiving the cheirothesia, the Mattheewites not only did not unite with their Orthodox brethren (with very few exceptions), but they also eventually denounced the Russian Church Abroad. They labeled the cheirothesia as useless and blasphemous, thereby severing all ties with the Russian Church Abroad, which, of course, also shares some responsibility in the handling of the situation. By rejecting communion with the Russian Church Abroad, the Matthewites’ cheirothesia (who are now divided into four factions, a result of their ecclesiological disputes) are considered invalid by those who deny them. Those who do not accept these cheirothesia and do not unite with their Orthodox brethren remain subject to the future, God-willing, Pan-Orthodox Synod.

The Incorruptible Pleroma of the Church in Greece, which was faithfully shepherded by the former Metropolitan of Florina, Chrysostomos Kavourides, continued its path, struggling in a proper and honorable manner until the blessed repose of its leader, which occurred in the year 1955.

During the five-year period from 1955 to 1960, once again, the Incorruptible Pleroma found itself without bishops, and its administration was overseen by a clerical Ecclesiastical Committee.

In 1960, Akakios was consecrated as a bishop in America (the consecration was irregular but was later recognized by the Local Church of the Russians Abroad, members of which also collaborated in other episcopal consecrations). He assumed the leadership of the Incorruptible Pleroma. In 1963, Akakios reposed, and Bishop Auxentios took over the leadership. During the time of Auxentios, there was a significant ecclesiological deviation within the leadership of the Incorruptible Pleroma, as the Matthewite ecclesiology was officially proclaimed (the Encyclical “Thus Do We Believe, Thus Do We Speak” of 1974). Clergy, monks, and laity reacted and severed communion with the Synod of Auxentios.

At that time, there was a reaction, both from the late Bishop Petros Astyfides of Astoria (who was later honored by the Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians) through his historic encyclical and from our spiritual fathers (ideological successors of Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina) Fr. Maximos Agiovasiliatis and Fr. Theodoretos Mavros. They jointly drafted the famous “Declaration” (dated March 25, 1975, published in the [Greek] magazine Orthodox Word of theologian Nikolaos Charisis), in which they announced the reasons for breaking communion with the deviating leadership of the Incorruptible Pleroma. This reaction, which concerned not only the ecclesiological deviation of the episcopal leadership but also its serious irregularities, failure to condemn the saint-slanderer (against St. Nektarios) and blasphemous Nun Magdalena [Karagatsidou], and the ordination or acceptance of immoral elements from the New Calendarists, culminated in 1979 in an attempt to cleanse the Holy Struggle by creating a new episcopal leadership, involving dissidents among the bishops of Auxentios, which consecrated bishops Cyprian and Kallinikos at that time.

However, the new episcopal leadership did not return, as it should have, to the correct ecclesiological position. For this reason, in 1984, Bishop Cyprian severed communion with his fellow bishops, whom he accused of serious deviations and uncanonical actions. At the same time, he continued his journey along the ecclesiological understanding of Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina, with a significant portion of the Incorruptible Pleroma following him.

In 1985, Auxentios was deposed, and Bishop Chrysostomos [Kiousis] took over the leadership. Most members of the Incorruptible Pleroma aligned themselves with him. However, the erroneous ecclesiological deviation, while not directly proclaimed, was not always consistently practiced in this Synod and persisted as an official position until 2014.

Both Fr. Maximos and Fr. Theodoretos followed the Synod of Cyprian and the Synod of Chrysostomos for some time, until they ultimately severed communion. However, they allowed their spiritual children to participate in these Synods as a matter of oikonomia.

In 1995, a group of bishops separated from the Synod of Chrysostomos due to various curable issues. The current leader of this Synod is Bishop Makarios, who personally expresses Matthewite ecclesiology. However, there are many faithful who, out of necessity, are in communion with this Synod that do not accept this position. (Regarding oikonomia and communion out of necessity, we take into account the fact that there is a huge gap between communion with the pan-heresy of Ecumenism and communion with the ecclesiologically errant leadership of the G.O.C.)

These were the three Synods that the majority of the Incorruptible Pleroma financially supported. [That is, the Synods of Archbishop Chrysostomos II {now of Archbishop Kallinikos} of Athens, Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Fili, and Archbishop Makarios of Athens.]

We didn't mention at all the pseudo-old calendarists, self-consecrated bishops, or those excommunicated for moral reasons by the new calendarists, who, due to the freedom provided by the State, have created, even if numerically insignificant, pseudo-synods called “G.O.C.,” because they neither have nor had any connection with the Incorruptible Pleroma.

The fathers of the Incorruptible Pleroma, who have no communion with any of the above-mentioned Synods and commemorate “for all Orthodox bishops” or more accurately “for our Archbishop,” with the omission of the name, either try to apply precision [akriveia], believing that there is no canonical episcopal administration to join, or maintain a discreet unifying stance, as a form of protest against the fragmentation of the confessing faithful and the deviation from the true purpose of the Holy Struggle. Their choice is not necessarily wrong, but they err if they accept the aforementioned ecclesiological deviations and other of the so-called “G.O.C. fallacies” expressed by the factionalists are equally obstructive to salvation as is the pan-heresy of Ecumenism (according to the erroneous theory of the “Two Extremes” by Fr. Epiphanius Theodoropoulos, and some others).

This is the position of the late Fr. Maximos and Fr. Theodoretos, as clearly evident from the following texts, as well as their successors. This is why they tolerated communion of the Incorruptible Pleroma with the aforementioned Synods kat’ oikonomia.

 

“In the absence of any other solution or way out, this Pleroma, even unwillingly, prefers to remain under its current leadership, regardless of whether this leadership has fallen into error and deviated from the primary purpose of the Old Calendar struggle, which it has ceased to represent properly and rightfully due to this reason.

“Therefore, the Pleroma of the lay believers of the G.O.C. are not responsible for the aforementioned ecclesiological deviation and transgression. Since its walling-off from the newly-innovative hierarchy in 1924, it has been necessary for it to remain under the leadership of the G.O.C. If, today, it continues to follow this wayward and divisive leadership, it does so either because it is unaware of the significance and magnitude of this fall, or because the circumstances of its guidance do not provide it with the ability and opportunity to proceed with a denunciation and then, as required, a seek a healthy and unified replacement. Consequently, it is obligated to do what is required within its ecclesiastical responsibility, which includes the Holy Priesthood, the Monastic Brotherhoods, and other responsible lay members.”

- “Church-Confession,” by Hieromonk Maximos (1979)

 

“In the present stance of this Pleroma (i.e., uncorrupted) against the ecclesiologically deviant leadership, it is very tactful as it applies the measure of ecclesiastical oikonomia, not concerning illegality but the restoration of canonical akriveia. In hope, that is, of the final restoration and triumph of precision within the Church, it prefers to tolerate the misguided direction of today's so-called Church of the G.O.C., than to become a participant and co-responsible in the calendar schism and ecumenical heresy through communion with the [innovating] Greek hierarchy.”

- "Memorandum-Exposition,” by Hieromonk Maximos (1983)

 

“We ourselves also practiced this, as did every right-minded and well-intentioned clergyman and spiritual guide, recommending to the right-minded Pleroma of the faithful the necessary communion with this leadership, despite the fact that our mindset was different from theirs. Indeed, even this very same Pleroma, despite its discomfort, which it felt - and still feels - towards ‘bending both knees’ to the leadership, ecclesiastically speaking, tolerated - and continues to tolerate - this situation.”

- “Open Letter to Bishop Cyprian,” by Hieromonk Maximos (1986)

 

"He wonders [referring to Fr. Maximos of Karyes] about the many factions of the old [calendarists], and asks in which one will you find salvation. The answer is simple. It is a thousand times better to follow one of the existing Synods of the old [calendarists], rather than commemorate a heretical patriarch. The difference is vast!"

- Excerpt from a letter published in Orthodoxos Typos [Orthodox Press] by Hieromonk Theodoretos (2003).

 

“It would be appropriate (referring to the people who commune kat’ oikonomia with a Synod of the old [calendarists]) to avoid any contentious and divisive bishop or priest, so that they realize they have become unwanted. Also, they should commune without distinction in all three Synods, since, as is known, all three are now afflicted by the original sin of anti-canonicity...”

- Letter to Archimandrite Euthymios Bardakas, by Hieromonk Theodoretos (2004).

 

Today, those of us who have the awareness that we belong to the Incorruptible Pleroma of the Church of Greece continue our unifying struggle on the basis of the 15th Canon of the First-Second Synod, which embodies the appropriate stance of the Orthodox during a time of heresy. We seek to unite all the forces that resist heresy, ecumenism, and the new calendar schism, without deviations. We are striving for the convocation of a Great General Synod of the Orthodox, which will bring peace to the Church.

Because precisely this stance is maintained by the united Synod of the G.O.C. from this year (2014), which has returned to correct ecclesiological frameworks (as is evident from the common ecclesiological text that was signed), those who are aware that they belong to the Incorruptible Pleroma of the Church of Greece must be in communion with it, so that united, we may continue the struggle for the true confession of faith. We call upon them, and all the truly Orthodox in Greece who resist the pan-heresy of ecumenism, to unite with the unified Synod of the Genuine Orthodox, under Archbishop Kallinikos.

May our Lord Jesus Christ grant us the honor to experience the radiance of Orthodoxy, which is nothing other than the victory of the Church against heresy!

 

Original Greek source: https://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2014/03/blog-post_30.html