Former Metropolitan of Florina,
Chrysostomos: Denial or Confession?
There are some who conclude that the preaching of the loss
of Grace (due to the calendar schism) constitutes the "ideology of the
Holy Struggle," and that [St.] Chrysostomos repeatedly preached this.
They refer us to the 1950 Encyclical, saying that the late
Chrysostomos "repeatedly preached" this (loss of Grace).
Let us see if this argument holds true.
a) First of all, in none of his
writings did the late leader of the Holy Struggle preach the aforementioned
unsound doctrine, not even in the one written during his exile in 1950, except
in three instances due to pressure exerted by his surroundings. Let us explain
further. In 1935, he was first forced, along with his two collaborating
Metropolitans of Demetrias and of Zakynthos, to speak about the above-mentioned
loss [of grace], given that it was considered a necessary condition for
assuming the canonical leadership of the Struggle, which under no circumstances
would the Athonite hieromonks relinquish except after a proclamation of their
unsound theory, which first appeared in writing in 1934.
b) In 1948, he also proclaimed the
same thing, just a few days after the uncanonical consecrations of Bishop
Matthew, in order to protect the simple faithful people who were following him
and to lead them away from the influence of the aforementioned Bishop of
Bresthena, who had exceeded his proper limits.
c) Finally, in 1950, he repeated, as
is known, the same unsound teaching exactly 12 days after the repose of Bishop
Matthew (on May 14), hoping to rally the people around him, now that the cause
of the spiritual rebellion in the struggle had ceased.
Regarding the last encyclical, which also caused the
subsequent severe persecution of the Church of Greece against the Old
Calendarists, he had said the following before signing and distributing it to
its executors, who unfortunately insisted on its necessity: "I will sign,
but my suitcase is ready for the exile that will follow..." And indeed, as
he said, so it happened.
We see that from 1937, the year of Matthew's secession,
until 1948, the year of his uncanonical consecrations, this noble descendant of
Pontus in no way succumbed to the unsound doctrine on the loss of Grace, but on
the contrary, fought against it with all his might. How, then, was it possible
for him, who for eleven consecutive years refused to yield to the uncanonical
demands of the renegade Bishop of Bresthena, to suddenly change his beliefs and
convictions just a few days after the uncanonical ordinations of the former
Athonite hieromonk?
From 1935—the year of his joining the sacred struggle—until
his death, his personal creed was summed up in the statement: "Flee from
the innovating New Calendarists, until the final judgment and condemnation of
the schism by a Pan-Orthodox Council."
They ask why, since he was so strongly opposed to the
preaching of Bresthena, he wrote the well-known encyclicals in 1948 and 1950,
through which he fully agreed with the declarations already made by Matthaios
since 1937. We answer: out of pain and solely for the Struggle, which he saw
almost shipwrecked due to the internal civil division. He wished, even at the
last moment, to save those who were following the leader of the rebellion,
Matthew, and thus protect the honor and future advancement of the Church of the
Old Calendarists, regardless of whether his hopes were ultimately disappointed.
That until the end of his life he remained faithful to the
spirit and letter of the published letter to Bishop Germanos Varykopoulos is
confirmed by the fact of his personal stance and conduct after the circulation
of the above encyclicals. We write this because nowhere in them does he seek
forgiveness for his preaching up to that point, nowhere does he express a
desire to return to the faction of Bresthena, as his situation might have
demanded. On the contrary, he calls everyone to unite under his Holy Synod and
nothing more! But let us examine the events in more detail. First of all,
regarding the 1948 encyclical, it is known to all that its issuance was
prompted by the uncanonical consecrations of the Bishop of Bresthena.
On the occasion of this event and wishing to protect the
faithful who were indiscriminately following Bishop Matthew, he issued the
aforementioned encyclical, simply using it to denounce the conduct of the
person he characterized as the "schismatic" Bishop of Bresthena,
calling on his followers to distance themselves as quickly as possible from his
faction with all their might.
Let us now examine the circumstances surrounding the writing
of Encyclical No. 13 of 1950. Issued, as we said, 12 days after the repose of
Bishop Matthew, that is, on May 26, nowhere in it again can one discern any
intention of the author to return under the successors of Matthew. On the
contrary, he calls everyone to unity, while he himself remains in his position
of waiting.
Certainly, the same teaching of the loss of Grace is
repeated once again in this encyclical, but with the obvious aim of encouraging
the followers of the Bishop of Bresthena to return under the synod of
Metropolitan Chrysostomos, as is demonstrated by other words and phrases within
the encyclical. We write this because, although in it he acknowledges the loss
of Grace and thus—at least seemingly—justifies Matthew, he does not hesitate to
characteristically add the following: "We declare all these things for the
last time for the sake of the scandalized Christians, whose spiritual salvation
we desire..." without hastening at all to repent by going to Keratea
Monastery, in order to express his repentance before the successors of the
Bishop Matthew and request his and his two fellow bishops' submission under
them.
The same is confirmed by the critical opposition to the
former Florina. They admit that the resisting hierarch "never
implemented" that "Encyclical" of 1950. They say he "never
believed" in it. Therefore, in "December of that same year"
1950, "about six months" after the issuance of the Encyclical,
Chrysostomos of Florina "declared both in The Voice of Orthodoxy and in the newspaper Vradyni that he 'acted in defense' when he signed the 1950
Encyclical." He repeated the same in 1953. Furthermore, because many
"believed Archbishop Spyridon's words, that he truly cared for the unity
of the faith and the preservation of the Holy Canons..." while "his
true purpose was different, as was later revealed."
The condescension in question did not succeed due to the
persecution that followed at the time, the cunning of the Innovators, and the
weakness of certain opponents. This, of course, was done with good intentions,
but it was exploited by the opponents—both the Innovators and the
dissenters—for their own purposes. "Archbishop Spyridon Vlachos of Athens
exploited this to later justify the harsh persecution against the
Orthodox." And this is invoked by those who persist in the heresy of
invalid sacraments among the dissenters. (See Hieromonk Amphilochios, You Shall Know the Truth, Athens 1984,
pp. 20, 23 - pp. 11, 23, 51 - pp. 14-15, and S. Karamitsos, Agony in the Garden of Gethsemane,
Athens 1961, pp. 175-176).
Greek source: https://entoytwnika1.blogspot.com/2016/05/blog-post_85.html
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.