On the Confession of St. Chrysostomos of Florina regarding Grace

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