Memorandum-Report Concerning the Calendar Issue to Metropolitan Augustinos Kantiotis of Florina

Fathers of Mount Athos                                                                                                         Athens, 1983

MEMORANDUM-REPORT

Concerning the Calendar Issue

To Metropolitan Augustinos Kantiotis of Florina

 

"...Neither Patriarchs nor Synods have ever been able to introduce something new, because the guardian of religion is the very body of the Church itself, that is, the people, who desire their religion to remain eternally unchanged and identical to that of their Fathers."
(Declaration of the Patriarchs of the East, 1848)

 

Athens, December 12, 1982
To the Most Reverend Metropolitan of Florina,
Augustinos Kantiotis of Florina

 

Your Eminence,

Properly addressing Your Eminence through this present letter, we proceed to respectfully request that Your Eminence graciously consent to study thoroughly what is mentioned therein, and according to the interest it provokes, be able to render the appropriate judgment and verdict.

The reason for our present reference is the pleasant and hopeful event for us of Your Eminence being authorized by the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece, whereby the study and submission of Your judgment on the so-called "Old Calendarist issue" is entrusted to Your Eminence.

By calling this event pleasant and hopeful, we mean and believe that the issue entrusted to Your Eminence for investigation and judgment has not only already become for Your Eminence truly a matter of absolute and immediate interest, but that it has also taken, as a "canonical issue," a primary position in Your well-guided hierarchical conscience and being.

And that a "canonical issue" has been created and persists due to the calendar innovation, still pending within the entire Orthodox Church and particularly within the Greek local Church, no one knowledgeable of ecclesiastical matters can deny or distort, given that this is sealed and testified by the very undeniable consequences themselves, which the so-called "calendar correction" has produced, and they are the following:

A. Division (destruction of the characteristic) of the unity of the individual Orthodox Churches, in the simultaneous expression of Divine Worship (feasts, fasts, and other purifications of the soul), no longer being performed "in one accord," as canonically commanded (56th Canon of the 6th Ecumenical Council), but according to the goal pursued from the beginning by the initiators of the innovation, namely "the simultaneous celebration of Orthodox and heterodox," as this is clearly stated in the "Proceedings..." of the so-called "Pan-Orthodox Congress" in Constantinople in 1923, without any intervention of "pastoral reasoning" or "canonical cause"!

B. The cessation of ecclesiastical communion by a portion of the faithful of the Church of Greece, for reasons of conscience and canonical precision, as a sign of protest and disagreement with the ecclesiastical hierarchy that innovated in 1924, and the division of its faithful into non-innovators and innovators, which created a substantial "cause" for a "potential schism" within the faithful of the Greek Church, which persists to this day, as it should not have.

C. The implementation by the New Calendarist hierarchy of harsh measures of violence, persecutions, and various trials, in a completely unacceptable, anti-Christian, and anti-evangelical manner, against the protesting non-innovating faithful and their canonical ecclesiastical leadership under the late shepherd, the former Metropolitan of Florina, Kyr Chrysostomos, including: "depositions," defrockings of clergy, imprisonments, exiles, trials, and various public humiliations and disgraces of their holy Order. Furthermore, "reordinations" of clergy were carried out solely for expediency, as evidenced by the entirely contradictory action of the Greek Hierarchy in recognizing two Old Calendarist episcopal consecrations (those of Christophoros Hatzis and Polykarpos Liosis), which, it should be noted, were performed by the leadership of the Old Calendarists that had been "deposed" by the same hierarchy! And...

D. The appearance and activity of the so-called "Greek Church of the G.O.C.," which believes that it constitutes the Church of Greece or another Church, and not the leading body shepherding the non-innovating faithful of the Church of Greece. Its acceptance of the existing "potential" schism as an "actual" one led it to formally declare that the Mysteries performed by the New Calendarists are "deprived of Divine Grace." However, since this belief is devoid of ecclesiological foundation and therefore erroneous, it renders this "Church" without canonical standing and places it outside the purpose of the correctly believing and canonically struggling non-innovating faithful of the Church, regardless of whether they disagree or are compelled, obviously due to the lack of a canonically grounded leadership, to commune with it, even though this Church has split into various factions, calling themselves churches.

The stance of the aforementioned faithful regarding its ecclesiologically erring leadership is very discerning, as it applies the measure of ecclesiastical economia, which pertains not to unlawfulness but to the preservation of canonical precision. In the hope of the eventual restoration and triumph of precision within the Church, it prefers to tolerate the misguided direction of the current so-called Church of the G.O.C., rather than become a participant and co-responsible, through communion with the Greek Hierarchy, in the calendar schism and the ecumenist heresy.

Therefore, when the Holy Synod or the Hierarchy considers it its duty and obligation to address the ecclesiastical division and "cleanse the threshing floor" of the Church of Greece from the existing calendar schism within its ranks and the ecumenist heresy with which it communes today, it must do so immediately and, we believe, without any prior contact or agreement with the self-proclaimed, as mentioned above, Church of the G.O.C. For the uncompromising, authentic, and absolute restoration of unity, through the reinstatement of the traditional calendar order and Orthodox canonical precision within the Church of Greece, automatically nullifies any reason or basis for the existence and further activity of this non-existent "Church."

Thus, the "canonical issue" that was created, as a consequence of the calendar "correction" and the "potential" schism resulting from it, which continues to exist, as it should not, has rendered the faithful protesting canonically in this matter non-innovating, as safeguarding the Orthodox identity and existence of the Church, while it has made the thus misguided Greek Hierarchy "potentially" schismatic and, therefore, culpable before the entire Orthodox Church, accountable for the anti-canonical act of undermining the concept of "catholicity," one of the most fundamental characteristics of the Orthodox Church, without "common consent."

We have, therefore, a fall into apostasy of the Greek Hierarchy due to its aforementioned anti-canonical decisions and actions, and not of the Church of Greece, which, by divine favor and grace, preserves the "Orthodox identity" and existence, which continue to be maintained by its non-innovating faithful, who, as we previously stated, always remain within it as such (i.e., non-innovating) and do not constitute their own separate Church in Greece.

The faith and piety of this faithful body, which stands canonically within the Church and struggles rightly, is exactly the same as that which the Orthodox Patriarchs of the East (1848) confess and proclaim, saying: "Neither Patriarchs nor Synods have ever been able to introduce something new, because the defender of religion is the very body of the Church, that is, the people, who desire their religion to remain eternally unchanged and identical to that of their Fathers" (D.S.M.N., I. Karmiris, Vol. II, OPAZ, 1968, p. 929).

Allow us, therefore, Your Eminence, to state (based on the aforementioned ongoing and now almost sixty-year-long undesirable ecclesiastical situation, particularly that associated with the heresy of ecumenism), that there is no "Old Calendarist issue," but rather:

a) A "canonical issue" of a "potential" schism, due to the New Calendar innovation (of 1924), as we previously mentioned, the "simultaneous celebration of Orthodox and heterodox," with the disastrous consequences, as we have expressed, particularly in causing the division of the unity of the Church and its faithful. This, according to Orthodox ecclesiology, shakes the very existence of the Church, given that "the unity of the Church is essential for the entire existence of the Church, so that, when unity is removed, the Church itself is removed" (Orthodox Ecclesiology, I. Karmiris, 1973, p. 271). And

b) A "matter of faith" due to the continued ecclesiastical communion of the Greek Hierarchy with ecclesiastical leaders and figures of ecumenism, which constitutes the "practical" acceptance of this heresy, while its "theoretical" acceptance is undoubtedly testified to and contained in the Encyclical of the Ecumenical Patriarchate "To the Churches of Christ Everywhere" in 1920 (cf. above, D.S.M.N., pp. 957-960). The Greek Hierarchy, as it should not, follows this faithfully and without protest today through the aforementioned communion, from which its Orthodox identity is inevitably at stake.

In order to duly assess the seriousness of the present "Matter of Faith," it must be noted here that this Encyclical is judged by itself as heretical and blasphemous for the entire Orthodox Church, furthermore, as false and deceptive, since it is always based on the heretical "branch theory" of the ecumenists, which is a manifest denial of the "entire Orthodox concept of the Church... as it abolishes even the very positive content of the supernatural Revelation..., and since... the truth is one, preserved in the one Church, it is inconceivable from an Orthodox perspective to accept the existence of multiple 'Churches' claiming the one truth, or the division of the one Church into multiple b'ranches,' ... as if... the indivisible body of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church could be divided"... (cf. above, D.S.M.N., p. 270). Likewise, according to the late professor Christos Androutsos, "If there is no stable and definite Church, the infallible bearer of Revelation, but all Christian Churches constitute equally valid and equal parts of the Church, it is evident that Revelation has nothing stable and permanent to reveal, but something varied and changing according to the beliefs and presuppositions of individuals, and there remains no criterion by which one can... discern the true teaching of the Lord, nor gain a secure conviction about the trustworthiness of the truth they believe" (cf. above).

This Encyclical is judged as such when compared to the above Orthodox ecclesiological principles, because it recognizes and confesses, "with uncovered head before the Church," all the so-called Christian confessions as Churches, "...not considering one another as strangers and aliens, but as relatives and familiar in Christ, and fellow heirs and members of the same body of the promise of God in Christ" (Ephesians 3:6). It also declares, quite unreservedly, that "Our Church believes that the approach and communion of the various Christian Churches (i.e., the heterodox) are not excluded by the doctrinal differences that exist between them..." (ibid.).

Such a "mindset" as this, which disregards the "dogmatic differences" and urges and recommends communion between the Orthodox Churches and the heterodox, is judged as absolutely unorthodox, because it constitutes a clear violation of the canonical prohibitions of the Church regarding communion with the "condemned" and "excommunicated" heretics, as well as the entire relevant practice and teaching of the Church.

If, finally, we also consider the highly condemnable decision and action of the Hierarchy, as is clearly demonstrated by today's results, whereby the Church of Greece participates in the so-called "World Council of Churches" as a founding and regular member, fully aware that it is always based and governed by the heretical-ecumenist "branch theory," and that for so many years it has shown no willingness to depart from its heretical positions despite the Orthodox presence within it, and knowing that none of its heterodox members have repented and embraced the Orthodox faith and truth, and despite the fact that almost all the heterodox in the W.C.C. know the Orthodox Patristic literature and teaching better, we might say, than we do—then the conviction of the genuine Orthodox conscience is fully confirmed regarding the ongoing apostasy within the ranks of the Church of Greece and the serious "Matter of Faith" that exists today because of it.

Where, then, in all of this, is the Orthodox confession and the correct mindset practically discerned and preserved, both in the case of the authors of the aforementioned Encyclical and in those who, without protest, have accepted and faithfully implemented it up to this day? How does this align with their proclamation in the Creed of belief in the "One, Holy... Church," "Light of Light," that is, the one Divine Truth revealed and existing within Her, and the "One Baptism" in Her?

Does it mean anything, then, for the faithful body of the Church (both Clergy and Laity) who think and act correctly, if, in this case, the Apostolic teaching regarding heretics (Titus 3:3-11) is blatantly disregarded by the aforementioned? In which we are commanded, on the one hand, to "avoid foolish and unprofitable questions" (as exactly happens with the endless discussions in the W.C.C. regarding so-called "Faith and Order," which, notably, still preserve those who do not accept the revealed Divine Truth and Orthodox Faith in unbelief and disorder), and, on the other hand, to "reject" them after "a first and second admonition" when they continue to "sin" by remaining unbelieving, as they do not accept these things and are therefore "self-condemned"?

Today, Your Eminence, as you surely know, by the allowance of God, most (if not almost all) of those involved in ecclesiastical matters and handling them, especially those in responsible positions—ecclesiastical figures and shepherds of the "People of God" (in either a narrow or broad sense)—whether due to vain pursuits and thus a lack of spiritual strength and boldness, or due to erroneous judgments, misguided opinions, and beliefs, or for other reasons, do not intend nor are able to become a "sign spoken against," "hated by all," and... "cast out of the synagogues" in response to the serious ecclesiastical situation prevailing today, as their priestly identity and mission demand of them, in order to proclaim practically and in all things the Orthodox mindset of the Church, and thereby "reveal the thoughts of many hearts."

Such representatives of the Church and shepherds of the faithful people, conducting themselves in this manner, are in error, "failing in faith and justice," since among them, "some have made shipwreck concerning the faith; others, though not shipwrecked in their thoughts, are nevertheless perishing through communion with heresy," according to the practice of the Church and the Orthodox Patristic teaching on this matter. This is proven by the facts and circumstances we have outlined above, which constitute the existence and creation within the Church of the aforementioned burning issues of "Canonical" and "Faith." (Refer to related texts in: APOSTASY and DIVISION, Fathers of Mount Athos, 1981, pp. 15-33 and following, which we append here for this purpose).

Your Eminence,

This situation, being canonically unacceptable to the genuine conscience of the Church, naturally did not leave the non-innovating faithful indifferent. As a vigilant "watchman, guardian, and defender (and not judge) of its faith," which it preserves "eternally unchanged" and unaltered, it could not fail to obey and conform to what, in this case, the Canonical and Patristic Ordinances of the Church command. Based on these, therefore, it canonically established its position in response to its misguided Hierarchy, "hastening," as far as it was able, "to rescue the Church from divisions and schisms," so that it would not be found "perishing along with the communion of heresy" and schism, but instead safeguarding its Orthodox identity and that of the Church.

Thus, the canonical measure of ceasing ecclesiastical communion was applied (Canons: 15th, First-Second Council; 31st, Apostolic; and 3rd, Third Ecumenical Council). This measure of "separation" or "walling off" by the faithful body (both Clergy and Laity) from the erring ecclesiastical authority "erring in faith and justice" clearly has a mandatory and dutiful meaning and significance, and not a "voluntary" one, as was erroneously and unsuccessfully attempted to be defended in the recent past. A full development of this topic, which due to space limitations we are unable to present here, is contained in the attached printed study (as mentioned above, APOSTASY and DIVISION, pp. 34-42).

Furthermore, we may note the following most clear and objective judgment of the interpretation of the relevant 15th Holy Canon of the First-Second Holy Synod, by the renowned canonist and author of "Ecclesiastical Law," the late Bishop Nikodim Milas, which states as follows: "...If a Bishop, Metropolitan, or Patriarch openly preaches in the Church any heretical teaching contrary to Orthodoxy, then those who separate themselves from him have the right and obligation to do so immediately. They will not only incur no canonical penalty but will also be praised for it, as by doing so they have not condemned nor rebelled against lawful bishops but against false bishops and false teachers, nor have they thereby created a schism in the Church; rather, they have, as far as possible, freed the Church from schism and division" (In Pravoslavna Crkvena Prava, The Canons of the Orthodox Church with Interpretations, II, Novi Sad 1895, pp. 290-291).

Since, therefore, the "separation" imposed here means an action taken "before synodal judgment," it becomes evident that those who condemn the "erring shepherds" have the "right" and "obligation" to "immediately" wall themselves off, that is, to immediately cease the commemoration and ecclesiastical communion with them, even before their "synodal and definitive condemnation becomes apparent."

Thus, the entirely malicious, reckless, and misguided opinion that the cessation of commemoration and communion with the aforementioned erring (local) Bishop can only occur after he has been condemned by a Synod constitutes a deliberate falsehood and a clear distortion of the truth, or ignorance and error regarding Canon Law, Orthodox ecclesiology, and the practice of the Church!

This measure, moreover, is applied not against "legitimate" but "so-called" bishops "opposed to Orthodoxy," whether through heretical teaching or by any means of communion with heresy. Furthermore, a natural consequence of this measure and an unavoidable result is the fact that, for as long as such a bishop remains in his episcopal seat, until his "complete condemnation" and his replacement by a "legitimate" and "true" bishop, it is necessary for the right-thinking flock—although it remains mystically inseparably connected to the "invisible and Divine Head of the Church"—to appear "without a bishop," as St. Gregory the Theologian experienced when he moved to the then Arian-dominated Constantinople, because he rejected the heretical bishops" (M. 3, 512 - Kal. Om. 1981, issue 29).

The synodal judgment in this case, whereby those who "wall themselves off" should be deemed worthy of the proper honor, which is granted, as emphasized, to the Orthodox, reveals and signifies nothing else but that the separation imposed in such a situation is a prerequisite for the preservation and maintenance of the Orthodox identity and status of the one who separates. This duty is judged canonically as so unavoidably necessary that one who does not "immediately" separate, in contrast to the one who does, ceases to maintain their Orthodox identity and to be worthy of the honor granted by the Church to the Orthodox.

Based on the above, the following reasonable question arises: What is the deeper meaning and purpose of the canonical practice of walling-off, which is so thoroughly emphasized, and how can the Church be "delivered" from "divisions and schisms" through it? On this matter, "the spirit and intent" of the relevant Holy Canon, "expressed in a positive formulation," is that through the measure of walling-off, on the one hand, the Orthodox identity and essence of the Church and of the walled-off body are preserved, for which they are praised, and on the other hand, the result of the final synodal judgment and decision is achieved, which is the canonical means of resolving divisions and schisms within the Church.

Nevertheless, there are some today who refuse to respond to their synodal "obligation" and "inherent right" indicated through walling-off. These individuals, evidently attempting to conceal the guilt and responsibility they bear, strive to silence their awakened conscience. Thus, under the pretext of "discernment" and "economia," they place their own "understanding" above the synodal judgment and decision of the Church, dismissing it as impractical and, in doing so, practically oppose and disbelieve it. Failing to recognize the gravity of their deviation, they condemn those who, out of conscientious obedience and respect for the practice of the Church, apply the canonical measure of walling-off. They scandalously proclaim that those who cease the commemoration and communion with their "erring" shepherds are "outside the Church" and consider them "bishopless and headless" and "creators of schism"! What an enormous error, deceit, and distortion, the result of which is that the terrible downfall of the "deceivers" and the "deceived" continues today in the Church!

Finally, this canonical practice of the Church constitutes a right and obligation for the entire body of the Church, especially for the sacred clergy, and it is a continuous active protest aimed at achieving a final synodal judgment against the transgressors. Thus, in the case of the deviation of the local hierarch, the clergy and the people rightfully protest through walling-off. However, when the majority of a hierarchy of a local Church errs "in faith and justice," the right-minded hierarch—who is a member of that body—must "immediately" (and alongside other formal protests) practically protest by applying the canonical measure of walling-off from that hierarchy, with the aim of either correcting the deviation from within or convening a proper synod of the Church to address the issue. As long as, for any reason, no synod is convened, the right-minded and protesting bishop, based on the relevant Holy Canon, is not entitled to remain within the erring hierarchy. Rather, he is hierarchically obligated to walk alongside and shepherd the walled-off and protesting non-innovating body of the Church until a final synodal judgment is made.

Your Eminence,

In light of all that has been discussed above, the seriousness and critical nature of the issues currently concerning the Church of Greece and Orthodox Monasticism are indeed evident, namely the still-existing New Calendarist schism and the ongoing communion with the ecumenist heresy.

This memorandum constitutes, we believe, a constructive way of contact to help form Your complete opinion on the overall situation and, specifically, regarding "what the Old Calendarists think and propose on the matter being discussed," as expressed by a respected colleague of yours in the hierarchy. Both of the aforementioned issues are interconnected and mutually dependent to such an extent that it is impossible to resolve one without the proper resolution of the other. We believe that the approach to handling these matters should be based on the proper criteria of conscience, faith, truth, and love. Considering that we live in the era of Antichrist, we must believe that the voice of righteousness and truth is unlikely (except by a miracle) to be heard and adopted today by the entirety of the responsible authorities.

Our instructive experience convinces us that the indifference of the responsible authorities over so many years and their condemnable tolerance, despite the positive elements of the Church, under various pretexts but mainly due to the lack of canonical handling and true Patristic zeal, has led to the miserable consequence of the current ecclesiastical confusion, with the final result being apostasy and division! This has forced the non-innovating body of the Church, the "small leaven," to form the "household Church" and the "little flock" in order to safeguard its faith.

Our heartfelt prayer and fervent desire, shared by the non-innovating body of the Church to which we also address this memorandum, is that the responsible ecclesiastical authorities demonstrate undivided interest in the above urgent issues of Faith and Canonical Order, which take precedence over any other pending ecclesiastical matters.

We are pleased, from this position, to assure all the responsible ecclesiastical authorities that the desired union of the divided body of the Church of Greece, we believe, will occur immediately, as long as the causes of the walling-off are completely eliminated, through the definitive resolution of the relevant issues, canonically and in a way pleasing to God, without half-measures or anti-canonical compromises, and based on the established practice of the Church.

We hope, finally, in the significant role that Your Eminence will play and the invaluable contribution You will offer in this matter, with the guidance of Divine Illumination, and that through Your conscientiousness, You will wish to "go and do likewise," as the Good Samaritan, so that You may bind the wounds of the body of the Church that has fallen into the grievous division.

We remain with good expectations:

For the right-believing Non-Innovating Body of the Church,

Hieromonk MAXIMOS

Monk BASIL

Holy Hermitage of Saint Basil

Mount Athos — Daphne

CONCLUDING REMARKS

After an impartial and objective review of this "Memorandum – Report," the positive conclusion and the correct affirmation can easily and clearly be drawn, explaining the reasons and causes both for the creation and the continuation of the serious and critical ecclesiastical situation prevailing today, as we have outlined in this document.

From this, the necessity for the immediate restoration of the genuine and non-innovating Orthodox course and direction in the Church, and of the unity that has been broken within it, becomes evident.

However, this restoration cannot be achieved as long as the canonically condemned practice of inconsistency and deviation continues, even among those who are called and considered "fighters" and "confessors" of Orthodoxy, spiritual guides! This is because their occasional printed or verbal "protest," in which they condemn the current ecclesiastical apostasy, ultimately renders them "self-condemned" due to their continued communion with it.

Thus, they maintain both themselves and the body of the Church in communion with heresy and schism, as we previously mentioned. This is also practically demonstrated. For what benefit, other than mere knowledge, have the "confessions" and "declarations" regarding Ecumenism, by the late Elder [St. Justin] Popovic, or the voluminous writings on Papism by [Archimandrite] Spyridon Bilalis, and similar works by [Archimandrite] Charalampos Vasilopoulos provided? What practical canonical consequence did these individuals, often referred to today as "blessed" spiritual leaders and guides, leave as a legacy to their successors? Were they perhaps intended to praise the supporters of Ecumenism in the Phanar today with enthusiastic addresses? They left no other legacy but the continuation of apostasy in the Church, for none of their followers or successors have considered until now the application of Canonical Ecclesiastical Precision and the separation of responsibility from the communion with heresy and schism, since these renowned spiritual leaders and guides never made any exemplary effort to act as they were dutifully obligated to do!

The same exact situation occurs with the present Athonite leaders, who, through their commemoration and communion with the protagonists of Ecumenism, offer negative elements to the Orthodox mission of Mount Athos, as well as to the Athonite Brotherhood itself, which has been divided into "Commemorators" and "Zealots" because of this, no matter how much they believe or proclaim that they stand as "vigilant" guardians of the Orthodox faith and keepers of the sacred legacy of the holy Athonite Fathers.

No less responsibility and guilt also fall upon those considered to be right-minded figures of Academic Theology, who, in this case, demonstrate a complete lack of Patristic zeal and practical canonical consequence through their communion with the present ecclesiastical apostasy.

For this reason, the non-innovating body of the Church, which stands canonically within ecclesiological boundaries, truly constitutes the "radiant side" of the "Living and Free Church," because, according to St. Basil the Great, "innovation in order is a denial of the entire faith" (Epistle 52, 4). How, then, can communion with heresy and schism possibly preserve the Orthodox identity of the Church’s body and its very existence?

From everything presented here, the reasons and causes have now become clear and evident, based on which it is canonically proven, on the one hand, the deviation, guilt, and responsibility of even those considered "Conservative" ecclesiastical figures due to their communion with the current apostasy, and on the other hand, the proper way that "delivers" the Church from this apostasy and ensures for "the entire flock" its blameless and non-innovating course and direction.

May those who sincerely desire this realize the "right" and "obligation" that they possess in this matter, and may they "hasten immediately" to fulfill the sacred obligation indicated to them by the Church and their mission. For those who believe and think that this "obligation" can only be fulfilled when the betrayal reaches the point of the "common chalice," as they say, should know that no "obligation" will be fulfilled at that point, because it will be too late. Moreover, they will have become accomplices and moral instigators of such an outcome of apostasy through their indiscriminate and misguided "discernment" and unlawful and canonically inconsistent "economia." The consequences of such a delayed reaction by these shepherds will not constitute an act of confession and duty, but rather a forced compliance with the dead-end they themselves have created and into which they deliberately expected to fall! At that point, however, it is questionable whether such individuals will be accepted as true shepherds by the struggling non-innovating body of the Church, for our Lord accepts those who repent at the eleventh hour, but not after the twelfth, at which point "the door is shut" and those seeking to enter find themselves "outside the bridal chamber," only to hear the dreadful words, "I do not know you" (!), which we sincerely hope to avoid.