Response to the "Schism of the Kallistos Group"

 A Reply to the Publisher of Orthodox Christian Witness on the So-Called “Schism of the Kallistos Group”

By Hieromonk Ambrose Agiokyprianites (later Metropolitan of Methone, Church of the G.O.C. of Greece)

Dated November 26, 1984

We are in receipt of “St. Nectarios Educational Series” No. 93 - ‘Latest Developments in the Church of G.O.C. of Greece’ [dated November, 1984]. Though it requires but little insight to detect the author of this piece [Archimandrite Panteleimon Metropoulos], the article is - curiously - anonymous, and thus we are obliged to address ourselves to you [Fr. Neketas Palassis] as the propagator of these views. 

We wonder firstly what prompted such a malicious, destructive, vicious and libellous publication. The edification of the faithful or their information? Hardly. The answer is not hard to find, but that is not our purpose here, and besides is your problem, not ours. 

If we were to imitate the author of this article, we would need to write an account of the Russian Church Abroad quoting liberally from the polemics in the publications of the Moscow Patriarchate and the Metropolia, and pieces of gossip from here and there, backed up with endless innuendo; this is hardly the stuff of serious journalism, let alone ecclesiastical writing. I am in no way suggesting that our Church is faultless - far from it - but it is a tell-tale sign of polemic writing with a purpose when one finds every negative thing possible - true and false, rumor and gossip, innuendo and slander, while no positive aspect is even mentioned. 

As an introduction, I would note that the consecration of our Bishops was performed at the suggestion of Archbishop Auxentios [of Athens], who subsequently yielded to the pressure of the only two Bishops remaining with him (Gerontios [of Piraeus] and Kallinikos of Lamia), and rather than accept them, consecrated a whole series of other Bishops to fill his depleted ranks. The “unfrockings” made on all sides (for instance most recently that of Auxentios by Gerontios and his Bishops) have reached the point of absurdity, and no-one treats them seriously. Our Bishops have simply been accepted by Archbishop Auxentios as Bishops, and the clergy ordained by them as priests. Our Synod is also to be blamed in this respect. We are also rather amazed to see the respect with which the author of your article sees the authority of Archbishop Auxentios, while in the past he has been only too eager to denounce him in word and writing. He also overlooks the fact that Auxentios himself was deposed from the priesthood by his elder and Bishop, Matthaios of Bresthene, in 1949, and that not for reasons of the faith! 

Thereafter, most of the document is devoted to denouncing us as a schism. The very definition of a schismatic group however, is one which separates itself from the Church for no valid reason, and which, in most cases, will regard itself as the true Church. This is however not the case with our Bishops, who separated themselves not from the Church, but from one particular group of Bishops, as a sign of protest and disagreement, and on a temporary basis until various very serious questions are put right. Thus, all these arguments have no relevance, and would only acquire some force if your author were to regard Archbishop Auxentios as the sole lawful head of the Church in Greece. Is this so? 

But our time is very limited, and thus I will only answer the false information which you present concerning my own elder and Bishop, Metropolitan Cyprian [of Oropos and Phyli]. The others, if they so wish, may answer for themselves, though, as you doubtless know, they have now dissolved their Synod, and submitted themselves to Metropolitan Gerontios, with the exception of Bishop Giovanni of Sardinia. Thus, we begin on page 8 of your document. 

So, you repeat the worn-out comments of Orthodoxos Typos (written, incidentally, by Athanasios Sakarellos, the bitterest enemy of the Russian Synod in Greece - a strange alliance!) that our Bishop will sometimes admit New-Calendarists to confession and communion. This is so, on special occasions, and it is precisely a matter of pastoral discretion which concerns a spiritual father and the way he is to bring people back to the Old Calendar. It is, besides, a policy followed by very many other Old-Calendarists in Greece, with the result of many returning to the Old-Calendar fold. Thereafter, you reduce our multi-page and exhaustive reply to Orthodoxos Typos to precisely four words – these “are purely personal attacks”!! Footnote 47 perhaps may be thought to refer to our Bishop, so I can but note that it is a lie that a) we unlawfully seized churches belonging to Auxentios, b) that Auxentios took any of us to court, c) that we have created any parishes in America without the approval of the local Russian Bishop, while d) we wonder who exactly is the unnamed immoral clergyman - such libel should really be better supported. 

On page 9, you quote, in note 52, a passage from a book by our Bishop which was written and published in 1967 when he was still in the State Church - it was in 1969 that he left them. The very fact that thereafter he abandoned the State Church for the Old Calendarists demonstrates absolutely clearly that he subsequently changed his views. An astonishing distortion on your part indeed! 

We turn to page 11, where our Bishop is denounced for committing the same error of which he had accused Metropolitan Kallistos [of Corinth], that of circulating his ecclesiological document without previous consultation with the Synod. Yet another lie, I fear, whatever the source. Metropolitan Kallistos published and distributed his book with his views presented as dogma, officially severing communion with anyone who disagreed. Bishop Cyprian, on the other hand, having written the document at the request of the Synod, sent it then exclusively to the Bishops of the Greek Old Calendarists, and to no one else, together with a covering letter asking comments and criticism for the improvement of the text. 

You write, on the same page, that Metropolitan Kallistos’ confession is known to all; this also is not entirely true, as many, including we, had assumed that his refusal to denounce the Russian Synod in 1976, and his subsequent leaving the Matthaists were a sign that he had changed. It is, on the other hand, true that Bishop Cyprian's confession is known to all, and he has never made a secret of it, least of all to his fellow-Bishops. It is yet another lie that our Bishop declared in 1979 that “certain uses in his monastery were an oeconomia which would now cease”! The truth of the matter is that he discovered that Metropolitan Kallistos had not in fact changed his Matthaist mentality, but out of the deep respect he felt for him, he refrained from controversy with him, until the publication of Metropolitan Kallistos’ book, which would, if unopposed, be taken as the confession of the entire Synod. The book was rejected by the whole Synod, as also was the document of Metropolitan Cyprian, leaving any reasonable person wondering exactly what they did believe on the subject.

I hardly consider it likely that you will publish this letter in your journal, so I will take the liberty of distributing it to those who enquire, and other interested parties. 

May God enlighten you to help in the efforts of others for the glory of God and the progress of His Church, rather than seeking to destroy everything which does not bear the seal of your approval.

[Transcribed, formatted and emended from the original.]