The Ecclesiology of the Former Metropolitan of Florina, Chrysostomos Kavourides

Nikolaos Daskalos

The Ecclesiology of the Former Metropolitan of Florina, Chrysostomos Kavourides (+1955)

A Presentation in the Form of Questions and Answers

Athens | 2012

 

Introduction

The present work of the "teacher" [Daskalos = teacher in Gr.] refers to the ecclesiology of the blessed former Metropolitan of Florina, Chrysostomos Kavourides, who became the president of the Hierarchy of the Old Calendarists in Greece, that is, of the "unceasing guard" of the Church in Greece. This new Chrysostom, with his eloquent mouth and pure heart, left behind brilliant ecclesiological and other writings, which serve as guidance in the struggle against innovation and heresy.

But who was our late Hierarch? Let us allow his late niece, Mrs. Melpomeni, whom we had the blessing to meet in the twilight of her life, to recount to us a rather unknown yet marvelous incident shortly before the end of the life of this esteemed Hierarch.

(Transcription): "He had Fr. John [1] [Vaxevanopoulos] as his confessor. So, one afternoon after lunch, Fr. John lay down to rest. And he had a dream. He saw that he was in a large plain, and to the right... (note: unintelligible due to poor recording) and to the left again. In the middle, two young men were assembling a throne. And they said to Fr. John, 'Help us finish it quickly.' And Fr. John leaned his hand on the throne to steady it while they were assembling it. He had barely done so when they said, 'It's ready...' The throne was shining. And he bent down to see where they had placed the lights, but there were no lights. However, the throne was shining. They said, 'Go and inform him, his throne is ready.' He asked, 'Who?' They replied, 'The Saint of Florina.' He asked, 'Who are you?' They said, 'I am Saint John the Baptist, and I am Saint John the Theologian.' 'I cannot go and tell him this. You tell him yourselves.' 'We will tell him, but you must tell him too.' Fr. John woke up and thought, 'How can I tell him this?' He didn't want to say it... He was afraid. Meanwhile, as he was thinking about it, the doorman from the office came and told him, 'You should go to the residence of His Eminence, because he wants to see you.' 'Well, perhaps with this opportunity I can tell him about the dream I had.' So, he went to the house... The uncle always took a walk for an hour in the afternoon. But that evening, he was very late, and Fr. John was in a hurry because he lived far away in Nea Amfiali, beyond Piraeus. He got up to leave. Meanwhile, the uncle arrived, and they went inside... they were there for almost an hour. Finally, Fr. John said, 'Your Eminence, I had a dream about you, but I hesitate to tell you.' 'No, I want you to tell me... I insist, I want you to tell me.' So, he said, 'I had this and this dream.' He replied, 'I know, I have been called, I will leave; that's why I called you, to confess...'"

 

 

1. What is Ecclesiology?

By Ecclesiology, we mean the Orthodox teaching about the Church. [2] The Ecclesiology of the Orthodox Catholic Church is confessed in the Creed, specifically in the 9th article: (I believe) "In One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church."

 

2. According to the former Metropolitan of Florina, Chrysostomos, the leader of the Old Calendar Orthodox, did the calendar reform offend Orthodox Ecclesiology?

Certainly. He writes:

"It is self-evident that the unilateral and uncanonical change of the Church calendar also contradicts the Doctrine of the one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, since it divides the Orthodox Churches and separates Christians into Old Calendarists and New Calendarists."

-          Appeal of the Most Reverend Metropolitans Germanos of Demetrias, formerly of Florina Chrysostomos, and Chrysostomos of Zakynthos, to all Religious and National Associations of Greece concerning the Church Calendar - 1935.

"...the unilateral and uncanonical change of the Church calendar creates consequences that are contrary even to the Creed itself. For it is known that one of the articles of our Creed is 'in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.' We do not deny, in principle, that the concept of one Church lies in the doctrinal unity of faith and Divine worship. But the concept of one Doctrine and one Divine Worship is not merely dry knowledge and theory, but it is a lived experience, a feeling, an action, and a simultaneous and uniform expression of this. Therefore, when the theoretically and intellectually one and the same Divine worship is not lived out and expressed in practice simultaneously and uniformly, but is divided into different times and forms, one can no longer logically maintain that Doctrine and Divine worship retain the property of unity. For how can Christians of the same Doctrine and the same Divine worship belong to one Church when some of them are rejoicing and celebrating while others are fasting and practicing abstinence? How, we ask, can Christians who have one faith, one Divine worship, one Baptism, one Lord, the same Mysteries, say in the Creed that they belong to one, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, when some of them are celebrating the Baptism of Christ in the Jordan during the feast of Theophany, while others, including those in Jerusalem, have not yet even celebrated Christmas, still traversing the period of the Forty Days and repentance so that with a pure heart and spiritual joy they may celebrate the Birth of Christ and His Baptism in the Jordan?"

-          Proclamation of the Most Reverend Metropolitans Germanos of Demetrias, formerly of Florina Chrysostomos, and Chrysostomos of Zakynthos, to the parish clergy and monks of the Orthodox Greek Church, 1935

"After all this, who can deny that the unilateral change of the calendar also created consequences that indirectly affected the Doctrine of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church? This is precisely the main reason why the Fathers of the Church, through the divine and holy Canons, established that any change and modification of an institution of general ecclesiastical significance and meaning should not be made unilaterally but simultaneously by all the Churches convening in a Synod. And this was to prevent the unity of the Churches and the bond of peace among Christians from being disrupted."

-          The Church Calendar as a Criterion of Orthodoxy, July 1, 1935.

"Accordingly, the New Calendarists and the Old Calendarists, even though they both have the same faith and the same Divine worship, cannot fully belong to one and the same Church when some of them are still in the period of the Forty Days and repentance while others are celebrating Christmas and Theophany and rejoicing. This, in our humble opinion, is the full and accurate understanding of the concept and significance of the Doctrine of the unity of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church."

-          Refutation of the "Rebuke" by Archbishop Chrysostomos Papadopoulos, 1937.

"The purpose of the calendar for the Church is not to determine the precise division of time, but to ensure the unity of all Orthodox Churches in the celebration of feasts and the simultaneous observance of fasts and other sacramental and religious ceremonies. To this end, the calendar was established based on the vernal equinox of the Julian calendar, and the Paschal Canon was instituted, along with the annual cycle of feasts, that is, the Lectionary, so that Easter would always be celebrated simultaneously by all Orthodox Christians, following the legal Passover of the Jews, according to the 7th Apostolic Canon. The other feasts, both movable and immovable, are to be celebrated simultaneously by Christians, so that all Orthodox Christians, as spiritual children of one and the same Orthodox Church, whose builder and leader is one and the same, our Lord Jesus Christ, may worship, fast, and rejoice simultaneously. And because, during the early centuries of Christianity, the local Churches and Christians did not celebrate the feasts, observe the fasts, and perform religious rites simultaneously, it was necessary for the Holy and God-bearing Fathers in the Ecumenical Councils, in addition to defining the doctrines, to establish through the Paschal Canon and the calendar the simultaneous celebration of the feasts and the concurrent observance of fasts, thereby elevating the unity of the Church, which is contained in the 9th article of the Creed, 'In One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church,' to the level of a dogma."

-          The Calendar in Relation to the Orthodox Eastern Church,  March 31, 1938.

"Accordingly, the calendar for the Church serves not as a timekeeping device, but as a unifying link in the golden chain of all the individual Orthodox Churches and as a compass for Orthodox Divine worship."

-          Critiques on the Opinion of the Constitutional Revision Committee regarding the Calendar Issue, 1946

 

3. Apart from the purely calendrical issue, what were the positions of the former Florina regarding the heretical Encyclical of 1920 and, in general, the efforts towards ecumenical union with the heterodox, which the calendar reform essentially served?

He likely did not know about the Encyclical of 1920, neither he nor the other Hierarchs. His collaborator, Metropolitan Germanos of Demetrias, mentioned in 1927: "I requested three times for the documents of the Patriarchates to be submitted, but they were not, and therefore they were not read, so that I and the Hierarchy could be informed." The Encyclical of 1920, although it was printed, was not disseminated and only gradually began to become known in 1949 when it was republished in a book by a well-known theologian. [3]

However, the former Metropolitan of Florina had understood that the acceptance of the Gregorian calendar served the purpose of the "simultaneous celebration" of Orthodox and heterodox, with the aim of their union, as proclaimed by that specific Encyclical. He was also aware of the decisions of the "Pan-Orthodox Congress" of 1923, which essentially put into practice the calendar reform announced by the aforementioned "Encyclical," and in which it was established—as the former Florina himself wrote to Patriarch Nicholas of Alexandria—"the unorthodox principle that one or more individual Orthodox Churches have the right to proceed unilaterally with adjustments to ecclesiastical institutions concerning the entirety of Orthodoxy, without the other Orthodox Churches having the right to sever spiritual communion with them due to these reforms, which, for ecclesiastical and canonical reasons, they cannot approve or accept."

In other words, this "Pan-Orthodox Congress" essentially proved to be unorthodox, also because it made its decisions (specifically regarding the reform of the ecclesiastical calendar) optional for the individual Orthodox Churches. By doing so, it disrupted the unity of the whole of Orthodoxy and simultaneously rendered the means of Separation ineffective, since the other Churches, which did not accept the Gregorian calendar, could not sever communion with the Churches that introduced innovations.

Thus, the innovators Meletios Metaxakis and Chrysostomos Papadopoulos, for the sake of a false union with the heterodox, disrupted the unity of the Orthodox.

The former Metropolitan of Florina characteristically writes:

"Proof of this, Your Beatitude, is the harm that Orthodoxy suffered from a similar Ecclesiastical Congress, which, in imitation of the Western Church, was convened by your late predecessor (referring to Meletios Metaxakis, indeed 'late' due to the evils he brought upon the Church), as the then Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople, in order to extract the stillborn innovation of the calendar, which disrupted the unity of the entire Orthodoxy in the celebration of feasts and religious ceremonies and divided Christians into two opposing religious factions.

“...decided initially (referring to the Congress) to introduce the Gregorian calendar into the Orthodox Eastern Church only for the immovable feasts, reserving the adjustment of the Paschal Canon based on the Gregorian calendar for the near future, with the aim, as stated by the President, of bringing the Eastern Churches closer to the Western Churches in the celebration of the Queen of Feasts, Easter..."

-          Letter to Patriarch Nicholas V of Alexandria, Jerusalem, April 10, 1935.

"...(he is speaking about the Anglican Church) strives with all its might for a rapprochement with the Orthodox Church by any means necessary... And if this effort by the Anglican Church aimed at serving justice and Orthodoxy, no one would have any objections to supporting the rapprochement it seeks with our Church. But this rapprochement is pursued by always conceding Orthodox ground to the demands and conquering claims of the Anglican Church, while it stubbornly insists on its own doctrines and traditions. A proof of this is that the Anglican Church, through these unionist efforts, succeeded in obtaining from the late Patriarch Meletios and the current Patriarch of Romania, Miron, the recognition of Anglican ordinations along with the acceptance of the Gregorian calendar, while in contrast, it has made no concessions in its traditions and ecclesiastical doctrines for the sake of Orthodoxy."

-          Report to the Governing Synod of Greece regarding the opinion of the Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem in relation to the Church Calendar, Athens, October 11, 1936

"The issue of the Church Calendar has deeper causes and motives. The inspirers and main actors behind it, such as Patriarch Meletios of Alexandria and Archbishop Chrysostomos of Athens, unfortunately lacking a deep Orthodox spirit, knowingly or unknowingly became instruments of foreign desires and goals, which aim at disrupting the unity of the Orthodox Churches and separating Greek ideology from Orthodoxy. These two leaders of the Orthodox Churches of the Patriarchate of Alexandria and Greece, competing for the glory of being seen as reformers and modernized clergy, lightheartedly raised the banner of ecclesiastical reforms, beginning with the change of the Church Calendar, which constitutes one of the unifying links of the Orthodox Churches and the compass of divine worship and the works of the Patristic faith...

"It is well known in ecclesiastical circles the church activities of the main proponents of the calendar innovation, namely Meletios Metaxakis and Chrysostomos Papadopoulos, who, for reasons known only to the Lord, became leaders—the former of the Church of Alexandria and the latter of the Church of Greece. These individuals, having been expelled from the Church of Jerusalem, where they were born and raised, ascended to the thrones of the Greek Churches with the undisguised purpose of leading them toward modernization, meaning toward Catholicism and Protestantism. For what other purpose do the ecclesiastical reforms proposed by these two reformers at the ill-named Pan-Orthodox Congress of Constantinople serve, regarding clerical attire, the celibacy of bishops, the prohibition of second marriages for widowed priests, the modification of fasts, the shortening of services, the adjustment of the Paschal Canon, the adaptation of the Julian calendar to the Gregorian, and the revision of the entire ecclesiastical legislation and its adaptation to the contemporary needs of Orthodox Christian society? What do all these signify, other than the modernizing spirit of these two ecclesiastical men, who in their superficial understanding of their ecclesiastical mission, thought they could move the eternal boundaries set by our Holy and God-bearing Fathers? The great among Patriarchs and Saints, Nikephoros the Confessor, aptly characterizes these radical reformers by saying the following: 'These people denigrate and belittle our holy Fathers and Teachers of the Church, considering them no better than any other men, neither in virtue nor in their closeness to God, but they disparage each one of them as if they were just like any of the common people...'

"They ordain themselves as wise, these lovers of the flesh, and from their students, the empty talkers are called theologians, and those with foul mouths are called Chrysostoms... Thus, shaking all the traditions and laws of the Church, and the Mysteries, they pervert the straight paths of the Lord ("Apologeticus Minor," P.G. 100, 833)."

-          The Church Calendar as a Criterion of Orthodoxy, July 1, 1935.

"...the two high-ranking clergymen and radical innovators, the late Patriarch Meletios Metaxakis and the surviving Archbishop Chrysostomos Papadopoulos, had in mind to adapt the Paschalion established by the 318 Holy and God-bearing Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council to the Gregorian calendar, indifferent to whether this adaptation would violate the 7th Apostolic Canon and the divinely inspired authority of the Council. Their sole aim was the great impression they believed their grand gesture and initiative in the celebration of the great Christian feasts would produce in the so-called civilized world— even at the cost of disregarding the Apostolic decrees. This is because they do not feel the Orthodox spirit and because 'they loved the glory of men more than the glory of God,' according to the Gospel (John 12:43)."

-          Refutation of the "Rebuke" by Archbishop Chrysostomos Papadopoulos, 1937.

"...this war (referring to the First World War) due to the alliances of the warring states, forced the Orthodox to join in prayer on the battlefield and in churches with heretical and schismatic non-Orthodox, something that is strictly prohibited by the divine and holy Canons according to the precise and rigorous understanding of Orthodoxy. This event, which took place out of necessity due to the circumstances of war, encouraged the reformist and modernizing spirit of certain radical ecclesiastical leaders and pushed them towards ecclesiastical reforms aimed at bringing the Orthodox Eastern Church closer to the Churches of the West in every possible way. Unfortunately, two Greek hierarchs took the initiative in these ecclesiastical reforms: the then Ecumenical Patriarch and later Patriarch of Alexandria, Meletios Metaxakis, and the Archbishop of Athens, Chrysostomos Papadopoulos. These two ambitious clerics, failing to properly appreciate the strength of the deep Orthodox spirit and the great and divine mission that Orthodoxy holds for the Church of Christ, in their naïve conscience and shallow judgment, believed that they were offering a service to the Christian world by bringing the Orthodox Church closer to the Churches of the West, even at the cost of sacrificing the pure treasure of Orthodoxy to the brass that shines like gold of the Western Churches. Thus, Patriarch Meletios, in collaboration and consultation with his advisor and collaborator, Archbishop Chrysostomos of Athens, convened an Ecclesiastical Congress in May 1923 in Constantinople, which was wrongly called Pan-Orthodox, as it was only attended by the Churches of Greece, Serbia, and Romania, and in the case of the latter two, represented by lay delegates. The Orthodox Churches of Russia, Cyprus, the Holy Mount Sinai, Poland, and indeed the three Patriarchates of the East—Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem—were notably absent from this Congress. At this Congress, the Most Reverend President Meletios proposed numerous ecclesiastical reforms with the aim of adapting the Orthodox Church to modern and progressive social ideas, thereby facilitating its rapprochement with the Churches of the West... Moreover, as stated in the outline of the reforms, the approach of the Churches in every possible way makes clear from the outset their unification zeal but also endangers the purely Orthodox spirit of those initiating the Congress, clearly indicating their urgency for rapprochement even at the cost of sacrificing the age-old and venerable institutions of Orthodoxy... This unification program, Patriarch Meletios, with the counsel and collaboration of his former teacher, the like-minded Archbishop Chrysostomos of Athens, as we have mentioned, began with the adaptation of the Orthodox Church Calendar to the Gregorian one..."

-          Apologetic Memorandum in Defense of the Restoration of the Old Church Calendar, 1945.

 

4. For what reasons did he decide in 1935 to break away from the innovating Hierarchy and to undertake the pastoral care of the Orthodox who follow the Old Calendar?

After the calendar reform (1924) and gradually understanding its true purposes, he, together with other Hierarchs, made various efforts for the restoration of the Church of Greece to the Old Calendar. Seeing that years were passing and that the innovating Archbishop, as well as many of the Hierarchs, had no intention of discussing the return to the traditional practices, he separated himself (1935) and undertook the pastoral care of the Orthodox who followed the Old Calendar.

But let us allow him to answer for himself:

"We confess, in the form of a confession, that for a full eleven years we have conducted within the depths of our Christian conscience a terrible struggle between two opposing forces, one of which urged us to align ourselves at the head of the Old Calendarists, who were fighting for the Orthodox institutions, while the other deterred us, pointing to the disastrous consequences of the official Ecclesiastical Schism, and always lulling us with the hope that the majority of the Hierarchy, sooner or later, under the irresistible force of truth and Orthodoxy, would be compelled to restore the traditional calendar for the peace of the Christian flock. But unfortunately, with this hope proving to be in vain, and the majority of the Hierarchy not only showing indifference to the division and conflict among Her children but also widening the gap and fostering hostility among Christians by persecuting the Old Calendarists, we can no longer maintain our previous reserved stance, and must openly assume leadership of the Old Calendarist struggle, driven by the hope that our leadership in this sacred struggle will bring about the desired peace and unity in the Church more quickly through the restoration of the old calendar by the Governing Church... However, if the majority of the Hierarchy persists in this calendrical innovation, placing a misguided personal pride above the Divine and Sacred Canons and the peace of the Orthodox Greek people, then it declares itself as Schismatic in relation to the Orthodox Churches that adhere to the traditions of the 7 Ecumenical Councils. And then we are certain that no one, at least among the devout Orthodox Greek people, will hesitate to denounce the majority of the Hierarchy as Schismatic, as having separated and cut itself off from the entire Orthodox body of the one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. This will also be in accordance with the 15th Canon of the First-Second Ecumenical Council, which mandates the denunciation of the first [in rank], even before Synodal judgment, when he openly and with bare head proclaims and teaches in the Church doctrines contrary to those established as Orthodox institutions and Canons by the Holy Fathers in Ecumenical and Local Councils. In this case, we will not be responsible for the schism, nor will we be justly condemned as creators of schism, but rather we will be worthy of praise by the Orthodox for having diligently sought to save the Church from schisms and divisions among Orthodox Christians. As a culmination of our present protest, we present the aforementioned Canon, which reads as follows: 'These things have been sealed and defined regarding those who, under the pretext of some accusations, withdraw from their own presidents, creating schisms and disrupting the unity of the Church. For those who, on account of some heresy condemned by the Holy Councils or Fathers, separate themselves from communion with their president—that is, when he publicly preaches heresy, and teaches it openly in the Church with bare head—such persons not only do not incur canonical punishment prior to Synodal judgment for separating themselves from communion with the so-called Bishop, but also are worthy of the appropriate honor by the Orthodox... for they did not cut the unity of the Church with a schism, but rather strove to save the Church from schisms and divisions.'"

-          Protest of the Most Reverend Metropolitans Germanos of Demetrias, Chrysostomos, formerly of Florina, and Chrysostomos of Zakynthos, to the Orthodox Churches concerning the unilateral and uncanonical introduction of the new calendar, Athens 1935.

"…for we proceeded to denounce the Governing Synod and sever all ecclesiastical communion with it, not for reasons of personal animosity and ambition, but for ecclesiastical and canonical reasons, concerning the violation of explicit Synodal Decrees and Apostolic Canons, as well as the indirect violation of the Dogma of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church."

-          The ecclesiastical calendar as a criterion of Orthodoxy, July 1, 1935.

"It should not be forgotten that the polity of the Orthodox Eastern Church is Constitutional and not Monarchical, like that of the Latin Church, nor Democratic, like that of the Protestants. The Constitution of our Church consists, along with the dogmas, of the traditions, and the Apostolic and Synodal Decrees, and therefore any unilateral and arbitrary ecclesiastical reform that violates the Canons and traditions of the Church is contrary to the very Ecclesiastical Constitution and should not be accepted by the faithful, who are the vigilant guardians of the Ecclesiastical Constitution. Thus, being lawful towards the Ecclesiastical Constitution and wanting to remain faithful to the oath we took when we became Hierarchs concerning the inviolable and unimpaired preservation of the Orthodox heritage entrusted to us, we did not consent to conform to an uncanonical and unconstitutional decision of the Governing Synod and severed ecclesiastical communion with it even before Synodal judgment, in accordance with the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council, so that we would not share in the responsibility for the uncanonically introduced liturgical innovation."

-          The calendar in relation to the Orthodox Eastern Church, March 31, 1938.

"It is indisputable that we did not revolt against the Canonical Ecclesiastical Authority, nor against the essence of the Orthodox Greek Church, but simply severed communion with the Governing Synod according to the First Canon of St. Basil the Great, having been divided over a matter that is ecclesiastically curable, not for personal reasons, but because the Synod, through the calendrical innovation, deviated from the Canons and Traditions, and because we do not wish to become participants in the responsibility for this deviation and the disruption of the unity of the Churches and Christians in the celebration of the feasts. This right to sever ecclesiastical communion with the primate even before Synodal judgment is granted to us by the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council... Therefore, we were never rebels against the Orthodox Greek Church but rather supporters and defenders of the Sacred Canons and Ecclesiastical Traditions, not hesitating, in defense of these, to endure even exile in the twilight of our lives."

-          Defense in the Court of Appeals of Athens, Athens March 29, 1940.

"For the severance of ecclesiastical communion by a Cleric with the Superior Ecclesiastical Authority, when it falls under the concept of heresy, as it affects the unity of the whole of Orthodoxy and the religious conscience, as in our case, is not only not condemned by the Canons but is also praiseworthy, as it averts great harm to the Church and prevents the Schism between the Orthodox Churches (15th Canon of the First-Second Council)."

-          Appeal to the Supreme Court of Greece, Athens, October 1, 1940.

"... (i.e., the three separated Hierarchs) declared in the form of a protest to the Governing Synod that they are severing all ecclesiastical communion with it, not wishing to be co-responsible for the calendrical innovation, which is contrary to the Canons and the pure spirit of Orthodoxy. They based this severance of ecclesiastical communion on the 15th Canon of the First-Second Ecumenical Council and the 3rd Canon of the Third Ecumenical Council, which instruct Clerics who stand within the framework of the traditions and decisions of the Ecumenical Councils not to obey those ecclesiastical leaders and authorities who deviate from them."

-          Exact Position on the Calendar Issue, Athens, 1950.

 

5. With the separation and the episcopal consecrations of 1935 that followed, did he create a second Church in Greece, as the New Calendarists accuse? Did the late Hierarch believe that the Orthodox who follow the Old Calendar constitute a separate Church?

Categorically no! The separation aimed to heal the calendar schism created by Archbishop Chrysostomos Papadopoulos and to restore the Hierarchy to its pre-1924 state. This is evident from the text of the "Denunciation" sent by the three metropolitans to the innovating Hierarchy, which concludes as follows: "Bringing these matters to the attention of the Governing Hierarchy, we have the sincere hope that, realizing the great responsibility it bears before God, the Orthodox Church, and the Nation, which it has divided into two opposing religious factions, it will reconsider its decision regarding the Church's calendar and will be willing to restore the Orthodox and traditional ecclesiastical calendar, while maintaining the new calendar for civil purposes, to restore Orthodoxy and bring peace to the Church and the Nation." In fact, they refrained from performing any liturgical acts for ten days, waiting for the Governing Hierarchy to approach them to find a solution. Even the four new bishops who were consecrated were titular bishops,[4]  and their consecration was intended to serve the approximately one million faithful at that time.

Therefore, we are not talking about a separate Church (an idea of Chrysostomos Papadopoulos to achieve the persecution of the Old Calendarists by the state authorities), but rather about a distinct, temporary ecclesiastical authority. [5]

His writings enlighten us once again:

"...(Germanos of Demetrias, the author of the following, Chrysostomos, formerly of Florina, and Chrysostomos of Zakynthos) we boldly and magnanimously raised, not the flag of rebellion against Orthodoxy and the division of Christians, as they (i.e., Papadopoulos and Metaxakis) did, but the glorious and honored banner of the union of divided Orthodoxy and the peace of the Church on the foundation of sacred traditions and the divine and Holy Canons. Therefore, through our denunciatory document to the Governing Synod, we called upon It to return to the foundation of Orthodoxy by restoring the Orthodox calendar in divine worship. At the same time, we refrained for ten days from performing any liturgical act so as not to exclude, even at the last moment, the hope of rapprochement and understanding with the Governing Synod to prevent the consequences of an officially declared Schism, but in vain.

"...The essence of the Orthodox Greek Church is not determined by the number of Hierarchs but by the Dogmas and the traditions that we have received from the 7 Ecumenical Councils, which constitute the infallible Criterion of Orthodoxy. Therefore, any deviation from what has been handed down by the 7 Ecumenical Councils constitutes, for every Orthodox Church, and consequently for the Autocephalous Greek Church as well, an act of rebellion, regardless of the number of those who attempt such a deviation and of those who remain faithful to the traditions."

-          The Ecclesiastical Calendar as a Criterion of Orthodoxy, July 1, 1935.

"...the canons grant individuals the right only to denounce the First (i.e., the leading bishop) when he steps outside the boundaries of the traditions, to sever all ecclesiastical communion with him even before synodal judgment, and to report him to a pan-Orthodox Council, which alone has the authority to judge, condemn him, and declare him a heretic or schismatic. This is what we have done, adhering to the divine and holy canons, particularly the 15th Canon of the First-Second Ecumenical Council."

-          Letter to the Right Reverend Bishop of the Cyclades, Kyr Germanos Varykopoulos, Athens, November 9, 1937.

"Seeing such injustices and unlawful actions within the Church, and not wishing to have our conscience burdened by them, after having in vain repeatedly requested the Synod of the Hierarchy to return to the traditional calendar and to unite the Christians by removing the scandal that had been caused, we were led, with much sorrow and anguish of heart, to the decision to declare ourselves in ecclesiastical non-communion with the Governing Church and to provide pastoral protection to the group following the traditional calendar, which was established by the First Ecumenical Council. We must confess that we were driven to this decision not because we sought personal ambitions and aspirations, as Archbishop of Athens immediately propagated from the beginning, but because we hoped to compel him through this means to call the Hierarchy together and to bring our declaration of non-communion as well as the entire calendar issue under the judgment of the Synod. We never imagined that the Governing Synod would proceed to depose us from our thrones without following the canonical procedures and without declaring us as deposed and as defendants before a Synodal Court. For it must be one of two things: either the Governing Synod approved our document of non-communion, which was justified on ecclesiastical and canonical grounds, and therefore had no right to judge us, as we no longer fell under its jurisdiction and authority, or it did not approve it, in which case it should have followed the canonical procedure and the process prescribed by ecclesiastical law to impose on us the penalty of deposition. Considering the Canons and the Statutes, from the moment we were declared deposed without any procedure, we concluded that the Governing Synod had approved our document of non-communion, and therefore, we had to act as a provisional ecclesiastical authority for the Old Calendarists to meet their religious needs, the first of which was the appointment of bishops in the regional areas where there were solid groups of Old Calendarists. This is why we proceeded with the consecration of four bishops, as we had the right to do according to the divine and holy Canons. We undertook this consecration of bishops not only for the religious needs of the more than eight hundred branches of Old Calendarists in various regions but also to make the Governing Church and the Government understand and duly appreciate the seriousness of our endeavor, which aimed to remove the scandal and to unite Christians by restoring the Orthodox and centuries-old liturgical tradition."

The Calendar in Relation to the Orthodox Eastern Church, March 31, 1938.

"No one who is well-versed in Canon Law and has an orthodox pulse can seriously claim that the Old Calendarists constitute a second Orthodox Church in the State, but rather the traditional and uninnovated Autocephalous Orthodox Church of Greece. For although they may appear outwardly and in the external expression of their faith to have their own worship, their own prayer houses, and their own clergy, nevertheless, these individuals, despite being in non-communion with the innovating Hierarchy, as they steadfastly adhere to the Traditions and the Divine and Holy Canons, constitute, within canonical terms, not a separate Church from that with which they have temporarily severed ecclesiastical communion for canonical reasons, but rather the vigilant guardians, the ever-watchful sentinels on the adamantine ramparts of the One Orthodox Greek Church. The aforementioned Prosecutor, having placed faith in the erroneous and uncanonical opinion of the deceased Archbishop of Athens, according to which the Old Calendarists allegedly rebelled without ecclesiastical reasons against the official Church by establishing their own temples, and being unable, due to a lack of theological education, to discern the distinguishing characteristics of the unity of a Church and those of its division and schism, concluded that the Old Calendarists, having severed ecclesiastical communion with the Governing Hierarchy due to the calendrical innovation, had also formed their own Church. This is not true, for from the severance of ecclesiastical communion by a group of laity and clergy with the Governing Hierarchy due to ecclesiastical disagreement and their non-conformity to some uncanonical decision, one cannot canonically conclude that the dissenting group, having temporarily severed ecclesiastical communion with the Governing Hierarchy, has formed its own Church, and indeed a Schismatic one, as the Synodal Court, which tried and deposed the Bishops of Megaris, Diavleia, Cyclades, and Vrestheni, unfortunately declared them. Churches are constituted and divided not by a faction of Christians who disagree on some ecclesiastical matter with the Governing Hierarchy and remain in a state of ecclesiastical non-communion, nor does any particular Church have such a right according to the Canons. Only those with Protestant views can seriously claim such a thing, but rather the whole Orthodox Church, convening in a Pan-Orthodox Council. Proof of this is that the Bulgarian Schism was not declared only by the Ecumenical Patriarchate, even though it then had 85 dioceses, but by a Great Local Council, which convened in 1872 in Constantinople. Therefore, the faction of the Old Calendarists, not having been constituted and recognized as a separate Church by a Pan-Orthodox Council, cannot constitute a separate Church from that from which it has temporarily separated itself, so as not to become complicit with the Hierarchy in the unilateral innovation. And not only does this faction not divide the Church, but within the framework of the Autocephalous Church of Greece, it constitutes the bright and unswerving aspect of Orthodox identity. Thus, we, who follow the traditional liturgical order and respect, as we ought, the Apostolic and Synodal Decrees, rather than the uncanonical decisions of the Hierarchy, not only do not constitute a separate Schismatic Church, but within the framework of the One Church, we have preserved the golden seals of Ecclesiastical Traditions and continue the history and character of Orthodoxy in the Autocephalous Greek Church."

-          Defense in the Court of Appeals of Athens, Athens, March 29, 1940.

"The notion that individuals, whether clergy or laity, are entitled to establish a separate church without the permission and recognition of the whole Church, reeks of Protestantism, which does not regard the judgment and opinion of the entire Church as the precise measure and standard of divine Truth, but rather the judgment and understanding of individuals, who, according to the Protestant view, represent the grace and power of the Holy Spirit.

"...According to the spirit of the relevant Divine and Holy Canons, when the presiding bishop or the majority of the hierarchs of a recognized Orthodox Church introduce an innovation into the Church that is contrary to the Divine and Holy Canons and the Orthodox divine worship, the Orthodox bishops of that Church are indeed entitled to sever ecclesiastical communion with the innovators even before a synodal judgment, so as not to be jointly responsible before the whole Church for the improperly and uncanonically introduced innovation. However, they are not entitled to declare the innovating bishops as schismatic or to submit them for deposition, as this is the exclusive right of the whole Church, convened in a Synod and deciding in the Holy Spirit, issuing its judgment after thorough illumination and the well-founded defense of the innovating bishops under scrutiny.

"...But we, the Old Calendarists, do not constitute a separate and independent Orthodox Church in Greece, because no Church has recognized us as such. Rather, we are within the recognized Autocephalous Church of Greece, [6] as a guard that protects the institution of the Orthodox Calendar, which the majority of the Hierarchy has unjustly abandoned. We, as the bright and unwavering side of the Autocephalous Church of Greece, continue its history under the Orthodox understanding. The erroneous and uncanonical idea that we constitute a separate Church was deliberately and maliciously promoted by the late Archbishop of Athens, Chrysostomos Papadopoulos, who suggested this idea to the State with the intent of portraying us in the eyes of the State and Greek society as rebels who have turned against the Autocephalous Church of Greece, thereby exposing us to the wrath of the State and the common disdain of society. To this end, despite his knowledge of the Divine and Holy Canons and his position as a Professor of Ecclesiastical History, he did not hesitate to proclaim that the Old Calendarist bishops, having allegedly severed spiritual communion with their governing ecclesiastical authority without ecclesiastical and canonical reasons and having established their own churches, constituted a separate Church, and even a schismatic one, as the Synodal Court, which tried and deposed the Bishops of Megaris, Diavleia, Cyclades, and Vrestheni, unfortunately declared it to be.

"...Therefore, we, the Old Calendarists, although we may appear outwardly and in the external expression of our faith to have our own prayer houses and our own clergy, nevertheless, despite being in spiritual non-communion with the innovating Hierarchy, as we firmly adhere to the Divine Canons and the Holy Traditions, do not constitute a separate Church from the one with which we have temporarily severed ecclesiastical communion for canonical reasons. Rather, we are the vigilant guard, as I have said, the watchful sentinels on the adamantine ramparts of the one Autocephalous Church of Greece, in whose name we continue its history under the unwavering and orthodox foundational understanding."

-          Pastoral Encyclical, Athens June 1, 1944.

"According to the fundamental principle of Orthodox Ecclesiastical Canon Law, the spirit of Dogmatic Theology, and the centuries-old practice of the Orthodox Church, the concept of the Church as a divine and self-sufficient institution is fundamentally distinct and independent from the concept of the persons of the bishops who represent and govern it. Therefore, the erroneous ideas and perceptions of the bishops, insofar as they are not judged and condemned by a Canonical and Valid Council as unorthodox and heretical, do not affect the Orthodox understanding of the Church to which they belong. For example, when one or more of the bishops belonging to the Governing Church introduce an innovation that opposes the sound and pure spirit of the Orthodox understanding of the Church, the fault and unorthodoxy of this innovation lie with the innovating bishops as individuals, making them accountable before God and the entire Church, but this does not affect or diminish the Orthodox authority of the Church they govern. The Orthodox understanding of the Church is only affected and its divine authority diminished when the bishops who introduced the innovation are judged for heresy and unorthodox innovation by a valid Council, whether a large Local or Ecumenical one, and if, despite sufficient enlightenment, they refuse to conform to the Council's directives and renounce their heresy, remaining obstinately and stiff-neckedly in it. In such a case, they are deposed by the Council and are separated from the universal body of the Orthodox Church. Then, the decree of deposition and separation is publicly read in the Church, through which both the heretical and innovating bishops, as well as all the clergy who commune with them and all the laity who receive blessings and prayers from them, are anathematized and excommunicated. All these, being under the anathema of the Council, then constitute not an Orthodox Church, but a Schismatic Church."

-          Clarification of Pastoral Encyclical, Athens, January 18, 1945.

"Confronting with sorrow this utterly miserable and wretched ecclesiastical situation and unable to tolerate any longer seeing the official Church, like a cruel and heartless stepmother, persecuting her Orthodox children because they steadfastly adhere to the Church's traditions, while the separated 'Greek Religious Community' falls into extremes due to the lack of leaders with ecclesiastical authority, we decided, under the presidency of the Most Reverend Metropolitan of Holy Demetrias, Germanos, to criticize the official Church for the calendrical innovation and to declare to it that if it persists in this innovation, we will withdraw from it and assume the spiritual governance and ecclesiastical pastoral care of the considerable portion of the Orthodox Greek people who follow the traditional calendar, always guided by the hope that the Hierarchy, compelled by the irresistible force of truth and Orthodoxy and avoiding the creation of an official Schism, will be willing to restore the traditional calendar for the unity of the Orthodox Greek people.

"...We confess that this action (i.e., the consecrations of 1935) was hasty and, from a canonical perspective, somewhat risky as it was premature. However, we proceeded with it always in the hope that our Episcopal Council, as it firmly adhered to Orthodox institutions and sacred traditions, would be recognized, even if only by ecclesiastical economy, by the other Orthodox Churches, until a valid resolution of the disputed calendar issue could be achieved by a pan-Orthodox Council..."

-          Memorandum in Defense of the Restoration of the Traditional Ecclesiastical Calendar, 1945.

"In response to the granting of this freedom (i.e., the exercise of the religious duties of the Old Calendarists), the New Calendarist Hierarchy opposes it with a veto, claiming that the State cannot have within its territory two Orthodox Churches, one New Calendarist and one Old Calendarist. We disagree with this, arguing that by granting freedom, as an act of economy, to the religious organization of the Old Calendarists until the legitimate and canonical resolution of the calendrical issue—an issue indeed disputed, as I have said, before the forthcoming pan-Orthodox Council—a second Church is not being created, but rather a minority within the Church that disagrees with the majority of the Hierarchy and continues the history of the Greek Church under the unwavering Orthodoxy, which was tarnished by the calendrical innovation. The opinion of the Hierarchy, that granting freedom to the Old Calendarists creates a second Church and a 'state within a state,' as they say, is not true, because Churches do not spring up like mushrooms within the Church's enclosure, but are established and endowed with grace and the sacraments by the whole Church, which is the treasurer of grace and blessing. This opinion of the Hierarchy, that a portion of clergy and laity temporarily separated from the Church due to disagreement on some ecclesiastical issue, which is disputed and curable according to St. Basil the Great, until the disagreement is resolved by a Canonical pan-Orthodox Council, smells of Protestantism, which grants individual persons the right to establish their own Church without the consent and blessing of the whole Church. This is because Protestants believe that the inspiration and will of the Holy Spirit in matters of faith and sanctification are manifested and expressed even through individual persons, in contrast to the Orthodox Church's belief that the inspiration and action of the Holy Spirit are manifested through the whole Church, which interprets and rightly divides the word of divine truth...

"...However, we, the shepherds of the Old Calendarists, who are knowledgeable in Canon Law and possess an Orthodox spirit, assert that we do not constitute a second Church in the State, but we loudly proclaim that by remaining faithful to the doctrines and traditions handed down to us by the 7 Holy Ecumenical Councils, we represent, even though a minority, the traditional and uninnovated Greek Church, whose history we continue under the pure understanding of Orthodoxy. Indeed, although we may outwardly appear in our worship with our own prayer houses and our own clergy, nonetheless, even though we are in non-communion with the innovating Hierarchy, we do not constitute a second Church, but rather the pure and unwavering essence of it and the vigilant guard of the Greek Church, standing watchfully on the God-built and indestructible ramparts of the celebrated and contested Orthodoxy. Yes, we, Holy Bishop of Larissa, severed ecclesiastical communion with the Governing Hierarchy due to ecclesiastical disagreement not to form a second Church, but to preserve the Orthodox integrity of the Greek Church and to avoid the calendrical innovation, as well as the grave responsibility borne before God and History by those who created this scandalous disagreement, as a result of which the masses of Christians have been divided in the celebration of the feasts."

-          Refutation of the Calendar Treatise by His Eminence Metropolitan Dorotheos Kottaras, December 1947.

"...The Governing Hierarchy, through the calendrical innovation, ceased to represent the orthodox concept of the Greek Church. Consequently, having separated itself from the body of the Orthodox Church, it has become a distinct Church, different from the ancient, pure, and uninnovated spirit of Orthodoxy, thus becoming subject to judgment before the entire Orthodox Church. Therefore, the Governing Hierarchy, having deviated from the foundation of precise Orthodoxy, despite its external form and its numbers, as mentioned above, no longer represents the orthodox concept of the Greek Church. This orthodox concept and significance are represented by the Hierarchs, clergy, and laity who follow the ancient calendrical tradition, established by Ecumenical Councils and sanctioned by the centuries-old practice of the entire Orthodox Church. Thus, within the State, there are not two Orthodox Churches, but one, whose form and structure are represented by the majority of the Hierarchy, while the spirit and concept of Orthodoxy are represented by the minority of the Old Calendarist Hierarchy and community."

-          Illuminating Response to the Memorandum of the Hierarchy of the Governing Church of Greece in Relation to the Calendar Issue, Athens, 1948.

"Therefore, since the Old Calendarists, rightly in their view and in the view of all who respect the divine and holy canons, consider the governing Church to have deviated from the foundation of Orthodoxy as a result of the calendrical innovation, which opposes the holy canons and undermines the Doctrine of the External Unity of the Church, they are justified, according to the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council, in severing spiritual communion with the Official Church even before synodal judgment and in establishing their own altar for the performance of their worship by like-minded clergy, from whom alone they receive grace and sanctification to satisfy their conscience."

-          Memorandum of the Hierarchy of the Genuine Orthodox Christians to His Excellency the Minister of Religious Affairs and National Education, Athens, 1949.

"There was a time in the past when almost the entire Hierarchy within the Byzantine State was led into the heresy of the infamous Arius, along with the Byzantine state, during which the concept of Orthodoxy of the Official Church was represented by a small group of Orthodox in Constantinople who had not been tainted by the plague of Arianism. This group was under the pastoral care of Gregory the Theologian, who, in the chapel of St. Anastasia, through sermons filled with the fervent and divine fragrance of Orthodoxy, thunderously condemned the heretical and soul-destroying doctrine of Arius. Gregory the Theologian and his group not only did not constitute a separate Church by severing ecclesiastical communion with the Arianizing Hierarchy, but as Orthodox believers, they later served as a pledge for the return of the entire Church to the fold of Orthodoxy through the rejection of the Arian heresy and its vile false doctrine.

"Therefore, given that the essence of the Church consists of the Orthodox spirit and not of form and number, it is self-evident that we, as the continuers of the Patristic traditions and Orthodox institutions, constitute and represent the ancient and uninnovated Church of Greece, and not the innovating bishops, who represent only form and number."

-          Opinions on the Amendments to Articles 1 and 2 of the Draft Constitution by the Committee on the Revision of the Constitution, by Mr. K. Tsatsos, Member of Parliament for Athens, Athens, 1949.

 

6. Is there a contradiction regarding the views of the late Chrysostomos Kavourides about the governing Church and its Sacraments? Did he consider it schismatic and its Sacraments invalid?

The contradiction is only apparent. The views of the former Metropolitan of Florina are clear to those who study his work. However, the reason for their misinterpretation lies in two or three specific actions, [7] which, if not analyzed and interpreted in light of the historical context and the necessity they served, can lead to a mistaken understanding. Let us allow our eminent Hierarch to speak to us through his writings, which stand as monuments of Orthodox theological fullness, and let us be cautious with our interpretations, which can become misinterpretations when we are not imbued with the same ecclesiological spirit as he was.

The late Hierarch attempted to clarify these misinterpretations by explaining the patristic theological position "regarding potentiality and actuality" of the Holy Canons. [8]

The following clearly demonstrate his ecclesiological position:

"According to this fundamental principle of the Orthodox Eastern Church, a Church only has authority and its sacraments have sanctifying grace and efficacy when it is established or recognized by the entire Orthodox Church. Likewise, it only loses its authority and the sanctifying power and efficacy of its sacraments when it is declared heretical or schismatic by the whole Church, whose valid opinion and final decision are interpreted by an Ecumenical and Pan-Orthodox Council.

"...If, when we were going into exile, we called the Archbishop of Athens and the Church of Greece schismatic, we used the word 'schism' not in the sense that the Church uses it to signify a separation from the Orthodox Church and the consequent alienation from the grace of Christ and the sacraments, but in the sense that the Archbishop of Athens, through the calendrical innovation, separated himself and the Hierarchy that followed him from the other Orthodox Churches in the celebration of the feasts and the observance of the fasts.

"...they will only then become actually deprived of divine grace and alien to the orthodox spirit of the sacraments when they are declared as such and officially schismatic by a pan-Orthodox Council."

-          Letter to the Most Reverend Bishop of the Cyclades, Kyr Germanos Varykopoulos, Athens, November 9, 1937.

"Such an opinion of nullifying Sacraments and their repetition is not justified for individual Bishops, who have no authority or validity for this, to hold and pronounce; but even a single Orthodox Church does not have the right to remove the validity of the Sacraments without the opinion of the whole Church, which alone has the exclusive right to remove from clergy who fall into heresy and do not repent and reject it, the right to validly and effectively perform the Sacraments; for whoever does not have the power to grant a divine gift, consequently does not have the right to take it away.

"...And if the Canons consider the degradation of the Sacrament of Priesthood as sacrilege, how much more are those considered sacrilegious who dare, without any authority or ecclesiastical legitimacy, to declare the Sacraments of a recognized Church invalid, even if it is under judgment before the whole Church for the arbitrary introduction of an innovation?"

"Behold the reason why we refrain from pronouncing on the validity of Sacraments, confessing that we have neither authority nor right under the divine and Holy Canons to do so, and being aware of our insignificance and sinful state in relation to the holiness and sanctifying grace and power of the divine and holy Sacraments, we leave this matter to the opinion and judgment of the whole Church.

"...we, being knowledgeable of the spirit of the divine Canons and the venerable Doctrines and traditions of the Orthodox Church, refused to consider the Hierarchy of Greece as actually schismatic, but only potentially so, until a valid Synod convenes to judge the innovative Bishops, and, should they refuse to return to the Tradition of the Orthodox Calendar after sufficient enlightenment, to depose and separate them, and to declare them actually schismatic, at which point it will recognize the few Orthodox Bishops as the sole representatives of the Orthodox Greek Church."

-          Pastoral Encyclical, Athens, June 1, 1944.

"From this, we draw the conclusion that a recognized Orthodox Church only loses its Orthodox character and the validity of the divine Sacraments when it is recognized as heretical or schismatic by a Pan-Orthodox Synod, which alone has the right to remove from it the Grace and divine validity of the Sacraments, as it alone is entitled to bestow these upon it. Consequently, since the sanctifying Grace and the validity of the divine Sacraments are not provided by the Bishop or Priest who performs them—who is merely a simple means and instrument for transmitting Grace—but by the Orthodox character of the Church in whose name these are performed, any potentially unorthodox view on certain ecclesiastical issues, as curable according to the expression of St. Basil the Great, as long as it is not judged and condemned by a valid Synod, cannot diminish, much less remove, the Orthodox character of the Church and the validity of the sacramental acts performed in its name.

"...The populist and exploitative nature of the opposing opinion lies, on the one hand, in the hope of proselytizing others to the Old Calendar, by brandishing as a threat the invalidity of the Sacraments of the New Calendarists, and on the other hand, in the retention of their followers, particularly those who are gullible and lukewarm in our holy Struggle."

-          Clarification of the Pastoral Encyclical, Athens, January 18, 1945.

 

EPILOGUE: ORTHODOX ECCLESIOLOGY TODAY

Clearly, from the time when the former Metropolitan of Florina passed away until today, the degree of the fall of the New Calendarist Hierarchs and others has increased. The heresy of ecumenism is now openly proclaimed, and at the same time, other false doctrines have also infiltrated.

However, Orthodox ecclesiology, as it was developed by the late former Metropolitan of Florina, Chrysostomos, remains the same. Specifically, it consists of the following points:

1. The Orthodox of the Old Calendar are separated from the New Calendarist Hierarchy in Greece (and on a global scale from the Orthodox Ecumenists) for reasons of faith and justice (Apostolic Canon 31 and Canon 15 of the First-Second Council).

2. The Church of Greece and the similarly innovating Patriarchates and other Churches, along with those who partake with them in culpable and indifferent communion, have become subject to judgment for schism and heresy due to the change of the calendar and ecumenism, respectively. On the other hand, the separated Orthodox of the Old Calendar constitute the Non-Innovating Fullness of the Church and not a separate Church.

3. The purpose of the separation is the diligence and zeal to save the Church from schisms and divisions (see Canon 15 of the First-Second Council). We are awaiting the convening of a Great General Council, which will pronounce Orthodox judgments, officially anathematizing the innovation of the new calendar and the newly emerged pan-heresy of ecumenism, identifying and anathematizing the unrepentant heretics, imposing penalties either strictly or leniently, and deciding whether or not to accept the sacraments of the innovators and those in communion with them, among other matters.

4. Every deviation from the patristically understood separation (e.g., creating a separate Church) deviates from its purpose, which, as mentioned, is the deliverance of the Church from division and schisms and to avoid becoming complicit (as commemorators and those in communion) with the innovators and ecumenists regarding the unilateral innovation of the calendar and the heresy of ecumenism.

 

APPENDIX: A PROPHETIC VOICE

(EXCERPT FROM A LETTER BY THE FORMER METROPOLITAN OF FLORINA, CHRYSOSTOMOS, FROM THE PLACE OF HIS SECOND EXILE, THE HOLY MONASTERY OF YPSILOS, LESVOS, TO THE THEOLOGIAN STAVROS KARAMITSOS – APRIL 24, 1951) [9]

"Regarding the issue of ordinations, [10] I refer you to my relevant letter to Fr. Akakios, which I conveyed through your hands. This issue, dear Stavros, is not open to discussion under the conditions we are currently experiencing, as we do not have freedom of thought and peace of mind. It would not have been prudent or beneficial for the struggle of Orthodoxy to make decisions under such circumstances that could cast a shadow on the so brightly shining and ideologically radiant face of the holy struggle, which will occupy a glorious page in the modern history of the Church. This issue, my dear Stavros, will become a subject of consideration at the appropriate time, when, with the proper determination of our holy struggle's position in relation to the Established Church and State, we can make canonical and valid decisions before the whole Church.

We, dear Stavros, the Old Calendarists, both clergy and laity, for the holy struggle we are so honorably and faithfully fighting, have now become historical figures, and no thought—much less an action—tainted with self-interest and personal satisfaction, under the pretext of ecclesiastical necessity, should cast a shadow or tarnish the clear mirror of the ideology with which we are vigorously fighting on the fortified ramparts of Orthodoxy. The expressed fears about the lack of episcopal (support?) are baseless, as our holy struggle is steadfastly under the supervision and protection of the Almighty God, who always raises up the defenders of the faith at the appropriate time, so as not to leave the noble and holy front of Orthodoxy without fighters, against which even the gates of hell shall not prevail.

The slightest deviation on our part from the boundaries set by the divine and holy Canons established by the Holy Fathers will render us accountable before God and History and will remove from us the principal shield of our struggle, namely, canonical legitimacy and ideology. [12]

 

THE END, AND TO GOD BE THE GLORY.

 

NOTES

1. Regarding Fr. John, see "Saint John of Amfiali" by Professor John Kallianiotis of the University of Scranton: https://christianvivliografia.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/ceb1ceb3ceb9cebfceb9-20cebfe1bfa6-ceb9cf89ceb1cebd2.pdf

2. John Karmiris, "Ecclesiology," Religious and Ethical Encyclopedia (THIE), vol. 5, published by Martinos Ath., Athens 1964, p. 529.

3. John Karmiris, "The Orthodox Catholic Church and its Relations with the Heterodox Churches and the Communion of Churches," reprinted from Ecclesia, published by Phoenix, Athens 1949, p. 38.

4. "Titular is the one who holds the rank of bishop but does not exercise administrative authority" (former Metropolitan of Florina, Chrysostomos, Ecclesiastical Encyclical, Varympompi, July 15/28, 1954).

5. Temporary in nature, because if the Hierarchy, which currently deviates from true Orthodoxy, returns to the old calendar and condemns Ecumenism, severing communion with the heretics, there will no longer be a need for a separate ecclesiastical authority.

6. Complete rejection, on the one hand, of the acceptance by the "Matthewites" of the idea that the Old Calendarists constitute a separate Church (an idea inspired by Chrysostomos Papadopoulos), and on the other hand, of all those modernists who speak of struggling within the Church. This is how we truly find ourselves within the Church: by separating ourselves from the innovators!

7. A characteristic example of such an action is the issuance of the famous Encyclical of 1950, in which the New Calendarists are characterized as schismatics, and their Sacraments as lacking sanctifying Grace.

This Encyclical was issued, on the one hand, to contribute to the return of the Matthewites to the Orthodox-minded faction under the former Metropolitan of Florina, and on the other hand, as the former Metropolitan of Florina himself wrote a few months later (Vradini, 11-12-1950), because:

"When we saw that the Governing Synod had decided, contrary to every sacred canon and the age-old practice of the Church, to consider the sacraments of us, the pure Orthodox, as invalid, and without fear of God, to repeat them, thereby undermining the validity of the sacraments, then we, finding ourselves in defense, issued the relevant encyclical to calm the troubled conscience of our flock."

Moreover, it is well known that pressure was exerted by his associates for him to sign this encyclical. He himself admitted, "I am signing something I do not believe."

In the magazine "The Voice of Orthodoxy" (no. 148 – February 9, 1953), it is mentioned that they issued the Encyclical in defense against the Official Church, and it continues by writing the following enlightening remarks:

"And we, despite the proclamation of the Established Church as schismatic through the aforementioned encyclical, have never invalidated an ecclesiastical or sacramental act performed by the Established Church, respecting the Canons, according to which Sacraments, when performed according to the arrangements of the Orthodox Church, are not repeated. In contrast, the Established Church, through synodal decisions, ordered the repetition of baptisms and marriages conducted by Old Calendarist clergy."

8. Regarding "potentially and actually," see also our work: "The Distortion of the Ecclesiological Views of Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Phlorina."

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1kmphsNVFP5RVYyeXdhcFhhZjQ/view?usp=sharing&resourcekey=0-QJNiuGqUg8y-RJeDCk6qbQ

9. Stavros Karamitsos, The Contemporary Confessor of Orthodoxy, Athens 1990, pp. 83-84.

10. The late Stavros Karamitsos, fearing that after the passing of the former Metropolitan of Florina the Orthodox of the Old Calendar would be left without a Bishop, urged the blessed leader of the separated to consecrate Bishops, a proposal which the former Metropolitan of Florina rejected as a deviation from Orthodox ecclesiology.

11. Regarding Bishop Akakios Pappas, see: "The Distortion of the Ecclesiological Views of Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina," pp. 10-11.

12. A similar prophetic voice can be found in a letter from the Russian ascetic Anthony to Stavros Karamitsos on December 29, 1959 (see "The Ordinations of the G.O.C.," p. 25), concerning actions related to the consecration of bishops:

"Therefore, we will do all that is humanly possible, as much as we can. However, if God does not assist in the outcome, we should not be disheartened. God knows what is beneficial better than we do. Perhaps, if you acquire bishops, they might again be divided among themselves and will divide you into factions, as happened after 1935."

 

 

 

Source: Η ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙΟΛΟΓΙΑ ΤΟΥ ΠΡ. ΦΛΩΡΙΝΗΣ ΧΡΥΣΟΣΤΟΜΟΥ: ΠΑΡΟΥΣΙΑΣΗ ΤΩΝ ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙΟΛΟΓΙΚΩΝ ΘΕΣΕΩΝ ΤΟΥ ΟΜΟΛΟΓΗΤΟΥ ΠΡΩΗΝ ΦΛΩΡΙΝΗΣ ΧΡΥΣΟΣΤΟΜΟΥ ΚΑΒΟΥΡΙΔΟΥ (+1955), by Nikolaos Daskalos, Athens, 2012.