Who is Canonical and Who is Uncanonical?

 Who is Canonical and Who is Uncanonical?

Forty years ago, the then newly ordained Metropolitan of Larissa and Platamon, Athanasios [+2021], of our Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece, had written an interesting article in The Voice of Orthodoxy (issue no. 779/December 1980, pp. 5–7) entitled: "To the Ecclesiologists," in order to respond to the hasty accusations of the New Calendarists against us, the Genuine Orthodox, claiming that we are supposedly uncanonical due to the "extraterritoriality" of our ordination.

However, this accusation, like others, is refuted, and through honest statements by members of the New Calendarists themselves, it is clearly proven, according to their own sincere admission, that they are the ones who are uncanonical, not only because of their innovation but also because of the uncanonical manner of their origin and elevation through handpicked synods and in violation of the canonical provisions of the Orthodox Church.

The text, as particularly timeless and relevant, is published here on the feast day of the venerable Elder Metropolitan, holy Athanasios of Larissa and Platamon, with a prayer for many years of longevity!

January 18/31, 2020

To the Ecclesiologists

It is a fact that the Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece was established upon the tears and blood of pious and Orthodox Christians. It is a fact that this Church, which preserved the Deposit of Faith unscathed, endured countless trials. The enemies, both from within and without, were numerous. All of them sought the capture of our Church, so that no reproving voice would be heard.

Thus, having failed in their attempt to persuade the sound portion, mockingly referred to as the "Old Calendarist" faction, that the decisions of the Pan-Orthodox Councils [of the 16th century] concerning the Calendar are "myths," the external enemies later attacked the Hierarchs shepherding the Genuine Orthodox Christians, attempting to prove their "uncanonical" status.

Considering it unnecessary to delve into details concerning the ecclesiastical schism that arose from the accursed calendrical innovation—since so much has been written about it, more than on any other ecclesiastical matter—we limit ourselves simply to a few remarks that speak to where canonical legitimacy lies.

1. Our opponents claim that the ordination of our bishop, which was performed outside Greece and by bishops foreign to the ecclesiastical climate of Greece, is "extraterritorial" and therefore invalid. However, any scholar or investigator who seeks to draw correct conclusions studies the matter impartially and investigates without prejudice the issue at hand. Thus, if our critics faced reality, they would understand that the designation "extraterritorial" cannot have any ecclesiastical penal validity in this case. For this term to apply, there must have been, in Greece at the time the ordinations were carried out, Orthodox and canonical bishops—bishops who had not accepted the calendrical schism, bishops unaffected by Ecumenist teachings, bishops strictly adhering to Orthodox Tradition. But were there such bishops? All the hierarchs of Greece, having accepted the calendrical change, maintained complete silence. None of them dissociated themselves, except for the three hierarchs in 1935. These proceeded to ordain four bishops. However, of these seven bishops, some recanted and returned to the schismatic church, while others departed to the Lord. The flock of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece remained leaderless. Who would assume leadership? Who would ordain and consecrate churches? The presence of a bishop was an urgent necessity. It was then and only then that our Church turned to the extraterritorial Belarusian Orthodox Church, requesting the ordination of a bishop.

If one examines Church History, they will encounter numerous examples of "extraterritorial" ordinations. Thus, Theodoret, in his Ecclesiastical History (Book IV, Chapter 13), informs us that Saint Eusebius, Bishop of Samosata, during the time of the Arian heresy, "having learned that many of the Churches were bereft of shepherds, donned military attire, covered his head with a tiara, and traveled through Syria, Phoenicia, and Palestine, ordaining Presbyters and Deacons, and replenishing the other orders of the Church. And if ever he encountered like-minded Bishops, he also appointed Presidents for the Churches in need." Likewise, history testifies that hierarchs were sent from Byzantium to shepherd the faithful in Russia. These hierarchs, naturally, bore the titles of Byzantine provinces. However, they ordained Presbyters and Deacons in Russia and conferred the lesser ranks of Subdeacons and Readers. And we ask: What became of these ordinations? Were they recognized, or were they invalidated? For in both of these—among many other—cases, the ordinations are considered "extraterritorial."

2. Another reason for alleged uncanonicity is raised: the non-ratification of the election of our hierarchs by the supreme ruler of the country and their failure to provide an oath of assurance to him. We truly wonder where such a provision has been found! Which sacred canon speaks of "a bishop's oath before a ruler"? The bishop is elected by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, not by the favor of secular rulers. Consequently, no assurance can be given by the bishop to a person exercising political authority, except for the one given during his ordination before the Great High Priest, Christ. Such notions can only be found in Anglican Protestant "theology," according to which the head of that earthly "church" is considered to be the king of the country.

3. We wish to ask our accusers one question: Does canonical order exist within the New Calendarist church? For official documents suggest the opposite. And for the sake of history, we present the following:

a. In a document dated September 6, 1974, addressed to the then Prime Minister, Mr. K. Karamanlis, the New Calendarist Metropolitans Elias of Demetrias, Theologos of Larissa, Konstantinos of Thessaliotis, Nikodimos of Attica, Nikolaos of Chalkis, and [Archbishop] Seraphim Tikas [of Athens] wrote: "For your fuller information, we note that the issue of uncanonical election and ordination of those elevated as Metropolitans during the recent period could not have been raised in 1974. Firstly, because, according to strict judgment, as aptly emphasized by many hierarchs, none of the Metropolitans of the Church of Greece can be characterized as 'canonical.' The noted changes and reforms in administration and the violent transformations that have occurred from time to time have resulted in the elections and ordinations of the Metropolitans, when judged strictly, being canonically deficient." (Ecclesiastical Struggle newspaper, September 15, 1974).

b. The New Calendarist Metropolitan of Eleftheroupolis, Ambrosios, in a document dated January 12, 1974, addressed to the New Calendarist Hierarchy, notes the following: "But I ask you, holy brothers: Are we truly and absolutely canonical? Do we possess spotless canonicity? I answer emphatically: NO! NO! NO!

"We too are uncanonical, first of all, because, as I emphasized in my recent telegrams, we all bear within ourselves the ancestral sin of uncanonicity, directly or indirectly, from the hierarchy created by the uncanonical five-member handpicked synod of 1922, which elevated Chrysostomos Papadopoulos to Archbishop with only three votes. From this synod were also elected the Metropolitans Gregorios of Chalkida, Damaskinos of Corinth and later of Athens, Konstantinos of Akarnania, Antonios of Ilia, Dorotheos of Kythera and later of Larissa and later of Athens, Athenagoras of Corfu and later of America and Constantinople, and finally Panteleimon of Karystia and later of Chios, who ordained others, who in turn ordained others, and so on. Thus, we all, due to our origin, carry within us the ancestral sin of uncanonicity. 'Let the one who is without sin cast the first stone' against others.

"We too are uncanonical, secondly, because in the present Synod there sit hierarchs who were elected by the handpicked Synod of Archbishop Damaskinos.

"We too are uncanonical, thirdly, because approximately half of the members of the present Synod are accomplices in what occurred after 1967.

"We too are uncanonical, fourthly, because all the members of the present Synod, or at least the overwhelming majority, received ordination as Deacon or Presbyter, or even both, at an age below that prescribed by the Holy Canons. They risk, if absolute canonical precision is applied—which, however, we demand with furious persistence in matters concerning the election of hierarchs after 1967—they risk, if canonical precision is applied, not only being excluded from the present Synod, not only losing their episcopal office, but being entirely deposed from all priestly authority, since the Holy Canons impose the penalty of deposition for such a transgression.

"I repeat the words of my telegrams: 'In the Church of Greece, no hierarch will be found free from the stain of uncanonicity.' And: 'If you, Lord, Lord, observe uncanonicity in us, who shall stand?'... It was most aptly written the other day in a daily newspaper in Athens that if the State wishes to find bishops of impeccable canonicity so that they alone may elect the new Archbishop, there is only one solution: to ask God to send the 12 Apostles back to earth once more!" (Sp. Karatzafereis, Church File, pp. 137, 139).

c. The esteemed lawyer before the Supreme Court and prominent jurist, Dimitrios Antypas, in his work "Lightning in Darkness" - Athens, 1952, states the following: "The Church does not adhere to the Holy Canons, hence we are led to believe that it does not believe in their divine inspiration" (p. 19). Elsewhere, he writes: "An uncanonical Church, rejecting the Holy Canons into the wastebasket according to Protestant law, a Church that evokes the impression of a Lernaean Hydra, a Church from which, strangely and contrary to the Gospel, wealthy hierarchs emerge, a Church misconstrued as providing the model of an Anna-Caiaphas council of Pharisees and Pilates" (p. 10).

The above were written by New Calendarists. Let these be heard, therefore, by both jurists and theologians, and let them draw just and truthful conclusions.

+Athanasios,
Metropolitan of Larissa and Platamon

Greek source: https://ecclesiagoc.gr/index.php/%E1%BC%84%CF%81%CE%B8%CF%81%CE%B1/%E1%BC%90%CE%BA%CE%BA%CE%BB%CE%B7%CF%83%CE%B9%CE%BF%CE%BB%CE%BF%CE%B3%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AC/1578-poios-einai-kanonikos-kai-poios-antikanonikos