The Calendar Schism: Potential or Actual? A Response to a Related Letter from Monk Mark Chaniotis

Monk Theodoretos (Mavros) | Mount Athos | 1973

 

And if a man also strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned, except he strive lawfully. (2 Timothy 2:5)

 

Reverend Fr. Mark, bless.

With much attention and sorrow together, we read your letter to us dated "May 1973." We repeat once again that we went through it with sorrow, for we never imagined that you would continue until today the unapproved preaching of the late [Bishop] Matthew [Karpathakis], which, it should be noted, you embraced from the year 1937 and served with indiscriminate zeal until our days!

And while many times you were given the opportunity, not only theoretically but also practically, to perceive the error of your course, nevertheless, in the end, you were unable to overcome this weakness of yours, appearing today once again as a disciple, or rather as a teacher of a doctrine that divided the sacred struggle, which continues to keep it divided and humiliated!

And all this, because you continuously and stubbornly wish to reject—not only you but also your various fellow travelers—the Orthodox teaching concerning the possibility of the existence of a "potential" schism in the Church, being led astray by emotional impulses and misinterpretations of patristic sayings, having as allies in this pious believers who, however, due to their indiscriminate zeal and especially due to their insufficient knowledge of matters, are unable to perceive the "royal path" which they ought to have followed in reacting to the calendar innovation of 1924.

Therefore, before we proceed to a detailed refutation of your letter, we wish to say once again a few things concerning schism in the Orthodox Church, which, as we believe, will greatly facilitate the understanding of the entirety of our present response.

"Potential" Schism

As is known, every schism separates from the Church and deprives its creator, as well as his followers, of its graces and gifts. Regardless of whether the cause of its creation is of an administrative or doctrinal nature, or whether a believer opposing the universal teaching of the Church is cut off by a just synodal decision, this immediately places him outside of it, with the corresponding grave consequences. [1]

And while the calendar, judged solely on astronomical grounds, does not constitute a tradition within the Church—just as neither the Greek nor the Hebrew language constitutes such a tradition—and consequently, any calendar may be used by the Church, provided that it does not offend its traditions in this regard, namely the festal calendar established from antiquity, [2] nevertheless, the manner in which the introduction of this new calendar was carried out and the effects it brought upon the liturgical unity and expression of the entirety of Orthodoxy—due to the unscrupulous, deceitful, and sinful intentions of both the initiators and executors of this act—automatically create grounds for the reaction of the Orthodox conscience and the right to denounce those who innovated.

Thus, rightly and well did the "little flock" once again refuse obedience to such a violent and utterly unorthodox handling of the canonical order of the Church—through which the mark of its unity was lost—imitating in this those of old who confessed and defended the Orthodox faith and the sacred traditions. On the other hand, the Churches that "formally" remained in the region of the non-innovators acted wrongly in allowing the implementation of two calendars, failing, as was their duty, to convene in due time in a Synod to regulate and strike down the uncanonical situation that had arisen, which is truly unique in the annals of Orthodoxy.

Therefore, most learned one, agreeing that the people of the Lord rightly and justly reacted militantly against the innovation that was introduced, we disagree, however, with the characterization of those who accepted the aforementioned act, whom you consider to be schismatics in actuality and de facto. This unapproved reasoning leads you to an even worse conclusion—which, however, is a necessary consequence of your initial premise—namely, to proclaim the loss of divine grace from every New Calendarist Church.

That this would occur only after a synodal condemnation of the innovating Churches is affirmed by the fundamental principle of Canon Law, according to which any transgression of a canon or a sacred tradition is judged by the ruling bishop of the diocese or its local synod, and in this case, by a pan-Orthodox synod, precisely because of the nature of the offense or rather the crime. Without such a decision, the innovating Churches are considered only potentially schismatic, that is, subject to judgment by a future pan-Orthodox synod. On this matter, St. Nikodemos is most clear.

"We must know that the penalties prescribed by the Canons, namely let him be deposed, let him be excommunicated, and let him be anathema, according to grammatical rules, are in the third person imperative. Since the subject is not present, in order for this command to be transmitted, it necessarily requires the presence of a second person. I explain this more clearly: The Canons command the synod of living bishops to depose priests, to excommunicate, or to anathematize laypeople who transgress the Canons. However, if the synod does not actually carry out the deposition of the priests, or the excommunication, or the anathematization of the laypeople, these priests and laypeople are neither actually deposed, nor excommunicated, nor anathematized, but are rather liable—here to deposition, excommunication, or anathematization, and there to divine judgment.

"Just as when a king commands his servant to flog another who has wronged him, if the commanded servant does not execute the king’s order, the one who wronged the king remains unflogged, though he remains liable to flogging. Therefore, those foolish ones who say that in our present times all those ordained contrary to the Canons are actually deposed are greatly mistaken. A slanderous tongue is the one that foolishly babbles such words, not understanding that the command of the Canons, without the actual execution by the second person, namely the Synod, remains unfulfilled, not immediately effective on its own before judgment.

"The divine Apostles themselves clearly explain their own intent with their 46th Canon, for they do not say that a bishop or presbyter who accepts the baptism of heretics is already immediately deposed in actuality, but rather, "we command that he be deposed," meaning that he must be brought to judgment, and if it is proven that he has done this, then he shall be stripped of the priesthood by your decision—this is what we command." (Note on the 3rd Apostolic Canon).

Consequently, the pious people of the Lord, rightly discerning the foreign and utterly devoid of true and genuine pastoral care motives of the so-called "Pan-Orthodox" Congress of 1923 and those who approved it, justly and rightly distanced themselves from the innovating shepherds. Unjustly, however, they rendered a definitive judgment upon the New Calendarists, considering and proclaiming them as schismatics in actuality and consequently deprived of divine grace.

And while the condemnation of the calendar innovation of Old Rome by the Orthodox Synods of 1583, 1587, and 1593 is well known to all, nevertheless, this condemnation by the aforementioned Synods in no way differs from any "let him be deposed," "let him be excommunicated," or "let him be anathematized" of any sacred canon.

We say this because, just as for every transgression a synod of living bishops is required, in whose time the transgression took place, for the punishment of the transgressor, so also, we say, for the decisions of the aforementioned synods, a synod of living bishops is likewise required for the condemnation of the innovators. This is all the more necessary since these synods, on the one hand, have a lesser authority than the Ecumenical ones (cf. Pedalion, p. 19, ed. 1864), and on the other hand, they are separated by a whole 400 years from the time when the innovation took place.

From this, it follows that the sacred canons concerning schisms and schismatics have no relevance in assessing the calendar innovation, given that the accomplished innovation rendered the Churches that accepted it potentially schismatic only. This is also why their continued communion with those that remained in the region of the non-innovators (the Old Calendar) persisted.

To make ourselves more clearly understood, we present three specific examples that have a direct relation to the present reality and the subject at hand.

a) As is known, the sacred canons depose every clergyman who resides together with women, even if they are nuns (syneisaktai). We ask: Is the above transgression practiced in our days, and specifically within the ranks of the G.O.C.? Unfortunately, yes—and indeed, on a large scale! Consequently, those who hold that the decisions of the Synods of 1583... are sufficient and self-sufficient, requiring no further decision for the condemnation of their transgressors, according to their own interpretative method, must likewise accept that all the above transgressors of the sacred canons are also deposed. What, however, would result from applying such an interpretation? We leave it to the reader to conclude...

b) According to the 9th Apostolic Canon and the 2nd of Antioch, every believer who is present at the Divine Liturgy and, having no impediment, does not partake, is likewise excommunicated. We ask again: Who observes this canon? Not to mention, who among the G.O.C. is not scandalized when those who observe these canons are not only not accused but even persecuted as… heterodox?

c) What proves with the clearest evidence the absurdity of the reasoning that no new condemnation of the innovators of 1924 is required, since this innovation was already condemned in 1583, is none other than the very Synod of 1583 itself, as well as the two that followed it, namely those of 1587 and 1593.

We ask: Why was it necessary for these Synods to be convened when the innovation of changing the Paschalion—already condemned by the 7th Apostolic Canon, as it would inevitably lead to the celebration of Pascha together with the Jews or before their Passover, both of which are forbidden—had already been condemned? Or do you, most Reverend one, believe that the Apostolic Canons hold lesser authority than the decisions of the aforementioned Orthodox Synods and that, consequently, their convocation was required? But also, another question: Why was it necessary for the Synod of 1587 to convene, given that the Synod of 1583 had already preceded it? And why then was the Synod of 1593 convened, since the previous two had already taken place?!!!...

And if one takes into account that this innovation, at its inception (1582), took place only within the Western Church—which had already been entirely alienated from the Orthodox Church for 500 years—then it is clear to all that a synod of bishops in each era is not only required to proclaim what has been handed down and taught by the Church but also to renew these teachings when necessity arises and to continually invoke the threat of penalties for already condemned innovations or heresies. Through this very conduct, the Church demonstrates: a) That its faith and teaching are one and universal; b) the necessity of a renewed condemnation of every heresy, whether previously condemned or not, for the protection of its flock on the one hand and the just punishment of any innovator or heretic on the other—who, perhaps out of ignorance of the Church’s teaching, wages war against it; c) and, finally, the affirmation of the testimonies of God until the end of time, as this is characteristically expressed in the 1st Canon of the Sixth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils.

It must also be noted that the convocation of a synod for the condemnation of a certain heresy—even if it has already been previously condemned by another such synod—is absolutely necessary, since within it, each of the leaders and collaborators of the heresy will be judged individually, always according to various criteria. This is most clearly evident in the Acts of the Ecumenical Councils, especially in those of the Seventh, and consequently, the argument put forth by the opponents—"What is the need for convening a synod since this or that innovation has already been condemned?"—is, at the very least, baseless and contrary to tradition.

According to this erroneous reasoning, then, no synod would be required for the condemnation of the heresy of contemporary Ecumenism, given that all the individual heresies that constitute it have already been previously condemned by numerous local and ecumenical synods. However, under such pastoral conditions, how will the people of God be informed that those shepherding them are actually ravenous wolves? How will they be officially and definitively removed from their thrones without the decision of a synod, whose members are precisely the living, genuine Orthodox bishops of the time in which the heresy arises?

We ask you: Is it not already condemned by the sacred canons for the same person to simultaneously hold both ecclesiastical and political authority? Certainly, yes! Yet, this alone was not sufficient for the former Archbishop of Cyprus, Makarios, to be deposed, unless he was condemned by the hierarchs of his time. And even today, such a condemnation would be necessary for the canonical ruling to be executed in practice, so that what was prescribed in principle, that is, potentially, by the sacred canons, would actually take effect. (See, in this regard, the conclusion of the remarkable note on the 3rd Apostolic Canon by St. Nikodemos, which is precisely parallel to the points stated above.)

Understand, Reverend Fr. Mark, why a synodal decision is always necessary—not so much for the condemnation of the heresy being preached, which may already have been previously condemned, as in the case of the calendar, but rather for the condemnation of the individuals who preach and propagate the heresy. These persons, as the bearers and heralds of falsehood, must always be judged and condemned by the contemporary Orthodox hierarchs.

We write this and insist so strongly because the flock of the Church is never endangered by already condemned heresies or even by newly emerging ones, no matter how well-formulated and perfectly structured they may be—if they remain merely in the desk of the heretical writer and their originator! (Conversely, no heretic is ever endangered by the written sacred canons, even those found in the Pedalion, unless there exists a living synod of bishops to enforce them.)

For this reason, the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council commands the cessation of the commemoration, and consequently also of communion, with any hierarch who openly preaches a heresy, because precisely from that moment onward, the flock begins to be endangered. St. Nikodemos, commenting on this case, notes:

"From this statement of the Canon, it is evident, according to Balsamon, that one should not separate from his bishop if he indeed holds some heresy but keeps it hidden and does not preach it openly; for it may happen that he later corrects himself on his own."

In conclusion, we reiterate that, regardless of whether a heresy or innovation has already been previously condemned or judged by an earlier synod, a new synod must always be convened to condemn those who appear as its bearers at any given time. These individuals may emerge 50, 100, or even 400 years later, as was the case with the calendar innovation. Therefore, the reconvening of a synod is necessary to judge and condemn these newly appearing transgressors, whether they be the original instigators or their later successors, as has been extensively demonstrated above. [3]

But let us also consider the remaining content of your letter, which, unfortunately, is on the one hand, entirely detached from reality, and on the other hand, completely inconsistent with your other actions and those of your superior authority.

Arguments Beyond Reality

That your arguments, most Reverend one, are entirely detached from reality is easily proven by their very nature. We write this because, in your attempt to proclaim the theory of the loss of grace, you resort to the uncanonical, blasphemous, and outright heretical actions of hierarchs of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Church of Greece, whose deviations, however, only began to manifest in 1965—through various joint prayers with heretics, the removal of iconostases from Orthodox churches, the giving of Holy Mysteries to Papists, the heretical sermons of the late Athenagoras and his illustrious successor Demetrios, the actions of Athenagoras of Thyateira, Iakovos of America, and the outright violation of the divine and sacred Canons, now officially and openly enshrined in the Constitutional Charter of the Church of Greece, and so forth.

All the above, my esteemed Fr. Mark, took place a full 40 years after the calendar innovation, and consequently, they cannot support your false conclusions, given that we are examining the results of the calendar innovation of 1924 and not those of today's heresy!

The suffering of the disciple of St. Paisios, which you present on page 3 of your letter, refers to the personal and individual relationship between grace and man, and not to the capability derived from the grace of the priesthood for the performance of the Mysteries, which, as is well known, are performed and will continue to be performed regardless of the degree of faith and morality of each clergyman.

Do you realize, then, what confusion you create among the simplest of your readers with the above positions? And why all this? Because for over 40 years, you have refused to grasp the immense difference between a potential and an actual schism, thus providing, even in your old age, reinforcement to the various enemies of the sacred struggle on the one hand and to its exploiters on the other...

It is now time for you to realize that, through what you previously wrote and, unfortunately, reiterated once again with your recent letter, you do nothing other than applaud and justify the simplistic and anti-traditional preaching of [Matthewite protosyncellus] Fr. Eugenios [Tombros], who, at every opportunity, to every critic of his condemnable theory—which bears such a striking resemblance to your own of the year 1937 [4]—responds with the following:

"And if the New Calendarists have grace, on what canon shall we rely to renounce this Church? And why should we renounce it, since it has grace and we are saved there as well? And then, why should we be persecuted, suffer hardships, toil, be imprisoned, exiled, and endure afflictions in vain? And if, indeed, the schismatics still have grace, then woe to us for having created a schism and separated from them!" [5]

Let us therefore carefully observe the sea of confusion that the above words create with all possible brevity.

In the above passage, while accepting the New Calendarists as de facto and actually schismatic, he rends his garments merely at the thought of the existence of grace among them. But who is ignorant of the fact that schismatics are deprived of divine grace? Surely no one! However, in this case—that is, in the case of the New Calendarists, as we have clearly seen from the words of St. Nikodemos, as well as from the three aforementioned examples of ours—they are only potentially schismatic, a fact that neither Fr. Eugenios nor you take into account. Consequently, you both fall into a long chain of contradictions, as will be demonstrated further.

Continuing his uncanonical reasoning, Fr. Eugenios emphasizes that if the New Calendarists have grace, "then on what canon shall we rely to renounce this Church?" What could be more simplistic and anti-traditional than this? Surely, he has never read the most beautiful words of St. Nikodemos, who, in his marvelous work On Frequent Divine Communion, writes the following, which is most relevant to our case: "Time would not suffice for me to enumerate the countless examples of so many saints who suffered greatly and died for the ecclesiastical institutions and canons." (p. 108, ed. 1962). In other words, for every canon that is violated, for every ecclesiastical institution that constitutes a tradition of the Holy Church and is overthrown, the faithful must react and even shed their blood if necessary to obstruct the work of the innovators. It would be sheer folly for the faithful to wait until the Mysteries were first lost from the innovating Church (how would they even be informed of such a thing?) and only then react and separate themselves from responsibility. Yet this is precisely what Fr. Eugenios and you, Fr. Mark, teach through your novel theory!

The related examples, as the saint states above, are countless, and they proclaim and preach nothing other than the general obligation of the faithful to react promptly and immediately against any violation of a sacred canon or tradition, regardless of its origin. We mention a few from Church history.

1) For the sacred canons that were violated during the time of Holy Chrysostom, his supporters, the "Johannite" bishops, along with a multitude of the faithful, reacted strongly, even to the point of schism, in response to the unjust exile of the great father.

2) For the above reason, in 407, the Church of Rome severed relations with the Churches of Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople. Historians characterize this as the first schism between East and West, and this occurred solely due to the unjust exile of a single Patriarch (!). And yet, Fr. Eugenios comes afterward and shamelessly asks: "On what canon shall we rely to renounce this Church?" On what canon? On the very practice of the Church, which later even codified the relevant sacred canons (the 31st Apostolic Canon, the 15th of the First-Second Council), as is vividly and most graphically demonstrated in the cases now being described. Unfortunately, these things happen when such struggles are led by people of little education—and worse, of even lesser understanding and consistency...

3) In the 8th century, St. Theodore the Studite created a true schism together with the clergy and laity in order to resist the unlawful fourth marriage of Emperor Constantine VI [a.k.a., the Moechian controversy].

4) In the 9th century, there was the schism between the Patriarchs Ignatius and Photius, precisely due to the uncanonical ascent of the latter to the Patriarchal throne, regardless of the fact that this was the will and desire of the then-ruling and all-powerful Bardas. According to historians, this schism lasted for over 30 years.

5) At the end of the 9th century, we again have a new schism between the supporters of Patriarch Nicholas and his uncanonical successor, Euthymius, precisely because of the second marriage of Emperor Leo the Wise, just as had occurred in the time of St. Theodore [a.k.a., the Tetragamy controversy].

6) In the 13th century, due to the Unionist Council of Lyons (1275), the people and a large part of the clergy of Constantinople reacted. The violent measures of Emperor Michael VIII and the Unionist Patriarch John Bekkos had no effect. During this period, Mount Athos offered more than fifty martyrs who refused to submit to the council’s decisions.

7) The same events occurred, and on an even greater scale, during the false union of Florence (1438–1439). Neither in the above case nor here do we have any testimony that the people or the clergy waited for the Mysteries to be lost from the Unionists before reacting. No historian records that such a teaching was ever proclaimed by anyone!

8) In the 13th century, we also have the little-known schism of the Arsenites (1250–1372), precisely due to the uncanonical ascent of Nicephorus of Ephesus to the Patriarchal throne of Constantinople.

9) Finally, approximately two hundred years ago (1754–1809), the renowned Kollyvades movement took place on Mount Athos, resulting in a complete ecclesiastical break between the two opposing factions. The contemporary Zealot Athonite fathers, referring to this in the year 1934, wrote the following characteristic remarks in their Apology.

"The keepers of the ancient ecclesiastical tradition endured entire martyrdoms at the hands of the dissenters... What great matter would it have been if they had slightly altered the tradition and performed memorial services also on Sundays? Yet they did not do so, preferring death, which brought them eternal life and the crown of martyrdom." (p. 36).

Did all the above schisms occur because the opposing factions had previously lost divine grace? Certainly not, since this is nowhere testified, but simply because certain sacred canons or even a single sacred tradition were violated. And yet, the most reverend father, Fr. Eugenios, who shares the same mentality as you in this matter, loudly proclaims: "And why should we renounce (the Church of Greece) since it has grace and we are saved there as well?" Who could possibly doubt that these words constitute a direct blasphemy against the sacred memory of all those who struggled in the aforementioned, praiseworthy schisms and who, through their stance, preserved their Church from lesser and greater evils?

And yet, for your colleagues, Fr. Mark, the above struggles are considered completely "pointless," as they explicitly write: "Why should we be persecuted, toil, be imprisoned... in vain?" We ask: Is there a more anti-traditional preaching than the above teaching? If the faithful were only supposed to struggle once grace had already been lost from their Churches, we ask: Would they not be the most lukewarm and cowardly Christians, since they allowed their Church to reach such a wretched state? Should they not, according to St. John Chrysostom, have reacted while the innovation was still small and the evil in its infancy and development—so that, according to the Psalmist, it could be "dashed against the rock" through their confessed resistance?

Or do you perhaps think that their resistance should have been limited to words alone, contenting themselves with a modern form of "prudence," like the continually verbal protests of so-called Orthodox "conservative" hierarchs against the heresy of Ecumenism? This is precisely why we firmly believe that another statement of your fellow struggler in this matter, Fr. Eugenios, also partakes of blasphemy, as he proclaims:

"Then woe to us who have created a schism and separated from them" (that is, from the New Calendarists).  No, my dear Father, there is no woe upon those who resisted the calendar innovation with faith, but rather praise and honor. The woe belongs to those who proclaim that we should not break communion over any innovation in the Church, but only when such an innovation leads to the loss of grace! In such a case, woe to the Church that has such believers, who would be no different from those soldiers who, while guarding their besieged city, allow the enemies to climb the walls and enter through the gates—and only then do they take up arms to confront them! Who does not see the obvious folly and futility of such a reaction?

Behold, in brief, Fr. Mark, the theology of your fellow strugglers and of yourselves as well. But let us now also examine the dreadful inconsistencies of your letter to me.

Manifest contradictions

A) In your extensively written correspondence exchanged with His Eminence, [Metropolitan] Chrysostomos of Piraeus, in the year 1966, you repeatedly addressed him as follows:

1. "Your Eminence, with the due respect, we humbly exclaim: Many years to you! We greatly rejoiced upon reading it [the letter] with attention and discerning in it the distinguishing mark par excellence of the true shepherd..."

2.  "We reverently offer the due respect, humbly praying that the Founder of the Church may preserve Your Reverend Eminence as the apple of His eye..." and

3. "Sharing in suffering with Your Honorable Eminence for the trial you have endured, and in our very person, the Holy Church of our God..."

We ask you, most Reverend Father, what reader of the above addresses could ever imagine that they are directed to a hierarch... deprived of divine grace and consequently counted among the ranks of the schismatic heretics?!... And when he subsequently learns that the one addressing these words is also a proponent of the theory of the loss of grace due to the calendar innovation, will he not be utterly horrified at such inconsistency?

B) In your study Orthodoxy in Conflict, p. 16, while examining the disintegration of Orthodoxy that began in 1924, you nowhere state that grace was lost from the New Calendarists. On the contrary, as we have said, you accuse them of giving their Mysteries to the heretical Papists... Why, then, do you refer us to this study of yours? To see what? The existence of grace in their Church and, consequently, your own inconsistency?

C) How, then, most Reverend Father, after holding such a belief, did you accept as your Archbishop the late Akakios Pappas, when he had been consecrated in the year 1960 by hierarchs of the Synod of the ROCOR, who were in full communion with the New Calendarists? How is it possible for you, on the one hand, to proclaim the responsibility and condemnation of those who commune with the New Calendarists, and on the other hand, to rest assured under the pastoral care of an Archbishop who was consecrated by such condemned and responsible individuals?!

And if one recalls that the above-mentioned Synod, up to this day, has nowhere declared that it agrees with the preaching of the late Matthew, nor even that it severs communion with the other "Orthodox" Churches, how is it possible, we repeat, for you to remain at peace, communing with it indifferently—when from the very first moment you realized this, both you and your Synod should have protested vehemently? [6]

How is it also that the other faction of the Matthewites—the supposedly stricter than all others, the one that, according to the saying, "strains out a gnat" lest it be defiled even by a simple greeting from a New Calendarist—how is it possible, we ask, that it does not provoke laughter among the readers of its periodical when it continually boasts therein about its communion with the aforementioned Synod, as well as about the concelebrations of His Eminence [Metropolitan] Kallistos [of Corinth] with bishops of the ROCOR? And this, at the very moment when the same Metropolitan [St.] Philaret concelebrated even in 1972 with the Serbian Hieromonk Atanasije Jevtić in Paris, who, according to his own statements, both serves with the New Calendar and commemorates the Ecumenical Patriarch?

And when one considers that we, in 1969, refused to be consecrated by that very same Metropolitan due to a concelebration similar to the one mentioned above, while on the same day the Matthewites bishops were receiving consecration from the aforementioned Synod in order to establish communion with it—this fact alone is enough to grasp the extent of the inconsistency of the aforementioned faction, as well as of yourselves, who, under the well-known slogans about the loss of grace, hasten to unite with the Matthewites, indifferent to the farcical spectacle being played at the expense of the entire theological integrity and credibility of the struggle!

D) To further support your views, you once again refer us to the study A Refutation of Apostasy, published in 1934, which, as you write, was authored by "ten spiritual Athonite fathers."

Indeed, on page 331, we saw the nine signatures of the "authors" of the aforementioned study (although, according to us, there is in fact one author—Your Reverence). And in the fourth position, we read: "Akakios, spiritual father." This refers to the well-known Archimandrite who, like yourself, for quite some time was an opponent of the late [St.] Chrysostomos [of Florina], but later, as we have already mentioned, became the Archbishop of the G.O.C. But after the aforementioned consecration of his, Fr. Mark, do you truly believe that you can strengthen your arguments with such "evidence"? Fortunately, the only thing you succeed in doing is… confirming our own position and nothing else!...

E) But what is even more tragic in this case is what is written on page 15a of your study Orthodoxy in Conflict, which you even repeat on page 2 of your open letter to us. In both of these instances, you strongly protest that the Church of Greece was administering the Mysteries to certain Papists.

We ask you, Fr. Mark: What Mysteries did they administer, if, as you claim, they had already lost grace for several decades? Is it possible for one who is without grace to transmit… grace? Truly, most Reverend Father, this contradiction alone is enough to prove that your entire tower of arguments regarding the loss of grace, etc., is empty of substance!

The Encyclicals of 1948 and 1950

Under the influence of the above-proven uncanonical, contradictory, and inherently unreliable testimonies, you arrive at the tragic conclusion that the preaching of the loss of grace constitutes "the ideology of the sacred struggle," since, as you write, even the late [St.] Chrysostomos "repeatedly preached" this. Let us then examine whether you are truthful in this argument as well.

a) First and foremost, in none of his writings did the late leader of the sacred struggle ever preach the aforementioned unfounded doctrine, not even in the work he authored during his exile in 1950—except in three instances, and only after pressure from his immediate circle. Let us explain more broadly. In 1935, he was forced, along with his two fellow hierarchs, Germanos of Demetrias and Chrysostomos of Zakynthos, to speak about this supposed loss of grace, since it was considered an indispensable prerequisite for assuming the canonical leadership of the struggle. The Athonite hieromonks would not, under any circumstances, entrust this leadership to them unless they first declared adherence to this unfounded theory—whose first written appearance dates back to 1934.

b) In 1948, he also proclaimed the same thing, precisely a few days after the uncanonical consecrations of the late Matthew, in order to protect the simple faithful who followed him and to thus lead them away from the influence of the excessively self-exalted Bishop of Vresthena, who had exceeded his proper bounds. Unfortunately, however, even this action of his bore no fruit, for many reasons—chief among which, in our view, were, on the one hand, the blind obedience of the people to the… sole protector of Orthodoxy, as they believed, Matthew, and on the other hand, the lack of divine blessing upon such politically expedient maneuvers.

c) Finally, in 1950, he once again repeated the same unfounded proclamation—exactly twelve days after the repose of the late Matthew (May 14), hoping to rally the people around him now that the cause of the spiritual rebellion within the struggle had ceased to exist. Yet, once again, nothing was achieved, undoubtedly for the same reasons described above.

Regarding this final encyclical, which also provoked the severe persecution of the Church of Greece against the G.O.C. that followed, he had said the following before signing and circulating it to his close associates, who, unfortunately, insisted on the necessity of its publication: "I will sign, but my suitcase is ready for the exile that will follow..." [7] And indeed, as he said, so it happened.

Thus, we see that from 1937, the year of Matthew’s secession, until 1948, the year of his uncanonical consecrations, this noble son of Pontus never yielded to the unfounded preaching of the loss of grace. On the contrary, he fought against it with all his strength. How, then, could it be possible that this man, who for eleven consecutive years refused to submit to the uncanonical demands of the defector of Vresthena, would suddenly change his beliefs and convictions just a few days after the uncanonical consecrations of the Athonite hieromonk?

From 1935—the year of his joining the sacred struggle—until his death, his personal belief was summed up in the statement: "Keep distance from the innovating New Calendarists, until a final trial and condemnation of the schism by a Pan-Orthodox Council."

Here, however, Fr. Mark, we are obliged, for the sake of proving our statements, to refer to an event that is hardly flattering for you—yet is very beneficial for drawing a true conclusion in our present investigation. What event? The correspondence exchanged between the late Chrysostomos and Your Reverence in the year 1937, specifically on the eve of the infamous schism.

In the response document of the Holy Synod to your lengthy letter, you are referred to as the "moral instigator" of the spiritual rebellion of the [Matthewite] hieromonks Gideon and Hilarion, as well as of the bishop Matthew, who was already beginning to act independently.

Nevertheless, neither your defection, nor that of the Bishop of Vresthena along with nearly a dozen Athonite hieromonks and a multitude of laity, was able to sway the ever-memorable man or compel him to follow your preaching! He hoped that you would soon come to understand the truth and return once again to the correct teaching, which he faithfully and steadfastly served. Unfortunately, however, the subsequent involvement of Fr. Eugenios and [Mother] Mariam [Soulakiotis of Panagia Pefkovounogiatrissa Monastery in Keratea] in the sacred struggle led Matthew to his uncanonical consecrations—a development that would officially and definitively expand the schism that had already begun, as Your Reverence surely knows even better than I do.

Following the above, you will surely ask us: Why, then, if he so strongly opposed the preaching of Matthew of Vresthena, did he write the well-known encyclicals of 1948 and 1950, in which he fully agreed with what had already been proclaimed by the late Matthew since 1937? We answer: out of pain alone for the struggle, which he saw on the verge of shipwreck following the internal division. Even at the last moment, he wished to rescue those who were following behind the leader of the rebellion, Matthew, and thus to preserve the prestige and future course of the Church of the G.O.C.—regardless of whether, in the end, his hopes were disappointed.

That until the very end of his life he remained faithful to the spirit and letter of the letter published below—addressed to Bishop Germanos Varykopoulos [of the Cylcades] (see it further below)—is confirmed by both the fact of his personal stance and conduct after the circulation of the aforementioned encyclicals. We state this because nowhere in them does he ask for forgiveness for the preaching he had upheld until that moment; nowhere does he express a desire to return to the faction of Matthew of Vresthena, as his case would have required. On the contrary, he calls upon all to unite under his own Holy Synod—and nothing more!

But let us examine the events in more detail. First and foremost, regarding the 1948 encyclical, it is well known to all that the reason for its issuance was the event of the uncanonical consecrations performed by Matthew of Vresthena.

On the occasion of this event and wishing to protect the faithful who were uncritically following Bishop Matthew, he issued the aforementioned encyclical, using as a "salvific bait" the preaching of the loss of grace—though without any actual commitment to this idea. He merely denounced the conduct of Matthew of Vresthena, whom he describes as a "parasynagogical," calling upon his followers to withdraw from his faction as quickly as possible and with all their strength. We present below some characteristic excerpts from this encyclical.

"It has surely become known to all that a few days ago, His Grace Matthew of Vresthena, in violation of the sacred canons and with unprecedented audacity against what has been established by the age-old practice of the Orthodox Church, proceeded alone to the consecration of bishops—a fact that has rendered both him and those consecrated by him guilty before God and the Church, as well as all those who receive blessings from them.

"Therefore, out of pastoral duty, we strongly advise the followers of our Orthodox faction to avoid and pay no attention whatsoever to the nonsensical and foolish discussions of the parasynagogical Bishop of Vresthena, through which he attempts—under the pretext of so-called uncompromising Orthodoxy—to ensnare the faithful and to instill in their souls the poison of delusion, leading them to the abyss of spiritual ruin. Likewise, to those who follow the parasynagogical Bishop in good faith and with a sincere conscience, we pastorally urge them—if they truly desire their spiritual salvation—to renounce him and his uncanonical and foreign teachings, which are contrary to the healthy and pure spirit of Orthodoxy."

We ask: Is it possible, after such words, to believe that the late Chrysostomos, through the above encyclical, was expressing repentance and a return to the principles and preaching of the "parasynagogical" Bishop of Vresthena?!

Who cannot clearly discern that this is a denunciatory encyclical—not only against the uncanonical consecrations but also against their underlying cause, namely, the unfounded belief in the loss of grace?

The ever-memorable man himself describes this teaching as an "uncanonical and foreign doctrine," full of "nonsense and foolish discussions," further adding the characteristic remark: "under the pretext of so-called uncompromising Orthodoxy."

For if truth rested in the preaching of the Bishop of Vresthena, we ask: Why, then, did he condemn Matthew for the consecrations he performed, since by the very course of events it was supposedly demonstrated that he alone was the truly Orthodox and uncompromising bishop in the world (along with his colleague for a time, Germanos Varykopoulos)? Why would he not consider him justified, when all the other existing bishops—including the late Chrysostomos himself—were in various forms of doctrinal error, precisely because they did not agree with his unfounded teaching?

How, then, can we accept the claim—supported by many—that the above encyclical condemns the Bishop of Vresthena merely because he consecrated bishops alone and not in cooperation with Bishop Germanos? Since, according to the ever-memorable Chrysostomos, this same Germanos is also considered like-minded and co-responsible with Matthew—precisely because he followed his path, having renounced Kyr Chrysostomos of Florina—how could this reasoning stand?

Consequently, two uncanonical bishops can never perform canonical consecrations, even if their number increases to three or four, since the very cause that separated them from the Holy Synod remains uncanonical, unlawful, and misguided.

This is precisely why the venerable and revered hierarch Chrysostomos never wavered from his position, even for a moment, firmly believing that those who had separated should return to their former ecclesiastical authority in repentance, and not that he should follow them in their rebellion.

* * *

Let us now examine the circumstances surrounding the writing of Encyclical No. 13 of 1950. Issued, as we have mentioned, twelve days after the repose of the Bishop of Vresthena, on May 26, nowhere in it does one find any indication that its author sought to return under the successors of Matthew. On the contrary, he calls upon everyone to unite, while he himself remains in his position, waiting.

Of course, the same preaching of the loss of grace is once again repeated in this encyclical, but clearly with the evident purpose of persuading the followers of Matthew to return to the Synod of the late Chrysostomos, as is demonstrated by other phrases and expressions within the text. We state this because, while he acknowledges in the encyclical the supposed loss of grace—and thus, at least superficially, appears to justify Matthew—he nevertheless does not hesitate to add the following characteristic statement: "We declare all these things for the last time for the sake of the scandalized Christians, whose spiritual salvation we desire..." Yet, despite this, he never hastens in repentance to Keratea [Convent] to express his remorse before the successors of the late Matthew, nor does he request to be subjugated under them, along with his two fellow bishops.

For the salvation, then, of the simple zealots of persecuted Orthodoxy, he chose once again to accommodate his words, yielding to the stubborn and ignorant among his clergy and laity—just as, in times past, the prophet Aaron, unwilling and sorrowful, fashioned the golden calf in the wilderness in order to prevent his hard-hearted and disobedient people from returning to the Egypt of bondage and dissolution...

Unfortunately, however, once again, his good hopes were disappointed.

If, as you claim, the "ideology of the sacred struggle" was the loss of grace due to the calendar innovation—something which the late Matthew fanatically upheld until the end of his life—then, Most Reverend Father, by absolute necessity, the faction of Kyr Chrysostomos of Florina, from 1937 to 1948, that is, for eleven consecutive years, was in schism, having been denounced by the only supposedly Orthodox bishop at the time, since, according to the very claims of the Matthewites, all other existing bishops were in heresy. [8]

Consequently, what should have taken place in a future union of the two factions? Nothing less than at least a cheirothesia of the Chrysostomites by the Matthewites, in order to restore their connection with the Church of Christ—the pure and immaculate one!…

However, the related encyclicals of the late Chrysostomos nowhere appear to endorse such a proclamation. On the contrary, as we have seen, they call "for the last time" upon the scandalized Christians to unite—and nothing more!

But even in light of contemporary events, if we examine the preaching of Matthew and his successors, we shall find it guilty and subject to judgment in relation to the course of Kyr Chrysostomos of Florina and his successors, given that the Synod of the ROCOR, which both factions recognized as capable of acting as an arbiter and judge, issued the following rulings: On the one hand, by a letter dated December 17, 1969, addressed to Archbishop Auxentios, it instructed that Matthewite clergy be received by cheirothesia; on the other hand, after recognizing the entire Matthewite faction, again by cheirothesia, that they be united with Archbishop Auxentios, in accordance with the relevant decision of September 15, 1971.

What do all the above facts indicate? Nothing other than the uncanonical nature of the Matthewite faction—which is precisely why they required cheirothesia. But this should never have been necessary if the Bishop of Vresthena’s separation from the Synod of Kyr Chrysostomos of Florina had been justified and legitimate! For if it were truly justified, then why was cheirothesia required now? And if, on the other hand, it was uncanonical, as it indeed was, then why should the position of the late Chrysostomos not also be considered uncanonical after his acceptance of Matthew’s misguided teaching through the relevant encyclicals? And if it was uncanonical, then why did he remain without receiving cheirothesia? Moreover, how could he not only remain uncorrected but also be entitled to administer cheirothesia to the Matthewites and even lead them in a future union?!

Let us not deceive ourselves, my revered Fr. Mark. The Matthewite faction is a parasynagogue and uncanonical precisely because it separated uncanonically from Kyr Chrysostomos of Florina and his bishops. However, this uncanonical status does not stem from the later consecrations of its followers—for otherwise, it would not have been considered uncanonical even before those consecrations. Rather, it arises from the formation of a separate altar without canonical justification, under the pretense of a superior Orthodoxy, through the proclamation of the loss of grace, etc.

The consecrations that took place afterward (in 1948) merely formalized the schism and increased the guilt of Matthew and his followers. The damage had already been done in 1937.

From all the above, any discerning reader can understand the grave spiritual offense you are committing—if not outright exploitation (though we refrain from using this term, knowing the simplicity and sincerity of your character). By supporting, in your article titled "The Trial of Kozani," the work of Nun Magdalena [Karagatsidou], you proclaim the following:

"The author, in her book 'The Trial,' correctly states that the Church of the New Calendarists has been deprived of 'its essence, grace, holiness, and—most sorrowfully—its Orthodox faith...'"

It therefore cannot claim the right that the Mysteries performed by it possess the sanctifying grace of the Holy Spirit, since it has abandoned the most sacred ancient tradition of the Church... thus blaspheming against the Holy Spirit itself. In other words, you approve of the very preaching of the late Bishop of Vresthena, which was so fiercely opposed by the ever-memorable Kyr Chrysostomos of Florina—whom you now, in just a few lines, portray as guilty and a transgressor before the defector, the Athonite spiritual father...!

Was it permissible, then, for Your Reverence, after having closely witnessed so many events and their sequence—which we have just described—to now come and repeat the very error of 1937?

For the love of God! Do not, at the end of your life, attempt to inflict a new wound upon the unity and theology of the sacred struggle. For we know well how many tears and how much repentance you have offered to God for your first fall… Do not, therefore, through this new effort of yours, create new Eugenioses and Mariams within the body of the G.O.C. of Greece! The past has already been more than enough…

Or do you perhaps believe that the editorial board of The Voice of Orthodoxy did not commit a similar error against you, when just two years ago (issue 627-8, dated Sept.15, 1971), it published a letter from a Matthewite hieromonk, who praised the work of the aforementioned nun and loudly proclaimed the loss of grace from the very moment of the calendar innovation (!)? At the same time, he also proclaimed as "proof" of his theory the work The Double-Edged Sword, from which we immediately cite the title of its second chapter—to demonstrate the grave absurdity of the editorial board of the aforementioned periodical, which allowed the publication of such a letter.

"THE CHURCH OF THE NEW CALENDARISTS—A WICKED SYNAGOGUE, AND ALL WHO BELONG TO IT AND COMMUNE WITH THEM ARE DEPRIVED OF DIVINE GRACE!!!"

Following the above, we ask the editorial board of The Voice of Orthodoxy and Your Reverence:

If the above preaching were true, why would you be the ones to perform cheirothesia on the Matthewites (as stated in the letter of Metropolitan Philaret), and not they upon you—since from 1937 until today, they have consistently remained faithful to this very doctrine?!

What kind of consecration did the late Akakios [Pappas the elder] receive in America, and subsequently his successors, when those who consecrated them—according to the very texts praised by your Synod—were supposedly deprived of divine grace?!

If the above preaching were true—and not only true, but embraced by your ecclesiastical authority—and if, after the death of Chrysostomos, formerly of Florina, there was no longer any Orthodox bishop, according to the definition and requirement of this doctrine, then why, we ask, did the exarchs of the Chrysostomite hieromonks not join the Synod of the Matthewites for proper incorporation, since no other Synod in the world fulfilled the conditions they themselves demanded?

Why did they choose to receive consecrations from bishops who, although following the Old Calendar, were in full communion with all the New Calendarists—whom they themselves consider devoid of grace—thus rejecting obedience and submission to what they believed to be the only Orthodox Synod in the world, the Matthewite Synod?!

Following the above actions and the continuous proclamation by these very individuals of unfounded and self-destructive theories and positions, how could the Matthewite Synod’s Decision No. 24 (Nov. 13, 1960) not remain valid, by which they were judged guilty of tyranny, factionalism, and conspiracy against the sacred struggle, and were therefore deposed—precisely because they had established their own separate altar?!

Behold, Fr. Mark, the consequences of the theology of the loss of grace! Behold, who ultimately might... triumph—if ever this doctrine were to be proven entirely true—precisely those whom many among you regard as unholy, heretical, etc...!

Consequently, your concluding statement regarding the doctrine of the loss of grace must be modified as follows: "This is the ideology of the Matthewite faction." Only with such a statement will you find us in complete agreement.

The above conclusions could easily be drawn from a single reading of the response letter addressed to you by the Holy Synod of the G.O.C. in 1937, which we initially intended to publish. However, we ultimately deemed it more appropriate to present instead the reply of the late Chrysostomos to His Eminence Germanos Varykopoulos of the Cyclades, for various reasons, but especially for the following two: First, because it was written two months after the denunciation of Chrysostomos by Matthew of Vresthena and, therefore, holds great significance—since the future course of the struggle depended on it; second, to avoid repetition and unnecessary fatigue for our readers, since this letter fully addresses and refutes all the arguments in your letter while also containing additional highly relevant points that are absent from the letter addressed to you.

After presenting the above official document and thus familiarizing our readers with the sound mindset of its author, we will return to draw our final conclusions.

 

Letter of Kyr Chrysostomos of Florina
(Exact copy of the original)

To the Right Reverend Bishop of the Cyclades,
Germanos Varykopoulos,

In response to his open letter dated October 20, 1937

 

In Athens, on November 9, 1937

To the Right Reverend Bishop of the Cyclades, His Grace Germanos

According to the dictates of logic and basic decorum, before printing your response, dated October 20, and issuing a communique to the Christian flock, you ought first to have directed it to me, prior to its publication. But since you did not have the courage or the candor to face me, who am working by the light of day and struggling honorably and sincerely, not to mention with self-denial and self-sacrifice, on the adamantine battlements of the truth and of Orthodoxy, you had recourse to publishing your response openly, because you regard the public as easy prey to the nets of falsehood, deception, and slander, which you spread with all flippancy and dishonesty on the path of your Christian community.

We would otherwise pass over this response of yours in silence and disdain, both because, for want of courage and candor on the part of the author, it was not sent directly to us, and because it does not provide any new arguments worthy of comment and reply, were we not afraid that such silence might be misinterpreted by your naive and gullible followers as proof that what you have said for the second time is true and incapable of any contradiction or refutation.

Your Grace, at the beginning of your response, you allege that our response to you was not marked by propriety, meekness, or fairness, and that, supposedly looking to Christ, the Chief Shepherd, as you say, you forgive us for our inappropriate and unfair characterizations of you, and that you are only standing up for the truth and for Orthodoxy.

Believing that it is superfluous for us to say that one does not insult his opponent, but characterizes him justly, when he demonstrates, not through words, but through deeds and irrefutable reasoning, that the latter is lying shamelessly, that he is concocting odious and despicable slanders, and that he is misusing Divine and Sacred Canons in order to play the demagogue and to exploit a sacred struggle, we will now prove that Your Grace is also lying and dissembling, when you assert that you are standing up for the truth and defending Orthodoxy!

Your Grace, as one who holds a doctorate in theology and a university degree, you surely cannot be ignorant of the following elementary and fundamental teachings of the Eastern Orthodox Church: The Divine Apostles founded the Church of Christ on earth, equipping and arming her with the power of God and the Grace of the All-holy Spirit, which is imparted to the Faithful through the Holy Mysteries. Consequently, they alone have the right to establish or abolish a Church, that is, to declare her heretical or schismatic, when she deviates from the Orthodox Faith, and to render the Grace of Christ and the sanctifying power and energy of her Mysteries invalid or inefficacious.

This right, that is, to establish or dissolve a Church, was imparted by the Divine Apostles to their disciples, and they imparted it to their successors, and in this way, through succession, this right devolved to the authority of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

According to this fundamental principle of the Eastern Orthodox Church, a Church only has validity and her Mysteries only have sanctifying Grace and energy, when she is established or recognized by the universal Orthodox Church, and she only loses her validity, and her Mysteries only lose their sanctifying power and energy, when, on account of some wrong belief, she is proclaimed heretical or schismatic by the entire Church, whose authentic opinion and final judgment are expressed by an Ecumenical and Pan-Orthodox Synod.

On this question, there is a disagreement between the Protestant Church, on the one hand, which grants this right that pertains to true and correct faith also to individuals, whose personal opinion and individual understanding regarding the Mysteries of the Faith can serve as a touchstone of Divine truth, and the Latin Church, on the other hand, which restricts this right solely to the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church, the Pope, whose opinion on matters of faith, when declared ex cathedra, constitutes the infallible criterion of Divine truth and Orthodoxy.

This is why the Latin Church endorsed as a dogma the infallibility of the Pope, when he speaks ex cathedra on matters of faith.

This being so, everyone and every local Church is Protestantizing or Latinizing when he or it usurps or appropriates the prerogative of a Pan-Orthodox Synod and proceeds, on account of an uncanonical decision by a Church’s ruling Synod, to proclaim the latter schismatic and to pronounce her Mysteries invalid!

In the circumstances before us, the Canons allow individuals only the right to disavow the First Hierarch when he departs from the limits of the traditions [of the Church] and to break off all ecclesiastical communion with him even prior to a Synodal verdict, as well as to denounce him to a Pan-Orthodox Synod, which alone is competent to try and condemn him and to proclaim him a heretic or a schismatic. We have done so, in accordance with the Fifteenth Canon of the First-Second Ecumenical Synod [a.k.a., the Protodeutera Synod of 861].

If, in leaving for exile, we called the Archbishop of Athens a schismatic and the Church of Greece schismatic, we used the word “schism,” not in the sense in which the Church uses it to indicate a rupture with the Orthodox Church and the consequent estrangement from the Grace of Christ and the Mysteries, but in the sense that, on account of the calendar innovation, the Archbishop of Athens has cut himself and the Hierarchy that follows him off from the other Orthodox Churches with regard to the celebration of the Feasts and the observance of the fasts.

This secession by His Beatitude and the Hierarchy that follows him gives us the right to put forward our personal and wholly individual opinion, that His Beatitude and the Hierarchs who follow him, insofar as they have sundered the unity of the universal Orthodox Church in the simultaneous celebration of the Feasts and the simultaneous observance of the fasts, have forfeited Divine Grace only potentially, and not in actuality, abiding under the curses and anathemas which the Divine Fathers of the seven Ecumenical Synods hurled against those who violate traditions and move the eternal landmarks which our Fathers fixed.

But His Beatitude and the Hierarchs who are of like mind with him will only become actually deprived of Divine Grace and estranged from the Orthodox spirit of the Mysteries when they are proclaimed as such, and as schismatics in actuality, by a Pan-Orthodox Synod, which alone is entitled to do this, according to the statutes of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

For this reason, the Divine Apostles and the God-bearing Fathers, making provision for the salvation of the souls of the Faithful who out of ignorance and in good faith follow the error of the leader of their Church, did not make the spiritual welfare of the Faithful contingent upon the decision of their First Hierarch, but upon the decision of a Pan-Orthodox Synod; they are only condemned to being deprived of the Divine Grace of the Mysteries and to spiritual death when, after the proclamation of their leader as a heretic or a schismatic by a Pan-Orthodox Synod, they continue to maintain communion with him, accepting his blessing as a true and Orthodox pastor.

That you are not ignorant of this fundamental canonical principle, Your Grace, and that, as a result, you are lying when you present yourself as supposedly defending the truth and championing Orthodoxy by your proclamation that His Beatitude, the Archbishop, is a schismatic and that the Church of Greece is deprived of the Divine Grace of the Mysteries, is demonstrated by the fact that, in the discussion held at the recent meeting of the Synod concerning re-Chrismation [of New Calendarists], you sided with our opinion, and, indeed, sharply censured the contrary opinion of the Bishop of Vresthena [Matthew], who is now your colleague and with whom you ended up exchanging personal recriminations, calling him a “Christmonger.”

Likewise, in the Church of the Transfiguration, Your Grace harshly condemned the idea of re-Chrismation, explaining in your sermon the meaning of Holy Chrism and quite correctly characterizing the repetition of it by Old Calendar Priests as uncanonical.

In the light of all of this, what is the matter with you, Your Grace, and by what were you inspired to present yourself as a colleague of like mind with the Bishop of Vresthena, and without first coming to meet with us, such that you denounced us as having allegedly fallen away from Orthodoxy and aligned yourself with the Bishop of Vresthena who, according to you, is a Christmonger, and with Manessis and Gounaris, whom you portray as pillars of Orthodoxy, whereas, until very recently, you were calling them opportunists and betrayers of the struggle?

Likewise, Your Grace, you dissemble and utter outright falsehoods when you assert that it is unnecessary and superfluous to convene a Pan-Orthodox Synod or a major local Synod for the authoritative and definitive condemnation of the calendar innovation by the Archbishop, since the Pan-Orthodox Synods of 1583, 1587, and 1593 condemned the Gregorian Calendar.

And this is so, because you know fully well that the aforementioned Synods condemned the Gregorian Calendar, but that this condemnation concerns the Latins, who implemented this calendar in its entirety, whereas the Archbishop adopted half of it, applying it to the fixed Feasts and retaining the Old Calendar for Pascha and the moveable Feasts, precisely in order to bypass the obstacle of this condemnation.

In view of this, the innovation of the Archbishop in applying the Gregorian Calendar only to the fixed Feasts and not to Pascha, which was the main reason why the Gregorian Calendar was condemned as conflicting with the Seventh Apostolic Canon, is an issue that appears for the first time in the history of the Orthodox Church.

Consequently, the convocation of a Pan-Orthodox Synod is not only not superfluous, as Your Grace declares ex cathedra, like another Pope, but is actually required for the canonical and authoritative adjudication of this issue.

This is precisely why the other Orthodox Churches which stand on the ground of the traditional calendar have not broken off ecclesiastical communion with the innovating Archbishop, waiting to express their opinion and judgment until a Pan-Orthodox Synod should convene in the future, which alone has the right to try and condemn him, if he adheres obstinately to his innovation.

And when Your Grace, like another Pope, characterizes us as heretics, because we have not proclaimed the Church of Greece schismatic and her Mysteries invalid on account of the Archbishop’s innovation, but have restricted ourselves to breaking off ecclesiastical communion with him even before a Synodal verdict, in accordance with the Fifteenth Canon of the First-Second Ecumenical Synod, then you must also proclaim the other Orthodox Churches, which have not broken communion with the innovating Archbishop, heretics twice over, in which case you will be left as the sole Orthodox Hierarch, along with your like-minded collaborator, the Bishop of Vresthena!

If you take this step, Your Grace, you put an end to the life and die age-old history of the Orthodox Church, since you are proclaiming all of the Orthodox Churches as a whole to be heretical, thereby falsifying the declaration of the Lord to His Disciples when He said: “Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.” [Matt. 28:20]

You see, Your Grace, to what absurdities and to what an abysmal precipice this reckless and populist policy leads you; for you not only defile the sanctity of our struggle, to serve which we elevated you to the vantage point and honor of a Bishop, but you also annul die meaning and substance of the universal Orthodox Church.

Likewise, Your Grace, you knowingly dissemble and lie, when you place us in the camp of the holy monasteries of the Holy Mountain, which keep the traditional calendar, but commemorate the New Calendarist Ecumenical Patriarch in their services. And this is so, because you are fully aware that we not only do not commemorate the Ecumenical Patriarch, as a New Calendarist, or the innovating Archbishop, but have also broken off all ecclesiastical communion with these Hierarchs, who personally bear sole responsibility for the innovation.

But you draw this parallel witlessly, Your Grace, thinking, in your superficiality, that you might thus provoke the Sacred League of Zealots of the Holy Mountain, because this association in fact concurs with our canonical and Orthodox opinion and has very sternly repudiated and condemned the Zealot Priests Gideon, Hilarion, and Akakios, who apostatized from us, as well as the separatist Bishops of Vresthena and of the Cyclades, for splitting our Orthodox segment, and this on the eve of the return to the Old Calendar by the official Church.

In the wake of all of this, Your Grace, you have the naïveté—to say no more than this—to persist in asserting that we split off our Orthodox faction to the detriment of the struggle, as though you were its leader when we rose up, and not we, who, through all that we maintained, wrote, and printed, have upheld the struggle, for the sake of which we sacrificed everything— thrones, pleasures, quietness, home, and relatives—, not shrinking from facing these woes of exile, in spite of our advanced age, whereas you have made no noteworthy spiritual contribution to the struggle, which you joined in order to receive the rank of Bishop and to use it for the fulfillment of vainglorious desires and opportunistic purposes.

Your Grace, you have reached such a degree of madness as to state with mouth wide open and the tongue of Thersites that we have abandoned the flag of our struggle and betrayed it to the Archbishop of Athens! Your Grace, we joined the struggle under the banner of the restitution of the Patristic Calendar to the Church, setting as our primary goal, not the creation of a permanent ecclesiastical division, but the pacification of the Church and the union of all [Orthodox] Christians in the celebration of the Feasts. When we raised this flag of Orthodox unity, we proclaimed right from the beginning not only that we would uphold the right-believing authority of the (Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Church of Greece, which the innovators have unworthily upset, but also that we would curb the excesses towards which the calendar struggle was deviating, bereft, as it was, of pastoral supervision, by way of the Hagiorite Priests who headed it, because of a lack of theological and canonical education, uncanonically re-Chrismating the children of New Calendarists, to the detriment of the struggle and to the diminution of its Orthodox authority.

And not only have we not abandoned this flag, but we have also added both luster and glory to it, and we will also soon unfurl it in triumph, by the power of Christ, on the Orthodox citadel of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Greek Church. Yes, Your Grace. If the rosy twilight of a new day of the triumph of Orthodoxy has begun to dawn on the horizon of the Greek Church, this, by the power of Christ, is due to the Orthodox, Christian, and truly Hierarchical stand that we have maintained towards the official Church and the State, not shrinking from standing up, as a Hierarch, to the force that was used against us, so as not to forsake or betray the glorious and honored flag of Orthodoxy and of our Orthodox Faith and confession.

For your part, Your Grace, you and your fellow-apostate, the Bishop of Vresthena, deluded by the prestige of the Episcopal rank, rebelled against us, out of lust for power and luciferian pride, precisely at a crucial point of the struggle, in order to divide the unifying Orthodox segment and thereby to thwart the victory and triumph of Orthodoxy.

But do not fret! The triumph of Orthodoxy will soon be celebrated by the entire population in the Metropolitan Cathedral of the Greek Church, by the power of Christ and by the truly Orthodox and patriotic desire of our God-protected King and the efficacious leadership of the Greek Government, and all of the true Orthodox Greeks will receive the crown of joy and glory, as they deserve, unlike you and your small band of followers who, like the foolish Virgins, will be excluded from the Orthodox bridal chamber and will lament in vain your loss of this spiritual joy and delight. [Cf., Matt. 25:1-13]

Let this be my last word on the subject, Your Grace, for the satisfaction of the truth, and I pray to God that, in His infinite mercy and forbearance, He may forgive us for the great sin that we committed in elevating you to the rank of Bishop, may bring you to your senses and guide you on the saving paths of conscience and repentance, and may at the same time crown our sacred struggle with success, through the restitution of the Patristic Calendar, to the glory of Christ and of His Orthodox Church.

(Signed) Kyr Chrysostomos (formerly) of Florina

 

Through the above letter, Revered Fr. Mark, it is demonstrated that the ever-memorable shepherd, Kyr Chrysostomos of Florina, had firmly established the course of the sacred struggle of the Church of the G.O.C. of Greece—from a theoretical standpoint, through the fundamental canonical principle of "potential" schism, according to which the loss of grace from the Mysteries of the innovators cannot be upheld, and from a practical standpoint, through his flawless and unwavering stance and policy—that is, his complete lack of ecclesiastical communion with any New Calendarist clergy, despite the fact that he accepted those among them who wished to be received into his clergy and the ecclesiastical body under him, without requiring rechrismation, rebaptism, reordination, or additional "confessions of faith." Instead, he admitted them solely upon their declaration of breaking communion with the New Calendarists, which in itself constitutes an explicit renunciation of the innovators.

Consequently, it is a sin—and not a small one—to take the economical concessions he made out of necessity and under dire circumstances [9] and attempt to present them as the ideology of the sacred struggle, which he faithfully led for an entire twenty years. He elevated its prestige and, in many ways, corrected it, by clothing it with the dignity of theology and with orderly and "canonical" resistance—qualities that it previously lacked, as he himself had acknowledged, as we have seen.

In Conclusion

Reverend Father,

We hope you have understood that we have no intention whatsoever of defending the New Calendarist Church—neither regarding its calendar innovation nor, much more, concerning its present-day heretical doctrines, which are progressively leading it toward complete assimilation with the Latin heretics! [10]

However, we can never endorse your unfounded positions or those of your companions, nor can we thus justify the Matthewite faction, which has been the primary cause of the humiliation of the sacred struggle of the G.O.C. of Greece.

It is time for you to realize that the unfortunate doctrine you uphold not only caused the accursed schism within the struggle but continues to keep it humiliated to this day, making it appear in the eyes of many as a parallel movement akin to the Old Believers of Russia! Do you not see that by what you claim and write, you testify against yourselves, since you are in full communion with the ROCOR, which has never, anywhere, proclaimed your doctrines, and from whose spiritual font both of your factions originally emerged?!

We greatly fear that you will bear a heavy responsibility on the Day of Judgment for the confusion you are creating in the theology of the sacred struggle and in the consciences of the faithful, who observe you with sorrow, seeing that you say one thing but do another!

What can we say about the weapons you yourselves hand over to the New Calendarists, who joyfully observe the division of the G.O.C. and the ongoing contradiction between your words and actions? And all this in defense of a doctrine that—although your very own actions refute and unmistakably prove to be erroneous and practically unworkable—you still refuse to admit as mistaken, due to a lack of humility and honesty! Proof of this is the recent efforts toward unity, which are conditioned upon both factions accepting the condemned doctrine of the loss of grace! [11]

Or does not your position above—that is, the discrepancy between your words and actions—render you indistinguishable from the New Calendarists, who in words "sacrifice everything" for Orthodoxy, but in deeds, not even their stipend or the meager prestige of their provincial throne?...

Perhaps, Reverend Father, the direct and emphatic tone of our letter has grieved you. However, do not forget that you yourself have grieved many, not only in the past but even to this day, through your uncanonical doctrine—first and foremost, the now-blessed soul of the great leader of your Sacred Struggle.

You should also not overlook the fact that your doctrine above, as it overturns a fundamental principle of the Canonical Law of the Orthodox Church, very justly entitles you to the designation of "innovator"—and indeed, one bestowed upon you by none other than the New Calendarists themselves! Nor should you ever imagine that the "official" State Church has failed to overturn your doctrine out of mere inability. Rather, acting politically, it is more than satisfied to see you trapped in such theoretical anarchy and in an uncanonical interpretation of innovation, so that those who might otherwise join your ranks hesitate, fearing that the same unfortunate interpretive method prevails in all your other positions as well...

It is time for the sins of the past to cease! [13] It is now time for all the G.O.C., together, in love and great humility, with prayer and a salvific response to the demands of our fearsome era, to advance toward the theological and canonical reorganization of their struggle. Only then will the sorrowful phenomenon of each monastery and parish following its own separate course and theology finally come to an end!

Thus, only in this way, with everyone obeying their bishop, the bishop submitting to his Holy Synod, and the Synod, finally, adhering to the divine and sacred Canons, they will be able to traverse a second glorious fifty-year period of their Church—something for which we fervently pray.

With respect and in the love of the Lord,
Theodoretos, Monk
Holy Skete of St. Anne
July 9, 1973 (O.S.)

 

NOTES

1. "But heretics and schismatics coincide in their relation to the Church and are both equally excluded from it, and since schism is, in most cases, a starting point for heterodox teachings, their non-distinction in practice is evident..."— Ch. Androustos, Dogmatics, p. 276, 6th edition, 1956.

2. As is known, the festal calendar consists of: a) the fixed feasts, b) the movable feasts with Pascha as their center, and c) the Sunday of Pascha, the day of the feast of Greak Week.

3. It is possible that the following question may arise here: "And since, to this day, no effort has been made to rectify the calendar innovation, but on the contrary, vigorous and laborious attempts are being made to justify not only the initiators of the calendar innovation but also the heretical and outrightly heterodox Ecumenists at the forthcoming 'Pan-Orthodox' Synod, how long will the aforementioned principles concerning potential schism and Mysteries remain valid?"

First of all, the matter is great and cannot be resolved in a mere footnote. Secondly, so as not to engage in excessive argumentation—or rather, to build upon solid foundations—it is logically necessary to first determine whether the questioner accepts the positions we have thus far articulated; only then can the appropriate response be given. Finally, nothing would be more prudent and necessary before anything else than for the questioner to clarify what he believes on this matter—or rather, what the ROCOR, the spiritual mother of both factions, believes…

4. "And in such a case, every faithful person may justly ask: Why then should the Church be divided? Why should there be a Calendar struggle, and why should the faithful Christians endure such suffering for so many years? Why then should the Athonites abandon their hesychasteria and expose themselves to countless dangers in the midst of the world if the Mysteries of the schismatic New Calendarists are in order?" (Excerpt from your letter to the hierarchs, Metropolitan Germanos of Demetrias and Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina, dated July 10, 1937).

5. See E. Tombros, To the Most Reverend Priest Struggling..., p. 3 – Athens 1972.

6. Here, it must be noted at the outset, to avoid any possible misunderstanding, that when we write and speak about the communion of the ROCOR with the contemporary New Calendarists, we have never considered this communion to be permanent, general, or regular, as is the case with the other "Orthodox" Churches. Rather, as can be easily discerned from the facts, this communion is occasional, appearing as an exception, and specifically with certain clergy of the Serbian Church—undoubtedly due to the well-known benevolent stance that the ROCOR had toward it during its difficult pre-war period.

Nevertheless, even this exception does not cease to be extremely dangerous for the Old Calendarist Church in Greece, precisely because of its communion with it—especially in an era of such ecumenistic activity and disregard for the sacred traditions of Orthodoxy. This has, moreover, been sufficiently observed by the New Calendarists, to the point that they shamelessly declare: "Consequently, what difference do we have with the Old Calendarists, when through the ROCOR and the Serbian clergy, they too, even if indirectly, commune with us?" This question becomes tragic for the simple faithful of the G.O.C., who are unable to perceive its true significance. For this reason, as well as for the relevant responsibility in this matter, the leadership bears the entire burden...

7. We firmly believe that it would be most beneficial for the future canonical course of the struggle if the still-living collaborators of the late [St.] Chrysostomos of Florina—who were firsthand witnesses of the above words—would confirm them today through a written testimony. In this way, that which the ever-memorable one was unable to accomplish before departing this life may be fulfilled by those who "remained with him in his trials..."

8. See Herald of the Orthodox Church, March 1961, p. 14, and our Open Letter to Fr. Eugenios, p. 13.

9. Following the above, we believe that no justification can now exist for those who wish to defend the aforementioned encyclicals of the ever-memorable hierarch, since even the Matthewites themselves (cf. Kyr Chrysostomos of Florina, the Denier of Confession...,  pp. 29 and 33) as well as the New Calendarists who observed the events of that time (cf. Spitha, Jan. 1970, p. 4) reject the notion that the late Chrysostomos ever accepted the spirit and letter of those encyclicals. Compare also the encyclical of the same ever-memorable hierarch dated June 1, 1944, where he once again explains to his scandalized flock the distinction between "potential" and "actual" schism, in accordance with the annotation to Apostolic Canon 3 by St. Nicodemus (see the full text in the excellent work of theologian Mr. Stavros Karamitsos, The Agony in the Garden of Gethsemane, pp. 146-148). But even if we were to accept that he truly believed in the doctrine of loss of grace, as the supporters of this unwarranted theory claim, it still means nothing for us and for the canonical teaching of the Church in this matter. This is because not only the subsequent actions and course of his followers, but even more so the actions of their Matthewite opponents, utterly refute this doctrine—especially given the fact that one group proceeded with consecrations and the other required cheirothesia!...

Consequently, for us and for all who sincerely love the truth, IT DOES NOT MATTER what the first or second leader of the calendar movement said or wrote during that turbulent period of 1935–1950. What matters is what the Holy Canons and the entire practice of the Church teach on this matter. Both unequivocally support our position.

10. This can be easily demonstrated through other publications of ours (Dialogues in the Desert on Ecumenism, p. 169 ff.; Second Letter to Fr. Eugenios, p. 14; Fourth Letter to the same recipient, p. 9 ff.; Response A to "Ecclesiastical Struggle," p. 13), where we praise and continue to praise the reaction of the faithful "little flock" of the unchanged Church.

However, for some Old Calendarists to say and proclaim what they have proclaimed effectively amounts—at the very least—to a defense of their struggle, which to this day bears the bitterest fruit of internal division among them! This is precisely why we insist on this point—so that it may be understood and corrected, ensuring that whatever was uncanonical and erroneous that crept into the otherwise sound theology of their fifty-year struggle, despite obstacles, may be rectified. If this is ultimately achieved, it will greatly benefit its future course.

11. See: Second Circular Letter of the Coordinating Committee for the Union of the G.O.C. of Greece, p. 2, Athens, April 1, 1973.

At this point, we consider it our duty to remind our beloved brethren who make up the aforementioned committee that, for their noble and commendable effort to succeed, IT IS NOT ENOUGH for the two factions to merely agree theoretically—they must primarily agree in TRUTH and CANONICITY.

Any union not founded in truth will inevitably be short-lived and prone to even greater schisms than those already existing!

What else does this mean if not an attempt to justify a culpable, long-standing ministry through words of "ultra-Orthodoxy" once again, as a means to cover up an unfortunate past in this matter? [12] Why do you refuse to understand that rejecting the aforementioned unfounded and unfortunate doctrine will in no way diminish the sacred struggle of the G.O.C. of Greece? On the contrary, it will grant it prestige and theological coherence—elements that, in other words, are essential and indispensable for its existence, progress, and success under the present circumstances!

12. The recent statement made by Archbishop Auxentius in the magazine Epikaira (No. 212) falls into the same category, wherein he attempts to shift the cause of the division within the G.O.C. of Greece elsewhere. However, it is well known to all that this division is due to the aforementioned unfounded doctrine. (See Voice of Orthodoxy," June 15, 1973, p. 14).

13. The mere fact that, due to this uncanonical doctrine regarding the non-existence of Mysteries, the sacred struggle was divided, and the blessed leader of the struggle, the late Chrysostomos, hesitated to proceed with new episcopal consecrations for the succession of the episcopal rank within the ranks of the G.O.C., is sufficient and demonstrative proof of the GREAT RESPONSIBILITY of those who created and allied themselves with the aforementioned erroneous and canonically unacceptable doctrine.

 

Original Greek online:

https://www.scribd.com/document/58028667/%CE%A4%CE%9F-%CE%97%CE%9C%CE%95%CE%A1%CE%9F%CE%9B%CE%9F%CE%93%CE%99%CE%91%CE%9A%CE%9F%CE%9D-%CE%A3%CE%A7%CE%99%CE%A3%CE%9C%CE%91

Translation of the 1937 letter of St. Chrysostomos of Florina to Bishop Germanos taken from Resistance or Exclusion? The Alternative Ecclesiological Approaches of Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina and Bishop Matthew of Vresthene, trans. by Hieromonk Patapios, Etna, CA, Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 2000.