Concerning "Parallel Bishops" and other Contemporary Ecclesiological Fallacies

Dimitris Hatzinikolaou, Associate Professor of Economics at the University of Ioannina

 

1. Introduction

As is well known, the various slanders against the Orthodox Christians of the Patristic Calendar, which are hurled from all sides, mainly by the Ecumenists (= Satanists), have never ceased since 1924 and onwards. "The Old Calendarists have elevated the Julian Calendar to a dogma of faith, therefore they are calendar worshippers and schismatics!" cry falsely the gaping mouths of the Ecumenists and their advocates, such as the late Fr. Epiphanios Theodoropoulos, Fr. Euthymios Trikaminas, and others.

The newly walled-off, who appeared on the scene mainly after the pseudo-council of Crete (2016), such as Fr. Eugenius, Fr. Savvas Lavriotis, and others, adopt and propagate another distortion of Sacred Tradition and the spirit of the Holy Canons, namely that with the ordination of new bishops in 1935, the Orthodox of the Old Calendar created a schism in the Orthodox Church of Greece! See, for example,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=Vn-0OZU7DW4.

As far as I know, the promoter of this distortion is Fr. Euthymios Trikaminas. [1] For "confirmation" of this, they invoke the holy canons that prohibit the ordination of a bishop in a diocese where there is already another bishop. See, for example, the 8th Canon of the First Ecumenical Council and the 16th of the First-Second Council. Of course, these holy canons must be observed without deviation when there is peace in the Church and the existing bishops are Orthodox. However, in times of heresy and persecution of the Church, when the bishop of a region is a heretic, that is, a "fierce wolf devouring his flock," then it is self-evident that not only is it permitted, but it is also obligatory to place an Orthodox bishop in his place! If, moreover, the governing hierarchy is indifferent or is also heretical, and the political authority is Orthodox, then the heretical "bishop" must be completely expelled! As we shall see below, this is the spirit of the holy canons, and this is what the Orthodox have always applied. Of course, this distortion has already been refuted by Mr. N. Mannis and others

(https://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2018/12/blog-post_52.html),

but I think that what follows constitutes a necessary supplement to previous articles and letters.

2. Historical background

Since 1924 and thereafter, the governing hierarchy of the Church of Greece has been (potentially) schismatic and heretical, and as such, is accountable before a Pan-Orthodox Council for deposition and anathematization. For, firstly, by introducing the new calendar, which was condemned by three Pan-Orthodox Councils (1583, 1587, and 1593), it disrupted the unity of the Church; and secondly, it did so for the sake of promoting Ecumenism. Over time, it has also fallen into five additional heresies, namely Sergianism, Uniatism (from December 7, 1965, when the "lifting of excommunication" with the "Pope" officially took place), Neo-Iconoclasm, Neo-Arianism, as well as the heresy of "your death, my life," with the "vaccines" that were prepared using cell lines from embryos killed for this purpose, and for which some false bishops of the New Calendar shout that those who do not accept them are "Nazis," "enemies of Christ," and "outside the Church"! Additionally, the governing hierarchy finds itself in many schisms, namely the calendar schism, the Australian schism, the Ukrainian schism, the "vaccination" schism, etc., dragging the uninstructed people into ruin. In full cooperation with the Antichrist Caesar, they persecuted and continue to persecute the Orthodox of the Old Calendar with exiles, convictions "for usurping authority," defrockings, sealing of their churches, confiscation of their property, etc., even reaching the extreme point of murdering them, as in the case of the neo-martyr St. Catherine Routis (+1927). The rest of (Freemason-controlled) "Orthodoxy" silently goes along with the heretical persecutors, who impose Ecumenism and other satanic contrivances by fire and sword."

In the first stage, their goal is the complete submission of Orthodoxy to Papism. This goal was made evident with the famous Encyclical of 1902 by the Freemason "patriarch" Joachim III, which spoke of rapprochement and union with the two great "branches of Christianity," Papism and Protestantism. It was also made clear through the statements, conferences, articles, and books of the Ecumenists. For example, here is what he wrote in 1922, two years before the introduction of the New Calendar: "that through the issue of the Calendar, by achieving its unification, the first significant step will undoubtedly be made towards the realization of the studied and urgently necessary Communion of the Churches." [2] These satanic plans of the Ecumenists were known in 1935 to the three walled-off Bishops, namely the former Metropolitan of Florina, Chrysostomos, Germanos of Demetrias, and of Chrysostomos of Zakynthos, as we learn from the writings of the first among them, for example: "But She [i.e., the Orthodox Church] always rejected the Gregorian calendar as an innovation of the elder Rome, incompatible with the traditions of the 7 Ecumenical Councils, and as an attempt by it to subjugate the Orthodox Church under the autocratic dominion of the Pope." [3]

Obviously, the onslaught of Papism-Ecumenism in 1924 and the persecution of the Church that followed cannot be addressed with speeches, gatherings, and articles, but rather requires an organized, dynamic response from the Orthodox under the light of Sacred Tradition. The Church could not have found peace after the coup-like imposition of the New Calendar, especially since global "Orthodoxy" silently collaborated with the persecutors, mainly through its deafening omission to convene a Pan-Orthodox Council to resolve the matter. Therefore, it was imperative that the three separated Bishops ordain new Bishops, both for the needs of their flock—which at that time consisted of about 800 parishes across Greece, with more than one million faithful [4]—and for the continuation of the Orthodox Resistance (its succession). This action in no way meant that the Orthodox of the Old Calendar founded their 'own Church in Greece,' as the aforementioned fathers erroneously claim, even using the absurd sophism that the ordination of new Bishops in 1935 by the Orthodox of the Old Calendar supposedly resembles the abandonment of Greece after the invasion of the conquerors! [5] The Confessor and Saint, the former Metropolitan of Florina, Chrysostomos Kavourides (+1955), emphasized in his writings that the Orthodox of the Old Calendar do not constitute a separate Church in Greece, but rather are the guard that will fight to restore the Church of Greece to the pinnacle of the Holy Canons from which it has deviated. [6] Up until his repose, he signed not as "Archbishop of the G.O.C.," but as "Chrysostomos, formerly of Florina." Therefore, no Orthodox soul will ever tolerate the grievous slander that this great Confessor, a saint of the 20th century, was supposedly a creator of schism!

3. The holy canons interpreted under the light of Sacred Tradition

Bearing in mind the aforementioned (very briefly described) state of heresy and persecution that prevailed in the Church of Greece during the period 1924-1935, let us examine whether the ordinations of 1935 were in accordance with Sacred Tradition or not. First, we emphasize two things: (1) as the late Fr. George Metallinos (+2019) used to say, in order to correctly interpret a historical event, we must mentally transport ourselves to the time and situation that prevailed when the event in question took place; and (2) as Dositheos of Jerusalem (1641-1707) writes in the Dodekabiblos, actions that are "against the Canons" [7] and "outside the jurisdiction" in the Church are indeed condemnable when done out of ambition, greed, pride, vanity, etc., but they are praiseworthy when done economically for the benefit of the Church, such as, for example, in times of need and persecution of the Church. Under such conditions, the relevant canons certainly do not prevent such actions, which under normal circumstances they explicitly prohibit. To confirm this claim, Dositheos provides many examples of great saints who acted "against the Canons" and "outside the jurisdiction" for the benefit of the Church.

For example, he writes: "Note that Meletios of Antioch and the bishops at that time, who transferred St. Gregory to Constantinople, knew that the canon prohibiting transfer [i.e., the 15th canon of the First Ecumenical Council] was made by the fathers for the proud, those who, out of vanity, leap from throne to throne ... However, the canon does not prevent actions that are done economically and for the benefit of the Church; therefore, some have more eloquently said that the canon prohibited the transfer that is motivated by ambition, but not the transfer that is necessary due to need ... And the divine Athanasios, Eusebios, and Basil ordained outside their jurisdiction, and indeed Epiphanios did so in Constantinople, and in Jerusalem he ordained the brother of Jerome" (Dodekabiblos, ibid., Volume 2, pp. 16-19, Book 3, Chapter 2, Paragraph 3, emphasis of the author). He also writes: "Note first that acting outside one’s jurisdiction is unlawful; thus, the great Basil, though being very wise and holy, nevertheless seeks the opinion of the holy Eusebios as to whether it is blameless to ordain in a foreign province in a time of necessity; second, it is just, in times of need, to assist the persecuted or afflicted Churches and to ordain bishops and priests in them, and to almost act in them as if they were one's own diocese, as Saints Eusebios and Athanasios did" (Dodekabiblos, ibid., Volume 1, pp. 500-502, Book 2, Chapter 19, Paragraphs A-F, emphasis of the author). Furthermore, St. John Chrysostom proceeded to make many ordinations and depositions of bishops outside his jurisdiction, and although he was criticized for this, later, the Fourth Ecumenical Council did not condemn him (Dodekabiblos, ibid., Volume 2, pp. 53-54, Book 3, Chapter 4, Paragraph 7, and Pedalion, note 1 in the interpretation of the 28th Canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, p. 207). [8]

Dositheos, therefore, emphasizes in many places that during times of persecution of the Church, but also generally when it was for Her benefit, many ordinations outside one’s jurisdiction and other incursions into foreign provinces took place. As Socrates notes, "this used to happen earlier because of the persecutions without distinction" (Ecclesiastical History, Book V, Chapter 8, Patrologia Graeca 67, pp. 576-580, emphasis of the author). However, when peace returned, the Second Ecumenical Council, through its 2nd Canon, prohibited such actions (see, for example, Dodekabiblos, ibid., Volume 2, pp. 44-46, Book 3, Chapter 4). But when there is a "reasonable cause," actions "against the Canons" are in accordance with the spirit of the 14th Apostolic Canon, whose subject is the transfer of Bishops.

We see, therefore, that according to Sacred Tradition, in times of peace within the Church, the holy Canons must be observed strictly, whereas in times of heresy and persecution of the Church, "violations" of holy Canons, when aimed at Her benefit, should not be condemned, according to the well-known saying, "the change of law comes out of necessity" (Heb. 7:12). Sometimes, as we will see below, such actions are even praised! This is the Sacred Tradition of the Church, while the aforementioned distortion and accusation against the Orthodox of the Old Calendar, which is boldly propagated by otherwise beloved and respected fathers, is anti-Gospel, anti-traditional, legalistic, ritualistic, and ultimately heretical. It also reminds one of the accusation of the Jews against the Lord because He healed the sick on the Sabbath!

4. Concerning "parallel bishops"

On the subject of "parallel bishops," the aforementioned fathers begin with the erroneous claim that such a phenomenon has never existed before 1935 (see also Fr. E. Trikaminas, ibid., p. 248). Regarding the much-discussed case of Evagrius and St. Gregory as 'parallel bishops' to the Arian Demophilus on the throne of Constantinople, Fr. Eugenius argues that since Demophilus had been deposed by the Council of Ariminum (359 AD), the throne of Constantinople in 370, when Eustathius the Great of Antioch ordained Evagrius, should, from an Orthodox perspective, be considered vacant, despite the fact that Demophilus had been reinstated by the 'malicious' Council of Nike in Thrace, and despite the fact that in 370 AD, before the ordination of Evagrius, the Arians had consecrated him as Patriarch of Constantinople. While the facts described by Fr. Eugenius are correct (Dodekabiblos, ibid., Vol. 1, pp. 419-420, 454-455, and 477-478), his conclusion is erroneous for the following two reasons.

First, the ordination of Demophilus in 370 cannot be considered invalid, and thus the throne of Constantinople during the period 370-380 cannot be considered vacant, because "it was ancient practice to accept those ordained by heretics" (Dodekabiblos, ibid., Vol. 1, p. 317). Moreover, despite the condemnation of Arianism by the First Ecumenical Council (325 AD), the Trinitarian Dogma had not been fully clarified before the Second Ecumenical Council (381) due to the many variations of Arianism that had appeared ("Homoians," "Anomoians," "Homoiousians," "one Hypostasis," "Macedonians," etc.). Second, if in 380 Demophilus were truly considered deposed, as Fr. Eugenius asserts, Emperor and St. Theodosius, who expelled Demophilus because he was a heretic, would not have invoked Demophilus' heresy to remove him from the throne; rather, as a political authority and guarantor of lawful order in the Empire, he would have invoked his deposition in 359 and said to him: "Since you are deposed, leave the throne." Instead, he told him: "Either join the Homoousians or leave the city," which is what he did (Ecclesiastical History by Socrates, Book V, Chapter 7, Patrologia Graeca 67, p. 573, and Dodekabiblos, ibid., Vol. 2, p. 15).

The following two facts must be emphasized here. First, while the Great Theodosius did not consider Demophilus to be deposed, he not only allowed Gregory the Theologian to take the throne as a "parallel bishop" to Demophilus, but also expelled Demophilus from the city, on the grounds that he did not follow the decrees of the First Ecumenical Council! He proceeded with this action in 380, without waiting for the decision of the then-upcoming Second Ecumenical Council, whose task would be to depose Demophilus. That is to say, the political authority substituted the ecclesiastical one and acted Orthodoxly with doctrinal criteria, rightly assessing the spiritual harm caused by heretics when they occupy the thrones. Clearly, this was not the first time such a thing happened. On this matter, Dositheos writes: "Always, in great misfortunes, which the just judgment of God permits to occur among His people, His infinite mercy subsequently provides sufficient consolation, and we have countless examples of this ... light came to those in darkness through the reign of Constantine, equal to the Apostles ... the spring of the Great Theodosius appeared ... the blessedness of Justin [the Thracian] arrived, during whose reign the four Ecumenical Councils were confirmed, honored like the four Gospels ... the exiled bishops were freed, the heretics were driven out, the Church was united" (Dodekabiblos, ibid., Vol. 3, p. 9, emphasis of the author). Do you hear, Fr. Euthymios, Fr. Eugenius, and Fr. Savvas, who preach that heretics should be allowed to prevail and destroy the Church rather than be driven out?

Second, while the Egyptian and Macedonian bishops "murmured against Gregory, citing a canon that prohibits transfer," the Great Theodosius not only did not expel Gregory the Theologian, but even rewarded him, giving "all the churches of Constantinople to Gregory the Theologian, whom God sent from Cappadocia to Constantinople at the time of the dominance of the heretics, and since the Orthodox did not have even one church, he converted a certain house into a place of worship... and there he had his battlegrounds against the heretics" (Dodekabiblos, ibid., Vol. 2, pp. 15-16, emphasis of the author). Dositheos also writes: "God sent Gregory the Theologian by the suggestion of Basil the Great and Meletios of Antioch... Meletios of Antioch confirmed Gregory in the presidency of Constantinople, and see how in a time of necessity, Antioch confirmed Gregory to the throne of Constantinople" (Dodekabiblos, ibid., Vol. 1, p. 455, emphasis of the author). We see again, therefore, that in times of persecution and heresy, "violations" of the holy canons made for the benefit of the Church, and especially those made by great saints, are praiseworthy actions, not to be condemned. Let those who "murmur," or rather loudly proclaim, the opposite regarding the Orthodox of the Old Calendar reflect on their responsibilities. Furthermore, let Fr. Euthymios Trikaminas consider whether what he wrote about Gregory the Theologian—that "the saint did not come to the capital to become a bishop" (ibid., p. 250)—is in harmony with the facts just presented, or whether he is distorting historical events, serving ulterior motives, either knowingly or unknowingly. For even today, a dynamic and organized intervention is required, like that of 1935, but, unfortunately, there are no figures like Chrysostomos, formerly of Florina.

Dositheos mentions many other examples of "parallel bishops," beyond those mentioned by previous authors and letter writers, though not all of them are, of course, praiseworthy. Let us mention just a few of those that seem to have been for the benefit of the Church, simply to demonstrate that this phenomenon did not occur for the first time in 1935, as the aforementioned fathers falsely claim. We do so for the sake of the article's completeness, since the previously mentioned example of Gregory the Theologian leaves no room for doubt for any objective observer.

First, for the sake of bringing peace to the Church of Antioch, "Meletios, being a saint, said to Paulinus, 'Come then, let us place the Gospel in the middle and shepherd the flock together, and when one of us dies, let the other remain as the sole Bishop of Antioch.' But Paulinus, steeped in heresy, which breeds obstinacy, did not agree" (Dodekabiblos, ibid., Vol. 2, p. 77). Mr. Mannis also mentioned this example in his article, but it is so characteristic of the issue under examination that I think it would be an omission not to include it here as well, for it shows a saint "violating" the holy Canons for the sake of peace in the Church. [9]

Second, during the time of Constantine the Great, Macarius of Jerusalem ordained Maximus, the Orthodox confessor, as Bishop of Lydda, but the people ordained another as Bishop of Lydda (Dodekabiblos, ibid., Vol. 1, p. 427).

Third, Heraklas of Alexandria deposed Ammonius of Thmuis because he had communed with the blasphemous Origen, and he appointed Philip in his place. "However, when Pope Heraklas was petitioned by the people of the city, he pardoned Ammonius for his sin [10] and decreed that both should be bishops there... and similar events occurred, which are scattered throughout this book" (Dodekabiblos, ibid., Vol. 2, p. 92, emphasis of the author).

We see, therefore, once again that the Holy Fathers, though strict in their adherence to Sacred Tradition, nevertheless, when circumstances required, did not remain confined to the sterile application of the letter of the holy Canons but applied their spirit. Several months ago, I attempted privately to convince the aforementioned fathers of this, but I was not heard. Fr. Savvas Lavriotis continues to publicly state that the Orthodox of the Old Calendar, although they "fought their struggle" and are beloved, nonetheless created a schism in 1935 when they ordained "parallel bishops."

5. Conclusion

Fr. Eugenius says in the aforementioned video that he bears no ill will towards the Orthodox of the Old Calendar, after all, he himself comes from them, but his goal is the pursuit of Truth. He also says that the holy Canons must be interpreted with Sacred Tradition as the guiding principle. I absolutely agree! The purpose of this article is a small contribution towards that direction.

 

[1] See his book titled The Timeless Agreement of the Holy Fathers on the Obligation of the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council Concerning the Cessation of Commemoration of a Bishop Preaching Heresy in the Church, DeGiorgio Publications, Trikala, 2012, pp. 227-258 and 302-303.

[2] See his book titled The Calendar Issue, 1922, p. 141.

[3] See Chrysostomos Kavourides, formerly of Florina, Collected Works, Volume 1, p. 98 (emphasis exists in the original).

[4] See Collected Works, ibid., Volume 1, p. 135.

[5] It has been written that the recently "canonized" by the Ecumenists, Elder Paisios, said something similar in a conversation with monks, intending to mock the Orthodox of the Old Calendar, because, according to him and the Ecumenists in general, they supposedly left the Church because they did not like the patriarch:

-- "Ah, fathers, I am thinking of leaving Greece!" -- "Why, elder?" -- "Because I don't like Papandreou!"

[6] See Collected Works, ibid., Volume 1, p. 383, and Volume 2, p. 24.

[7] V. Rigopoulos Publications, Thessaloniki, 1982.

[8] Pedalion, Astir Publications, Athens, 1993.

[9] The word "violates" is placed in quotation marks because while the letter of the holy Canons is indeed violated, the spirit of the Canons is upheld, as they were precisely established for this purpose, that is, to ensure the peace and unity of the Church.

[10] This example is a rebuke to the followers of another terrible modern heresy, "Potentialism," which asserts that we can supposedly commune simultaneously with both Christ (Orthodoxy) and the Devil (Heresy)! The supporters of this heresy include bishops, archimandrites (such as Fr. Epiphanios Theodoropoulos), priests, monks, theologians, etc., and they put forward the false argument that the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council does not include a penance. Here, then, we see that the Orthodox Pope Heraklas imposed a penance for this obvious sin.

 

Greek source: https://orthodox-voice.blogspot.com/2022/12/blog-post_11.html