The Division of the Genuine Orthodox in 1937

 7. The Division of the Genuine Orthodox in 1937

Source: Ἐπίσκοπος Mαγνησίας Xρυσόστομος Nασλίμης (1910–1973): Ἀκατάβλητος Ἀγωνιστὴς Πίστεως καὶ Ὑπομονῆς [Bishop Chrysostomos Naslimes of Magnesia (1910 1973): An Invincible Struggler in Faith and Fortitude], by Bishop Klemes of Gardikion [now Metropolitan of Larissa] (Athens: Holy Monastery of Saints Cyprian and Justina, 2019), Vol. 1, pp. 152-188.

As we developed in Chapter 5 of the present work, in the year 1936, an effort was made by Metropolitan Germanos of Demetrias, and especially the former Metropolitan of Florina, St.  Chrysostomos, to awaken the so-called official Churches, both those that remained with the Old Calendar and the very Innovating Church of Greece, in order to move towards convening, if possible, a Pan-Orthodox Council to resolve the Calendar issue and to bring peace to the division that had arisen, with the victory of the Old Calendar in the liturgical life of the Church. The actions, positions, and expectations for the convocation of a Council were then a priority for the above-mentioned two bishops, and for this purpose, they were active and communicated with ecclesiastical as well as state officials. These were experienced bishops who were accustomed to this way of thinking and acting and had faced many adversities throughout their careers.

And while, as we have seen, in the year 1936, the writings of St. Chrysostomos of Florina and his goals do not seem to have been questioned regarding their Orthodoxy, sincerity, and integrity by anyone, especially in the realm of Genuine Orthodoxy, the year 1937 was unfortunately destined to raise a great turmoil, which continues to trouble the Holy Struggle of Genuine Orthodoxy even to this day.

7.1. The Declaration of 1935 and its Meaning

We have seen that the purpose of the Struggle of the Confessor Hierarchs from 1935 onwards was primarily for the union of divided Orthodoxy and the peace of the Church, based on its holy Traditions and holy Canons.

In the Proclamation of May 1935, it was emphasized that those governing the Greek Church, through the unilateral, uncanonical, and irrational introduction of the Gregorian (New) Calendar, separated themselves from the entire body of Orthodoxy and essentially declared themselves to be schismatics in relation to the Orthodox Churches, which remained on the foundation of the Ecumenical Councils and the Orthodox institutions and Traditions, [1] namely, in relation to the Churches of Antioch, Jerusalem, Russia, Serbia, Poland, Sinai, Mount Athos, etc.

On 8/21 June 1935, before the Confessor Hierarchs departed for their places of exile, and since the Innovating hierarchy condemned them and the State hastened to execute the condemnatory decision, which included five years of exile and physical confinement in remote monasteries, the persecuted bishops issued a Pastoral Encyclical, in which, among other things, even for the protection of their Flock, they emphasized the following to it:

"[Their spiritual children should have] no spiritual communion with the schismatic church and its schismatic clergy, from whom the grace of the Holy Spirit has departed, because they have disregarded the decisions of the Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council and Pan-Orthodox Councils that condemned the Gregorian calendar," [2] invoking also the First Canon of St. Basil the Great.

We also saw, however, that just a few weeks later, St. Chrysostomos of Florina, being in the place of his exile and confinement, the Holy Monastery of St. Dionysius on Mount Olympus, where he wrote the significant work: "The Calendar as a Criterion of Orthodoxy" (1/14 July 1935, p. 87), emphasized, among other things, the following particularly important and explanatory points:

"Therefore, having proceeded to the denunciation of the Most Blessed and the Synodal Bishops, we declared them as schismatics as individuals, and not as representatives of the reality of the Church. And we did this justly and out of a sacred duty, in order to defend the Orthodoxy of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Greek Church, out of a possible fear and danger that these might be held responsible for this ecclesiastical coup and be declared schismatic by the other Orthodox Churches, which firmly adhere to the Orthodox Calendar, in a future Ecumenical Council." [3]

This fear, according to St. Chrysostomos of Florina, meant that if historical circumstances allowed and an Ecumenical or Great Council were convened, the Slavic Churches would declare as schismatic those who accepted the Innovation, and the Churches that remained with the Old Calendar (Antioch, Jerusalem, Sinai, Mount Athos) would necessarily side with them, that is, with the Slavic Churches.

An unfounded fear, we might say today with relative ease, but not for that time, given the conditions and circumstances of 1935. The mindset of St. Chrysostomos was particularly patriotic, and in his works, the connection between ecclesiastical and national traditions, patriotism, and his great love for the interests of the Church and the Greek Nation, is very evident and obvious.

If this religious and national fervor, which vibrated within the passionate heart and Hellenic chest of St. Chrysostomos, as well as his mentality and devotion to the institutions of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Church of Greece, which he served sacrificially his entire life with exemplary self-denial, is not understood, it will not be easy to correctly grasp what follows.

In the above excerpt from his work in July 1935, St. Chrysostomos distinguishes between the individuals who hold leading ecclesiastical positions, whom he considers transient and unstable, and the institutions, namely the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Church of Greece, which, at least for him, as well as for Metropolitan Germanos of Demetrias, were placed above the pettiness and mistakes of the individuals who serve them, sometimes well and sometimes poorly, because they considered the destructive influence of these individuals to be temporary.

To convey the reasoning of the aforementioned Confessor Hierarchs at that time, we say that individuals easily fall and are easily led astray, and they also lead many others into their error, as happened with Meletios Metaxakis and Chrysostomos Papadopoulos. In this way, they separate themselves from those who hold correct beliefs; that is, ecclesiastically and canonically, they become subjects of walling-off from them and denunciation of them, so that the appropriate ecclesiastical authorities may take action.

However, the same does not apply to the institutions. For the institutions, in which erring individuals serve, to be considered as having also fallen—that is, for the Ecumenical Patriarchate itself and the other Patriarchates, as well as the Local Churches, to be dragged into the fall and departure from the Church—a Church judgment must occur according to what is stipulated by the canon law of the Church, [4] and this process involves a Synodal convocation and decision. It is evident that our Hierarchs did not believe that the Innovators had completely dominated the institutions.

The canonical nature of the calendar issue at that time was, for the restorers of Orthodoxy, Metropolitans Germanos of Demetrias and Chrysostomos of Florina, a matter to be adjudicated before a Pan-Orthodox Council. This is why they were striving for its convocation, because it was not easy for them to accept that, through the Calendar Innovation, the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Church of Greece had automatically fallen away from the concept of the Church.

This is not in contradiction or opposition to their diagnostic declaration, which they made under the pressure of events, stating that the Primates of Constantinople and Athens and their Synods, through their unilateral and uncanonical, but also coup-like decision, caused a local schism. As those responsible for the Schism and as persecutors of Orthodox Christians, they removed the sanctifying Grace of the Holy Spirit from their Mysteries, in order to emphasize and underscore in the strongest possible way the seriousness and necessity of their salvific action in defense of Orthodoxy.

However, this position of theirs did not negate or invalidate the actual ecclesiastical concept that the Churches which did not accept the Innovation—despite their open or implicit disagreement—continued to commune with those that accepted the Innovation, while awaiting a Synodal resolution of the issue and a final decision on all related matters.

The schism, as Chrysostomos of Florina explained in 1937 in his remarkable apologetic work "Refutation of the 'Rebuke' by Archbishop of Athens Chrysostomos Papadopoulos"—which, it should be noted, is impressive for its profound knowledge of the calendar issue from every perspective—was "local" and carried the potential for an official general schism in the future. "Moreover, this schism essentially exists, even though it has not been officially declared by a Pan-Orthodox Council, whose convocation has been postponed year after year due to the turbulent times and the conflicting national aspirations and goals of the Orthodox states." [5]

We believe that within this secure framework, the declarative statement of June 1935 by the Confessor Hierarchs regarding the validity of the Mysteries of those who innovated is also understandable, as they awaited an official and final judgment.

Until then, however, according to the assurance of St. Chrysostomos once again: "The New Calendarists and the Old Calendarists, even though they both have the same faith and the same divine worship, cannot fully belong to one and the same Church when the former are still in the period of fasting and repentance, while the latter are celebrating Christmas and Theophany and rejoicing. This, in our humble opinion, is the complete and precise understanding of the concept and significance of the dogma of the unity of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church." [6]

From this, it becomes clear that St. Chrysostomos of Florina did not ecclesiastically equate the Innovators with the Non-Innovators, the guilty with the innocent, those responsible for the schism with those opposing it; and certainly, his struggle to correct those who had deviated and misrepresented the voice of the Ecumenical Patriarchate or the Church of Greece did not mean that he considered these institutions entirely free from blame, because institutions do not ultimately remain fully independent of the people who express and embody them, but are burdened by the serious and indeed irreparable mistakes of their representatives.

+++

In light of this complexity and with hopeful expectations for the clarification of the issue, St. Chrysostomos of Florina, not on his own but with the agreement and consent of the other Hierarchs, traveled from December 1935 until the Spring of 1936 to the Middle East for discussions and consultations with the Patriarchates of Jerusalem and Antioch, and even Alexandria.

If these Patriarchates had automatically fallen from the reality of the Church simply because of their communion with the Innovators of Constantinople and Athens, then what would be the purpose of informing them and seeking their assistance for an ecclesiastical resolution of the created issue—the schism? Furthermore, what would be the purpose of the attempt to raise awareness even within the Innovating Church of Greece in November 1936, in order for it to accept and contribute to the resolution of the division through a Pan-Orthodox Council?

But why was there this insistence on a Pan-Orthodox Council, which was then expected imminently? Once again, St. Chrysostomos of Florina provides a clear explanation:

"When the Pan-Orthodox Council convenes to resolve this issue, it will be faced with the following dilemma: either it will modify the Paschalion established by the First Ecumenical Council, which, in our view, is impossible, or it will compel the Churches that have arbitrarily innovated to return to the Old Ecclesiastical Calendar, regardless of which calendar the State uses, thereby rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's." [7]

Things seemed so clear at that time, and such optimistic hopes were being nurtured.

At the same time, as we have already mentioned several times in the previous chapters, the intense political maneuvering and the promises of political figures that they would contribute in their own way to resolving the calendar issue—which, after all, was created with direct political involvement—significantly influenced the maneuvers of the Confessor Hierarchs, in order to assist in achieving the most beneficial outcome from every perspective regarding the Struggle they were undertaking.

In light of all the above, which we believe are particularly crucial but have not been correctly emphasized or adequately assessed until now, we proceed with a brief presentation of the most significant events that marked the timeline of the division within the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece.

7.2. The Timeline of the Sorrowful Division of 1937

While events were unfolding as described above, in June 1937, Metropolitans Germanos of Demetrias and Chrysostomos of Florina—clearly not without reason or without some pastoral motivations and needs—during their sermons and homilies, made certain ecclesiological clarifications.

Nevertheless, these clarifications in no way signified a denial or betrayal of everything they had proclaimed up to that point, nor did they indicate a change in their stance. They simply explained on a practical level what they had theoretically upheld and according to which they had been proceeding from the beginning of their Holy Struggle.

However, they may not have fully anticipated that entering into such explanations would trigger an unexpected reaction from those who could not (or did not wish to) understand and tolerate these points. Moreover, the expressions they used (e.g., regarding "potential" and "actual" schism) and the assurances they gave (e.g., regarding the validity of the holy Chrism of the Patriarchate after the Innovation) might not have been the most appropriate or advisable, and they were prone to being misunderstood and leading to exaggerated or incorrect conclusions. Unfortunately, all of this ultimately happened!

Specifically, in June 1937, St. Chrysostomos of Florina provided explanations to Monk Markos Chaniotis, [8] who had previously served as the Director of the official publication of the Genuine Orthodox Christians, "Herald of the Genuine Orthodox," while he was still a layman. The explanations concerned who is rightfully able to definitively and conclusively declare an [entire] Innovating Church as Schismatic. He clarified that it is not simply those who rightly break communion with such a Church to avoid participating in its error, but rather a Pan-Orthodox Council that has the authority to do so. In such a Council, those who separated from the Church before the Synodal decision (verdict) would accuse it of Innovation.

The explanation that, due to the concept of the Church in which the representatives of the Ecumenical Patriarchate participate, despite the burden of the New Calendar Innovation and the resulting uncanonical status, [9] they can proceed with the consecration of holy Chrism—combined with the assurance that it is therefore not necessary to re-anoint infants who received Chrism after the Innovation in order for them to commune in the churches adhering to the Old Calendar—caused great scandal for Fr. Markos. He promptly responded with a lengthy letter that circulated widely, significantly influencing the two elder bishops, Germanos of the Cyclades and Matthew of Bresthena, as well as many monks on Mount Athos and the "Greek Religious Community of Genuine Orthodox Christians," which had been independent for a year. This led to the denunciation of the two hierarchical Pillars, Germanos of Demetrias and Chrysostomos of Florina. [10]

The tragic thing is that, without taking into account all that was previously mentioned—without the knowledge and consideration of which it is impossible to understand and draw reliable conclusions from isolated phrases in a letter or a text—Matthew of Bresthena was the first to hasten on 16/29 June 1937, from the women's Holy Monastery of Panagia Pefkovounoiatrissa in Keratea, Attica, where he resided permanently, to propose that, in order to restore trust and discipline in the Holy Synod due to the scandalization of many consciences, a Synodal Encyclical should be issued, declaring that all the Mysteries of the Innovating Schismatic Church are deprived of Divine Grace and that children baptized in the schism must be re-anointed upon their entry into the Genuine Church of Christ; and also, that the faithful must abstain from joint prayer and participation in any sacred ceremony of the "schismatic-heretical priests and innovating clergy." This proposal was rejected at the meeting of the Holy Synod the following day, 17/30 June 1937, by the other three bishops: Germanos of Demetrias, Chrysostomos of Florina, and at that time, also Germanos of the Cyclades. [11]

Matthew of Bresthena responded with a letter to Germanos of Demetrias on 5/18 July 1937, insisting on his "Proposal" and announcing that if he did not receive a written reply within the following days, he would cease all communion with the Holy Synod. [12]

We do not know whether the Holy Synod responded to Matthew of Bresthena’s ultimatum or whether efforts were made to prevent the creation of a schism. However, Matthew of Bresthena, in a new document dated 5/18 September 1937 addressed to the Holy Synod, reiterated all of the above, stating that he regrets the unexpected actions of the other Members, that he is severing spiritual communion with them until they return to the original confession of faith and strictly adhere to the Canons and Traditions of the Church without leniency, concessions, or compromises, and that he is retracting his signatures from the minutes and other documents of the Synod's sessions up to that point. [13]

However, as becomes evident, this stance was due either to ignorance or to a misunderstanding (intentional or not, it is unknown) of the actual events. From all that has been stated above, it is clear that there was no change in the course or confession of the bishops. Their position and declarations were not confined to or limited by a single phrase from June 1935, but rather were consistent with their entire prior actions and testimony, which Matthew’s writings fail to mention. This omission leads to the conclusion that he either did not fully understand what was happening or was seeking the right opportunity to pursue what he considered an independent course and path of "strict exactitude." This conclusion is drawn because, according to Matthew, the Pillars of the Holy Struggle of Genuine Orthodoxy supposedly lost their original Confession of Faith—these very individuals who sacrificed everything, endured hardships and sufferings, and bore the burden of facing all kinds of adversities, striving for the unity of the Church within the Orthodox framework, and who even granted episcopal ordination to Matthew, appointing him as an honorary titular Bishop, without active participation in the administration of the Church.

Matthew of Keratea established his schismatic group and proceeded with the dreadful act of division, making a general appeal to the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council, even though the bishops he denounced had not proclaimed any recognized heresy. His actions were based solely on the fact that these bishops did not, during that specific historical period of hopeful negotiations and expectations, rush to fulfill his demand on a matter—and its practical implications—that had not yet been definitively and finally resolved!

A reasonable question that also arises is whether Matthew of Bresthena, before taking such a serious and decisive step—namely, the denunciation of his Holy Synod—actually made any effort to exhaust all available means. After the meeting on 17/30 June 1937, in which his "Proposal" was not accepted, and his letter of 5/18 July 1937, in which he issued an ultimatum demanding an immediate response or he would cease communion, it appears that no personal meeting took place between the bishops. There were only letters and denunciations from a distance.

But this, we believe, indicates something deeper. We do not know if there was envy or another passion involved, as we are not knowers of hearts. However, there was certainly an evident lack of trust on the part of Bishop Matthew towards the others, a lack of brotherly and sincere communication, with suspicion, excessive fear, rigidity, and of course, an excessive zeal prevailing, which was bordering on or even exceeding the limits of zeal "not according to knowledge."

If there is true love between brother Co-Strugglers, there is trust, and there is a way to prevent divisions and to calm prejudices and misunderstandings. But for this, an open mind and an open heart are needed, and above all, a lack of external and alien influences. On the contrary, when the inability for genuine dialogue prevails, when there is a desire to impose, when a single position or opinion is overemphasized and absolutized, and when there is an inability to truly understand the Brother, as well as a slide into obstinacy and fanaticism, then there is a serious problem of (mis)communication, and all these are signs of serious spiritual illness, either in an individual or within a community.

These problematic traits were—and continue to be—observed intensely in the circle of Matthew of Bresthena. The excessive and uncontrollable desire to condemn everyone indicates insecurity; the exclusion of all others and the self-isolation lead—not only to the creation of neuroses and various other problematic conditions—but also to a dangerous self-righteousness, which ultimately results in complete self-limitation and inevitable self-destruction.

+++

However, to return to the events, just four days after the denunciatory letter of the Bishop of Bresthena and the now very unfortunate turn of events, and clearly facing a barrage of accusations against them, the Most Reverend Metropolitans Germanos of Demetrias and Chrysostomos of Florina, through their Encyclical No. 966/9.9.1937, hastened to clarify the following with careful wording:

"To the blessed Christians who follow the Old Calendar.

"Because certain individuals have maliciously and slanderously spread the rumor that we are in ecclesiastical communion with Archbishop Chrysostomos of Athens and the official Church, we vehemently reject this slander, declaring that from June 1935 until today, we have neither personally nor in writing communicated with him, nor have we prayed together, nor have we entered into a New Calendarist Church.

"Before Christmas, the official church sent two bishops to us in accordance with the 74th Canon of the Holy Apostles. Our response to them was that we also desire unity, and for this reason, we separated from the official Church; however, this unity must be achieved through the restoration of the Old Calendar.

“As for the validity or invalidity of the Mysteries performed by the New Calendarists, we stand by what we declared in June 1935, namely, that the sanctifying grace of the Mysteries is present and active through those ecclesiastical ministers who uphold the holy Traditions and Canons, without having introduced any innovations, and not through those who have distanced themselves from the holy Traditions and are under the curses of the Fathers.

“In order for a New Calendarist to be accepted into our Old Calendarist Church, which the synodal court of the official Church in its decision of July 5, 1935, labeled as schismatic, despite its adherence to the doctrines, canons, and holy traditions of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, he must submit a request to our Holy Synod, declaring his sacred intention. The Synod alone is competent to determine the manner of his reception, either through a written confession of faith, as such individuals were accepted by the First Ecumenical Council and the ancient Church, or through re-anointing.

“That the Synod alone is competent is confirmed by the 39th Canon of the Holy Apostles, which states: ‘The presbyters and deacons must do nothing without the consent of the bishop; for he is the one entrusted with the Lord's people, and he will be held accountable for their souls.’

“With this, wishing you enlightenment from above, we remain fervent intercessors in Christ.

† Germanos of Demetrias, President

† Formerly of Florina, Chrysostomos

The Secretary Protosyngellos                                                                                                                                                         Archimandrite Alexandros Grigoropoulos” [14]

+++

And while efforts were being made to address the divisive and unbrotherly act of Bishop Matthew, and following the aforementioned Encyclical, Bishop Germanos of the Cyclades, who had initially turned against Matthew of Bresthena—particularly in a forceful manner regarding the issue of re-anointing—issued a statement on 14 September 1937, in which he denounced the two Bishops of Demetrias and of Florina. He accused them of supposedly betraying and rejecting their previous Confession by accepting the Mysteries of the New Calendarists as valid, refusing to label the Innovating Church as schismatic, and allegedly accepting communion with the New Calendarists for reasons of self-interest!

However, the Bishop of the Cyclades is even more revealing; he declares that he denies any right of intervention in the Holy Struggle to the Bishops who ordained him as a Bishop, as well as any involvement in his administration, claiming that such a right supposedly belongs only to the "Greek Religious Community of Genuine Orthodox Christians" (!), while also making accusations against the supposedly New Calendarist-founded "PTEOK" (!).

Furthermore, the Bishop of the Cyclades admits that the now schismatic bishops (himself and Matthew of Bresthena) have assumed the spiritual leadership of the "Greek Religious Community," which, however, they had jointly considered and declared synodally in the Spring of 1936 to have seceded irrationally with the worst of accusations (!). [15]

The admission of assuming leadership of a group of laypeople, who illegally managed to take control of an association, behaving with disrespect and insult towards the bishops and ultimately leading to schism in order to avoid them, is evidence that those who took on the leadership of this group also fell into the same transgression!

However, other denunciatory writings followed as well. Bishop Matthew of Bresthena addressed the Bishops of Demetrias and of Florina with a "Denunciation" dated 19 September/2 October 1937, accusing them of having supposedly joined the ranks of apostates from Orthodoxy and blasphemers against the Holy Spirit (!) simply because, in his view, they accepted "that the mysteries of these heretical pseudo-bishops and clergy supposedly partake of divine grace." After quoting to them the well-known section regarding the Mysteries of the Innovators from the June 1935 Encyclical, and since they accepted in their letter to Fr. Markos Chaniotis the validity of the Chrism of the Ecumenical Patriarchate even after the Innovation, he asserts to them: "It is clearly apparent that you accept as absolutely valid the mysteries of the heretical Innovators," failing to recognize any distinction between the Mysteries of the heretics and those of the Orthodox. In his view, this made them of an alien mindset and worthy of denunciation, separated and cut off from our holy Orthodox Church of Christ. [16] This was the firm conclusion of Bishop Matthew from the two years of continuous and intense struggles of the venerable Confessor Hierarchs, disregarding everything else, including their Encyclical just weeks earlier (9 September 1937)!

In the same vein, Bishop Germanos of the Cyclades sent a letter on that same day (19 September/2 October 1937) to the bishops, stating that they were the ones who had separated from the Orthodox Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians and that recognizing the "schismatic and heretical" Church under Archbishop Chrysostomos Papadopoulos of Athens also meant recognizing its deposition decision against them and their return to the ranks of monks! He signed as "the Metropolitan of the Cyclades, Germanos"! [17]

It becomes clear that when someone deviates from the ecclesiastical way of thinking and living and enters into a self-righteous, erroneous way of viewing things, seeing everything through their own lens alone, they then draw conclusions that seem logical on the surface, as if spiritual matters were mere mathematics! In this way, rationalism and scholasticism triumph alongside other errors. Unfortunately, this is a well-known process and phenomenon within the realm of the Old Calendar for a long time... However, regarding the accusation made by the Bishop of the Cyclades, it must be emphasized that the imposition of punitive measures by the Innovators against the Confessors is regarded by our Ecclesiastical Tradition as a persecution of the Faith, and such unjust punishments have no value or significance.

Returning to the continuation of the story, we see those now self-styled as "Metropolitans of the Cyclades and of Bresthena" (!) issuing the "Encyclical of 5/18 October 1937 to all Genuine Orthodox Christian Clergy and Laity of the Greek Religious Community of Athens-Piraeus and its Branches of Genuine Orthodox Christians," reiterating their familiar accusations and the reasons for their denunciation of the Metropolitans of Demetrias and of Florina. They conclude by stating: "Thus, this is not about personal passions and material benefits, but about the endangered Patristic faith and holy Traditions." [18]

The Confessor Hierarchs, faced with this deplorable situation caused by the distortion of their true spirit, struggles, and concerns by their supposed Brothers, whom they had elevated to the episcopacy, also issued the revealing Encyclical No. 992/7 October 1937 addressed to the "Blessed Christians who follow the Old Calendar."

In this Encyclical, after emphasizing their selfless struggles, sacrifices, and hardships for Orthodoxy, as well as their apologetic reassurances in response to the accusations brought against them by their detractors, they criticize those detractors as adversaries who do not desire the unity of the Church because "they have profited from the Old Calendar movement." They accuse them of becoming instruments of the evil one, continually sending monks and nuns to various towns to spread the falsehood that they have betrayed the struggle to the Innovating Archbishop, "while they themselves have abandoned the religion of Christ, taking advantage of and collecting entire cartloads of grain and other products from the sweat and blood of the villagers!" They denounce them for a multitude of violations of the Canons and institutions of the Church, which they commit to the scandal of the faithful, and remind them of the risk of legal intervention due to accusations of their frauds. They also urge the faithful not to pay attention to the slanderous rumors of their detractors, to trust their bishops, who have forsaken everything for the sake of the Struggle, and to avoid the greedy, insulting, and slanderous individuals in order to avoid suffering. They express satisfaction that the majority of parishes, as well as the zealous Fathers of Mount Athos, have not followed the apostates. [19]

In a letter dated 17/30 October 1937, Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina, addressing a parish president, advises: "You should not pay any attention to the Encyclicals sent by the apostate Bishops of Bresthena and of the Cyclades, for they, out of self-serving motives and unable to endure our scrutiny regarding their unlawful ordinations and other sacrilegious actions, have denounced us and aligned themselves with the former Administrative Council [of the 'Greek Religious Community'] of Manesis and Gounaris, whom they themselves called exploiters and schismatics until recently. As a pretext, the schismatics cited our stance that re-anointing of infants was unnecessary and our refusal to fully and definitively condemn those who accepted the Calendar Innovation—a judgment that only an Ecumenical or Great Council can rightfully make. Proof of the demagoguery of the schismatics "is that both of them alone assumed the title of Metropolitan, while we gave them the title of Bishop at their ordination, something that only adventurers and those mentally and spiritually unstable would shamelessly do." [20]

7.3. Reasonable Hopes and Tragic Disappointments

Understanding the position and expectations of the Confessor Hierarchs, although they were severely misunderstood by narrow-minded individuals, cannot be achieved, as we mentioned earlier, without taking into account their efforts to favorably resolve the calendar issue with the assistance of the state.

In the Encyclical Letter No. 1027/30 October 1937 from Germanos of Demetrias and former Chrysostomos of Florina "To the Congregations of the Holy Churches of Athens-Piraeus," it is considered that the desired resolution "of our issue through the restoration of the Old Calendar throughout the Church" is approaching, and a letter of thanks to the then Prime Minister Ioannis Metaxas is communicated.

It is stated therein that, upon the recommendation of the National Government, the Hierarchy of the Innovating Church, during its last Session, reviewed the issue of the Ecclesiastical Calendar and decided to address it within the framework of Ecclesiastical Traditions through a Mixed Committee, composed of two Synodal Bishops, as well as Germanos of Demetrias, Chrysostomos of Florina, and two Government Representatives.

This news stirred joy and emotion among the faithful of the Old Calendar, and everyone wished for the Committee to begin its work immediately so that by the upcoming Feasts, the Church could be united through the swift restoration of the Old Calendar, allowing Christmas and Theophany to be celebrated together with Holy Zion, Bethlehem, and the Jordan. [21]

+++

Within this atmosphere of euphoria, optimism, and good expectations, the parasynagogue of the Bishops of the Cyclades and of Bresthena, together with some Clergy and Monks, chose the moment to issue an 'Orthodox Confession' on 6/19 November 1937, to be presented to the Innovating Archbishop Chrysostomos Papadopoulos, as President of his Synod, through which they summarize their main critical and rejecting positions against the Innovators, also proceeding to the denunciation of the actions and sentiments “of the two bishops who innovated and renounced their first confession, the former Bishop of Demetrias and the former Bishop of Florina.” There is also an honorable mention of the “Greek Religious Community” as a constitutive part of the Holy Struggle. [22]

At such a critical turning point of the Holy Struggle, where the desired resolution of the Calendar issue is faintly glowing, some are complicating it so that the Innovators might avoid retreat and correction. The holy Bishop of Florina sends his well-known letter dated 9/22 November 1937 to the Bishop of the Cyclades, Germanos, in order to remind him of what he already knew, but ultimately decided without previously coming into any communication and meeting with his fellow bishops (Germanos of Demetrias and Chrysostomos of Florina), to align himself with the Bishop of Bresthena and the defectors of the “Greek Religious Community.”

In this letter, the meaning of the characterization of the Innovators as schismatics in June 1935 “potentially” and not “actually” is developed, a matter for which a valid opinion and a final decision of an Ecumenical or Pan-Orthodox Council is required. Additionally, the necessity of a Synodal approach to the Calendar Innovation is emphasized, given that it was applied only to the fixed and not to the movable Feasts, while the Great Councils of the 16th century condemned the Gregorian Calendar mainly for the innovation of the Paschalion. He emphasizes the sufferings that he and the Bishop of Demetrias endured for the sake of their Confession and their struggle for the union of the Church, which they see nearing its realization, as well as their hopeful expectations, in contrast to the revolutionary and obstructive stance of the triumph of Orthodoxy taken by the defector bishops. [23]

It is certain that Bishop Germanos of the Cyclades was not convinced by these positions, which may have had some basis and explanation in what was previously discussed, but it is doubtful whether they could have convinced or even calmed the spirits of those who were scandalized. Moreover, even the holy bishop of Florina, Chrysostomos, after the passage of years, had to make assurances that he retracted statements and positions of his that did not seem to align with the 1935 Confession, as it was understood by many.

+++

It is not known to us whether the Mixed Committee appointed by the State to resolve the calendar issue ultimately convened or not. We only know that the Confessor Hierarchs of Demetrias and the former bishop of Florina submitted a Memorandum to the Government in December 1937, which in turn, through the Ministry of Religious Affairs and National Education, forwarded it on 16 January 1938 to the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece of the New Calendar.

The Memorandum for achieving the desired peace of the Church contained ten conditions: a) recognition of the ecclesiastical status formed by the followers of the Old Calendar, b) consideration of the implementation of the New Calendar as temporary and subject to dispute, c) granting freedom to the Clergy of the Old Calendar, d) determination of the convocation of a Pre-Council during Lent of 1938 with the prospect of union by Easter, e) participation of one of the two (Demetrias, former Florina) as a Member in the Pre-Council to develop positions on the calendar, f) determination that the decision of the Pre-Council be binding for all, g) abolition of the independence of the "Greek Religious Community," h) taking appropriate measures against those exploiting the struggle of the Old Calendar for selfish purposes, i) in case the Pre-Council is not convened by Easter, determination by the Permanent Holy Synod to implement the Old Calendar in the Church’s Festal Calendar, and finally j) the compliance of the Church of Greece with the other Orthodox Churches in the observance of the Holy Canons and Traditions of the Church. Along with these, there was also an assurance of avoiding any ecclesiastical actions that would hinder the peace of the Church and the union of Christians, which the aforementioned mutual agreement "promises to be safe and certain." [24]

The conditions of this Memorandum do not appear to have positively influenced the Innovating Church towards resolving the division. The New Calendarists never wanted to admit their mistake and make amends, in order to achieve a union according to God's will, despite the fact that those of the Old Calendar directed such unifying proposals to them for at least the next three decades!

At that very critical moment, when the circumstances favored the possible union of the Church with the restoration of the Old Calendar by the Innovators—even under state pressure—the uncompromising stance of the Bishops of the Cyclades and of Bresthena provided [Archbishop] Chrysostomos Papadopoulos with the opportunity to hasten to present them to the government, through the Minister of Religious Affairs and National Education, as "stubborn, rebellious, and exploitative," in order to thwart any ecclesiastical resolution.

And while a possible positive development was expected in early 1938, the Minister of Religious Affairs and National Education, in a document to the Ministry of Public Order (No. 1263/38), informed them that the Old Calendarist Clergy were illegally bearing the habit of Orthodox Clergy and requested the enforcement of the laws, based, of course, on the reasoning of the State regarding the preferred resolution of the calendar issue, as mentioned in a text by the holy Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina. [25]

The Ministry of Public Order, in turn, issued a circular to the police authorities of the State (February 1938) and initiated a new wave of persecution against the clergy of the Old Calendar and the sealing of their holy churches. Only after a representation by the leaders of the Genuine Orthodox Christians to the Minister of Public Safety, Konstantinos Manidakis, was that circular revoked, and the persecution suspended. This was the last persecution of the Genuine Orthodox, instigated by the Innovating Archbishop Chrysostomos Papadopoulos before his death in October of that same year (1938). [26]

However, we do not intend to follow the continuation of the story in detail, except in relation to the person of our biographical subject, Fr. Chrysostomos Naslimes. He did not seem to take an active part in the division that arose at that time. Instead, being possessed of a high ecclesiastical mindset, maturity, broadness, and well-rounded education, he remained faithfully attached to his bishops, Germanos of Demetrias and Chrysostomos of Florina. As a moderate and sensible person and clergyman, he agreed with them, understood their spirit, and remained obedient and available to them.

Only later, after 1948, did he become involved in the conflict with the parasynagogues and schismatics of led by Matthew of Bresthena, as a defender of the canonical order of the Church, a matter about which we will discuss in detail in a subsequent chapter.

His only loss was that he was deprived of his Spiritual Father up to that point, Archimandrite Akakios Pappas of Mount Athos, who at that time followed the schismatics until the year 1945, when he returned to the canonical Holy Synod under the holy Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina.

7.4. Some Final Observations

We are aware that the content of this chapter may have tired and caused bitterness to the reader. Indeed, it is not at all pleasant to recount events of sad division and discord, especially among the defenders of the ancestral piety. [27]

Nevertheless, as we mentioned earlier, we considered this sad account necessary in order to maintain historical continuity in our present work, as well as to provide a documented historical testimony and perspective in the most comprehensive way possible.

With this account, which is organically connected to the contents of Chapter 5 of this work, our intention was not to reopen wounds or to reignite new conflict, but rather to place the events within their broader context, thereby facilitating their correct understanding.

We have the sense that in 1937, two different mindsets and tendencies came into conflict. On one side was the broad, unifying, and hopeful approach, which viewed the Innovation as curable; on the other was the divisive and rigid approach, which considered the Innovation as absolutely entrenched.

Our position here is not intended to suggest that on one side were all the good and sensible people, and on the other, the negative and narrow-minded ones. Remarkable figures existed on both sides, and a struggle for the Faith was waged with every means. However, the side of Matthew of Bresthena was historically the most closed-off, isolationist, and clearly problematic.

Thus, this division and lack of communication, the inability to acknowledge our share of responsibility for the perpetuation of the division, and the tendencies toward self-justification occur not only because of external enemies or the envy of the devil, but also, as it seems, due to our own sins and the lack of true repentance, humility, and love. The pain for the well-being of the Church should bring us closer with a spirit of reconciliation, given the critical nature of the times, in a spirit of brotherhood and understanding, and not of contempt and domination!

Nevertheless, the disintegration and fragmentation among the Matthewites over the last few decades leave little room for any reconciliation, as their rigid intransigence and harshness, which each group separately carries as a "sacred trust" from their patron, have led them to self-punishment...

+++

Regardless of whether the "restrictive" perspective—being more easily understood—seemed to gain theoretical ground, even within the canonical Church of the Genuine Orthodox, in order to attract those trapped in Matthewitism, in the account of our biographical subject, Fr. Chrysostomos Naslimes, throughout his career, we will observe a proponent of a militant yet hopeful outlook and vision, who struggled amid great adversities to maintain balance and unity, with patience and love. In this, he gives us a significant and resonant message, which, in our humble opinion, deserves our attention and appreciation, and if possible, to embrace as a spirit and attitude in the new circumstances we are living in and the new situations that have developed.

1. See this in the work of Stavros Karamitsos-Gamvroulias, The Agony in the Garden of Gethsemane, Athens 1961, pp. 119-121.

2. See this in the journal Ta Patria, issue no. 1/January-March 1976, Piraeus, pp. 19-23, with a reference to its original publication in the afternoon newspaper of Athens at that time, Typos, on 21.6.1935. Also, see the work The Holy Monastery of St. Nicholas of Paiania and the Holy Struggle Against Ecumenism, Paiania 2008, pp. 91-93.

3. See The Ecclesiastical Calendar as a Criterion of Orthodoxy - A Defense by His Eminence, the Former Metropolitan of Florina, Chrysostomos, to the Orthodox Greek Conscience, published by Herald of the Genuine Orthodox, Athens 1935, pp. 34-35.

4. It is well known what St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite summarizes in the Sacred Pedalion regarding those under deposition and excommunication, that "they are subject here to deposition and excommunication or anathematization, and there to divine judgment," because "the command of the Canons, without the practical implementation by the Synod, is incomplete, immediately and prior to judgment, not operating by itself" (see pp. 4-5, note 2, on the 3rd Canon of the Holy Apostles). In the history and practice of the Church, during periods of heretical threats, it was necessary to convene a Synod for the diagnosis, confirmation, and final definitive condemnation. For example, for the restoration of Orthodoxy in 843 AD, after the second phase of Iconoclasm, which had already been condemned by the 7th Ecumenical Council in 787, a Great Synod was needed for, among other things, the declarative proclamation of the definitive condemnation of the Iconoclasts, as it is written in the "Synodikon of Orthodoxy": "To those persisting in the Iconoclast heresy, or rather in the Christ-fighting apostasy... and to those irreversibly held by this delusion and closing their ears to every divine word and spiritual teaching, [they have blocked their ears], as those already rotting, and cutting themselves off from the common body of the Church, anathema" (see Triodion of Penitence, published by "Phos", Athens 1967, p. 158).

5. See Collected Works of the Former Florina Chrysostomos Kavourides (1871-1955), Volume One, published by the Holy Monastery of St. Nikodemos, Elliniko Gortynia, 1997, p. 294.

6. Ibid., p. 276.

7. Ibid., p. 250.

8. See the journal Herald of Genuine Orthodox, March 1981, pp. 81-90. Fr. Markos (Emmanuel) Chaniotis († 1977) was a philologist and, before his adherence to the Old Calendar, served as a professor at the Seminary of the Monastery of St. Anastasia in Vasilika, Halkidiki. He is also the founder of the Holy Monastery of Saints Theodoroi in Angeria, Paros (See about him in Stavros Karamitsos-Gamvroulias, The Agony..., cited above, p. 360, and in the journal The Voice of Orthodoxy, issue no. 740/1.7.1977 [old style], pp. 14-15).

9. This is because, as the holy former Bishop of Florina affirmed in that same year, 1937: "This Innovation [of the New Calendar] never received the sanction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, because it was not carried out by the entire Hierarchy of the Throne convened in Synod and making decisions in the Holy Spirit, but only by the Twelve-member Administrative Synod, which was only for current affairs and not entitled to make adjustments to ecclesiastical institutions of pan-Orthodox authority, such as the change of the ancestral and Orthodox festal calendar" (see Refutation..., in Collected Works, cited above, pp. 295-296). This had also been expressed earlier, in another context and in another text by the Confessor Hierarch: "The introduction of the Gregorian calendar into the Ecumenical Patriarchate, as it was done only by the ruling Synod, and not by the entire Hierarchy of the Throne convened in Synod and making decisions in the Holy Spirit, does not bear the seal and sanction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and therefore, the return to the ancestral festal calendar does not in any way affect the ecclesiastical authority of the Throne, but rather that of the Administrative Synod, which bears personal responsibility for this innovation committed in excess of its authority" (see the article "Old Calendarism and the Head of the Church," in the newspaper Herald of the Genuine Orthodox, issue no. 239/11.11.1935).

10. See Bishop Kalliopios P. Giannakoulopoulos, Metropolitan of the G.O.C. Pentapolis, The Ecclesiology of the Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece (from a Historical Perspective), Piraeus 1987, p. 37. Fr. Markos Chaniotis, after 1948, returned under the holy former Bishop of Florina, Chrysostomos, but remained repentant for that hasty action of his, as it had driven the weak towards separation and division. The author of the work mentioned here [Kalliopios of Pentapolis, †1998] confirms that "the reasons that caused the schism of 1937 were not only those, but also others," something that indeed becomes evident from what will be presented subsequently.

11. See the journal Herald of Genuine Orthodox, April 1981, pp. 123-124.

12. Ibid., pp. 125-126.

13. Ibid., pp. 126-128.

14. The Encyclical is presented both in a facsimile of the original and in printed form in Bishop Kalliopios P. Giannakoulopoulos, Metropolitan of the G.O.C. of Pentapolis, The Ecclesiology of the Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece..., cited above, pp. 65-68; also in Stavros Karamitsos-Gamvroulias, The Agony..., cited above, pp. 143-144; and additionally in the journal The Voice of Orthodoxy, issue no. 108/11.7.1938, p. 4, where some minor differences in the rendering of the text are observed. On the same page of that issue, a "Communiqué" is provided, urging the "defector Bishops" (by then, the bishop of the Cyclades had also aligned with the Bishop of Bresthena) to study the text of the Encyclical and not to appear, for the misleading of the simpler faithful, as supposedly agreeing and consistent with their previous confession, while the Metropolitans of Demetrias and of Florina are falsely portrayed as having departed from it.

15. See the journal Herald of Genuine Orthodox, April 1981, p. 129. However, it must be emphasized here the revealing statement made by St. Chrysostomos of Florina in his work Clarification of the Pastoral Encyclical of 18.1.1945 (p. 14), where he wrote that when he had traveled to Jerusalem (Dec. 1935 - Apr. 1936), the Bishop of the Cyclades, Germanos, with the consent of Matthew of Bresthena, proposed to depose (!) the president, Germanos of Demetrias, and replace him with the former Metropolitan of Florina himself, which was, of course, appropriately rejected. But at the first opportunity, they became independent as leaders, in order to share equally the benefits of leadership and to prove that "they had been seeking from the beginning the division of the Struggle with a completely light conscience"!

16. See the journal Herald of Genuine Orthodox, May-June 1981, pp. 173-176.

17. Ibid., p. 177.

18. Ibid., pp. 177-180.

19. Letter from the Archives of the Holy Synod of the Church of the G.O.C. of Greece, which was posted on its official website: 

www.ecclesiagoc.gr/images/stories/agies/Biblia/Encyclical1937.pdf [inactive].

20. See the journal Herald of Genuine Orthodox, August 1981, pp. 250-252. In this Matthewite periodical, the letter of the holy former Bishop of Florina is not presented in its entirety, nor is the recipient of the letter named.

21. Letter from the Archives of the Holy Synod of the Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece, which was posted on its official website:

 www.ecclesiagoc.gr/images/stories/agies/Biblia/metaxa1.pdf [inactive].

The fact that the Metaxas government desired the union of the Church is also evident from what Metaxas said in his office to Chrysostomos of Athens and the Members of the Permanent Holy Synod, in the presence of the Minister of Religious Affairs and National Education, Mr. Georgakopoulos, as recorded by the then Synodal Metropolitan of Thessaloniki, Ezekiel, in his apologetic letter no. 1866/16.12.1937 to his Synod: "...The Church (said Metaxas), indifferent to the State's calendar, MUST return to the old festal calendar, and that the new calendar was hastily introduced during a Revolutionary period and that NO ONE can be persecuted for it" (See Bishop Kalliopios P. Giannakoulopoulos, Metropolitan of the G.O.C. of Pentapolis, Ta Patria, Volume VIII, 2nd edition, Piraeus 1990, pp. 90-91. The capital letters are from the original source).

22. See the journal Herald of Genuine Orthodox, May-June 1981, pp. 180-182.

23. See this in the work Former Metropolitan of Florina Chrysostomos Kavourides - Fighter for Orthodoxy and the Nation, edited by Ilias Angelopoulos and Dionysios Batistatos, Athens 1981, pp. 76-84.

24. See the journal Herald of Genuine Orthodox, August 1981, pp. 258-260.

25. See The Calendar in Relation to the Orthodox Eastern Church, dated 31.3.1938, in Collected Works..., cited above, pp. 303-319. This text constitutes a defense before the court to avoid condemnation for "usurpation of authority," and it reveals that the "Ruling Church" did not cease its persecutory tendencies. The State, although considering the exile and deprivation of freedom of the Genuine Orthodox Bishops as contrary to the Constitution and the Laws of the State, was nevertheless inclined toward what the holy Metropolitan of Florina described as an "invented middle and hermaphroditic solution to the issue," namely, the accommodation of the religious needs of the Old Calendarists with "canonical priests" of the Innovating Church of Greece. However, since this solution was unacceptable to both sides, "there remains no other solution," according to the holy former Bishop of Florina, "except the convocation of a Pan-Orthodox Synod at Mount Athos, which... can and is entitled to validly and unanimously provide the appropriate solution to this vexing ecclesiastical issue, which has recently disturbed, without necessity, the peace and unity of the Churches and scandalized the consciences of the faithful" (p. 314). The only Canonical solution to the issue is the restoration of the Old Calendar (ibid.). Both then, later, and until the end, the position and expectation of the holy former Metropolitan of Florina remained the same, which is why he avoided making definitive decisions—despite his sometimes decisive and severe characterizations of the Innovators as essentially schismatics, as those who broke away from him would have preferred, who, even to this day, not only fail to accept but even fail to understand his true spirit, being captive to the prejudices and obsessions of the sorrowful past.

26. See Bishop Kalliopios P. Giannakoulopoulos, Metropolitan of the G.O.C. of Pentapolis, Ta Patria, Volume VIII, cited above, pp. 91-92.

27. Metropolitan Chrysostomos particularly condemns the phenomenon of division among the truly Orthodox in every era, regardless of the invocation of reasons of "precision of Faith" by those who separate in such circumstances, writing characteristically: "Nothing is worse than strife and conflict, and tearing apart the Church, and dividing the garment, which even the thieves did not dare to rend, into many pieces. Are the other heresies not enough, that we must also cut ourselves apart? Do you not hear Paul saying, 'But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another' [Gal. 5:15]?" (See On Those Who Fast During the First Pascha, Third Homily, § A', PG vol. 48, col. 863).

Source: Ἐπίσκοπος Mαγνησίας Xρυσόστομος Nασλίμης (1910–1973)· Ἀκατάβλητος Ἀγωνιστὴς Πίστεως καὶ Ὑπομονῆς [Bishop Chrysostomos Naslimes of Magnesia (1910 1973): An Invincible Struggler in Faith and Fortitude], by Bishop Klemes of Gardikion [now Metropolitan of Larissa], Vol. I (Athens: Holy Monastery of Saints Cyprian and Justina, 2019), pp. 152-188.