The legal and ecclesiological defense of St. Chrysostomos the New, Confessor and Hierarch

The issue of the ecclesiological mindset of the Confessor Hierarch, the former Metropolitan of Florina, Chrysostomos (Kavourides, †7 Sept 1955), has become a "sign of contradiction."

The theologically and canonically correct ecclesiological stance regarding the calendar/liturgical innovation of 1924, as a potential and not an actual schism, with all its implications concerning the validity of the Holy Mysteries, was never abandoned by the late hierarch. The well-known Encyclical, No. 13 / 26 May 1950, [1] constitutes a concession, an expression of oikonomia, unitive and defensive, which did not annul the dogmatically supported faith he had repeatedly upheld in the past. [2]

Hoping that we shall return to this very serious matter, we proceed to publish an ecclesiological text on the subject by the Confessor Hierarch. We note, however, that "it constitutes a sin, and not a minor one, when what he said out of oikonomia and certainly not voluntarily, but under the pressure of necessity and dire circumstances, is attempted by some to be presented as the ideology of the Sacred Struggle, which he solemnly led for an entire twenty years, imparting distinction to it and correcting it in many ways through the garment of theology and his orderly and 'canonical' reaction, elements which it previously lacked." [3]

The former Metropolitan of Florina, Chrysostomos, who labored in theological discourse and for which he has already been deemed worthy of "double honor" [4] by the Divine Founder of the Church, is interpreted both through his numerous writings and through the practical measures he applied against the Innovators, as well as by his close collaborators. [5] Those who adhere to the Orthodox ecclesiology of the Confessor Hierarch are regarded as the genuine laborers "of the Orthodox and God-pleasing resistance" [6] on behalf of the unity of the Church in Truth and Canonicity. Defense to the Court of Appeals of Athens:

On January 31, 1940, the former Metropolitan of Florina Chrysostomos was tried by the Athens Court of First Instance, accused by the innovating Archbishop of Athens, Chrysostomos Papadopoulos, of allegedly usurping authority, and was sentenced to four months' imprisonment and a monetary fine of 500 drachmas. Three "Defenses" of the martyric Hierarch have been published:

a) before the Athens Court of First Instance (31 Jan 1940), [7]

b) before the Athens Court of Appeals (29 Mar 1940), [8]

c) before the Supreme Court (Areopagus) (1 Oct 1940). [9]

The convicting lower court based its decision:

1. On the alleged validity and finality of the deposition decision by the Synodal Court,

2. On the opinion of the late Prosecutor of the Supreme Court, Georgiades, [10] which stated that the Old Calendarists cannot have their own churches or clergy,

3. On the relevant constitutional provision, according to which the coexistence of two Orthodox Churches within the Greek State is not permitted.

The Confessor Hierarch, in his "Defense" before the Court of Appeals (29 Mar 1940), which is one of his most beautiful texts, refuted with characteristic rhetorical strength all three bases of the lower court's decision. [11] Below, we publish the refutation of the third basis due to its ecclesiological content. Annotations are ours.

We now proceed to the refutation and overturning of the third basis of the lower court's decision. As such, the relevant provision of the Constitution was invoked by the Prosecutor, according to which two Orthodox Churches cannot be recognized within the State. This is claimed only by the innovating Hierarchs, who wholly uncanonically and arbitrarily declared the Old Calendarists schismatics in order to provoke public disdain against them and the wrath of the State. [12]

No one knowledgeable in Canon Law and possessing an Orthodox mindset can seriously claim that the Old Calendarists constitute a second Orthodox Church within the State, but rather they represent the patristic, uninnovated, and Autocephalous Orthodox Church of Greece. [13] For, however much they may appear, externally and in the outward expression of faith, to have their own worship, their own places of prayer, and their own clergy, nevertheless, although they remain in non-communion with the innovating hierarchy, they steadfastly adhere to the Traditions and the Divine and Sacred Canons. Thus, within Canonicity, they do not constitute a separate Church from the one with which they have temporarily severed ecclesiastical communion for canonical reasons, but rather the vigilant guardians, watchfully keeping the signal on the adamantine ramparts of the One Orthodox Greek Church.

The aforementioned Prosecutor, placing faith in the erroneous and uncanonical opinion of the late Archbishop of Athens, which claimed that the Old Calendarists allegedly rebelled without ecclesiastical justification against the official Church by establishing their own churches, and being unable, due to a lack of theological education, to discern the distinguishing marks of the unity of a Church from those of its division and schism, concluded that the Old Calendarists, having severed ecclesiastical communion with the governing Hierarchy due to the liturgical innovation, constituted their own Church. This is not true, because from the severance of ecclesiastical communion by a portion of clergy and laity with the governing Hierarchy, due to ecclesiastical disagreement and their refusal to conform to some uncanonical decision, one cannot canonically conclude that the dissenting group, having temporarily ceased ecclesiastical communion with the governing Hierarchy, thereby constituted their own Church, let alone a schismatic one, as the Synodal Court unfortunately labeled them. This court tried and deposed the Bishops of Megara, Diavleia, the Cyclades, and Bresthena. [14]

It is not a faction of Christians, disagreeing with the governing Hierarchy on some ecclesiastical issue and being in a state of ecclesiastical non-communion, that constitutes or separates Churches, nor does any particular Church have this right according to the Canons. This claim can only be seriously made by those holding Protestant views. Rather, it is the entire Orthodox Church, convening in a Pan-Orthodox Synod, that has such authority. Evidence of this is that the Bulgarian Schism was not proclaimed solely by the Ecumenical Patriarchate, even though it then had 85 dioceses, but by a Great Local Synod convened in Constantinople in 1872. [15]

Therefore, the faction of the Old Calendarists, not having been constituted and recognized as its own Church by a Pan-Orthodox Synod, cannot constitute a separate Church from the one from which it temporarily severed itself in order to avoid becoming complicit with the Hierarchy in the unilateral innovation. Moreover, this faction not only does not divide the Church but, within the framework of the Autocephalous Church of Greece, constitutes the radiant and unsullied side of its Orthodox identity.

Thus, we, who follow the traditional liturgical calendar and honor, as we are bound, the Apostolic and Synodical Ordinances rather than the uncanonical decisions of the Hierarchy, not only do not constitute a separate Schismatic Church but, within the framework of the One Church, have preserved the golden seals of the Ecclesiastical Traditions and continue the history and character of the Orthodoxy of the Autocephalous Church of Greece.

From the periodical "Orthodox Information and Witness," No. 24-25 / July-December 1991, pp. 297-300.

References:

1. See periodical "The Voice of Orthodoxy", no. 86 / 12 June 1950.

2. See indicatively: a) Letter to Bishop of the Cyclades Germanos Varikopoulos (20 Oct 1937), b) Defense before the Athens Court of Appeals (29 Mar 1940), c) Pastoral Encyclical (1 Jun 1944), d) Clarification of the Pastoral Encyclical (18 Jan 1945), e) Refutation of the calendrical treatise by Dorotheos Kottaras, Bishop of Larissa (Dec 1947).

3. Monk (later Hieromonk) Theodoretos, The Calendar Schism: Potential or Actual?, pp. 29-30, Mount Athos - Athens, 1973.

4. 1 Timothy 5:17.

5. See indicatively: a) Elias Angelopoulos-Dionysios Batistatos, Metropolitan of Florina Chrysostomos — Defender of Orthodoxy and the Nation, p. 41, Athens, 1981, b) Dionysios Batistatos, letter "The Former Metropolitan Florina and the Other Old Calendarists," in the newspaper Orthodox Press, no. 327 / 20 Sep 1978, p. 3, c) Stavros Karamitsos, The Contemporary Confessor of Orthodoxy, p. 47, Athens, 1990.

6. St. Theodore the Studite, PG vol. 99, col. 1045.

7. See it in Elias Angelopoulos-Dionysios Batistatos, op. cit., pp. 63-68.

8. See it in Former Metropolitan of Florina Chrysostomos, Memoranda - Letters - Apologias Regarding the Julian Ecclesiastical Calendar, Athens, 1941.

9. See it in the same source. These two "Defenses," before the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court (Areopagus), are also republished in Stavros Karamitsos, op. cit., pp. 136–194.

10. See it in the periodical "Church", no. 29-30 / 28 Jul 1934, pp. 227–234: "The Supreme Court on Deposed Priests and Old Calendarists."

11. See Former Metropolitan of Florina Chrysostomos, Memoranda..., op. cit., pp. 29–31, 33.

12. See indicatively: Synodal Encyclical of the innovating Hierarchy, No. P. 2389/D.2203 / 16 Apr 1926: "The decisions of the Church are absolutely binding, and whoever does not obey no longer belongs to it, is deprived of the means of divine Grace, is separated and cut off from it, and is subject to eternal damnation. Hence, the pious and faithful children of the Church have a duty to comply with its decisions and not to be led astray by the schismatics and the contemners of their spiritual mother." (Synodal Encyclicals, Vol. A / 1901–1933, p. 454, Apostolic Ministry, Athens 1955.)

13. With the Orthodox Church in Greece being protected by the Constitution, it is essentially established that "within the Greek State, the authority of the Holy Tradition and the canonical ordinances of the Eastern Orthodox Church of Christ" is safeguarded, which "is obligated to preserve these inviolably, unalterably, and unchangeably, under no circumstances being permitted to deviate or depart from them, especially for no reason, under the penalty of facing the consequences of such a break from the Orthodox ethos and doctrine." (Panagiotis I. Panagiotakos, System of Ecclesiastical Law According to Its Validity in Greece, Vol. III, The Penal Law of the Church, pp. 41–42, Athens 1962.) Based solely on Article 3 of the 1975 Greek Constitution, it is evident that the Greek State recognizes as the prevailing religion in Greece not the Innovation but Orthodoxy, the uninnovated Orthodoxy, the incorruptible pleroma, i.e., the "radiant and unsullied side of its Orthodox identity."

14. See "The Decision of the Synodical Court Against 1) Christoforos Chatzi, 2) Germanos Varikopoulos, 3) Matthaios Karpathakis, and 4) Polykarpos Liosis," issued on July 3, 1935, in the periodical "Church", no. 27-28 / 13 Jul 1935, pp. 213–217. The trial was held in absentia of the accused, who were found guilty of "illegal and uncanonical consecration to the episcopate, joining the schism created by the former Metropolitans Germanos of Demetrias Germanos, Chrysostomos of Florina, and Chrysostomos of Zakynthos, usurping authority through the formation of a parasynagogue, faction, and tyranny." The "Ecclesiastical Court" imposed upon them "the penalty of deposition, completely stripping them of all priestly office, rank, and title, reducing them to the monastic order and sentencing them to five years of physical confinement in a monastery."

15. "In the absence of the possibility to convene a Pan-Orthodox Synod, a broader synod was convened (from August 29 to September 17, 1872, in three sessions: 29.8, 12, and 16.9), in which participated former Constantinople Patriarchs Gregory VI and Joachim II, the Patriarch of Alexandria Sophronius, the Patriarch of Antioch Hierotheos, the Patriarch of Jerusalem Cyril (not in a literal sense), the Archbishop of Cyprus Sophronius, 25 other bishops, and some archimandrites. The Bulgarian Exarchate was declared schismatic," under the Patriarch of Constantinople Anthimos VI. (Vasileios Moustakis, "Bulgarian Church," entry in "Theological and Ecclesiastical Encyclopedia" (Θ.Η.Ε.), vol. 3, col. 1009, Athens, 1963).

 

Greek source: https://353agios.blogspot.com/2016/03/blog-post_60.html