(In memory of Fr. Basil Sakkas)
By the authors of the blogs "ΕΝ ΤΟΥΤΩ ΝΙΚΑ" and
"ΚΡΥΦΟ ΣΧΟΛΕΙΟ"
September 12, 2014
"With agreement in faith being firm among us,
nothing else hinders us from being one body and one spirit."
(St. Basil the Great, PG. 32, 701)
Always remaining in the service
of the unity in Truth of all genuine Orthodox Christians, with a stentorian
voice, we had raised in the past the issue of the union of our divided
brethren. Thus, when this past spring we witnessed the miracle of the unity of
the two great Jurisdictions into one Synod under Archbishop Kallinikos, we
supported our united Synod with all our strength, believing that it is capable
of overturning the stagnant state into which our Sacred Struggle had fallen in
recent decades.
The great majority of the G.O.C.
belongs to our Synod. A small part belongs to a Synod presided over by
Archbishop Makarios Kavvakidis, while a slightly larger part than this belongs
to the Synods of the Matthewites.
Could the much-desired unity be
achieved with the above Jurisdictions, and under what conditions?
Beginning with the Synod of
Makarios, we must say that there are some notable clergy and laity within it
whom we know. However, unfortunately, the mindset of the responsible persons of
this Synod is anti-union.
Characteristic examples of their
mindset are the following:
a) Their reaction to the union of the G.O.C. in the spring of 2014.
While it was proven that, with a
spirit of sacrifice and love in Christ, differences can be overcome and the
unity of genuine Orthodox Christians can be easily achieved—since the Grace of
God "heals the infirm and completes what is lacking"—the responsible
persons of this Synod not only turned their backs on this miracle but reacted
in an entirely childish manner by ordaining not one, not two, but nine new
bishops, that is, almost half of their hieromonks!
b) Their practice of accepting deposed priests into their ranks.
And while accepting those deposed
by other Synods of the G.O.C. might be justified—since this has happened before
in periods when Orthodox Christians were administratively divided (Saint
Photios mentions [P.G. 104, 1229-1232] that during the period when the Orthodox
were divided into two factions, that of Saint Photius and that of Saint
Ignatios, "we also received many others who had been deposed for
accusations by the most holy Ignatios, and those deposed by us were received by
Saint Ignatios")—how, then, can the acceptance of those deposed from the
New Calendarist sphere be justified, when they were deposed not for "Old
Calendarism" (that is, for reasons of faith) but for moral and other
canonical offenses?
With such a mindset, a union on
equal terms with the Synod of Makarios cannot and should not take place. We can
only hope that the sound elements within it will come forward for the good of
the Sacred Struggle and join our united Synod, as the worthy Bishop Ambrose of
Philippi did a few months ago, thereby demonstrating in practice his desire for
the unity of the G.O.C.
Regarding the Synods of the
Matthewites, we have the following observations:
1. In 1995, the until-then unified Synod of the Matthewites split
into two Synods. A group of five bishops separated from the Synod of Archbishop
Andreas, accusing it of "Iconoclasm." However, anyone who examines
the evidence from that period will easily realize that this accusation was
entirely unfounded. While some reservations may have been expressed by certain
individuals (whether correct or incorrect is not under discussion) regarding
whether certain depictions should be painted, and while there may have been
some isolated reactions concerning specific icons, the official position of the
Synod was clear and left no room for anyone to accuse it of Iconoclasm.
2. Nevertheless, the schism occurred, leading to the formation of
the so-called Synod of the Five (with Gregorios "of Messinia" as its
president). In 2002, a schism arose within this Synod due to disputes that
broke out over ecclesiological and theological issues—matters which, when
interpreted by completely ignorant individuals, inevitably lead to conflicts
and scandals. Thus, in that year, the two remaining bishops from the original
five (as the others had reposed), Gregorios "of Messinia" and
Chrysostomos Mitropoulos "of Thessaloniki," disagreed and separated
from each other.
3. Gregorios "of
Messinia", as we recently learned, proceeded in 2002 to ordain bishops alone! After his repose, his Synod is
presided over by Chrysostomos Tzanis "of Thebes." While we believe
that ecclesiological, iconological, and theological issues, if not resolved
immediately, could at least be referred to the Great General Synod of the
Genuine Orthodox, the Apostolic Succession of this Synod is in question due to
the single-handed ordinations. This act was, in fact, incomparably more
condemnable than that of Matthaios Karpathakis, because in 2002 there was an
abundance of genuine Orthodox bishops. Therefore, the bishops of this Synod are
subject to judgment by the Great Synod, and any admission of its clergy into
the ranks of the united Synod of the G.O.C. must be carried out, by extreme
economy, through cheirothesia.
4. Chrysostomos Mitropoulos
"of Thessaloniki" has been left alone with a few scattered faithful
across Greece. We pray that God will enlighten him, at the very least, not to
proceed with ordinations alone, as
his former fellow bishop did.
5. From the Synod of Archbishop
Andreas, who was succeeded by Archbishop Nikolaos, Kyrikos Kontogiannis of
Mesogaia separated in 2005 and was deposed. Kyrikos then established a new
Synod of global scope, which he named "Pan-Orthodox." Naturally,
there should be no question of unity with such unlawful situations.
We have the impression that, with
the schisms of 1995 and 2005, not only did certain groups leave the Synod of
the then-Archbishop Andreas, but also its most extreme and scandalous elements.
Today, this Synod is presided over by Archbishop Stephanos.
With this Synod, a Dialogue of
Unity on equal terms is necessary. If this unity is achieved, we will be
speaking of a union of the so-called "Old Calendarists" in Greece at
a level of approximately 90%—a union essential for our spiritual survival and a
sure antidote to the plague of Ecumenism and all its manifestations.
His Eminence Metropolitan Cyprian
of Oropos and Phyle here describes his unofficial meeting (on the occasion of
the forty-day memorial of the beloved by all Fr. Vasileios Sakkas) with
Metropolitan Sebastian of Kition of the Church of the G.O.C. of Cyprus, who
belongs to the Synod of Archbishop Stephanos.
(Corrected link -
https://www.imoph.org/pdfs/2015/12/14/E20151214aKypros11-2015.pdf)
What His Eminence mentions is
hopeful.
The creation of Dialogue
Committees between the two Synods is a most desirable development, and we
believe that such an effort will be successful. Since some may express
dissatisfaction—either on our side regarding union with the
"Matthewites" or on the other side regarding union with the
"lukewarm"—it is worth making a few observations:
a) Regarding the ecclesiological issue, we believe that an
agreement can be reached based on the well-known Common Ecclesiological Text, upon which the union of the two Synods
took place in the spring of 2014. Concerning this union, the ever-memorable Fr.
Basil Sakkas expressed his wish in an electronic letter he shared with us,
hoping that it may "become the beginning and serve as a guarantee and
incentive for the union in Christ and in truth with all the others as
well."
As for the old dispute over valid
or invalid Mysteries, which served as a pretext for the separation of 1937, we
believe that it will be very easily resolved. However, it is worth once again
giving the floor to the now-reposed Fr. Basil Sakkas:
"It is
neither beneficial nor prudent for the G.O.C. to quarrel among themselves and
to concern themselves with the mysteries or non-mysteries of the New
Calendarists. The Apostle also says: 'For
what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? But those who are
outside God judges!' (1 Cor. 5:12-13). Since we have entrusted them to the
mercy of God, He knows whether He will show longsuffering toward them, how He
will show longsuffering, and for how long He will show longsuffering. We are
not the administrators of God's Mercy. Our duty, as those who regard every
innovation as the instigation of the devil, is not to compromise the 'Faith
once delivered' even by one iota or one tittle. The primary goal, therefore, is
to continue the good beginning that has been established, to unite all the
G.O.C. under a single Orthodox confession, with which we will remain
consistent, following a common line. Then, we must convene a Pan-Orthodox
Synod, which is the official voice of the Church and will issue the formal
definitions concerning those who have deviated and distanced themselves from
the Patristic piety. Until that time, however, we cannot have any communion
with them in the Mysteries and in prayer, lest we become 'partakers of other
men's sins,' confessing that we reject and abhor their innovated calendars,
their ecumenism, and their new-fashioned baptism—or rather their mere affusion.
From what little I know, I believe that this is how the Fathers acted towards
heretics. Immediately and without delay, they would break communion with the
heretics, awaiting the convocation of the competent authority, namely the
Ecumenical Council—not to learn and decide whether the false doctrine was
heresy, but so that, through the official voice of the Church, all the necessary
clarifications and definitions of the true doctrine would be made and the
official condemnation of the heretics would be pronounced. It must be noted
that the Council was composed solely of Orthodox bishops."
b) Regarding the issue of Apostolic Succession, we believe that
there will be no problem since both Synods derive their Apostolic Succession
from the Russian Church Abroad. Moreover, the leading figures who opposed the
recognition of the ordinations that took place in 1971 (Kontogiannis,
Gkoutzidis) have been separated since 2005.
c) Even regarding the person of Matthaios Karpathakis, a solution
can be found, since the stance of the Synod of Archbishop Stephanos toward
Matthaios is one of respect (acknowledging his positive aspects) and honor
within permissible limits, without arbitrary canonization or blind personality
cult. Thus, the united Synod that would emerge could include Matthaios and the
other bishops in its diptychs, just as the Synod of the Patriarchate of Antioch
did in 413, when Patriarch St. Alexander inscribed both Paulinus and
Evagrius—who had been ordained by Paulinus alone—into the diptychs to achieve
unity with the Orthodox "Eustathians."
d) Finally, even regarding the issue of who will preside over the
Synod, a solution will be found. Saint Meletios of Antioch, pleading with the
hard-hearted Paulinus for the unity of the Orthodox, who were divided into
"Meletians" and "Eustathians," said to him:
"Since the
Lord of the sheep has entrusted the care of some to me, and you have assumed
the care of others, and since the flocks that follow piety are in communion
with each other, let us, O beloved, unite the flocks and put an end to the
dispute over leadership. Let us shepherd the sheep together and offer them
joint care. But if the central seat is the cause of contention, I will even
seek to remove this obstacle. For this reason, having set before us the divine
Gospel, I suggest that we sit on either side of it. And if I am the first to
reach the end of this life, you alone, O friend, shall have the leadership of
the flock. But if you should depart first, then I shall again assume
responsibility for the care of the sheep."
Greek source:
http://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2014/09/blog-post_12.html
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.