On the Objections of the Newly Walled-Off Toward the G.O.C. (2016)

In an article on May 15, 2016, we commented on a statement made by a newly-walled-off brother who hastened to declare that: "WE ARE NOT OLD CALENDARISTS, WE ARE NOT A PARASYNAGOGUE, WE ARE NOT SCHISMATICS!" We will repeat the exhortations with which we concluded our commentary:

“I beg once again (as I have done also with other accusers of us), to wait, because after the pseudo-council [of Crete] we will see many things; therefore, do not rush to draw conclusions and to pass judgment indirectly, and know that confession is not accomplished by accusing our other brethren, hiding behind their errors in order to appear more Orthodox without any blemish…”

Many times, we have pleaded with them, imploring them to lower their tone, to stop accusing, but unfortunately, we were not heeded; instead, we observed the following distortion: namely, when the time comes for us to give a public defense for the things they themselves accuse us of, they present us as “insulters”! What are the insults? Did we label you “schismatics”? Did we label you “a parasynagogue”? None of these things. And yet, they continue the unjust characterizations, repeating the same things over and over again—for what purpose? Perhaps to be praised? Perhaps because if they state that they are not Old Calendarists, they will be heard? Yet they received their answer from the very ones on whose behalf they, for some strange reason, are giving a defense, after the conclusion of the Great Council, and it states the following:

“The Orthodox Church considers every division of the unity of the Church, by individuals or groups, under the pretext of upholding or supposedly defending genuine Orthodoxy, to be condemnable.” (Par. 22)

We shall therefore concern ourselves with our accusers in this article, analyzing some of their arguments.

They say and cry out: “WE ARE NOT OLD CALENDARISTS!”

Yet there are also walled-off individuals who are indeed old calendarists, that is, they follow the Old Calendar. However, what these particular walled-off individuals mean and wish to say is that they are not G.O.C. Why? Because they consider them to be “a parasynagogue” and also “schismatics”!

They themselves believe that the G.O.C. ought to abandon the space in which they find themselves—that is, according to them, their “parasynagogues”—and become walled-off like themselves, so that the heretical Bishops may be driven from their thrones. Yet they do not tell us the manner in which this is supposed to happen, but merely, in a vague and undefined way, call upon the people to wall themselves off into completely isolated “groups,” which are not even united among themselves!

They also call upon the Bishops of the G.O.C. to abandon their episcopal thrones and become simple walled-off priests! Very well, let us follow their reasoning! Will they provide us with a single argument as to how the heretics will be driven out?

Will they provide us with a single argument as to how, in all the Local Churches and Patriarchates throughout the world, the expulsion of the heretical Ecumenists will be accomplished?

In short, the newly-walled-off are living in a “utopia,” the implementation of which is not only impossible, but is far removed from reality and from the era in which we live!

They are calling the people into an “ecclesiastical anarchy” where everyone will be “master of himself,” where whoever commits “transgressions” will not face the corresponding consequences, since there will be no official body—no ecclesiastical organ—to pass judgment on the transgression, and many other consequences without end!

Another argument which they develop from time to time is the return to the period before 1924. A time of proper struggle (as some of them say), of the Orthodox, when there were no Bishops. Yet they forget that the Orthodox of that era, because they had pure spiritual motives, understood the functionality of Bishops for the establishment of a body (and not arbitrary isolated groups), to confront the Innovations, and for this reason they sought Bishops! It was this voice that the confessor Hierarch, Chrysostomos Kavourides, former Metropolitan of Florina, heard and decided to lead their struggle.

Therefore, it is completely paradoxical that the walled-off who follow the Old Calendar accept that the Orthodox of the ’24 era were correct, since those sought Bishops for the continuation of the struggle!

Yet even the walled-off who follow the New Calendar hold paradoxical theories! They consider and say that the G.O.C. must be dissolved—that is, their Bishops—yet here they themselves on January 25, 2015 made an “appeal,” writing (emphasis our own):

“Clerics who wish to wall themselves off from the Ecumenist bishops of the Hellenic Ecumenist and Heterodox Church of the riot police and the Cannibalistic Transplants, as Father Theodoros Zisis calls it, we urge them to do so as soon as possible through some heroic act of theirs in order to be freed from their defilement by the heretics and the thrice-accursed Ecumenists... These clerics are called to come and serve on a permanent basis at Saint Mark of Ephesus in Souroti, Thessaloniki, and at other churches of the Walled-off which we will designate to them... These candidate clerics we call to be joined to the Walled-off and, after being ordained by a Walled-off Bishop, they will be utilized to meet the needs of the Walled-off, who are continually increasing and multiplying, and for whom the churches in which they are already hosted are no longer sufficient, requiring either that they be enlarged or that other spaces be found to convert into churches...”

(https://apotixisi.blogspot.gr/2015/01/blog-post_33.html)

At that time, in our defense, we had stated:

“Might it not be that, if the walled-off brethren had Bishops within their group, they would also have their own churches (of the walled-off), where the various Mysteries would be performed (as is already partly the case today with Fr. Euthymios Trikaminas), etc.?”

In short, they themselves also understand the practicality of Bishops in the struggle for many reasons! However, as a natural consequence, the following fact arises: namely, if the walled-off were to hypothetically have a sufficiently large flock, such as the Old Calendarists, and if they also had Walled-off Bishops, then they would form a large body which would necessarily have to be legally established, because they would not only be celebrating the Mystery of the Eucharist, but also the Mysteries of Marriage and Baptism! But these Mysteries are recorded in the registries of the Greek State, and so they would necessarily have to legally establish the body of the walled-off which they would have! This is exactly what the G.O.C., whom they accuse, did! Yet today the walled-off speak “from a position of safety,” because they have neither a large flock, nor many priests, nor Bishops in their struggle. So, they end up doing the following paradoxical thing: for the Mysteries of marriage and baptism, they send people to the Ecumenist Churches! And this is natural, due to the dead-end into which they have fallen!

That is to say, the establishment of a formal Synod does not take place in order to create a “new” Church, as they claim and accuse us of, but purely for legal reasons! As for their argument—why the Fathers did not establish such Synods in the past, etc.—the answer is simple! Because such a legal framework did not exist, and there was no such need to form a Synod! Regardless of the fact that the walled-off Fathers and brethren were often placed under the omophoria of Bishops!

They presented to us as an argument that Saint Maximus the Confessor remained alone and did not form a Synod. Yet they forget that Saint Maximus, departing from Cyzicus, found refuge near Saint Sophronius, later Patriarch of Jerusalem, and subsequently near Saint Martin, Pope of Rome, who was martyred in 652 by the Monophysites–Monoenergists! Later, of course, the great Maximus remained alone, but he wandered as a prisoner, exiled and tortured.

They forget that the Orthodox of Constantinople in 380, when they walled themselves off from Demophilus, the Arian-minded and “canonical” Patriarch of Constantinople, placed themselves under the omophorion of the newly arrived Bishop of Sasima, Saint Gregory the Theologian (in anticipation of convening a Council—the Second Ecumenical—which would condemn the former!).

In few and simple words, the Fathers understood the functionality of Bishops in the struggle! As for the formation of Synods, I believe we have made ourselves clear above!

What is paradoxical is that the walled-off say that the G.O.C. must dissolve their Synod and that their Bishops should become simple priests, while elsewhere they say: “we call upon the candidate clerics to join the Walled-off and, after being ordained by a Walled-off Bishop...”!

Where will we find this “Walled-off Bishop”? Perhaps from the official Church? Will he be accepted as a canonical Bishop, while the Bishops of the G.O.C. will not be accepted and must become simple priests, as they claim?

As you understand, their arguments have no foundation and are merely hypothetical assertions that justify only their own action—namely, that of walling off—which we do not say is incorrect, but that it is incomplete. For it to be complete, the participation of Bishops is necessary, not because the Church is bishop-centered, but for the reasons we mentioned above, and most importantly because the Church is not egocentric!

They accuse the G.O.C. for their various divisions over time, but as for their unions in Greece and abroad [e.g., in 2014]—not a word! Yet they forget something very important: their divisions and conflicts occur within the boundaries of the Church. They are internal disputes, which in no way do we commend, but they take place within the boundaries of the Church and far from every heresy and heretic! Whereas the disputes of the anti-ecumenists are outside the boundaries of the Church, because the official Church, merely by being a founding member of the W.C.C., has lost its uniqueness! It is a Church equal to the other 360 heresies that participate in the W.C.C. It is a Church that has pushed aside the Holy Fathers, accepting a post-Patristic Theology, and many other things which are not relevant at present, since our reply here pertains to the walled-off.

But why do they accuse the struggle of the G.O.C.? If certain individuals were at times unworthy and caused discord and strife, that does not mean the struggle is tarnished because of those particular persons. There were unworthy ones, but there were also worthy ones! Why must they focus on the unworthy and not on the worthy? Why do they look at the divisions and not at the unions?

When these unworthy individuals inflict wounds upon the body of the G.O.C., what do they think we should do? Perhaps carry out persecutions? Perhaps shave them, as the spiritual forefathers of the very same newly-walled-off did to the Old Calendarists? The only thing we can do is to denounce them, and those who belong to our Synod we depose from their rank. We cannot be occupied with every insubordinate person who, for egotistical or personal reasons, creates problems in our Church. Such persons have existed in both the Churches of the New and the Old [Calendar]! Yet, when we denounce them, our accusers act as if they do not understand what it is about, they claim ignorance, and they present these denunciations as negative and as supposed mutual accusations! If we do not denounce them, they tell us that we are doing nothing to cleanse our Church from such problematic elements!

They have often brought accusations, speaking of the “non-canonicity” of our ordinations because they were received from outside their proper jurisdiction! Yet here is Fr. Euthymios Trikaminas, who likewise received the restoration of his priesthood from outside his jurisdiction—due to his defrocking by the official Church—from Bishop Artemije! However, we never accused them for this; on the contrary, unlike them, we even wished him “a blessed ministry”!

(See http://entoytwnika.blogspot.gr/2013/04/blog-post_4243.html)

They question our ordinations, which are validated by Saint Philaret of the Russian Church Abroad, and they do not bother to examine their own canonicity, which was denounced in severe terms by then-Metropolitan Ambrose [of Eleftheroupolis], and which was published in Orthodoxos Typos, issue no. 202–203, and includes:

“The holy Canons desire and require that the Primate of each Church be appointed by all the Bishops of that Church, and not by a faction of them...

“I ask you, holy Brethren: Are we truly and absolutely canonical? Do we possess an unblemished canonicity? I respond with a stentorian voice: NO, NO, NO! We too are uncanonical, first, because we all bear within ourselves the ancestral sin of uncanonicity, as we have come, directly or indirectly, from the hierarchy that was created by the uncanonical five-member Aristindin Synod of 1922, which appointed Chrysostomos Papadopoulos as Archbishop—with only three votes... second, because in the present Synod sit Hierarchs who were elected by the Aristindin Synod of Archbishop Damaskinos... third, because about half of the members of the present Synod are co-responsible for what occurred after 1967... fourth, because the entirety of the members of the present Synod, or at least the overwhelming majority, received ordination as Deacon or Presbyter, or both, at an age younger than that which is prescribed by the holy Canons...

“I repeat the words of my telegrams: ‘In the Church of Greece, no Hierarch will be found clean from the stain of uncanonicity,’ and ‘If Thou, O Lord, shouldst mark uncanonicity in us, O Lord, who shall stand...?’ It was most aptly written the other day in a daily newspaper of Athens that, if the State wishes to find Bishops of irreproachable canonicity in order for them to appoint the new Archbishop, there is only one solution: to ask God to once again send to earth the 12 Apostles!”

However, the purpose of our article is not to insult or diminish the brethren, nor to repeat previous articles.

This article is, in a certain way, a defense for the things unjustly attributed to us, without adding any characterizations, in contrast once again to them.

We have tried not to use Patristic sources, except for a few rare exceptions, because we believe that today the distortion is no longer of Holy Scripture as it was in the past, but of the Fathers, and the selective appropriation of their words according to one’s own preference. Everyone makes a selective publication of whatever fits his own case, and in this way thinks he is proving his assertions!

We also tried not to produce an article of many tedious pages with multiple references, but rather to focus on the essence of the objections that concern the brethren, using as brief, simple, and understandable language as possible.

Never did these brethren in question make the effort to meet with our Bishops and engage in a dialogue about how the Church of the G.O.C. intends to proceed, what it is preparing, what its plan is, and in general to express whatever concerns them, so as to receive answers and then judge for themselves; instead, they prefer online censorship through accusations and characterizations. We consider this approach to be neither honest, nor seeking dialogue, nor seeking unity!

We have people who can go and engage in conversation and express either their objections or anything else.

Will they do it?

Finally, this article is not addressed to all kinds of fanatics who use Orthodoxy as a means to vent their inner complexes and mentally unhealthy motives, but to those who have sound thinking, right belief, genuine love, and pain for what is taking place in the Ark of our Lord Jesus Christ!

 

Greek source: ΔΙΕΥΚΡΙΝΙΣΕΙΣ ΣΤΙΣ ΕΝΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ-ΚΑΤΗΓΟΡΙΕΣ ΤΩΝ ΑΠΟΤΕΙΧΙΣΜΕΝΩΝ, by Ioannis N. Paparrigas (2016).