The Epilogue of our historical work, "Bishop Chrysostomos Naslimis of Magnesia (1910-1973): An Invincible Struggler in Faith and Fortitude"

On July 13/26, 1973, 52 years ago, the most important representative of our sacred Struggle, after Saint Chrysostomos, former Metropolitan of Florina (+1955), the ever-memorable Bishop of Magnesia Chrysostomos Naslimis, fell asleep in the Lord at the age of just 63, following a long illness which he bore with the patience of Job. About this outstanding man and exemplary Cleric, we wrote an extensive work titled: Bishop Chrysostomos Naslimis of Magnesia (1910-1973): An Invincible Struggler in Faith and Fortitude, which occupied us systematically for five years and was published in two voluminous tomes. The first, consisting of 500 pages, was published in 2019, and the second, consisting of 644 pages, was published in 2020. These two volumes are presented in full electronically in the “Important Material” section of the present Website of our Holy Metropolis, so that their extremely important content from every point of view may be available to all interested parties. The presentation of this wondrous ecclesiastical figure of our sacred Struggle gave us the opportunity to present for the first time, with particular detail and documentation, the detailed history of our sacred Struggle, largely unknown to those near and far from our circle, and for this gift of divine Grace we thank our Lord and God from the depths of our hearts.

We present here the Epilogue of this work of ours, which is published in the second volume, on pages 601–612, due to its importance and the significant messages it conveys to us today. May they be heeded!

+ Klemes of Larissa and Platamon
July 12/25, 2025

 

Epilogue

Through the two volumes of our voluminous work, we have followed the Biography of the ever-memorable Bishop of Magnesia, Chrysostomos Naslimis—an extraordinary man, a clergyman, and a distinguished Hierarch of the Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece. A man who, in worldly terms, was an orphan, struggling from a young age to make his way in life, endowed with special gifts, with a disposition toward creativity, and above all with a passion for Truth. Divine Providence guided his steps in such a way that his deepest desires and inclinations were fulfilled: to acquire the necessary provisions for life, to come to know the struggle for livelihood, to satisfy his love of learning, with the possibility of securing a bright future in the growing city of Volos in the first half of the 20th century.

Still very young, the then Christos Naslimis became connected with the traditionalist circle, with the followers of the Patristic Calendar and the Community of the Dormition of the Theotokos in the house of the well-known Zographos Brothers in Volos. He became actively involved in ecclesiastical life, gave himself wholeheartedly to ecclesiastical service, expressed his faith in Christ and his confessional stance, sharing in the sufferings of the small Flock of the despised and persecuted Old Calendarists with boldness publicly. At the age of just 22, he undertook the astonishing and demanding task of publishing the exegetical works on the Epistles of the New Testament by the ever-memorable theologian and teacher of the Gospel, Theodoros Zographos (+1920), which he successfully brought to completion within a short period of time. He began writing articles in the press of the time while still almost an adolescent, displaying a remarkable level of spiritual knowledge, cultivation, and experience, impressive linguistic refinement and eloquence, as well as an unexpected pastoral maturity for his age.

He delved into the Calendar issue as few did and recorded his well-documented views in a specialized treatise, in a clear and systematic manner.

The difficulties and persecutions from the Innovators of the New Calendar neither broke him nor led him to a reactionary, small-minded stance or response. Rather, they strengthened him even more in the struggle for Truth and Justice, with the formulation of positions that were decisive and at the same time peaceful and moderate. Contributing to this was also his exceptional character and his adamantine moral integrity.

The returning of three Hierarchs to the Patristic Calendar in May of 1935, in support of its restoration in the Church—since the Calendar Reform was carried out in a coup-like and uncanonical manner, and indeed with political prompting and pressure within the framework of a “modernization” program—gave new life and impetus to the God-initiated sacred Struggle, begun in 1924 by those who remained faithfully committed to the traditionally handed-down ordinances.

Our biographee was the first clergyman to be ordained for the Church of the G.O.C. of Greece by Metropolitan Germanos (Mavrommatis) of Demetrias in June of 1936, against his will, through sudden pressure.

From then on, the young Archimandrite Chrysostomos Naslimis engaged in a rich and fruitful ministry—pastoral, spiritual, preaching, confessional, literary, apologetic, anti-heretical, catechetical, and liturgical—throughout nearly the entire territory of Greece. Filled with love, sacrifice, zeal, labors, struggles, and self-offering. With continual confrontation of many and various temptations and obstacles. Without ever losing his focus, despite his sorrow and pain, and also his hope-filled outlook, his attentiveness, his prayer, his modesty, his humility, his gentleness and purity, his affability and vigilance, his hope and patience, his monastic, heavenward journey. In the world with people, and outside it with the Lord and the holy Angels.

Archimandrite Chrysostomos Naslimis was distinguished by discernment, that fundamental virtue which made him a man and cleric of measure and balance. For this reason, he was not swept away by the internal divisions within the Patristic Calendar ranks into factionalism, always remaining on the path of the Church, characterized by prudence, God-pleasing wisdom, and mercy.

It is true that in difficult times of manifold pressures, the avoidance of extremes is challenging, and few are those who do not succumb to the temptation of “right-wing” or “left-wing” deviation. The “left-wing” deviation refers to the gradual alteration of the Orthodox Faith and Orthodox Ethos through inadmissible Innovations and Reforms, which stem from a lack of fear of God and from the darkness of pride and conceit. This occurred with the aforementioned Calendar Innovation as the beginning of reprehensible Ecumenism.

The “right-wing” extremes, such as the Matthewite schism of 1937, which was formalized in 1948, in the name of supposed perfect exactitude of the Faith, arise from a lack of discernment, humility, and love. These supreme virtues, where they are present, do not lead to self-isolation and misuse of spiritual gifts. Even otherwise charismatic figures, especially when under strong influence from an unsuitable environment and advisors, and when they are inwardly lacking in any of the aforementioned virtues, then usually tend toward self-enclosure, are unable to rightly understand and apply Ecclesiastical Economy, to existentially appropriate Love, and to sacrificially serve the Unity of the Church.

Those who are unable to handle Economy in the matters of the Church—which, according to the divine Fathers, is applied in some cases “for a time” and in others has “perpetual” validity, in order that Unity in essential matters might be preserved, even if some differences exist—such persons, being “unskilled” (clumsy), are not true Stewards of the Mysteries of God. [1] And with great ease they proceed to separations, divisions, and schisms, thinking that in this way they are serving the exactitude of the Truth, though separated from the discernment and economy of Love.

They are unaware that Love is the most important bond of Unity in the Church, which (Love), according to the holy Chrysostom, “is accustomed to unite and bind together those who are separated.” [2] For this reason, without Love, Faith is dead, and even the external ecclesiastical organization itself proves powerless to preserve Unity: “For this is not the sole thing sought, whether we have one Church or one dogma… There is need of bandages and of oil… Let us understand that Love is the mark of the disciples of Christ, and that without it nothing else has strength.” [3]

Thus, we understand that in cases where issues arise even among the Genuine Orthodox, Unity is not preserved, nor is it restored in existing divisions, merely through the achievement of a theoretical agreement and the co-signing of certain formal texts—without, of course, disregarding the importance even of these necessary things. Only genuine and sincere Love informs the hearts and erases oppositions, inspiring concord and unity according to God.

The Unity of our Church, which—following the example of our Confessor and First Hierarch, Saint Chrysostomos, former Metropolitan of Florina—was served with all his strength by our biographee, Bishop Chrysostomos Naslimis of Magnesia, already from 1962, holds the utmost significance for Her course and witness; for this reason, the responsibility and guilt of those who have divided Her is immense: “There is nothing worse than strife and quarrel and the rending of the Church, and of that tunic which even the robbers did not dare to tear, to cut it into many pieces,” according to the testimony once again of the holy Chrysostom. [4]

By writing all the above, it does not mean that we are contradicting our stance against the Innovating New Calendarists, whose Calendar Innovation—as it was introduced and imposed—created a schism, as has been developed with full detail and precision in numerous parts of our work. The mere fact that it struck at the Unity of the Church in the common celebration of the Feasts, dividing the Orthodox for the sake of co-celebration with the heterodox, in order to pave the way for the onslaught of the ecclesiological heresy and apostasy of Ecumenism—both Inter-Christian and Inter-Religious—fully justifies the praiseworthy resistance raised by the Genuine Orthodox Christians.

The reaction shown in accordance with the Ecclesiastical, Canonical, and Synodal Tradition of the Orthodox Church against the Calendar Reform was met by those guilty with persecutions of dreadful intensity and fury—an undeniable proof of their inexcusable guilt from every point of view. In response to this, our Forefathers exhibited unsurpassable endurance and perseverance, even unto martyrdom. Yet, in order that an approach between the estranged might be achieved, the leaders of our Church were willing to forget every injustice committed against them, so that the Church might regain Her Peace and Unity, through the rejection of the hasty and erroneous imposition of the Reformers.

The progress of Ecumenism, however, which took place in the meantime, left no room for the return of those who had gone astray, as they increasingly distanced themselves, and the chasm widened instead of narrowing. And for this fact, the Genuine Orthodox were not to blame, for they always remained open to hopeful developments—something they pursued both in writing and in speech—while their unfeeling persecutors continued their unbrotherly and contemptuous attitude, thereby justly and necessarily compelling them to give an account in response to their inconsistency and hardness of heart.

In our work, the myth is overturned that we of the Patristic Calendar were the indiscriminate and fanatical ones. What holds true is precisely the opposite. The acknowledgment of this by those responsible would perhaps constitute a good and hopeful point of redefinition of the existing division, with the possibility of further positive developments. True faith always hopes, and true love never despairs.

Our Church made repeated efforts of goodwill and expressed its unifying disposition both during its period of “orphanhood” (1955–1960) and when, by the good pleasure of God, it acquired its canonical Hierarchy (1960, 1962), and for at least a decade thereafter it did not cease to address both official and unofficial appeals, without any substantial response from the unyielding Innovators, victims of either their ignorance or arrogance. They have never sought anything other than our “absorption” into them by every possible means and method. We, by the grace of God, following the example of our Chrysostoms—Saint Chrysostomos of Florina and Chrysostomos of Magnesia—as well as others, are not about to abandon the sacred Deposit under any circumstances, declaring with boldness once again that even if we are left entirely alone, we shall fall upon the ramparts of our noble Struggle, and that will constitute for us the greatest and most glorious honor and blessing.

The aforementioned recovery of our Hierarchy, an event of fundamental importance for the continuation of our very existence, is regarded by us as a wondrous act of divine Providence. For this reason, it was presented in our work with every detail concerning its accomplishment, so that no doubt may remain about what truly happened and how exactly it took place. The reference to the activity of the heroic Archbishop of Chile, Leonty Filippovich (+1971) of the Russian Church Abroad, holds particular significance, for he became the instrument of divine providence for the fulfillment of a work of historical importance. Our gratitude and thanksgiving for his contribution cannot be expressed in a manner worthy of the magnitude of his offering. [5]

Despite the initial problems concerning the selection of the persons who were ordained at that time—among whom was also the long-expected and for years already elected Bishop of Magnesia, Chrysostomos (May 1962)—the development of events was of decisive importance. The failure to elect Chrysostomos of Magnesia, who in every respect surpassed the other Hierarchs, to the position of First Hierarch after the repose of Akakios of Talantion (December 1963), was the result of passionate criteria and principles not in accord with the divine Will. We do not conceal the errors and transgressions that were committed from petty motives. Envy, unfortunately, touches even the perfect—just as does the dominance of a logic of shortsighted self-interest rather than of the good of the Church—in persons in whom such things ought not to occur.

Such events, which wrong great figures, essentially contribute to the even greater manifestation of their nobility, their virtue, and their genuine ecclesiastical mindset. In this regard, Chrysostomos of Magnesia underwent rigorous testing and received the highest marks—only that this had as its price the rapid deterioration of his precious health, so that he fell seriously ill and was tried more than anyone else, according to the unfathomable counsels of the Lord.

What highlighted—and continues to highlight through our entire work—Chrysostomos of Magnesia as a towering figure in our circle is precisely his conscious subordination of personal convenience and preference to the common, collective interest of the Church. In order to prevent worse outcomes and, above all, to avert at all costs internal division, he would gladly yield and endure every kind of disdain and injustice, so long as he would not harm the fragile Unity of our Church. Even if this ultimately cost him his early confinement to disability and the very sacrifice of his life at the age of just 63, his example cries out—his entire conduct, his writings, his deeds, his holy, suffering figure—that it is worth suffering martyrdom for the Truth and the Unity of the Church! THIS IS HIS MOST POWERFUL MESSAGE BOTH IN LIFE AND AFTER HIS REPOSE. A measure and criterion for all of us, regardless of the position we may hold within the Body of the Church.

He departed seemingly forgotten and wronged, despite the fact that both Clergy and Laity loved him deeply, respected him, and honored him. His dynamic presence in the realm of Genuine Orthodoxy—and beyond—during its most difficult period of trial (1930–1970), could not but leave an indelible mark and a resounding echo. A “most radiant light” of astonishing brilliance passed through, and its shining could not but leave the strongest impressions and preserve living sparks of its radiance in the souls of his Flock, of his spiritual children, throughout the entire Flock of our Church, and much more broadly, in all those who directly or indirectly knew and respected him, and even in those who opposed or fought against him, on account of his spotless and uncompromising path and his indomitable struggle.

However, already during the period of his illness, unstable and unworthy living material began to settle in the vineyard of our Church. In many areas where Chrysostomos of Magnesia labored and toiled, in order to cultivate and preserve—and even to increase—whatever was divine, lofty, and salvific, there later developed, in his absence, weeds of disorder, lawlessness, and turmoil in matters of administration, organization, witness and confession, pastoral activity and care, etc. Due also to a lack of attentiveness in ordinations or in the reception of Clergy from other quarters, a grievous crisis broke out, as individuals not only unworthy of the circumstances but also morally and otherwise discredited had managed to infiltrate and seize high-ranking positions—individuals who contributed to divisive and apostatic outcomes; parasitic remnants and sorrowful residues of whom continue even to this day to exist on the margins of our sphere, in complete disrepute and moral decay.

The poor state at the top of the ecclesiastical structure was reflected in all its subordinate parts. And this, because in our humble opinion, two fundamental elements—in which our biographee served as a model of virtue, conduct, and action—were not given due attention. As a result, we witnessed sorrowful and unpleasant phenomena, as well as developments that in essence hindered the smooth course and witness of our Church both then and thereafter:

a) The matter of the proper management of the gifts in the Church. The gifts which the Holy Spirit bestows must be expressed and safeguarded for the general good of the Church, for the cultivation of Peace and Love, and not for personal benefit, self-promotion, or selfish exploitation—something egocentric and divisive. If the bond of Peace and Love is abandoned, if the spirit of imposition prevails, then even the most excellent gifts lose their proper and life-giving function, their harmonious cooperation with the rest of the members, and are transformed into instruments of negative rivalry, contention, and harm. To avoid this, “personal right,” personal opinion, and personal will must not be placed above all, but rather the common seeking of the divine Will within the Church. Wherever opinions—even seemingly correct ones regarding any ecclesiastical matter—are absolutized and dogmatized, even when serious, strong, and substantial counterarguments are expressed by brethren in Christ, and not by adversaries, and these absolutizations are suddenly elevated to criteria of Orthodox Confession and Ecclesiastical Communion, then imbalance inevitably arises and, in all likelihood, division follows. Here we recall what we wrote earlier regarding discernment in the application of Ecclesiastical Economy.

b) Likewise, particular attention and discernment are required in defining the sensitive relationship between Clergy and Laity—an issue which, as we have seen, has always particularly troubled our sphere. In the Church, we have a Hierarchical Polity; the special Priesthood is divinely instituted, and it is impossible to conceive of the Church apart from the lawful and canonical Ecclesiastical Authority. However, one must also not forget the fundamental principle that, by virtue of the common Baptism and Chrismation and the shared participation in the Divine Eucharist, the fundamental principle of the equality of all likewise holds true.

The head has need of the body and of the feet in order to stand, just as the feet need the head in order to function. As the holy Chrysostom emphasizes, “the laity are in need of us, and we, in turn, exist for them.” [6]

The distinction between Clergy and Laity, and in general the distinctions of ministries and gifts in the Church, exist from the one and same Holy Spirit for the achievement and preservation of the Unity of its members, and not for their division, strife, and conflict. We must not forget that before the Lord we are all “fellow servants.” [7] For this reason, the ideal relationship between Clergy and Laity from Apostolic times has been one of unity and cooperation.

The support of all is needed for the Hierarchical Body of the Church. The Hierarchy has the primary and principal role, but the “consensus of the Churches,” which shapes the “Ecclesiastical Conscience”—that is, the as far as possible unanimous opinion of Clergy and Laity on fundamental ecclesiastical matters—is not ignored. The laity are needed as valuable collaborators in the spreading of the evangelical truth, in missionary work and catechesis, in the accomplishment of the sanctifying and liturgical work, in offering their opinion regarding the selection of candidates for the Clergy, even for Hierarchs, in the execution of philanthropic work, etc. But of course, they (the laity) likewise must not overstep their bounds and demand to impose their will upon the Hierarchy in an overbearing manner, with a deviation into irreverence and insolence.

We hold the humble opinion that, if the witness in deed and word of the adamantine Chrysostomos of Magnesia had been better understood, heeded, and accepted, we would have had a far more positive course and development in our affairs, many serious errors would have been avoided, and we would have played a much more prominent role in ecclesiastical matters both then and now.

We also remind of something very important: those from our circle—or those who entered it at various times, whether Clergy or primarily laity—with evidently good knowledge and intentions, but at the same time with the mindset of the “corrector” and “reformer,” without, however, knowing well and sufficiently our very own history—especially how, within our midst and from figures such as our biographee and other Strugglers, a critical balance had been achieved in particularly sensitive matters—their intervention, instead of bringing about better order and progress, rather resulted in greater division, alienation, and tension. Some continue the same contentious and non-edifying approach, essentially revealing their own sorrowful obstinacy and, moreover, their inner insecurity and disorder.

Continuing on this point, we say that anything which ignores our real—rather than fabricated or imagined—historical reality, and seeks even to “impose itself” and “be established,” is incompatible and unassimilable within our Body, as an element that is, more or less, intrusive and alien. For this reason, it requires proper interpretive processing and arrangement in harmony with the whole Body, if it is to constitute a structural element within our already existing and shaped ecclesiastical reality. We are not speaking here of legal matters, in order to avoid possible mistaken conclusions by the reader, but of purely ecclesiastical ones.

Let us understand that the corruption caused by heresy and secularization is immense, and our foremost purpose is to serve as the bulwark and refuge for those who desire and seek a secure place of repentance and salvation. Our long-suffering faithful people are in need of pious nourishment—of good example and solid Orthodox teaching and formation—without the admixture of elements that revive periods and issues which have demonstrably caused only turmoil and scandal. Those who are able to heed the needs of the times, to contribute and offer their support to a God-loving and philanthropic work with blessing and discernment, should take seriously into account our earnest observations, as they proceed from a thorough and exhaustive study of our sources and history. If we do not learn, if we are not corrected, and if we do not do everything possible to prove ourselves good Stewards of the manifold Grace of God, then we shall remain incorrigible bearers of old rigidities and shall inevitably fall into the same and even worse errors as those who in the past did not serve as examples to imitate but as warnings to avoid. The example to be imitated—such as that of our biographee—shines before us, and let us not appear indifferent or ungrateful and thankless, incorrigible and unteachable…

That our All-Good Lord allowed us to find, to process, and to “rediscover” this radiant model—the truly rare and eminent figure of Chrysostomos of Magnesia, buried in dusty and forgotten cabinets of history nearly half a century after his repose—is in itself an exceptional gift of His Grace.

Now His Goodness has seen fit for us to discover and appreciate what kind of man, member, clergyman, and Hierarch we had—what he accomplished, what he insisted upon, what he said and did, but also what he says to us today, for it seems that NOW is when we are in the greatest need of his profound Message.

What remains is for us to embrace his stance, his spirit, and all that bears enduring value and divine blessing which he has to convey to us in today’s dire reality.

In matters of Faith: steadfastness and struggle unto the end, without extremism or deviation.

In matters of Morality: the purifying virtue, consistency, and piety, patience in all things.

And in all ecclesiastical matters generally: godly wisdom and prudence, good and sensible foresight and organization, and above all the best works, actions, and fruits.

And since it happens that we are going through a period of trial due to illnesses, pandemics, and dangers from health complications, the timely Message of the ever-memorable Hierarch is the continuation of our Struggle under all circumstances, thanksgiving and vigilance, readiness even for persecutions, hardships, and martyrdom, as well as absolute confidence and trust in divine Help.

So that the Lord may also have mercy on us, without our yielding or being led astray, without falling into the snares of the forerunning conditions of the age of the Antichrist, in order that we may not be deprived of the eternal Kingdom of our Savior Christ!

We close with emotion with the words written by the Apostle Paul to his disciple, the Apostle Timothy—words which we believe we hear mentally and clearly being conveyed and emphasized to us by the modern Apostle and Hierarch of Christ, the ever-memorable Bishop of Magnesia, Chrysostomos Naslimis, to all of us as his spiritual and beloved children in the Lord:

"But you, O man of God… pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness; fight the good fight of the faith; take hold of eternal life, to which you were also called… I charge you before God, who gives life to all things, and before Christ Jesus, who witnessed the good confession before Pontius Pilate, that you keep the commandment without spot, blameless until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which in His own time He will show—He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see; to Him be honor and everlasting dominion. Amen!" (1 Tim. 6:11–16).

The end, and to God be glory and thanksgiving!

 

Footnotes

1. See St. Theodore the Studite, “Epistle 49: To Naucratios, [his] child,” PG vol. 99, cols. 1085D, 1088C.

2. See “Encomium on the Holy Martyr Romanos I,” PG vol. 50, col. 607.

3. See St. John Chrysostom, “Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles: Homily 40, 3,” PG vol. 60, col. 285. See also reference on the subject in Konstantinos D. Mouratidis, The Essence and Polity of the Church according to the Teaching of John Chrysostom, Dissertation for Promotion, Athens 1958, p. 184 ff.

4. See “To Those Who Fast the First Pascha, Third Discourse, 1,” PG vol. 48, col. 863.

5. Toward the completion of our work, we were informed of a specialized study being conducted for the first time in Greek, concerning the Life of the ever-memorable Archbishop Leonty Filippovich of the Russian Diaspora, by a Brother in Christ—an event of exceptional significance and weight.

6. See “Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles: Homily 37, 3,” PG vol. 60, col. 266.

7. See St. John Chrysostom, “Commentary on Saint John the Apostle and Evangelist: Homily 71, 1,” PG vol. 59, col. 385.

 

Greek source:

https://imlp.gr/2025/07/25/%e1%bd%81-%e1%bc%90%cf%80%ce%af%ce%bb%ce%bf%ce%b3%ce%bf%cf%82-%e1%bc%b1%cf%83%cf%84%ce%bf%cf%81%ce%b9%ce%ba%ce%bf%e1%bf%a6-%ce%bc%ce%b1%cf%82-%e1%bc%94%cf%81%ce%b3%ce%bf%cf%85/