Unknown Historical Letter of the Holy Hierarch Chrysostomos, formerly of Florina

Introduction

Until now, we knew from history the important Letter of Saint Chrysostomos, former Metropolitan of Florina, to Bishop Germanos of the Cyclades dated November 9, 1937, through which he reproached him for having followed Bishop Matthaios of Bresthena in the separation from the Holy Synod of the Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece under Metropolitan Germanos of Demetrias.

[https://orthodoxmiscellany.blogspot.com/2024/02/metropolitan-chrysostomos-to-bishop.html]

The denunciations of the schismatic Bishops occurred in September of that year and constituted a great blow to the sacred Struggle of Genuine Orthodoxy against the Calendar Innovation of 1924.

As is known, the extreme group around Matthaios of Bresthena — which was also followed at that time by Germanos of the Cyclades — found as a pretext for its schism clarifications of an ecclesiological nature, which had been made by the Confessor Hierarchs Germanos of Demetrias and Chrysostomos of Florina concerning the standing — according to the Holy Canons — of the ecclesiastical condition and position of those who accepted the Calendar Innovation.

Concerning the details of that tragic schism, we have referred to them in our historical work, to which we refer the interested reader (see: Bishop of Magnesia Chrysostomos Naslimis, 1910–1973, Indomitable Fighter of Faith and Patience, Volume I, Athens 2019, pp. 162–181).

The well-known Letter of Saint Chrysostomos to Bishop Germanos of the Cyclades, who had been led into the formation of a parasynagogue, was already published in 1973 by the learned Athonite then monk [later hieromonk] Fr. Theodoretos [Mavros] in a special study of his, while it became more widely known through its inclusion in the work: Former Metropolitan of Florina Chrysostomos Kavouridis – Fighter of Orthodoxy and of the Nation, Athens 1981, pp. 76–84, by the editors Elias Angelopoulos and Dionysios Batistatos.

In it, the author states that he is responding to a printed counter-response dated October 20, 1937, from the recipient, and indeed reminds him that before circulating it in print to the body of the faithful, he ought, by reasonable expectation and elementary decency, to have addressed it first and foremost to him (the former Metropolitan of Florina) as its natural recipient. But to which Letter of St. Chrysostomos was the Germanos of the Cyclades replying by means of this erroneous method?

From our research in historical archives of our sacred Struggle, moved by love toward Him, we discovered precisely the original Letter of the Metropolitan of Florina to the Bishop of the Cyclades dated October 14, 1937, in a typewritten text of 15 pages, in which only the last page shows some slight damage, yet without any problem in understanding the content.

Therefore, for the sake of history, justice, and truth, we proceed to its publication for the first time, because a text of such historical significance must not remain unknown and undisclosed, especially out of the unjustified fear that someone among our own or among the opponents might be "scandalized." If we are "afraid" of the writings of our God-pleasing Leader, then we are not worthy to be called his true children nor to present ourselves as supposed successors of that Giant of the Faith.

We declare that we are not reopening wounds nor bringing back to the forefront sensitive and controversial matters. We simply present the enlightened thought, testimony, and confession of our Holy Primate in a sorrowful time, in his effort to teach, admonish, and bring back to the right path brothers who had gone astray. His spirit, his knowledge, his character, as well as his necessary strictness, combined with gentleness, constitute a source of inspiration for every well-intentioned Fighter of Genuine Orthodoxy, who has not been afflicted by the vile microbe of pettiness, contentiousness, division, fanaticism, and disorder.

It is clear that despite his apparent later concession, in order to accommodate even Germanos of the Cyclades (in 1950 and thereafter), the clear testimony of St. Chrysostomos of Florina is fundamental. His practice of showing condescension toward problematic individuals, in order to serve the rightly understood unity of the genuine Orthodox, is naturally praiseworthy, for it was borne of pure intentions. However, this does not mean a renunciation of the fundamental positions which constitute the sound foundation of our sacred Struggle.

At that time, of course, the serious issue of the Faith concerning Ecumenism and its entire spectacular development up to the present had not yet been raised. Nevertheless, the rationale regarding the significance of a Pan-Orthodox Synodal decision as the ultimate criterion in disputed ecclesiastical matters cannot be ignored or bypassed, if the Orthodox Canonical framework is to be maintained, according to the Holy Confessor Hierarch, and if dangerous personal and individual opinions are to be avoided. However, this does not preclude the expression of a hierarchal judgment on matters of Faith, either individually or synodally, at a local level, according to the legitimate ecclesiastical procedure of confronting crises which shake the Body of the Church.

In the present Letter of October 14, 1937, administrative matters of that time are initially addressed, which brought about a rupture in the relations of the Hierarchs with a small group of laymen of the “Greek Religious Community,” who did not wish to submit canonically to them, but desired the continuation of the “administration” of the matters of the sacred Struggle as they had known it previously, when they were without Episcopal oversight. For the understanding of what is mentioned in the Letter on this matter, at least in part, we once again refer to our aforementioned historical work (see: Bishop of Magnesia Chrysostomos Naslimis, vol. I, pp. 109–111).

Also, broader issues are addressed concerning the problematic behavior and conduct of Bishop Germanos of the Cyclades, who neither respected nor regarded the canonical Synodal order and precedence. It was therefore to be expected that his stance would be entirely derailed and reach an impasse. When someone has become accustomed to acting arbitrarily without regard for ecclesiastical institutions, it is only a matter of time before some cause and occasion will be found to be suitably used in order to fulfill hidden desires for independence and, in essence, his descent into an anti-ecclesiastical course leading to the dead-end of his delusion.

It is unfortunately observed and repeatedly occurring in the history of our sacred Struggle, both past and present, the tragic phenomenon that those fateful individuals who undertook, with utter lack of discernment, to supposedly clarify matters of Faith, proved to be so malevolent toward their supposed "enemies" within our ranks and so scandalously disorderly, that the harm and turmoil they caused was infinitely greater than the supposed benefit they intended to bring about. May God have mercy on both the living and the departed for their tragic downfall on account of the “exactitude of the faith”!…

Subsequently, with regard to the Letter of October 14, 1937, St. Chrysostomos proceeds to a marvelous clarification of the meaning of the sacred Struggle and of its proper Canonical framework, in order to avert every form of harmful extremism and deviation. We emphasize that the temptation from the right of so-called absolute exactitude in our ranks has always caused only harm due to ignorance, obstinacy, and zeal “not according to knowledge,” nullifying every hope of beneficial influence for the God-pleasing resolution of the division that had arisen.

Finally, there are assurances of an apologetic nature, since the various kinds of problematic individuals in our ranks were usually particularly prone to unbridled fantasy, considering the improbable conclusions of their irrational imagination as unshakably strong facts, in order to lead unstable souls into the ruin of delusion.

We thank the Holy former Florina Chrysostomos who allows us to highlight his blessed teaching and to restore the wounded honor and value of our sacred Struggle. We pray that his Canonical principles, his unsurpassed character, his wondrous patience, as well as his holy prayers, may serve as a radiant Beacon in our God-pleasing course, even though those who are trapped in their prejudices and fears, as well as the "tares" of the evil one, will not cease to oppose every good effort and testimony for the edification of the Church and of souls. The explanations of the text within brackets [] are our own.

+ Metropolitan Klemes of Larissa and Platamon

July 9/22, 2025

***

 

To the Most Reverend Bishop of the Holy Cyclades,
Germanos Varikopoulos

The document sent by Your Reverence through a Court Summoner and dated the 6th of September [1937], by which You declare that You renounce us and align Yourself with the Religious Community of the Genuine Orthodox Christians, having been read before the Synod, caused a grievous impression, for it gave us the full measure of Your intellectual and spiritual disorder.

Through this document, as far as we were able to conclude from its overall incoherence, Your Reverence, weaving together the unweavable and combining the uncombinable, vainly attempts to justify Your desperate [hopeless] secession from us, from whom, by the allowance of God—as You Yourself say—You received the Episcopal rank wholly unexpectedly in Your old age, which You had vainly sought during the prime of Your life. Passing over Your unworthy-of-mention services concerning Your alleged refusal to accept the leadership of the struggle and Your efforts, before going into exile, to reconcile the two opposing Councils of the Religious Community, we proceed to the analysis and refutation of the events referred to by You on the second page, those which took place after our return from exile [October 1935] and which concern the replacement of the Administrative Council of the Religious Community of Benipsaltos and Gambroulias.

In narrating these events, Your Reverence strives to claim the championship of falsehood, unscrupulousness, and bad faith, appearing even lower than the common man. It is an outright falsehood what You claim—that at the first meeting of the Old Calendarists at the Church of the Three Virgins [Votanikos, Athens], at which I represented the then ailing Most Reverend President, the Holy Metropolitan of Demetrias [Germanos], I supposedly requested the dissolution of the Religious Community—for I explicitly emphasized that the Community, without ceasing to exist, is effectively being turned into a Church, from the time the Hierarchs were placed at the head of the Struggle [May 1935], since where the Bishop is, there also is the Church.

Also, it is false what You claim—that from that time, as a result of the protests of the Central Committee and its Branches, there came about the complete division of the Community—for this proposal of mine was applauded by the entire Assembly, except for the then President of the Administrative Council, Mr. Paraschos, and certain mentally unstable planted individuals, Manesis and Gounaris, who had an interest in the Administrative Council of the Community managing the revenues of the Churches. Proof of this is that the electoral Assembly disapproved of the Administrative Council of Paraschos and Gounaris and replaced it with the Council of Benis-Psaltos and Gambroulias almost unanimously. As for the Branches, not only did they not protest, as You maliciously claim, but they even hastened to declare that they stand unreservedly by the side of the Hierarchs

The only discordant note in this unanimity was the parasynagogue of Gounaris and Manesis, having separated from Paraschos, along with some followers, countable on the fingers of one hand, who were even characterized by Your own Reverence as insane. As for what Your Reverence says regarding the appointment by us, by decree, of the new Administrative Council, and concerning the involvement of [the Athonite Monk] Arsenios Kotteas, as a satanic agent supposedly directing the struggle from behind the scenes with the tolerance of the two of us, this gives us the measure of Your unscrupulousness and bad faith. For Your Reverence was informed both of the appointment by decree of the new Administrative Council and of the list of eligible members from both factions, and more than once You heard from our own lips—both in private conversations and in Synodal sessions—that we saw Arsenios Kotteas only once, and that he has no relation to us, much less influence over the struggle, whose general lines and direction have always been given by us, the Hierarchs.

What then shall we say concerning what Your Reverence claims—that You showed superhuman patience and tolerance, that You were pressured by us to the point of humiliation and to such a degree that You were compelled to break off cooperation with us in order to avoid responsibility for all that the satanic agents Karagiannidis, Raftopoulos, and others were supposedly plotting against the struggle, allegedly incited from the shadows by the devilishly and insidiously working Arsenios Kotteas—for whatever we might say, we would not be able to convey the degree of malice with which You distort the truth.

And we ask: who showed superhuman patience—Your Reverence, who, having received from us at Your episcopal consecration the title of Bishop, styled Yourself with the title of Metropolitan, despite the repeated admonitions of the Most Reverend President? Or we, who for the sake of the struggle and of peace endured Your appropriation of the title of Metropolitan in contempt of the exhortations of the Most Reverend President and in violation of the provisions of the Canons, according to which ecclesiastical titles are bestowed solely by the Church?

Who showed Christian forbearance—Your Reverence, who without the permission of the Most Reverend President entered into agreements with the church wardens to celebrate Liturgies and sacred services, especially during the great feasts of Pascha, disregarding the schedules of the Synod? Or we, who for the sake of the struggle and the unity of our Orthodox faction sacrificed our personal prestige and endured Your arbitrariness, and Your placing the decisions and decrees of the Synod in Moira Karos [to make them contemptible]?

And finally, who showed patience—Your Reverence, who, driven by motives unknown to us, proceeded to ordain deacons and priests without a parish and, for the most part, without a decision of the Synod, since out of the 35 ordinations, as shown in Your own list, only for 7 to 10 did You have the authorization of the Most Reverend President? Or we, who for the sake of the struggle and of unity not only did not bring charges against You for the irregular [without attachment or assignment to a specific parish or monastery] ordinations, but even when summoned by the Prosecutor and threatened with a second exile on account of these unlawful ordinations of Yours, we personally took responsibility, saying to the Prosecutor that in the fulfillment of our religious duties we obey God rather than men?

An excess not only of thoughtlessness but also of malice is found in what Your Reverence says—that we were negotiating to merge the Church of the Old Calendarists with the heretical Church of the Archbishop of Athens [Chrysostomos Papadopoulos] on the condition of the restoration only of the two of us [Germanos of Demetrias and Chrysostomos of Florina], and that we concealed these negotiations from Your Reverence—whereas not only did we immediately make these known to Your Reverence, but we even brought You along with us to the second meeting with the Holy Bishop of Kassandreia [Irenaeos], during which we set as the only condition for the union of the Church, before the representative of His Beatitude, the restoration of the traditional festal calendar to the entire Church, without which we refused to enter into any discussion whatsoever.

Truly deserving of mercy and compassion are also the things Your Reverence says concerning Your own jurisdiction in relation to the jurisdiction of our Most Reverend President, who, as was his right, forbade You—having already cast off all restraint [because You had become emboldened]—to perform sacred rites and ordinations in the region of Presidential jurisdiction without the Canonical permission of the ruling Bishop, which constitutes an act against his region and is punishable by the Divine and Holy Canons. For in denying this right of the Most Reverend President and addressing to him the following: “What position do you hold, upon what do you rely, what see do you have?”—while serving and ordaining in another’s territory without the permission of the ruling Bishop—you are found [perceived] to be acting unlawfully, not out of ignorance of the divine and holy Canons (for such ignorance is not excused in a Bishop), but by exploiting the Episcopal office, to which we had raised You with such noble hopes, for the service of our sacred struggle.

What a true disappointment of hopes in the elevation of Your Reverence to the rank of the Episcopacy—this being the only point of our failure and reproach. The degree of Your lack of discernment [inability to judge rightly] and of Your rational delusion is shown when You assert on the fourth page of Your document that we are not Hierarchs but merely Monks, because, as You say, we declared before the Churches the unlawful Church of the Archbishop of Athens to be lawful and Its Mysteries valid.

Responding, then, on this point to Your Reverence, we say the following: Preaching before the Churches, we stated that we cut off spiritual communion with the Archbishop of Athens and the Hierarchs of like mind with him, because they proceeded arbitrarily and without the consent of all the Orthodox Churches to the calendar innovation, and because we do not wish to become partakers in the responsibility for this innovation, for which very reason we appealed against them before a Pan-Orthodox Council, the only competent authority to judge and validly and definitively condemn them, since they persist unyieldingly in this innovation.

The uncanonical and arbitrary innovation of the Archbishop and the like-minded Hierarchs, we said, cannot affect the Orthodox character and identity of the Greek Church, in which not only the innovating Hierarchs belong, but also we with our followers, who above all continue the Orthodox History of the Autocephalous Greek Church, preserving inviolate the sacred Ecclesiastical traditions and Orthodox institutions. This precisely is also the reason why we did not recognize the deposition carried out against us by uncanonical Hierarchs—whom we renounced—and not by the Church, whose Orthodox identity we constitute, we who preserve inviolate the Ecclesiastical traditions and the Orthodox institutions.

We also, on other occasions through our printed materials and publications, have declared that for the uncanonical decision concerning the calendar made by the Administrative Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and of the Church of Greece, the responsibility does not lie with the Church of Constantinople and of Greece, but with the Hierarchs who personally made the uncanonical decision; and for this reason, we cut off ecclesiastical communion with them, having appealed against them before a Pan-Orthodox Council, the only competent authority to judge and to condemn them for this innovation.

Woe if, because of one uncanonical decision of the ruling [i.e., Official – tr. note] Synod, the entire Church were to be held responsible—whose identity consists of the whole of the Hierarchy, the Clergy, and the laity—and thrice woe if individuals who did not participate in the uncanonical decision had the right, on account of it, to declare the entire Church as schismatic.

For in such a case, every individual would constitute his own Church, considering as schismatic every other Church whose one-sided and personal decision he himself judged to be uncanonical and worthy of causing a schism in the Church. This idea reeks of Protestantism, which, as the criterion for the correctness of dogmas and of the Mysteries, holds not the judgment and decision of the synod of the hierarchy, but the personal perception and judgment of the individual, supposedly guided by the grace of the All-Holy Spirit.

For this very reason, there exist countless heresies and schisms among the Protestant Churches, which accept that the will of the Holy Spirit in matters of religion is manifested through any Christian whatsoever, whereas the Catholic Church restricted this right to the person of the supreme pontiff, the Pope, speaking ex cathedra [with absolute authority] on matters of faith—in contrast to the Orthodox Eastern Church, which rightly holds that the will of the Holy Spirit is manifested through the unanimous decision of the Ecumenical Council, which represents the entirety of Orthodoxy.

For this reason, the Divine Apostles and God-bearing Fathers of the Church did not grant the right to proclaim a particular Church as heretical or schismatic and to strip It and Its Mysteries of the Grace of Christ, neither to individual Hierarchs nor even to one local Church, but to the Ecumenical Council, whose unanimous decisions are made by the inspiration of the All-Holy Spirit.

Since these things are so, a local Orthodox Church, due to any uncanonical decision of its Administrative Synod, cannot be declared—no longer by dissenting Hierarchs who constitute a minority of its Hierarchy, nor even by another local Church, even a Patriarchal one—as heretical or schismatic, for this right is reserved by the Divine and Holy Canons solely to the Ecumenical Council. This precisely is also the reason why the local Orthodox and Patriarchal Churches, which remain on the ground of the traditional festal calendar, did not break ecclesiastical communion with the Churches that innovated in the calendar, reserving to express their opinion in the forthcoming Pan-Orthodox Council, in which the festal calendar issue—still pending judgment [still under consideration by the court]—will be discussed and definitively and validly resolved, according to the view also of the ever-memorable Ecumenical Patriarch Photios [+1935].

And when the local Orthodox Churches—even Patriarchal ones, such as those of Antioch, Jerusalem, and Serbia—holding firmly to the Traditional Festal Calendar, not only did not proceed unilaterally to declare the New Calendar Churches as schismatic, but also maintained ecclesiastical communion with them until the convening of a Pan-Orthodox Council, who are we—three Hierarchs at the beginning—that we should have the audacity to pre-judge the New Calendar Churches, and to declare them schismatic and their Mysteries invalid and deprived of the Grace of Christ?

By holding an opposing opinion on the matter of the calendar to the decision of the majority of Hierarchs, it does not follow from this that we are also entitled to declare the Church of Greece as schismatic. And if in our earlier printed materials and publications we declared His Beatitude to be deprived of Divine Grace, as having drawn upon himself the curses and anathemas of the divine and God-bearing Fathers for the calendar innovation, and as an unfit instrument for its transmission to the faithful—which Your Reverence invokes as proof of our supposed wavering—this, though we do not now deny it, constitutes our personal understanding and opinion, which of course cannot be taken as the rule of truth and as an infallible criterion of Orthodoxy, such as is the opinion and decision of a Pan-Orthodox Council, speaking in the Holy Spirit.

We, as Hierarchs, had the personal right to renounce the First and to break ecclesiastical communion with him even before a Synodal decision, according to the 15th Canon of the First-Second Ecumenical Council, and to denounce him before a Pan-Orthodox Council, the only body entitled to judge him and the Hierarchs who follow him—which is precisely what we did, in accordance with the mandate of the aforementioned Canon.

Therefore, even the above-mentioned Canon, which Your Reverence invokes in order to justify the proclamation of the Archbishop of Athens and the Hierarchs of like mind with him—and the five million Greek Orthodox brethren and relatives who follow them in good faith—as schismatics, grants this right not to individuals, to whom it permits only the breaking of ecclesiastical communion with the First as a pseudo-bishop before a Synodal decision, but to a Pan-Orthodox Council, whose decisions are made by the inspiration of the All-Holy Spirit.

For this reason, in order to proclaim the Bulgarian Schism, a Great Local Council was convened in Constantinople in 1872, in which the other Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem were also represented, because even the Ecumenical Patriarchate alone, though first in rank, was not validly and canonically entitled to proclaim the Bulgarian Church as schismatic.

Hierarchs such as ourselves, well-versed in the Divine and Holy Canons, with 35 years of service in the Church and with commendations of approval from Her, would rightly be characterized by Her and by the other Churches standing upon the ground of the Traditional Festal Calendar as adventurer Metropolitans, if we were to proceed—according to the opinion of Your Reverence—to the proclamation of the Church of Greece as schismatic, as You have done, exploiting for selfish ends the Divine and Holy Canons and making a mockery of all that is sacred and holy for the sake of sensationalism and for exploitative and adventurist purposes.

For such coups, which betray not only a lack of basic knowledge of the Divine and Holy Canons, but also of serious Hierarchical character, we openly and fearlessly confess our own unsuitability and incapacity, while at the same time recognizing therein the specialty and capability of Your Reverence and of Your like-minded collaborators—since, after all, You have nothing to risk, having no acquired titles of Hierarchical action and honor at the bottom line.

Moreover, for Her [i.e., the coup] and for Her collaborator [Matthaios of Bresthena], in addition to the lack of serious Hierarchical character, there exists, for this adventurist policy, also the mitigating factor of their meager theological education and their superficial and shallow thought and judgment, the signs and manifestations of which became evident to us during all our meetings and deliberations with Her.

And it was just—and we confess it sincerely—that we ourselves should first bear the consequences of this intellectual and spiritual infirmity, because we proceeded without due consideration, placing trust in the recommendations of her nephew, Mr. Ioannis Valindras, to lead her into the ecclesiastical bridal chamber of the Episcopacy, having wrongly concluded her spiritual soundness from the vigor of her bodily old age.

It is known that Your Reverence, during our last session held at the house of the Most Reverend President, on the occasion of the issue raised concerning the re-anointing with Chrism of the New Calendarists by the Holy Bishop of Bresthena, after a prior presentation of the matter by me and by the Most Reverend President, agreed with us that it is neither Canonical nor sacred and holy to repeat the Mystery of Chrismation for the New Calendarists, who have not been proclaimed schismatics by a Pan-Orthodox Council, and You also signed the relevant Protocol.

In light of all this, what happened to Your Reverence, and by what inspiration did You dare—without any explanation or consultation with us—to renounce us as supposedly having fallen from Orthodoxy, as heretics and holders of false doctrines, and to align Yourself, as You write, with the Religious Community presided over by Manesis and Gounaris, laymen who are in no way capable of having an opinion on ecclesiastical matters and Mysteries? Has Your Reverence fallen to such a degree of decline as to place the authority of Manesis and Gounaris above our authority—ours, who from childhood were nourished with the waters of Orthodoxy and who, throughout the long span of our thirty-five years of episcopal service in our Church, did nothing other than teach the dogmas of Orthodoxy and rightly divide the word of divine Truth? Therefore, we express our deep sorrow over the great fall of Your Reverence, and our profoundest regret that we, unworthily—though fortunately without awareness—elevated You to the rank of the Episcopacy.

Your Reverence reaches the height of indiscretion and thoughtless talk when, in order to justify the renunciation of us as supposedly having fallen from Orthodoxy, You also invoke the other reforms which, according to Your opinion, the Archbishop of Athens is considering imposing upon the Church—as though we were responsible and guilty for his reformist thoughts—he whom we renounced and with whom we broke ecclesiastical communion solely on account of the calendar innovation. But even civil law does not judge and condemn a person for an unjust or unlawful thought he may possibly have; yet Your Reverence, out of excessive lack of discernment—or rather, more rightly said, out of malice—hastened to condemn not only us, who emphatically disapprove of the reformist thoughts of His Beatitude, but also the Church itself, calling It, like another Pope, schismatic.

But what fault is it, Most Reverend, of the essence of the Church of Greece, which gave you birth and nourished you with the life-giving waters of Orthodoxy, for the reformist thoughts and ideas of the Archbishop—whom we renounced solely on account of the calendar innovation, and much more so if he dares to propose the reforms Your Reverence lists in Your document? The Church will, with indignation, cast him down from the throne as an unworthy guardian and a dangerous defender for the safety of the ecclesiastical traditions and Orthodox institutions.

At the end of Her monumental document of renunciation, Your Reverence casts off the mask of drama and tragedy and assumes the mask of comedy, thus rendering Yourself ridiculous, when, in justification of Your renunciation of us, You invoke precisely those Canons and Orthodox institutions which we, in order to preserve inviolate, renounced the innovating Archbishop, so that we might not become partakers in his innovation.

In Her published encyclical, Your Reverence also reports a monstrous slander against me, according to which I supposedly summoned Her last December [of 1936] to my office and declared that I and the Holy Demetrias were negotiating—not, as She claims, union—but the merger of the Church of the Old Calendarists with the heretical Church of the Archbishop of Athens, receiving as compensation only our own restoration, being indifferent to the struggle and to our fellow strugglers; and that the Holy Metropolitan of Demetrias, to whom She supposedly protested, feigned ignorance of the conspiracy allegedly devised by us together with certain Synodal members [of the New Calendar] for the betrayal of our struggle.

But how could this have been possible, Most Reverend, since during our meeting with the Synodal Hierarch of Kassandreia, as the delegate of His Beatitude, Your Reverence was also present, before Whom and in Whose hearing we said to the representative of His Beatitude that without the restoration of the Traditional Festal Calendar, there could be no discussion whatsoever about our union with the New Calendarists?

Then, has the reasoning of Your Reverence become so darkened, that out of luciferian envy and satanic malice You would formulate, with such clumsiness and irrationality, such an accusation against me—one that bears the clear marks of slander and the evident imprints of ill-will? Had You at least claimed that I summoned You to my office to propose that You also take part in the betrayal, receiving in return the recognition of Your Episcopal rank by His Beatitude, perhaps that might have been believed by a naive and credulous Christian. But as this accusation was formulated—with such awkwardness and feigned simplicity—it clearly appears to be pure slander, even to one possessing ordinary reason and basic logic. For no traitor ever denounces his own betrayal, especially not to a rival, as Your Reverence flatters Yourself to present Yourself in the tragicomic scene of this slander.

Wherefore, I turn my face away from this vile [disgusting] slander with loathing, and considering even its refutation to be beneath the dignity of my Hierarchical honor, I deem it unworthy of a response—fit only for pity and contempt. Now I understand how even the Holy Metropolitan of Demetrias once came to such just indignation against Your Reverence, that he sternly rebuked You to Your face over a similarly slanderous accusation which You had fabricated against another brother and honorable struggler in our cause.

In confirmation of the above, we are sending to Your Reverence a copy of the book which we have just recently published against the calendrical innovation of the Archbishop, not in order to refute the bad faith of the abhorrent [repulsive] accusation made against us, but to teach You how the conscientious laborers of Orthodoxy work, and how they struggle upon the honored battlements of our sacred struggle—in contrast to Your Reverence, who attempts, through base [unworthy] and despicable slanders, to undermine the position and reputation of the honorable and oath-bound strugglers, and to claim for Yourself the position and glory of Leader in the good fight, without realizing that You have shown Yourself deficient even in the position of the Rearguard.

Let Your Reverence be assured, finally, that out of respect for Her age and rank, we would have passed over in silence and with contempt Her denunciation, had She not had the audacity and shamelessness to include these abhorrent slanders in Her published encyclical to the genuine Orthodox Christians, with the insidious aim of poisoning their souls against us and of fracturing the unified front of our struggle at the most critical juncture of the battle waged by the honorable fighters against the New Calendarists.

But out of foresight, so as to protect the genuine Orthodox from the corruption [abuse] of the abhorrent and despicable slanders of Your Reverence, we were compelled to respond to Her and to brand Her lies, bad faith, and lack of conscience — and especially with severe phrases and stern yet just characterizations of Her person, for which She bears responsibility, as She was the first to raise unjust hands and cast off all restraint of modesty and human sensibility in order to engage in demagogy at the expense of a sacred struggle.

Bringing to a close this enlightening yet also reproachful reply, with deepest sorrow and pain of soul we declare to Your Reverence — who turned a deaf ear even to our last appeal and unyieldingly persists in Her rebellion against us — that henceforth we consider Her unworthy of our ecclesiastical communion and blessing, and a stranger to our Orthodox faction. And we wholeheartedly pray to the All-Good God that He may be merciful to us and not impute to us — who now bitterly repent — the sin of having elevated Her to the rank of the Episcopate; and that He may grant Her a spirit of understanding, a spirit of awareness, and a spirit of repentance and confession — the only means by which She may be restored before Christ and His Church, toward which She has shown ingratitude and malice both toward us and toward the sacred struggle for Orthodoxy.

+The Metropolitan of Florina Chrysostomos

Athens, 14 October 1937

[signature]

(handwritten)
For the accuracy of the transcription
the Protosyncellus
+Archimandrite Alexandros Grigoropoulos

 

Greek source: https://imlp.gr/2025/07/22/%E1%BC%84%CE%B3%CE%BD%CF%89%CF%83%CF%84%CE%B7-%E1%BC%B1%CF%83%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%81%CE%B9%CE%BA%E1%BD%B4-%E1%BC%90%CF%80%CE%B9%CF%83%CF%84%CE%BF%CE%BB%E1%BD%B4-%E1%BC%81%CE%B3%CE%AF%CE%BF%CF%85-%E1%BC%B1/