By Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Attica and Boeotia
Presented at the Clergy Conference of Priests in Piraeus,
December 13/26, 2019
Apostolic Succession: Consecration, Criterion and
Prerequisites
The succession of
persons, the continuity, the transmission according to certain rules of
“office,” in this case the office “of the Apostles of Pentecost, within which
Christ is extended charismatically” (Panagopoulos, 2016, p. 86), is the
Apostolic Succession.
Apostolic
Succession means an uninterrupted line of bishops of the Church from the
Apostles until today, through canonical consecration, appointment, and
enthronement to an episcopal see, of those who preserved the right Faith and
Teaching and undertook the ministry of bishop in the service of the Apostolic
Church, that which was founded by the Holy Apostles upon the cornerstone, Who
is our Lord Jesus Christ. "Now the leaders of this good city, judges and
counselors, received their beginning from the apostles and disciples of our
Savior, and from their succession even now, as if sprouting from good seed,
they shine forth as presidents of the Church of God, being established"
(Saint Eusebius). This One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church—its unity, cohesion,
and uninterrupted continuity linked in a chain through time from the era of the
Apostles—is testified to and safeguarded, among other things, by Apostolic
Succession.
The verification of
the continuity of Apostolic Succession constitutes part of the history and
consequently of the integrity, genuineness, and truth of each local Church, and
for this reason a list is maintained which presents the succession and the uninterrupted
continuity of the holy men on the episcopal thrones.
The rite that is
performed and simultaneously constitutes one of the criteria and preconditions
of Apostolic Succession is the consecration of the bishop: “Let a Bishop be
consecrated by two or three bishops” (Apostolic Canon I). This precondition,
moreover, for the preservation of Apostolic Succession—consecration—also serves
as the occasion for this brief address concerning the Apostolic Succession of
our Church.
The Apostolic Succession of our Church: Historical
Retrospective
At this point,
then, allow me to make a historical retrospective of the events that confirm
the Apostolic Succession of our Church, as well as a description of the broader
historical context and the conditions of that time, which not only permitted,
but compelled and ultimately vindicated the actions and initiatives of the
active Shepherds of our Church at that time.
In September of
1955, Saint Chrysostomos Kavourides, the former Metropolitan of Florina,
reposed. This new confessor and First Hierarch, as is well known, hoped for the
restoration of canonical order in the Tradition of the Church, so that the
division within the Church of Greece would not become entrenched—hope which was
still held at that time by the Orthodox minded clergy and people.
After his blessed
repose, therefore, the need arose for the establishment of an administration
for our Church, of a temporary nature for the sake of order, which was assumed
by a twelve-member Ecclesiastical Committee—elected by the holy clergy. The
majority of the members of the Committee were archimandrites, with
Archimandrite Akakios Pappas serving as President.
An urgent necessity
and therefore a priority of the Committee was the replacement of the temporary
administration with that permanent and canonical hierarchical leadership which
would undertake both the administrative and spiritual ministry of our Church.
Initially, and
before any action was set in motion to meet the above urgent need, efforts were
made through démarches to establish communication for the restoration of the
Patristic Calendar by the then Church of Greece, since this was our greatest
desire and hope, which unfortunately proved to be in vain. Proof of this
intention is presented in a document published in the calendar of our Church
for the year 1959.
Actions followed
for the accession of individual hierarchs (such as Metropolitan Eulogios
Kourilas of Korçë) from the then established Church, who recognized our just
struggle, actions which, however, were not brought to completion.
It should be noted
that the Hierarchy of the then Church of Greece, just as it does today,
perceived our existence and our effort to preserve the Patristic Traditions as
a threat to its methodically planned future ecumenistic direction, and
persistently exerted efforts in every direction to obstruct and suspend the
continuity and preservation of our Church within the Greek territory.
Intimidation,
combined with the creation of insurmountable obstacles toward any hierarch who
understood and desired to support and strengthen the defenders of the
Traditions, excluded any possibility of undertaking this sacred responsibility
by a Greek bishop. It is a fact that the endeavor required personalities with a
spirit of self-sacrifice, courageous, sanctified. The support for our sacred
struggle, as history has shown, we indeed received from sanctified
personalities.
In October of 1957,
the Second Pan-Hellenic Clergy Conference of our Church took place in Athens.
Within the framework of the Conference, elections for the selection of
candidate clergy for the episcopacy were held—by economia—by presbyters and archimandrites. The elections resulted
in the emergence of Archimandrites Chrysostomos Naslimis, Akakios Pappas, and
Chrysostomos Kiousis, who from that point on were considered candidate bishops
of our Church. The elections were conducted with the participation of more than
100 clergy from all over Greece, among whom Athonite Fathers also actively took
part.
With individuals
now revealed and elected from the base of our Church for the episcopal thrones,
and given the unyielding and harsh stance of the Church of Greece, which
demonstrated the futility of our efforts for its return to canonical order, we
turned to a Church abroad, which at that time likewise preserved traditional
principles similar to our own—specifically, to the Patriarchate of Jerusalem.
The aim was our incorporation into the Synod, with the fundamental condition,
however, being the cessation of communion by the hierarchs of Jerusalem with
all those who followed the innovation of the new calendar. The effort, however,
proved fruitless.
Communication and
an appeal for assistance were then set in motion through démarches to
ecclesiastical authorities abroad for the consecration of the elected men and
potential bishops of our Church, with the ultimate goal now being the
establishment of a Synod. We thus turned to Synods and hierarchs of genuine
Orthodox mindset, whose Apostolic Succession was unquestionable and who
preserved the Faith and the Patristic Tradition pure and unaltered. These
hierarchs were the Serbians of the “Metropolia” and the hierarchs of the
“Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia,” both Synods being based in
America. The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia in particular maintained
a clear anti-ecumenist stance, especially after the election of Iakovos
Koukouzis as Archbishop of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, who was a
fervent ecumenist.
The new calendar
Greek Orthodox Archdiocese in America, in alignment with the Church of Greece,
was in a state of constant vigilance in order to prevent the possible
consecration of a Greek bishop in the U.S.A. by any canonical jurisdiction.
There prevailed—as also in Greece—a kind of “terrorism” from the
“state/official Churches.” As a result, the Churches that were Orthodox in
mindset were persecuted and subjected to warfare by the modernists, whose aim
was the division of their flock, the disturbance of their internal life, and
ultimately their dissolution. Despite the fact that the Russian Orthodox Church
Outside of Russia was not in communion with the modernists of the Archdiocese,
it nevertheless hesitated to place its relations and position at risk—this
being the personal stance of the then Metropolitan of the Russian Church
Abroad, Anastasy.
The help,
therefore, came from individual hierarchs, who, as individuals, did not place
their Synod and Church at risk on the one hand, and on the other hand possessed
the courage—as the sacred duty arising from their position and the Grace
imposed upon their conscience demanded—to undertake the consecration of bishops
for the sake of the continuation of Tradition in then like-minded Orthodox
Greece.
In May of 1958, our
Church communicated with the like-minded fellow struggler and brother,
Archbishop Seraphim of Chicago and Detroit, a Hierarch of the Synod of the
Russians Church Abroad. This communication was mediated by the Russian Monk
Antonios of St. Sabbas Monastery. Archbishop Seraphim expressed his active
interest in supporting the just struggle of the like-believing Greeks. For the
needs of the consecration, however, the elected Greek archimandrites had to
travel to the U.S.A. The conditions of the time, however, did not allow this,
and the only one who managed to overcome the obstacles was Archimandrite
Akakios Pappas. For the record, it should be mentioned that Archimandrite
Chrysostomos Kiousis, one of the three potential bishops, during his visit to
the American Embassy for the issuance of the necessary visa for the trip, was
informed by the officials of the service that it was impossible for him to be
granted such permission, since his name was listed in red in the registers, as
a prohibitive indication for the issuance of a visa.
In October 1960,
Archimandrite Akakios Pappas traveled to New York accompanied by his nephew and
namesake, Archimandrite Akakios. For the needs of the consecration of the Greek
Orthodox bishop, Archbishop Seraphim of Chicago and Detroit concelebrated with
Bishop Theophil Ionescu of Sevres, from Romania, who maintained parish churches
within the jurisdiction of Seraphim.
On December 9/22,
1960, the consecration of Bishop Akakios of Talantion was performed at the Holy
Church of Saint Nicholas in Detroit. Present were Archimandrites Petros
Astyfides and Akakios Pappas. Within the framework of the agreement of our
Church with His Eminence Seraphim, it was made clear that two years after the
consecration of Bishop Akakios, our Church would proceed with the consecration
of other bishops, which would then fulfill the establishment of the hierarchy
of our Church, with the help of another hierarch from the same Synod, that of
the Russian Church Abroad. And so it happened.
At the beginning of
1962, two years after the consecration of Bishop Akakios, there was also a
concrete expression of interest and desire from Archbishop Leonty Filippovich
of Chile and Peru, of the Holy Synod of the Russians Church Abroad. Archbishop
Leonty willingly offered to support the honorable struggle of the Greek
Orthodox and even offered to travel to Greece. It should be noted that the
contact with Leonty took place within the framework of the ongoing
communication between Bishop Akakios and Archbishop Seraphim.
On May 7/20, 1962,
Archbishop Leonty of Chile and Peru arrived in Greece, who, together with
Bishop Akakios of Talantion, proceeded with the consecrations of the following
bishops: a) Parthenios Skourlis of the Cyclades, b) Auxentios Pastras of
Gardikion, and c) Chrysostomos Naslimis of Magnesia. Subsequently, the
following bishops were consecrated: a) Gerontios Mariolis of Salamis, and b)
Akakios Pappas (the younger) of Diavleia (Church
of the G.O.C., 2018).
Events of
exceptional importance are the following:
A) Since 1957, our
Church had been in communication with the holy hierarch John Maximovitch, a
bishop of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia in Western Europe. The
entirely like-minded holy hierarch understood the necessity of the times and
felt the responsibility to support us, the Orthodox Christians of Greece. He,
together with Seraphim of Detroit—who initiated the first consecration, that of
Akakios—and four other Hierarchs of their Synod, had made a petition to their
Synod in favor of the consecration of Greek bishops. However, Metropolitan
Anastasy, given his stance at the time, did not respond to the appeal of the
Greeks. It should also be noted that Archbishop Leonty of Peru and Chile, who
together with Bishop Akakios carried out the subsequent consecrations of Greek
Bishops, was bound by a heartfelt friendship with Saint John Maximovitch.
B) In May of 1964,
Metropolitan Saint Philaret assumed the position of new First Hierarch of the
Russian Church Abroad, who, in contrast to Metropolitan Anastasy, followed a
different course. It was he, in fact, who a few years later, in the year 1969,
proceeded with the official Synodal recognition of the episcopal consecrations
of the bishops of our Church, recognizing also the hierarchy of our Church as
“Brethren in Christ in full communion with one another.” This action took place
following his communication with our then Archbishop Auxentios, and in order
that any dispute concerning the canonicity of the consecrations and the
Apostolic Succession of the hierarchs of our Church might officially and
permanently cease. Specifically:
“On December 15/28,
1967, the holy Metropolitan Philaret certifies that His Eminence Akakios was
consecrated by two hierarchs of his Holy Synod, namely Archbishop Seraphim of
Chicago and Detroit and the Bishop Theophil, responsible for their Romanian communities,
and therefore from the Holy Synod of the ROCOR there is no doubt whatsoever
regarding the validity of the consecration of Bishop Akakios of Talantion” (The Voice of Orthodoxy, 1972, p. 5).
“In May–June of
1969, the holy Metropolitan Philaret, addressing once again the Archbishop of
our Church, Auxentios, emphasizes that the Holy Synod of ROCOR recognizes the
validity of the episcopal consecration of His Eminence Archbishop Akakios and
of all subsequent episcopal consecrations for our Church. The Greek hierarchy
is considered Brethren in Christ in full communion with the Russian Church
Abroad” (The Voice of Orthodoxy,
1969, p. 5).
“On December 18/31,
1969, the official Act of synodal recognition of the episcopal consecrations of
our Church was issued, stating that the Hierarchal Synod of ROCOR considers the
hierarchy of our Church as Brethren in Christ in full communion with one another.
The Synodal Act is signed by the holy Metropolitan Philaret and ten other
Hierarchs of ROCOR” (The Voice of
Orthodoxy, 1970, p. 8).
Also noteworthy is
the secrecy under which both historic consecrations were carried out: both the
first in 1960 at the Holy Church of Saint Nicholas in Detroit, U.S.A., during a
nighttime Divine Liturgy, and the second consecration in 1962 at the Holy Monastery
of Saint Nicholas in Paiania, Attica, specifically in the chapel of Saint
Menas, where the hierarch of the Russian Church Abroad had gone. The protective
measures taken in order to safeguard the secrecy of the event from the official
Church resembled the times of the unlawful and inhuman persecutions against us.
Unprecedented is
also the characterization of the war endured by the two bishops—both Akakios of
Talantion and Archbishop Leonty. When Akakios of Talantion returned from
America, aside from the enthusiasm with which he was received by the flock of
our Church, dreadful attacks—both substantial and propagandistic—awaited the
now elderly struggler, from the same sort of critics we face today. Slanders
and media assaults were not absent in the case of the hierarch of the Russian
Church Abroad either, who, with full awareness of his duty, undertook the
responsibility of the consecration of our bishops.
Another point that
reveals the adversity and difficulties of the time, which our struggling
Shepherds then were obliged to confront, was the financial conditions, which
did not allow for transatlantic travels of the clergy—journeys that were
ultimately carried out with financial assistance provided by the Abbess of the
Holy Monastery of Saint Irene Chrysovalantou in Lykovrysi, Gerontissa Meletia,
as well as by the layman from Thebes, a supporter of our sacred struggle,
Konstantinos Toutouzas (Church of the G.O.C.,
2018).
Since then, and
with regard to the Apostolic Succession up to the present day, the following
Archbishops have been consecrated: following Akakios Pappas, Auxentios Pastras,
Chrysostomos Kiousis, and Kallinikos Sarantopoulos.
This is the
Apostolic Succession and the canonical continuity for the recent history of our
Church from 1960 onward, of the Church of the Old Calendarists, as the
modernists named us; of the “Genuine” Orthodox Christians of Greece, an
appellation which we were compelled to use in order to distinguish our position
from the unlawful and authoritarian initiative of the calendar reform of 1924
and the disastrous consequences it brought about, dividing Orthodoxy in
general, and in particular dividing the Church in our homeland.
There exists,
beloved brethren—by the grace of God—in 2019, a canonical Apostolic Succession
represented by the Synod of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece, under
Archbishop Kallinikos, and under him alone.
The matters
concerning the questioning of the Apostolic Succession of the Old Calendarists,
with reference to various groups, factions, sects, etc., which are often formed
by those who have seceded from the new calendar and others, frequently rassofors without fear of God, have no
relation whatsoever to the canonical Synod of the Genuine Orthodox Christians
of Greece, which possesses Apostolic Succession confirmed by Saint Philaret.
This Synod, therefore, in our days, is also legally protected from the aforementioned
groups, as well as from the artfully crafted and false accusations, insults,
and threats of various parties.
Apostolic Succession: "Extra-jurisdictional"
Consecration
It is a fact that
the 1960 consecration of Bishop Akakios of Talantion is characterized as
“extra-jurisdictional,” since it took place in a different region from that to
which the ordinand geographically belonged, as well as by a “different”
ecclesiastical authority.
It is precisely on
this point that the opponents of our Church base themselves, and in response to
this very accusation, Saint Philaret proceeded with the written recognition and
official confirmation / ratification of the consecrations of our bishops, granting
full Synodal blessing, so that no malicious claim on this matter would be
permitted, from wherever it may come.
It is also known to
the opponents of our Church that from this very Synod of the Russian Church
Abroad, Patriarch Timotheos I of Jerusalem—predecessor of Patriarch
Benedict—was consecrated. Yet these same accusers of ours never questioned the
episcopacy of Timotheos, nor, of course, the Apostolic Succession of the Church
of Jerusalem. This matter of the canonicity of those who were consecrated
“extra-jurisdictionally” by the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia
continues to divide even the hierarchs of the official Church of Greece
internally, since many of them—those who are anti-ecumenists—clearly support
that those consecrated by the Russian Church Abroad possess canonical
Succession. It should be noted that this specific Synod later united with the
Patriarchate of Moscow, which recognized and accepted its hierarchs as fully
canonical bishops, and with which the Church of Greece concelebrated until
recently (until the Ukrainian issue).
Additionally, we
mention that there are also cases of canonical acceptance by the official
Church of Greece of hierarchs and priests from our Church, such as Bishops
Polykarpos Liosis and Christophoros Chatzis, as well as Bishop Gabriel da Rocha
of Lisbon, who joined the Church of Poland under Archbishop John, along with
the ever-memorable [Archimandrite] Ephraim of Katounakia, and also [Fr.]
Dimitrios Kotsikonas, who joined the Metropolis of Thebes and Livadeia upon the
recommendation of then-Metropolitan of Demetrias Christodoulos Paraskevaidis,
among others.
Our innovative
accusers, besides apparently ignoring the act of “restoration” by Saint
Philaret himself, also seem to ignore similar cases in the history of the
Orthodox Church, applying what in our Church is known as “economia,” unfortunately, according to their own interest.
Exceptions to the
exactness of the Holy Canons, which our accusers so meticulously uphold, are
made in cases and circumstances that occur during periods and in regions of
particular conditions, in which there usually exist deceptive schemes,
heretical and dangerous tendencies threatening Orthodoxy—mentioning
indicatively the example of Saint Athanasios the Great, who performed
extra-jurisdictional consecrations during a time of heresy and due to pressing
necessity (according to St. Theodore the Studite).
It is imperative,
in the context of reviewing history, to assess the legitimacy and justice of
struggles and claims, as well as the conditions of the time, the causes, the
consequences, and the possible developments. Persistence in dry rationalism and
meticulous attention to the strict observance of the letter and not the spirit
of the law, without taking into account the aforementioned factors, recalls
Pharisaism and hypocrisy of past eras, which only brought painful consequences
to the Church, the nations, and humanity.
Certainly, there
exists division and divergence of positions regarding the calendar issue;
certainly, there are interests and expediencies that impose the innovation of
1924 and all that it has brought; certainly, there is threat and discomfort
caused by our existence, which perhaps provokes feelings of guilt; and
certainly, with the passage of time and the provision of ecumenist, misleading
“education” and the indoctrination of generations, an ecumenist culture has
been cultivated—one that only enlightenment from Above can uncover.
Yes, all these are
causes that provoke the confrontation regarding the innovation of 1924, which
brought nothing but the division of our Orthodox Church. It is a matter about
which we are willing, at any moment, to engage in discussion, because despite the
persecutions, the blatant, unacceptable, unlawful, and inhuman stance of
representatives of the official Church of Greece against us, we continue to
desire, as Orthodox, the canonical order of the Church as it existed in Greece
until 1924.
However, under no
circumstances can our Apostolic Succession be questioned. Such a position is
absurd, cowardly, misleading, and ultimately harmful to the flock and to
Orthodoxy.
It is a position
that renders its defenders common slanderers.
Apostolic Succession: Both a Partaker of the Ways and a Successor
to the Thrones
Nevertheless,
within the framework of our address, specific points are being emphasized, and
this is not by chance.
The One, Holy,
Catholic, and Apostolic Church—her uninterrupted, continuously linked
continuity through time from the era of the Apostles—is testified to and
secured, among other things, as we
have mentioned, by Apostolic Succession.
We made mention of
the holiness of those men who are deemed worthy of the episcopal “office” as
successors of the Holy Apostles, spiritual fathers and teachers of Divine
Doctrine.
We spoke of the
preservation—pure and unaltered—of the true Faith and patristic Tradition, as a
sacred duty and obligation of all who bear Apostolic Succession.
It is clear,
brethren in Christ, that canonical consecration, as the historical continuity
of Apostolicity, is not sufficient to render the relationship of the bishop
with the Church canonical, nor to make the bishop a worthy successor of the
Apostles. Apostolic Succession is not the barren successive consecration of
persons, but the historical continuity of Pentecost, the transmission of Grace,
the acquisition of the vision of the revelatory Truth, the regeneration and
participation in the gift of the Holy Spirit as vision and as way of life, akin
to that of the Holy Apostles, who “saw” Christ; “it is the charismatic organ of
the continuity of the Church’s experience in the life of grace” (Panagopoulos,
2016, p. 190).
Characteristic is
the Apolytikion which reveals in its
fullness the charismatic nature of the Bishop: “Being a partaker of their ways
and a successor to their thrones, you found the practice to be a means of
ascent to divine vision, O God-inspired one; therefore, rightly dividing the word
of truth, and in the faith you struggled unto blood…” The one who truly bears
Apostolic Succession is a confessor of the Faith, a witness of the Truth, a
continuator of the prophetic Apostolic Tradition, and a participant in Holy
Pentecost—the highest form of Divine Revelation—which makes those who partake
of it Apostles. “In this hymn which is chanted for the holy Fathers, the holy
Bishops, it is shown that first one must be a partaker of the way of the
Apostles, and then follows being a successor to the thrones of the Apostles,”
as University professor and priest Fr. John Romanides characteristically
states.
The essence of
Apostolic Succession is inextricably linked with the essence of the Apostolic,
spiritual—according to God—Tradition, and with the living experience of the
essential Apostolic life. These points are clearly and most beautifully
expressed in the positions of the aforementioned academic.
Therefore,
addressing those who propagate against us by supposedly questioning our
Apostolic Succession on the one hand, while on the other considering themselves
worthy successors and at the same time impiously recognizing the heretical
Latins as continuators of the Holy Apostles, we emphasize—with the aim of
prompting reflection—that reference to Apostolic Succession is connected with
the preservation of Apostolic Tradition. It is connected with the preservation
of the correctness of the Faith as a way of life, as lived experience. Whoever
is cut off from the holy Tradition and the Orthodox life is also cut off from
the Church, and consequently loses Apostolic Succession.
Addressing those
opponents of our Church, who—after first dividing Orthodoxy—now accuse us of
the extra-jurisdictional and supposedly “non-canonical” consecration of our
bishops, we shall conclude with the following statement, and let them consider
their responsibilities: “Through Apostolic Succession, the teaching of the
Apostles was transmitted and the unity of the Church was preserved.”
But addressing also
ourselves, we pray from the depths of our hearts that we may prove worthy of
the Apostolic Succession which, with the help of God, we have been deemed
worthy to receive—after so many struggles and sacrifices of our
predecessors—both as “successors to the thrones, and also partakers of the
ways.”
Merry Christmas.
Sources:
Akanthopoulos,
P. I. (2019). Code of Holy Canons,
4th Ed., Thessaloniki: Vanias, p. 25
Church
of the G.O.C. of Greece (2018). 50th
Anniversary of the Official Recognition of Our Episcopal Consecrations,
Church of the G.O.C. of Greece, available at:
https://www.ecclesiagoc.gr/index.php/ἐνημερώση/ἄρθρα/ἱστορικὰ/1359-epeteios-xeirotonion-gox-diapsoras-2019
(accessed: 24.12.2019). [English translation published in Orthodox Tradition: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1C1KK8oigGgIud953Xlx-N88i1w0d0O0S/view?usp=sharing]
Saint
Eusebius, On Isaiah, 1, 27, PG 24,
100B. BEP 23, 17
The Voice of Orthodoxy, (1969) issue no. 569, July
1, p. 5
The Voice of Orthodoxy, (1970) issue nos. 585–586,
March 1, p. 8
The Voice of Orthodoxy, (1972) issue no. 662,
December 25, p. 5
Saint
Theodore the Studite (PG vol. 99, pp. 1645–1648)
I.M.N
& A.V. Ecclesiastical Intervention
(2019), Main Topic: Apostolic Tradition
and Apostolic Succession in the Mystery of the Church, Apostolic Tradition and Apostolic Succession according to Fr. John
Romanides, Ecclesiastical
Intervention (273), available at: http://www.parembasis.gr/index.php/el/menu-teyxos-273/5716-2019-04-16 (accessed: 24.12.2019)
Panagopoulos,
D. G. (2016). Issues of Ecclesiology: An
Interpretative Approach to Aspects of the Mystery of the Church Based on the
Orthodox Patristic Tradition, Athens: Myrmidones
Greek source:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.