Ioannis N. Paparrigas | October 1, 2024
Introduction
Bishop Kallinikos of Talantion, in his speech (here:
presented the Synodal members as continuators of the former Metropolitan of Florina in an astonishing "reverse" manner!
He states verbatim:
What troubled St. Chrysostomos were the selfishness and extreme positions of certain clerics who ultimately separated from the Body of the Church, as well as the continuous involvement of worldly people who had neither spirituality nor respect for ecclesiastical matters. And, of course, history repeats itself and will continue to repeat itself until today, where unfortunately disobedient and selfish clerics, as well as selfish laymen, undermine unity and cultivate divisive tendencies within the Church. Extreme positions that have no relation to the ecclesiology and ethos of our great Hierarch. How much patience did the forgiving Hierarch show to maintain the unity of the Orthodox, and how much patience and effort would he show today to maintain this much-desired unity… Our Church is here and continues the pastoral, missionary, and salvific work of the holy Chrysostomos, struggling against the pan-heresy of Ecumenism as well as all these innovations and secularization that, unfortunately, have affected even the ecclesiastical realm…
…to hold fast to the confession of faith until the end, remaining at the height of the great mission and on the path that he himself paved.
What was presented above in simple terms?
The Synod also seems to be struggling TODAY with "disobedient, selfish clerics" as well as "selfish laymen" who undermine unity and cultivate divisive tendencies within the Church.
Far from extreme positions that have no relation to the ecclesiology and ethos of our great Hierarch.
If he were alive today, how much patience and how many struggles would he undertake to maintain this much-desired unity? In other words, just as the Synodal members do.
The Church, that is, the Synod of Archbishop Kallinikos [of Athens], is here and continues the work of St. Chrysostomos—its pastoral, missionary, and salvific work—struggling against the pan-heresy of Ecumenism as well as all these innovations and secularization that, unfortunately, have also affected the ecclesiastical realm, naturally of the others...
The confession of faith is held fast until the end, remaining at the height of the great mission and on the path that he himself paved. That is, they had it, and now it is being held. To hold something, you must first have it, and they remain, just as before, at the height of the great mission, and indeed, they remain on the path that he himself paved!
Does His Eminence sincerely believe that what he mentioned holds true? I wish it were true, but is it?
1. The principles of the former Metropolitan of Florina.
We will begin by saying that it is true, as the Bishop of Talantion stated, that: "What troubled St. Chrysostomos were the selfishness and the extreme positions of certain clerics who ultimately separated from the Body of the Church...". But what exactly were "those things"?
The first division occurred — at that time — among them due to the issue of the "Mysteries."
The former Metropolitan of Florina, St. Chrysostomos, in his sermons, used the theological term "potentially and in actuality" in the sense that the official Church is indeed potentially schismatic but not in actuality, because for it to become schismatic in actuality, it is absolutely necessary for a Pan-Orthodox Synod to declare it as such.
He himself wrote:
The Church of Christ was established on earth by the divine Apostles, who equipped and armed it with the power of God and the grace of the Holy Spirit, which is transmitted to the faithful through the Holy Mysteries. Consequently, only they are entitled to establish or abolish, that is, to declare a church as heretical or schismatic if it deviates from the Orthodox faith, and to invalidate, that is, to render ineffective, the grace of Christ and the sanctifying power and energy of its Mysteries. This right, that is, the right to establish and abolish a Church, was passed on by the divine Apostles to their disciples, and they in turn to their successors, and thus through apostolic succession, this right passed to the authority of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. According to this fundamental principle of the Orthodox Eastern Church, a Church only has authority and its Mysteries have sanctifying grace and energy when it is established or recognized by the entire Orthodox Church, and it only loses this authority and the sanctifying power and energy of its Mysteries when it is declared heretical or schismatic by the whole Church, whose valid opinion and final decision is interpreted by an Ecumenical and Pan-Orthodox Council. Under these circumstances, any particular Church that appropriates or usurps the right of a Pan-Orthodox Council and proceeds through an uncanonical decision of the Holy Synod of a local church to declare another as schismatic and to invalidate its Mysteries, is acting in a Protestant or Latinizing manner! In the present case, the canons give individuals the right only to denounce the first person who transgresses the boundaries of the traditions and to sever all ecclesiastical communion with him, even before a synodal decision, and to denounce him to a Pan-Orthodox Council, which alone has the authority to judge and condemn him and to declare him a heretic or schismatic. This is what we have done, adhering to the divine and sacred canons, particularly the 15th canon of the First-Second Council. If, when we were sent into exile, we called the Archbishop of Athens a schismatic and the Church of Greece schismatic, we did not use the term 'schism' in the sense that the Church uses it, to mean a separation from the Orthodox Church and, consequently, a loss of the grace of Christ and of the Mysteries. Rather, we used it in the sense that the Archbishop of Athens, through his liturgical innovation, has separated himself and the hierarchy following him from the other Orthodox Churches in the celebration of feasts and in the observance of fasts. This separation of the Archbishop and the hierarchy following him gives us the right to express our personal and entirely individual opinion that the Archbishop and the bishops following him, having knowingly broken the unity of the entire Orthodox Church in the simultaneous celebration of feasts and the simultaneous observance of fasts, have become potentially, but not actually, deprived of divine grace, since they are under the curses and anathemas that the divine Fathers of the seven Ecumenical Councils hurled against those who violate the traditions and who move the eternal boundaries set by our Fathers. But the Archbishop and the bishops who agree with him will only become actually deprived of divine grace and alien to the Orthodox spirit of the Mysteries when they are declared as such and are schismatic in actuality by a Pan-Orthodox Council, which alone has the right to do so according to the statutes of the Orthodox Eastern Church. For this reason, the divine Apostles and the God-bearing Fathers, caring for the spiritual salvation of the faithful, who, out of ignorance and with good faith, follow the error of the head of the Church, did not base the spiritual welfare of the faithful on the decision of the first, but on the decision of a Pan-Orthodox Council. Only then are they condemned to the loss of divine grace from the Mysteries and to spiritual death when, even after the head of the Church has been declared a heretic or schismatic by a Pan-Orthodox Council, they continue to commune with him, accepting his blessing as that of a true and Orthodox shepherd.
And again:
According to Canon Law, the divine and sacred Canons, and the centuries-old practice of the Orthodox Church, a portion of clerics and laymen are entitled to declare Bishops as schismatics when they disagree with them on an ecclesiastical issue, which, according to the great Basil the Great, is curable, given that this right has been granted by the Holy Seven Ecumenical Councils—these infallible compasses of divine truth and the precise measure of Orthodoxy for the whole Church convening in the Holy Spirit, in an Ecumenical or Great Local Council. This council, after exhausting all peaceful means of enlightenment and pointing out the spiritual ruin and the dreadful precipice into which erroneous religious ideas lead, proceeds with sorrow to their separation from the God-established and centuries-old body of Orthodoxy, depriving them of the episcopal right to validly perform the Mysteries and any ecclesiastical act.
None of the old or new heretics and heresiarchs were ever declared schismatic and deposed by disagreeing individual hierarchs without a trial and defense, but by Synods and canonically assembled ecclesiastical courts, before which they are called to defend themselves. Only then are they deposed from the episcopal office and the authority to govern the Church and validly perform any ecclesiastical rites, when, after sufficient enlightenment by the Synodal Court, they refuse to renounce their error, stubbornly and unrepentantly clinging to their heretical ideas and erroneous beliefs.
Such an opinion of the invalidation of Mysteries and their repetition is not the right of individual bishops, who have neither the authority nor any standing to do so, nor even the right of a particular Orthodox Church to deprive the validity of Mysteries without the judgment of the entire Church. It is the exclusive right of the whole Church alone to deprive clergy, who fall into heresy and do not repent and renounce it, of the right to validly and efficaciously perform the Mysteries, for whoever does not have the power to give a divine gift, consequently does not have the right to take it away. This is why the Canons categorize those who usurp this sacred right as sacrilegious. 'A bishop who degrades to the rank of a presbyter commits sacrilege' (Canon 29 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council). And if the Canons consider it sacrilege to degrade the Mystery of Priesthood, how much more do they consider sacrilegious those who dare, without any authority or ecclesiastical standing, to declare the Mysteries of a recognized Church as invalid, even if that Church is under accusation before the whole Church for the unauthorized introduction of an innovation? This is the reason why we refrain from passing judgment on the validity of Mysteries, confessing that we have no authority or right to do so according to the divine and sacred Canons, and recognizing our own insignificance and sinful state in the face of the sanctity and sanctifying grace and power of the divine and sacred Mysteries. We leave this matter to the opinion and judgment of the whole Church, whose exclusive right, as we have said, is the bestowal of grace upon a Church through the Mysteries conveyed by its ministers and the withholding of this grace by that Church through canonical reasons and after trial and defense, when it deposes its clergy, both bishops and priests.
These statements caused an upheaval, and the two bishops, Germanos of the Cyclades and Matthew of Bresthena, ceased to have spiritual relations with the other two, namely Germanos of Demetrias and Chrysostomos of Florina. These two bishops began to insult and accuse Germanos of Demetrias and Chrysostomos of Florina.
Does the G.O.C. today follow the above ecclesiology of the blessed Hierarch? Bishop Kallinikos of Talantion mentioned that they follow it and remain "on the path that he himself paved."
2. The extreme positions.
The extreme positions of Bishops Germanos of the Cyclades and Matthew of Bresthena, which they even asked St. Chrysostomos of Florina to adopt, were the following:
1. That the Church of Greece, by accepting the Papal Calendar, became Schismatic.
2. Its Mysteries are invalid.
3. Its Holy Chrism does not have sanctifying grace.
4. Children of the cacocox [i.e., New Calendarists], when coming into the Orthodox Church, must be re-chrismated.
So, Bishop Kallinikos of Talantion, is correct in saying that: "The extreme positions, which have no relation to the ecclesiology and ethos of our great Hierarch," because indeed the ecclesiological positions of the blessed Hierarch, had no relation to the above and were opposed to them.
We note that we will not analyze here whether the positions of the Bishops of Florina or Bresthena were correct or not. We briefly presented the two opposing ecclesiological positions due to the statements made by the same Bishop: "What troubled St. Chrysostomos were the selfishness and the extreme positions of certain clerics who ultimately separated from the Body of the Church..."
3. The ecclesiological positions of the contemporary G.O.C. - The Enthronement Address (https://iaathgoc.gr/index.php/portfolio-2/nthronistirios-logos) of Archbishop Kallinikos.
In his Enthronement Address, the Archbishop Kallinikos of the G.O.C. stated:
Our Church is the counterbalance to the heresy of Ecumenism. In the realm of the New Calendar, voices are occasionally heard against Ecumenism, against Papism, against Bartholomew and those with him, from conservative theologians, clerics, and other individuals.
However, the attacks of the New Calendarists, who cry out against Ecumenism, Papism, Bartholomew, and the other officials of the New Calendarism, are blanks! Because those whom they denounce as heterodox, they simultaneously commemorate in their churches as Orthodox. And they 'commune' with them! This fact makes them inconsistent and unreliable...
Our Church believes, confesses, and proclaims that the Church is One. It is our Orthodox Church. It is the only one that saves its members, those who desire their salvation and strive for it. No heresy saves! No heresy has Grace! No heresy has Mysteries! This confession was proclaimed by the blessed leader of our Church, Chrysostomos Kavourides, in 1935. This confession is accepted by our Church to this day.
This is the reason why we do not provide the Divine Eucharist and our other Mysteries to those who are not members of our Church, such as the New Calendarists.
It is not at all "coincidental" that Archbishop Kallinikos mentioned this famous Encyclical. The same Encyclical was also cited by the two bishops, Germanos of the Cyclades and Matthew of Bresthena, who separated because they believed that Chrysostomos of Florina had betrayed the confession of 1935.
The two bishops considered St. Chrysostomos a traitor because he used the well-known terms "potentially and in actuality." In fact, he later published an interpretation concerning the matters related to the Encyclical of 1935, where he again invoked the aforementioned terms.
Archbishop Kallinikos referenced the aforementioned Encyclical but seemingly forgot (?) the crystal-clear and straightforward interpretations of Chrysostomos of Florina concerning the exact same Encyclical. Therefore, Bishop Kallinikos of Talantion should tell us whether the above statements of the Archbishop fall under the "extreme positions that have no relation to the ecclesiology and ethos of our great Hierarch," or if they are indeed related to his ecclesiology. If they are, he must explain with arguments how two conflicting ecclesiological positions are connected, especially when the blessed hierarch himself had given a clear interpretation and explanation on the matter.
4. The ecclesiological positions of the contemporary G.O.C. - The Homily of His Beatitude Archbishop Kallinikos of Athens and All Greece during the Synodal Celebration of the Holy Theophany:
(https://www.ecclesiagoc.gr/index.php/%E1%BC%84%CF%81%CE%B8%CF%81%CE%B1/%CF%80%CE%B1%CF%81%CE%B1%CE%B9%CE%BD%CE%B5%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AC/2093-logos-makariotatou-agia-theofaneia-2023?highlight=WyJcdTAzYmFcdTAzYjFcdTAzYmJcdTAzYmJcdTAzYjlcdTAzYmRcdTAzYWZcdTAzYmFcdTAzYmZcdTAzYzUiXQ==).
During the celebration of Theophany (2023), Archbishop Kallinikos stated the following:
The Church that Christ founded is the genuine Orthodox Church. Its foundation is the twelve Apostles and the true faith, which they handed down to us. From the true Church of Christ, groups of people with erroneous beliefs have, from time to time, separated.
Such groups include the heretical and schismatic groups that have been cut off from the Church, such as the Monophysites, the Papists, the Protestants, and the Ecumenists, who in 1924, despite the anathemas of three Pan-Orthodox Synods from the years 1583, 1587, and 1593, changed the ecclesiastical calendar in our worship. Those who remained faithful to the Orthodox tradition and did not accept to add or remove anything from it, they alone continue to be the Church of Christ. And these people are us, the genuine Orthodox Christians, as St. Cyril of Jerusalem and other Fathers call us.
But also, those who, after 1924, cut themselves off from the Church through their various schisms, they too are gravely sinning.
The holy Fathers are clear when they say, "Outside the Church, there is no hope of salvation." For this reason, we call all those, especially from 1924 onwards, who have been cut off from the Orthodox Church, to return with true repentance to the fold of the Church. This, and only this, is the God-pleasing "union" that many speak of today! Every Christian who desires their salvation must examine which is the Church of Christ!
The responsibility for salvation rests on each one of us. Therefore, each of us must take up our responsibilities!
Here we note the following:
1. The Ecumenists were cut off from the Church because, despite the anathemas of the three Pan-Orthodox Synods, they changed the ecclesiastical calendar.
2. Those who did not accept to add or remove anything from the Church, they alone continue to be the Church. And these are the Genuine Orthodox Christians.
3. After 1924, various others also cut themselves off with their schisms.
4. Those who have broken away are called to return to the fold of the Church.
Do the above positions follow the ecclesiology of St. Chrysostomos? Are they walking his path, as Bishop Kallinikos of Talantion told us?
Let us make the comparison, starting with the first note:
1. In what way were the Ecumenists "cut off," and during which time period? If the ecclesiology of St. Chrysostomos is being followed, any automatic separation is rejected without the decision of the only competent authority, which is an Ecumenical or Pan-Orthodox Council.
The aforementioned Synods of the 16th century condemned the shifting of Pascha, which resulted from the adoption of the new Gregorian Calendar.
The Synods did not cut off those who accepted it because none of the Orthodox at that time accepted it. They rejected the innovation of the already out-of-the-Church Papists in order to protect the Orthodox from this temptation.
They did not cut off those who accepted it either, because no Synod can condemn in advance a future violation, especially when we know that in 1924 the Gregorian Calendar and Paschalion were not fully adopted, but only the Gregorian reckoning for the fixed feasts, while the Paschalion remained unchanged.
Let us see what St. Chrysostomos (in his letter to Germanos of the Cyclades) wrote, whom the contemporary G.O.C. claim to follow:
"Also, Your Grace is hypocritical and shamelessly lies when you claim that the convocation of a Pan-Orthodox Council or a great Local Council is unnecessary and redundant for the valid and final condemnation of the calendar innovation of the Archbishop, since the Pan-Orthodox Councils of 1583, 1587, and 1593 condemned the Gregorian Calendar. And this is because you know very well that those Councils indeed condemned the Gregorian Calendar, but that condemnation concerned the Latins, who implemented the entire calendar, whereas the Archbishop adopted only half of it, applying it to the fixed feasts while retaining the Old for Pascha and the movable feasts, precisely to avoid the obstacle of that condemnation. Therefore, this innovation by the Archbishop, who applied the Gregorian Calendar only for the fixed feasts and not for Pascha, for which the Gregorian Calendar was chiefly condemned as being contrary to the 7th Apostolic Canon, presents a new issue, appearing for the first time in the history of the Orthodox Church. Consequently, the convocation of a Pan-Orthodox Council is not only not redundant, as Your Grace hastily proclaimed like another Pope, but is required for the canonical and valid condemnation of this issue."
The Archbishop repeated an excerpt from the "Synodal Condemnation" of 1998, where the following is mentioned:
"To those who struggled for the Orthodox Faith—Jeremiah the Great, Silvester of Alexandria, Sophronius of Jerusalem, and all the others who participated in the Pan-Orthodox Synods in the years 1583, 1587, and 1593, which condemned the calendar innovation and cut off from the body of the Church those who accepted and will accept this, Eternal be their memory."
It is now well known that the 1998 text was drafted by Mr. Sakarellos, who, at that time, as an advisor to the Archbishop and the then Chief Secretary, promoted his own ecclesiological positions.
So, let Bishop Kallinikos of Talantion answer: does the first note we analyzed contain the ecclesiology of St. Chrysostomos or that of Sakarellos?
P.S. We leave aside the "extreme Matthewites," who held the same opinion and wrote:
"The Former Metropolitan of Florina, receiving grace from the heterodox church, thus disregarding the Pan-Orthodox Synods of the Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremiah II the Great of 1583, 1587, and 1593, which condemned the new calendar" (Pastoral Encyclical of Bishop Matthew of Bresthena, 1 Oct 1947)."
4.2. We consider it necessary to recall what exactly the designation "Genuine Orthodox Christian" means.
"The term 'Genuine Christian' in the title of the religious community of the same name corresponds to the meaning of the pure, of one who does not tolerate, that is, any adulteration or falsification of what has been handed down, and not in the sense of distinguishing between genuine and non-genuine, where the non-genuine would be identified in this context with the meaning of heterodox or heretical."
This is what the very author of the statute of that religious community stated.
"Those who did not accept to add or remove anything from the Church, they alone continue to be the Church. And these are the Genuine Orthodox Christians, they alone continue to be the Church. And these are the Genuine Orthodox Christians," Archbishop Kallinikos mentioned.
As the "ONLY" Church and as "Genuine Orthodox Christians," is this meant in the broader sense mentioned above, or does it mean that "THE CHURCH" is only the G.O.C. of the Synod of Archbishop Kallinikos and no one else? Here, Bishop Kallinikos of Talantion must answer to clarify whether they indeed agree with the ecclesiology of the former Metropolitan of Florina.
Of course, St. Chrysostomos never stated that he was the ONLY one! Those who have said such things—up to the present day—are the so-called Matthewites and those who share the same affliction!
As proof, we mention the following:
"The only Orthodox and the only competent Bishop was Matthew of Bresthena." "The only Orthodox Bishop was Matthew Karpathakis of Bresthena" (K.E.O. vol. 35, pp. 141, 174).
In general, whichever faction of the Matthaeites one examines, one will find exactly the same claim—that each one of them is the ONLY Church!
Then, the Archbishop once again mentions the 'cutting off':
"After 1924, various others were again cut off with their schisms.
Those who were cut off are called to return to the fold of the Church."
Here again, Bishop Kallinikos of Talantion must tell us who these people are, how they were cut off, and to which Church they must return. This will help us determine whether the ecclesiology of the St Chrysostomos is being followed in this case as well or not.
Archbishop Kallinikos had stated the same thing in his Enthronement Address:
"…I wish to facilitate the return of all these people to the fold of the Church…"
The answer, of course, is found in the "Charter" of 1998, where it states:
"Article 1. ABOUT THE CHURCH IN GENERAL. a) The 'Church of Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece' is the local Orthodox Catholic Church in Greece, which was founded by Christ. ...b) The 'Church of Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece' or 'Orthodox Catholic Church' constitutes the canonical and unbroken continuation of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Christ, following the separation from it of all heretics and schismatics up to the innovators, the New Calendarists of 1924, and certain groups of members of our Church, who follow various deposed former clerics of ours or unordained individuals ...it believes and confesses that it is the only secure path of salvation for its members and recognizes as salvific and grace-transmitting only the holy mysteries performed by it..." (Periodical "Church of G.O.C. of Greece," no. 23, November – December 1998, p. 25.).
And here, unfortunately, we encounter the ecclesiology of Sakarellos, from which we present an excerpt:
"It is a fact that today, those who continue to follow the Old Calendar are scattered across many factions... It is also a fact that each of these factions arbitrarily presents itself as the only true 'one holy catholic and apostolic Church,' declaring all others as schismatic. However, this cannot be entirely true, because all of these factions cannot each truly be the 'One' Church of Christ. Christ founded only one Church. And indeed, each of these factions has the 'right,' according to worldly standards, to believe that it is the 'Church of Christ,' or whatever else it wishes. ...There is the 'One' Church of Christ, meaning that one of all these factions is the Church. ...What will happen with the above Old Calendar factions that present themselves as the 'Church of Christ'? Should they not eventually disappear so that only the 'One, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church' remains? ...Some want the unification of the Old Calendar factions now according to the above ecumenist standards! Thus, they promote a new type of ecumenism, the Old Calendarist Ecumenism, according to which all Old Calendar factions are the same, all are 'Churches of Christ,' and therefore, all can unite into one Church, the 'Church of Christ'! This is the ecumenism 'from the right'!"
Let Bishop Kallinikos of Talantion answer, then: Do all of the above reflect the ecclesiology and follow the path of St. Chrysostomos, or that of Sakarellos?
5. The ecclesiological text of the union.
The ecclesiological text bears the title: "The Genuine Orthodox Church in the Face of the Heresy of Ecumenism: Dogmatic and Canonical Issues"
(https://www.ecclesiagoc.gr/index.php/%E1%BC%84%CF%81%CE%B8%CF%81%CE%B1/%E1%BC%90%CE%BA%CE%BA%CE%BB%CE%B7%CF%83%CE%B9%CE%BF%CE%BB%CE%BF%CE%B3%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AC/101-e-gnesia-orthodoxe-ecclesia-kai-e-airese-tou-oikoumenismou).
This text leads to various interpretations because, as many confess, "it is not clear." We could say that the wording of the text was crafted in such a way that its interpretation is ambiguous, satisfying both the "extremists" in their mindset and the "non-extremists."
A striking proof of this is the controversial paragraph:
"6. Specifically regarding the Mysteries performed in the so-called official Orthodox Churches, the Genuine Orthodox Church does not affirm their validity, nor their soteriological effectiveness, especially for those who knowingly commune with syncretistic Ecumenism, as well as Sergianism, even though She does not necessarily repeat the form of these Mysteries for those who, in repentance, enter into communion with Her, especially in view of the convening of a Great Synod of Genuine Orthodoxy, to confirm what has already been determined on a local level."
Much has been said, far too much, about this particular paragraph. Some believe that the Genuine Orthodox Church avoids making a definitive statement about the Mysteries, while others think that it clearly declares that they do not have Mysteries.
Stephanos' faction of the Matthewites issued an "Opinion." There, the following is mentioned:
"Another crucial point, and one of the utmost ecclesiological importance, is the clear and bold statement in the text regarding the 'Mysteries' (note: in the text, without quotation marks) 'performed in the so-called official Orthodox Churches.' That is, the Mysteries performed by the schismatic Innovators, the heretical Ecumenists, and those who are in full communion with them.
"The Genuine Orthodox Church," therefore, according to the said Ecclesiological Text, declares unequivocally that "it does not affirm their validity, nor their soteriological effectiveness!"
And is that all? With astonishing boldness and clarity, it then raises the issue of the conditional nature of the expressed reservation regarding the validity—or rather the invalidity—of the "Mysteries" of the schismatic and heretical members of the so-called "official Orthodox Churches," based on their conscious or ignorant communion with false doctrine and heresy! Furthermore, going even further, it ultimately makes the entire matter dependent on the future "Great Synod of Genuine Orthodoxy"!
We believe it is easily understood that here we are no longer dealing with a simple omission or intentional silence on crucial issues. Here, a major problem and issue of Orthodoxy arises directly from such an ecclesiological position!
First of all, it must be mentioned that the formulation in question, regarding the non-affirmation or rather the declaration of refusal to affirm the validity of the "Mysteries performed in the so-called official Orthodox Churches," allows for different interpretations and readings because it constitutes, at the very least and leniently speaking, ambiguity. However, we believe that the context and responsibility in drafting an Ecclesiological Text do not justify the presence of ambiguities, especially on such a serious issue...
The statement in the ecclesiological text, unfortunately, resembles and allows it to be approached only with heterodox content...
The specific formulation (of the ecclesiological text concerning the Mysteries) essentially denies the faith and teaching of the Church, as, on the one hand, it does not confess it, and on the other hand, it theoretically leaves open the possibility that Mysteries could exist and be recognized outside the Genuine Orthodox Church, that is, outside the Church of Christ. This is further reinforced by the unacceptable connection of the validity or invalidity of the "Mysteries" performed in the realm of heresy and schism with the conscious acceptance (with knowledge) or simple communion (in ignorance) of the persons—members who commune with the heresy.
It is extremely disappointing and concerning, while at the same time paradoxical, that for an ecclesiological text of Orthodox identity and confession, presented by the "Genuine Orthodoxy" in opposition to Ecumenism, a position regarding the Mysteries was chosen that allows for the accusation of Ecumenistic influence. Furthermore, this specific stance constitutes a change in the ecclesiological "belief," as we at least understood it, of the Akakians, who, as they had most recently claimed, had taken a definitive position on the issue of the Mysteries, considering the "Mysteries" performed within New Calendarism and Ecumenism to be invalid."
In the above, we see that the controversial paragraph has been interpreted as: "a change in the ecclesiological 'belief,' as we at least understood it, of the Akakians, who, as they had most recently claimed, had taken a definitive position on the issue of the Mysteries, considering the 'Mysteries' performed within New Calendarism and Ecumenism to be invalid."
The Matthewites, therefore, saw a change in the "belief" because the Akakians claimed that the New Calendarists have invalid Mysteries! Bishop Kallinikos of Talantion should also answer this—whether it is true, and if it is, he should tell us if this was the mindset and ecclesiology of St. Chrysostomos, which he himself stated is being followed...
On the other hand, there are many who believe that the G.O.C. Church does not recognize their Mysteries.
"There is no Synodal decision that determines a specific year in which the New Calendarist-Ecumenist clergy fell away. On this issue, many different opinions exist, but it is not that significant. Just as when we have a dead body before us, the forensic doctors may not agree among themselves on the exact time of death and may try to estimate it using various scientific methods, but the undeniable fact is that death has occurred."
This is what the scholar cleric Fr. Nikolaos Dimaras states ("Holy Kollyvades," Summer 2018, p. 58).
It is important to mention that in the same text, which is also presented in modern Greek and includes references, the following is noted regarding the controversial paragraph:
"In the original, 'διαβεβαιοῖ' comes from the verb 'διαβεβαιόω, -ῶ': to affirm, to support something as certain and indisputable, to assert something strongly and absolutely, to confirm explicitly, to certify, to guarantee. The meaning of this paragraph should be understood in connection with that of the previous paragraphs 1-5, and not in isolation."
What do paragraphs 1-5 state?
1. In the reception of repentant heretics and schismatics, the Ecumenical and Local Councils of the Church, in addition to the principle of Exactness (Akribeia), at times also applied the so-called principle of Economy (Oikonomia), a canonical and pastoral practice, according to which a temporary deviation from the letter of the Holy Canons is possible, without violating Their spirit.
2. Nevertheless, Economy can never, in any case, allow for the absolution of any sin or any compromise regarding the "Correct and Salvific Confession of Faith," as Economy aims purely and solely, in the spirit of philanthropic condescension, to facilitate the salvation of souls, for whom Christ died.
3. The application of Economy in the reception of heretics and schismatics into Ecclesiastical Communion in no way means that the Church recognizes the validity and existence of their Mysteries, which were performed outside Her Canonical and Charismatic boundaries.
4. The Holy Orthodox Church has never recognized, neither by Exactness (Akribeia) nor by Economy (Oikonomia), the Mysteries performed outside of Her, absolutely and from a distance, so long as those performing or participating in these Mysteries remain within the confines of their own heretical or schismatic community.
5. Through the exclusive application of Economy only in the reception, in repentance, of individuals or communities from outside of Her, the Orthodox Church accepts only the form of a Mystery performed by heretics or schismatics, provided that this form has been preserved unadulterated, particularly concerning baptism, and She enlivens this form through the Grace of the Holy Spirit, which resides in Her, by means of the bearers of Her fullness in Christ, that is, the Orthodox Bishops."
Here we highlight that:
3. "The application of Economy in the reception of heretics and schismatics into Ecclesiastical Communion in no way means that the Church recognizes the validity and existence of their Mysteries, which were performed outside Her Canonical and Charismatic boundaries."
4. The Holy Orthodox Church has never recognized, neither by Exactness (Akribeia) nor by Economy (Oikonomia), the Mysteries performed outside of Her, absolutely and from a distance, as long as those performing or participating in these Mysteries remain within the confines of their own heretical or schismatic community."
It is curious how the Matthaeites of the Stefanos faction did not comment at all on paragraphs 1-5.
So we have:
1. "...in no way does it mean that the Church recognizes the validity and existence of their Mysteries, which were performed outside Her Canonical and Charismatic boundaries."
2. "The Holy Orthodox Church has never recognized, neither by Exactness (Akribeia) nor by Economy (Oikonomia), the Mysteries performed outside of Her, absolutely and from a distance..."
3. "Specifically regarding the Mysteries performed in the so-called official Orthodox Churches, the Genuine Orthodox Church does not affirm their validity, nor their soteriological effectiveness, especially for those who knowingly commune with syncretistic Ecumenism..."
There is no clear answer to the above! We repeat that the wording of the text was crafted in such a way that its interpretation is indeed ambiguous or equivocal, and this is not just our opinion.
This, of course, is not unprecedented. It is a common phenomenon in many cases and on various issues, which is why disputes constantly arise, and many detach themselves from that particular group. One thing is said, another is assumed, and another is done, and we wonder how they don’t see it in order to correct it and have a CLEAR ecclesiology, clear views, without ambiguous interpretations that are convenient for many different reasons...
It is necessary to note reference 50, where the following is mentioned:
"Synodal condemnations do not cause the fall of the heretic, but first, they denounce the heresy for the protection of the flock, and second, they ascertain and declare the fall of the heretic, which already exists."
This reference pertains to paragraph 5, where the following is mentioned:
"This need (i.e., for a Great Synod) is understood from the fact that the true Church, being the actual Body of Christ, is by nature Catholic, meaning it possesses the fullness of Truth, Grace, and Salvation, and it pronounces Synodally through Her Bishops regarding false teachings and the global scandal caused by them. For this reason, the Church must strive, on the one hand, for the articulation of the Truths of the Faith to define the boundaries between Truth and falsehood, and on the other hand, for the denunciation and condemnation of error and the corruption caused by heresy and heretics, for the protection of the flock, thus ascertaining and declaring the already existing fall of the heretics."
The above issue of the Great Synod deserves further commentary in the future, as does the aforementioned reference, so that we can see if it aligns with the mindset and ecclesiology of St. Chrysostomos...
Therefore, Bishop Kallinikos of Talantion must CLEARLY tell us whether the New Calendarists have valid Mysteries or merely bread and wine, because, through the ecclesiological text, people are still "searching" for answers. We also need to see if the ecclesiology of St. Chrysostomos is indeed being followed, as he himself claimed!
6. Extreme positions and self-serving clergy and laity.
As we briefly presented, the extreme positions of clergy, particularly of bishops, created the first divisions in the Church of the G.O.C. These divisions continued throughout the course of the struggle with different individuals, resulting in conflicts and schisms.
Especially within the G.O.C. community, the excessive emphasis on "confession" has resulted in the downgrading, and even the disconnection, of fundamental teachings of the faith. This leads to a one-sided approach, creating a contrast between outward religiosity and inner actions. Doctrine and adherence to the Gospel must undoubtedly coexist simultaneously in the life of a Christian. When they are disconnected, the above-mentioned phenomena arise.
Extremism and selfishness are often observed in human behavior in every society. If we want to prevent their proliferation, we must cultivate the opposite virtues and ensure that we are not the ones promoting them.
Clergy of every rank come from the laity, and when the laity are not properly catechized or do not themselves adhere to the sacred words of the Gospel, it is not at all surprising that there are extreme and self-serving clergy who exploit religious beliefs, using practices to promote their personal interests, gain power, and more.
St. Chrysostomos, primarily through the example of his economy and self-denial, taught the Christians of his time. If we want to claim that we follow the Saints, we must prove it according to the saying: "honoring a Saint means imitating the Saint."
Greek source: https://entoytwnika1.blogspot.com/2024/10/blog-post.html
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.