Summary of the Historic Presentation of the Synod in Resistance to its Flock Concerning the then-proposed 2014 Union with the G.O.C.

 

Original Greek source: agiamarinagoc.blogspot.gr/2014/03/3_29.html (since deleted)

Original Greek summary text pdf:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1C1CeUd1khqdNghJ_txK__LmTHU9oASxB/view?usp=sharing

 

It was clarified from the outset of the presentation that this is a gathering which does not aim to announce accomplished facts and decisions, but to inform on the entire matter in a complete and responsible manner regarding what has been done up to the present moment, and, after a discussion of objections and resolution of the audience’s questions follows, to seek the consent of the flock, which constitutes a prerequisite for the final step, the ratification of the union by the Great Synod.

The occasion for the meeting was the great turmoil, confusion, and extreme behaviors caused by the publication of the 13th joint statement of the two respective committees engaged in dialogue with the aim of union. 

[http://hotca.org/documents/523-the-thirteenth-meeting-with-those-in-resistance]

It concerns a non-dogmatic text which has not been ratified by the Synods and therefore is subject to corrections and reformulation. Consequently, the following took place:

1. A 4-hour briefing of the brotherhood of the Holy Monastery of Saints Cyprian and Justina on Monday, March 10, 2014
2. A 9-hour briefing of the clergy of the Community in Resistance on Tuesday, March 11, 2014
3. A briefing of the laity on Wednesday, March 12, 2014

There are three main factions in the Old Calendarist sphere: the Community in Resistance, the most populous [G.O.C.] faction with Archbishop Kallinikos, and the Matthewites. In 2008, the G.O.C. made the first unofficial approach with the aim of union, which ended in failure (the G.O.C. withdrew from the dialogue). In 2012, a new approach was undertaken by the G.O.C. Two committees were appointed: a six-member committee from the Community in Resistance (Kyprianos, Ambrosios, Klemes, and Fathers Glykerios, Angelos, Georgios), and a three-member committee from the G.O.C. (one archpriest and two lay theologians), and they discussed mainly the positions expressed in a text by the Community in Resistance, since the text put forth by the G.O.C. on the dialogue table was general and vague and did not offer a solid basis for the initiation of dialogue. The efforts appeared fruitless; however, from April 2013 (after the death of Kyprianos), when they themselves emphasized the necessity, new impetus was given with positive prospects, and today the vision of union is within a breath’s distance. The expectation is not something driven by optimism or illusions, they reiterated—it would be self-deception amidst so many sorrowful events which demonstrate visible inwardness, they emphasized. "The union will be a triumph of Patera Kyprianos, since it will now be the official realization of his vision in the reality of the times. However, we must avoid grandstanding and render honor and express our gratitude to another faction, because they understood us, became moderate, and ceased to display a dogmatic character in their views. We desire the union and we are working for it—if it be God’s will, it shall come to pass."

 

❖ WHY SHOULD THE EFFORT FOR UNION BE MADE?

1. The hierarch is a servant of Peace, of Love, and of Union. Division, when unwarranted and not due to dogmatic reasons, is a scandal and a mortal sin, and if the hierarch does not labor in the direction of unity and the integrity of the Church of God, he will give an account. Moreover, union will lead to the mutual enrichment of the gifts of the respective factions participating in it.

2. The union constitutes the desire and vision of the ever-memorable Kyprianos, and its realization will mark a milestone in the historical course of the Community in Resistance. (The reasons for the walling-off in 1984 no longer apply, and moreover, the Synod in Resistance from the outset had a provisional character. “With the union, we return to the source, to communion with our brethren.”)

Until 1955, the head of the Old Calendar was [St.] Chrysostomos Kavourides. After his death, he did not appoint a successor, and for five years the Old Calendarist body remained headless and in confusion. With the intervention of the Russian Church Abroad, a solution was given through the consecration of new hierarchs. Since then, the G.O.C. have moved in a strict spirit, and according to the Community in Resistance, had deviated—a fact which led to the walling-off in 1984.

 

❖ WHY SHOULD THE DIALOGUE FOR UNION TAKE PLACE NOW?

1. Ecumenism is galloping forward and necessarily determines our choices, pushing toward a joint confrontation of the pan-heresy. Genuine Orthodox must not remain indifferent in the face of the greatest threat. (United, we are stronger and more effective – alluding to the [Pseudo-]Synod of [of Crete in] 2016.)

2. Within the sphere of the G.O.C., the persons and mentalities have changed – they are more moderate and open.

3. Around the same time, the relations of the Community in Resistance were shaken, primarily with the Romanians, but also with the Russians and Bulgarians. The Romanians (stricter) requested corrections to the foundational text of the walling-off by the Community in Resistance. Specifically, they asked the Community in Resistance to remove from their text:

a) that the Mysteries of the New Calendar are valid, and

b) that the innovators are ailing members of the Church.

The Community in Resistance invoked moderation and, for the sake of unity, preferred lawful and legitimate concessions. The demands of the Romanians constitute a fortunate circumstance for proclaiming unity on a global level.

 

❖ METHODOLOGY OF THE CONSULTATIONS FOR UNION

In the beginning, the effort was extremely difficult, since the G.O.C. questioned even the anti-ecumenist character of the Community in Resistance.

As the consultations for union progressed and reached a satisfactory level, the issue of the Mysteries arose, upon which the G.O.C. and the Community in Resistance disagreed. In order to find a solution, the Community in Resistance proposed that the position of [St.] Philaret of the Russian Church Abroad and [Bishop] Photii [of Triaditsa] of Bulgaria (who was consecrated by the ever-memorable Kyprianos) be adopted. Thus, it was agreed that the Community in Resistance would suppress their own view (that the Mysteries of the New Calendarists are valid), and the G.O.C. theirs (that the Mysteries of the New Calendarists are invalid), and that the definitive resolution of this issue and of other difficult matters would be deferred to a future Synod. In this way, a unifying ideology is projected, which is addressed both to the rest of the Old Calendarists and to those interested from the New Calendarists. Once this obstacle was bypassed, it was agreed to jointly formulate a declaration-text based on the text of [Bishop] Photii, the drafting of which was initially undertaken by the G.O.C. They sent it in a simple form and, due to their own inability to refine it, to the Community in Resistance to complete it with full discretion. The latter carried it out with great diligence and presented it as a unity draft at a general meeting. The G.O.C. were enthusiastic about the text, even though it did not have a final form and required minor corrections. At the same time, it was being translated into English due to interest in the text from abroad. The Romanians (in haste) requested that the text be finalized and that, during the Lenten season, the remaining issues also be discussed and resolved.

In the case of agreement, March 10th (the day of the publication) appeared as a landmark date for the union. The G.O.C. were pressured by the publication of the text, and both they and the Community in Resistance appealed to and considered the publication premature. Nevertheless, the pressure from the Romanians to resolve the issues and the positive response of their flock (as noted in the final remark of the G.O.C.) remained.

 

STRUCTURE OF THE TEXT – DECLARATION

1. Theology of Unity

2. Ecumenism

3. Sergianism

4. Official Orthodoxy of various countries, which is in decline.

5. The G.O.C. of foreign countries (mainly formerly communist) who continue the correct tradition.

6. Return to genuine Orthodoxy.

In this chapter, the following contentious issues are addressed:

– The Mysteries (as previously mentioned)

– How the modernists can become members of genuine Orthodoxy (the G.O.C. anoint them, whereas the Community in Resistance normally does not). According to the text, the responsibility for the necessary usage is assumed by each respective bishop, until the difficult matters are definitively decided by a future Ecumenical Synod of the Genuine Orthodox.

7. Convocation of a Great Orthodox Synod of Genuine Orthodoxy.

 

❖ RESULTS OF THE DIALOGUE

I. The entire disposition of the G.O.C. toward the Community in Resistance changed radically. At the beginning of the dialogue, they had a distorted view—they questioned their anti-ecumenist character and did not regard them as bishops (they did not kiss their hand).

II. As a consequence of the former, came the prejudices the G.O.C. held against the Community in Resistance.

III. The Community in Resistance became the center of a pan-Orthodox unifying effort of global interest.

IV. The memory of Patera Kyprianos is being restored in the conscience of the Church of the Patristic Calendar (he alone accomplished in 30 years what all the others together did not achieve in 90 years and is being revealed as a confessor of Orthodoxy).

V. The G.O.C. do not dispute the episcopal consecrations of the Community in Resistance.

VI. After the union, the Community in Resistance will not retain their Synod, nor their name (there is no longer a reason for it), and they will be integrated into the Synod under Archbishop Kallinikos—the title of the G.O.C. will not change, as it has legal recognition and historical significance. In the new situation, the Community in Resistance will not be absorbed but will retain a certain autonomy. The bishop of Phyle, together with two other bishops (a 3-member committee)

• Will continue to have the care of the external missionary work,

• Will serve as the connecting link among the bishops abroad who await union with
Genuine Orthodoxy,

• And at the same time, a missionary foundation will be established—a joint spiritual and
material participation which will fund the external missions.

VII. The diocese of Oropos and Phyle is retained due to its great historical and confessional identity with the geographical boundaries it has covered since its origins.

 

13th JOINT STATEMENT – POINTS OF CONTENTION

- Frequency of Holy Communion (the Community in Resistance encourages frequent Holy Communion).

- The Community in Resistance is opposed to the modern eschatological frenzy (e.g., the AMKA [Greek Social Security Registration number] is not considered the seal [of the Antichrist]).

- The Community in Resistance does not accept the glorifications carried out by the Patriarch and are not bound by them; however, unofficially, they respect and honor the new saints (they do not promote them). The other faction (G.O.C.) is more insular and reserved on this issue.

At this point, the briefing on the actions taken concludes, and the submission of questions, objections, and other inquiries from the audience to the committee follows.