Response to the article “Who is responsible for the degradation of the priestly rank in the case of Mr. Vezyreas?”, by Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus of the official Church of Greece.
The revelations concerning the
one reputed as “archbishop of the Old Calendarists,” Parthenios Vezyreas, have
triggered, as was to be expected, a multitude of biting comments against all
without exception who follow the traditional ecclesiastical calendar, without
any distinction being made between conscientious Christians and frauds. This
tactic, favored by aspiring journalists and enemies of the Church of the
Genuine Orthodox Christians (G.O.C.), has been known for decades and does not
honor those who employ it. This, despite the worldly sorrow it causes us,
becomes mysteriously also a cause for joy, according to the assurance of the
Author of our Faith, the Savior Christ: “Blessed are ye, when men shall revile
you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely,
for my sake.” [1]
One of the related articles that
circulated recently was that of the Metropolitan of the official Church of
Greece, His Eminence Seraphim of Piraeus. Bearing the title “Who is responsible
for the degradation of the priestly rank in the case of Mr. Vezyreas?”, the
said article is deemed worthy of investigation and response. Obviously, with
our reply we do not aim to defend cases similar to that of Mr. Vezyreas, but
rather ourselves, since we consider that the case of Mr. Vezyreas provided a
convenient pretext for His Eminence to attack—indirectly yet clearly—our Holy
Synod.
Mr. Seraphim expresses, at the
outset, his sorrow that no one refers to what he considers the primary party
responsible for phenomena such as that of Mr. Vezyreas: the Hellenic State. He
explains that the responsibility of the State lies in the registration of
“parasynagogues of the Orthodox Church” in the relevant registry of the Court
of First Instance, under the pretext of “the lawlessness of religious
conscience, the unbearable rights-based mentality, and the unchecked
self-identification,” while the current Constitution recognizes as the official
religion the Orthodox Church, which is dogmatically united with that of
Constantinople.
Mr. Seraphim, as a distinguished
jurist, surely knows better than we do that the article of the Constitution
which designates the Church of Greece as the official religion of the state
also states the following concerning her: “she maintains unalterably […] the
holy apostolic and synodical canons and the sacred traditions.” [2] But to what
extent is this actually the case? To use the apt words written by Metropolitan
Seraphim himself on September 16, 2015, is it truly an unalterable observance
of the holy canons when there is “dialogue [with heterodox] on equal terms, the
signing and adoption of common anti-Orthodox documents, uncanonical joint
prayers and lay Ecumenism, the signing of Common Declarations with the
heresiarch Pope of Rome, uncanonical joint prayers and semi-concelebrations
with heretics and non-Christians”? [3] Is the entire stance toward the calendar
issue part of the tradition of the Church? Mr. Seraphim himself wrote on May 20,
2016: “I shall not participate in the ‘unholy game’ of the so-called Holy and
Great Council.” [4] He further explains that “If indeed it were truly intended
for this Pan-Orthodox Council to be Holy and Great […] it ought to have aligned
with the spirit and the letter of the Holy and God-bearing Fathers […] e) to
resolve the major calendrical and festal issue, which unavoidably divides the
liturgical unity of the Orthodox Catholic Church and which, in an uncanonical
manner, was instituted in the Church—this unacceptable liturgical
schism—through the well-known Congress of 1923, under the late Patriarch of
Constantinople, Meletios Metaxakis.” Is it, perhaps, observance of the holy
Canons when there is a universally acknowledged lack of conciliarity, the
informal abolition of fasting, the novel form of Baptism without triple
immersion (when the very word “Baptism” means complete immersion in water), the
celebration of Marriages on Fridays? But even in more simple matters: is it the
tradition of the Church for an auxiliary Bishop to concelebrate with his
Metropolitan while bearing a mitre and staff?
When the unalterable observance
even of the simplest canons and traditions is absent—a fact that signifies a
lack of respect for the Constitution—how does Mr. Seraphim demand that the
Constitution protect the official Church?
As for the claim that there
exists “lawlessness of religious conscience, unbearable rights-based mentality,
and unchecked self-identification,” we agree with Mr. Seraphim. All these,
however, constitute a problem that primarily afflicts our own Holy Synod,
because when the hidden and secret deeds of every Mr. Vezyreas come to light
publicly, no one censures the Church of Greece, but all the “Old Calendarists”
collectively. It is for this reason that our Church lacks the necessary legal
protection we desire—protection such as that which shields the Church of Greece
from the tragic phenomenon of fragmentation.
In another part of his text, the
learned Hierarch refers to the issue of the usurpation of authority in which
the Old Calendarists allegedly fall with respect to the official Church. This
matter requires a more careful examination.
When on March 10/23, 1924, the
Church of Greece adopted the new calendar, as is well known, a considerable
number of devout Christians, harboring reservations regarding the calendar
reform—both because of the uncanonical manner in which it was imposed and
because of its grievous underlying motives—remained steadfast in the traditions
handed down. This by no means negligible multitude was composed of laypeople
and lower clergy, who with purity and zeal continued to fulfill their religious
duties according to the Patristic calendar. Their ecclesiastical authority, the
official Church, did not treat them as the good shepherd treats the “lost
sheep.” Not only did it keep its distance, as if these Christians were a
foreign body, but it also persecuted them in a manner unprecedented in ecclesiastical
history. “Our holy and immaculate Faith,” as Mr. Seraphim rightly emphasizes in
one of his writings (Dec. 1, 2008), is “purpled by rivers of blood” in the
sense that the blood flows from her own body, not from people she persecutes.
The then Hierarchy of the Church of Greece, however, was purpled not by its own
blood, but by the blood of its once faithful children, whom it itself
mistreated—even unto killing them!
Since, then, this was the stance
of the official Church—fighting against the Old Calendarists and treating them
as criminals (though, of course, there were also notable exceptions)—it is
evident that when Hierarchs undertook the administration of the Church of the
G.O.C., they did not commit usurpation of authority, but rather placed
themselves in the service of a flock with which the Church of Greece itself had
long since severed all friendly ties. Moreover, they did not act as the “Holy
Synod of the Church of Greece,” which is the official title of the
Autocephalous Church according to the Patriarchal and Synodal Tome of
June 29, 1850, but made clear their distinction from the Church of Greece.
Whether the terms “genuine” and “spurious,” to which Mr. Seraphim refers, are
correct or mistaken, is a question that must be examined by a Pan-Orthodox
Council, which will also definitively resolve the issue of the Calendar—a
Council whose convocation was ardently desired by our holy First Hierarch,
former Metropolitan of Florina, Chrysostomos.
Therefore, since those who have
been deposed by the prevailing Church, as well as those who wish to act without
accountability in pursuit of their own interests, self-identify as “Old
Calendarists” or “G.O.C.,” the usurpation of authority does not operate to the
detriment of the Church of Greece, but to the detriment of our Holy Synod.
Subsequently, His Eminence states
that, having served for twenty years in ecclesiastical justice, he possesses
“sufficient knowledge of persons and situations operating on the margins of
Orthodox Christian life.” Surely, he must also be aware of the persons and
situations within the domain to which he himself belongs. It would be
preferable for him to focus on those, in accordance with the evangelical
command: “First cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see
clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.” [5] That the public, as
various polls attest, is losing its trust in the Church, that it is being
scandalized and turning away from it, does not, of course, occur because of the
Old Calendarists. When the official Church itself does not protect itself from
those who are devouring it from within, why should the State be concerned with
protecting it?
Furthermore, His Eminence, from
his service in ecclesiastical justice, likely knows that certain unfit
clergymen of the official Church had timely (internal) information about
impending or ongoing canonical prosecution against them, and thus suddenly presented
themselves as “Old Calendarists,” so that they might be deposed “for Old
Calendarism.” Was the State also responsible for this?
One phrase of Mr. Seraphim is
particularly characteristic: “The Hellenic State is responsible for all this
degeneration [the emergence of phenomena such as that of Mr. Vezyreas] and no
one else.” However, within his brief text he refers to four individuals who,
before assuming the guise of Old Calendarists, were within the Church of
Greece, from which they were deposed—one of whom was Mr. Vezyreas. Deposition,
however, is something that comes afterward. What precedes it is ordination. It
is truly perplexing: was it the Hellenic State that ordained them as clergy?
Were they perhaps individuals who had a conscious awareness of their mission,
but later fell away? Or were they unfit from the beginning, yet acted with the
tolerance of their Hierarchs? Perhaps, in the end, the Hellenic State is not
solely responsible.
In order to examine whether and
to what extent the Hellenic State is exclusively responsible, we return to the
issue of the calendar change, which Mr. Seraphim refers to as a
“ridiculousness.” In fact, he emphasizes that “there is no ‘patristic’ and ‘innovative’
Festal Calendar, because the Festal Calendar is one.”
Since the festal calendar “is
one,” should not all Orthodox Christians celebrate the immovable feasts
together? Yet such is not the case. The 1920 encyclical of the Ecumenical
Patriarchate, through the calendar change, aimed not at astronomical precision—as
His Eminence emphasizes—but at the “simultaneous celebration of the great
Christian feasts by all the Churches.” [6] But were not the Churches of Christ
already celebrating simultaneously? Certainly. However, by the term “Churches
of Christ,” the encyclical also referred to the heterodox. What happened in the
end? A common celebration with the heterodox was preferred, and the
simultaneous celebration among the Orthodox was disrupted. [7] The Church of
Greece, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, Alexandria, and other local Churches now
celebrate separately from Mount Athos, Jerusalem, Moscow, Serbia, and other
Churches. And even within the Church of Greece itself, the common festal
observance has been broken.
When the simple pious faithful
see such hypocrisy, it is reasonable for them to maintain their reservations.
And when they see the very administration of the Church persecuting them for
their choice not to change the calendar that they had observed for twenty
centuries, it is only natural that they should distance themselves—even,
unfortunately, become fanatical. Metropolitan Polykarpos Liosis of Sisani and
Siatista, whom His Eminence Seraphim surely honors as a great benefactor of his
Metropolis, when he was still a Bishop of the Church of the G.O.C., had
recorded numerous incidents from the fierce persecutions waged by the official
Church against the Old Calendarists. It was the Hierarchy itself at that time
that consolidated the Church of the G.O.C. through its indiscriminate behavior.
Therefore, the Hellenic State is not solely responsible for cases such as that
of Mr. Vezyreas. The greater responsibility lies primarily with former
Hierarchs of the Church of Greece and secondarily with former Hierarchs of the
Church of the G.O.C., who allowed their weaknesses to stain the righteous
struggle of the movement of piety.
It is encouraging that many
contemporary Hierarchs and clergy of all ranks are inspired by a spirit of
understanding and conciliation. Indeed, in these past days we admired an
excellent article by the Protosyngellos of the Holy Metropolis of
Ioannina. [8] In contrast to these, Mr. Seraphim, as is evident from his text,
supports—in the year 2025—the revival of a policy of persecutions, even in
connection with a zealot Monastery of the Holy Mountain, a policy which has
already been tested and not only failed, but produced entirely opposite
results. At the very least, from His Eminence—so exceedingly intelligent and
deeply theological as he is—we would have expected an approach inspired by
discernment and evangelical love.
In concluding the topic of the
calendar, the article states the following: “What changed was the calendrical
determination of the Festal Calendar, which was erroneous, and now with the
current calendar one day will be lost every 3,000 years.” We respect this
significant achievement of science. However, when we stand before the Impartial
Judge, the one thing He will not ask us is whether we gained one or a thousand
days. Perhaps what He will ask us (though He will not be unaware of it) is how
we struggled for the restoration of true Unity—for which He prayed with tears
before His Passion.
In a certain section of the
article, reference is made to the origin of the “ordination” of Mr. Vezyreas.
We consider this reference to serve no other purpose than the attempt to
associate his name with our Holy Synod, so that it may be slandered at all costs.
From the very first moment of the scandalous revelations—as well as already for
the past twenty years—we have made it clear that this man has no connection
whatsoever, nor ever had, with our Holy Synod or with the Church of the G.O.C.
of Greece in general.
Toward the end of the article,
mention is made of a certain Uniate. His Eminence expresses his displeasure in
a forceful tone—and rightly so, for Uniatism is a deceitful scheme of Papism
aimed at seducing our Orthodox people. But is his fear that the people might be
mistakenly misled by Uniates, while prominent clergymen are openly giving
legitimacy to them?
In conclusion, the times are
perilous. Criminality is rising alarmingly, families are separating at a
dramatic rate, our children are growing up without principles and desperately
seeking deliverance through deadly paths—including illicit profit and narcotic
substances—through the trafficking of which individuals like Mr. Vezyreas build
their own mansions, based on the destruction of our fellow human beings; “Let
not the oil of the sinner anoint my head.” [9] Those of us who think soundly
and serve purely the sacred and holy things of our Faith and Nation have a
sacred duty—united, by the grace of God—to raise up our fallen society,
transmitting to it the life-giving Light of the Triune Divinity: of the Father
and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Contentions lead nowhere, whereas arrows
are useful only when aimed against the ancient and evil enemy.
In Athens, November 8/21, 2025
From the Chief Secretariat of the
Holy Synod
[1] Matt.
5:11
[2]
Constitution of Greece, Article 3, §1.
[4] https://www.romfea.gr/ieres-mitropoleis/8402-8075
[5] Matt.
7:5
[6]
Synodical Encyclical of the Church of Constantinople to all the Churches of
Christ throughout the world, 1920
[7] And
indeed, for ecumenistic purposes.
[8] https://exapsalmos.gr/mia-chrysi-efkairia-gia-ksekatharisma/ [English
translation: https://orthodoxmiscellany.blogspot.com/2025/11/on-vezyreas-affair-official-church.html]
[9] Ps.
140:5
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.