Source: Memorandum of His Grace, Bishop Christophoros (Hatzis) of Megara, to His Beatitude, Archbishop Chrysostomos I (Papadopoulos) of Athens, dated January 11, 1936. Published in Τὸ ἔγκυρον τῆς εἰς Επισκόπους χειροτονίας τῶν Θεοφ. Χριστοφ. Χατζῆ καὶ Πολυκ. Λιώση, by Titos Petropoulos, page 24.
A careful and thorough study of
the Ecclesiastical Canons has led me to the following conclusions. I fully
admit that my ordination, being beyond the boundaries [i.e., outside of the ordaining
bishops’ canonical territory] and unattached [i.e., without a canonical
election and installation in a specific diocese by an Autocephalous Church],
was rightly declared devoid of canonical effect by the Supreme Ecclesiastical
Court, for which reason I also never claimed that I am [the true diocesan] Bishop
of Megara. However, devoid of canonical effect, in the present case, is not
equivalent to invalidity and to something not having taken place.
(…)
The Bishops who ordained me were
actual [i.e., canonically elected and installed] Orthodox Metropolitans, and
two of them [Germanos of Demetrias and Chrysostomos of Zakynthos] belonged to
the Autocephalous Church [of Greece]. [The former Metropolis of St.
Chrysostomos, that of Florina, is technically subject to the Ecumenical
Patriarchate, while being administered by the Church of Greece. – Trans.
note] Furthermore, I note that even after their deposition, which took
place after my ordination, they have not, up to the present moment, been
declared by the court that judged them to be schismatics either; for the Church
claims them as Monks belonging to her flock, over whom she has and exercises
disciplinary jurisdiction.
The degree of the lack of
canonical effect of my ordination is determined by the 6th Canon of the Fourth
Ecumenical Council, which concerns those ordained in an unattached manner.
According to this Canon, concerning those ordained in an unattached manner, the
Holy Synod decreed that such an ordination is to be without canonical effect,
and that they may function nowhere, to the insult of the one who ordained them.
Therefore, the lack of canonical
effect of unattached or extraterritorial ordinations is not equivalent to the
complete invalidity of the ordination, but to the suspension of the operation
of the grace. The letter and the spirit of the Canon are very clear, and the
pious commentator of the Rudder also understands its meaning in this
way. Referring also to the footnote on the 28th Apostolic Canon, he notes the
following in this latter Canon:
“Especially and particularly,
because I see that the 6th Canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Council calls the
ordination of one ordained in an unattached manner ineffectual, not as invalid
and without subsistence, nor because the Mysteries that will be performed by
him are invalid and as though not existing, but as remaining inactive and not
being put into operation and practice; and for no other reason than for the
dishonor and insult of the one who ordained him. And since like things must be
inferred and judged from like things, therefore the ineffectual acts prescribed
by the 13th Canon of the Council in Antioch must also be understood and taken
in the way the Fourth Council understood and took them, and not as those
mentioned above understand and take them. See also in volume II of the Acts,
page 993, an entire Synod assembled in Constantinople under Emperor John
Komnenos and Patriarch Michael [II Kourkouas] Oxeites in the year 1143, which
accuses Leontios because he baptized a second time someone who had been
baptized by a priest deposed for manifest offenses, since he thought that the
baptism performed by one deposed was not complete. But Joseph Bryennios also
says in his letter to Niketas that the things dared/performed by those deposed
are holy and complete...”
Accordingly, my ordination is
without canonical effect in the sense that, although it was imparted to me and
I continue to have the capacity to perform the functions of the episcopacy, I
nevertheless do not have the authority to exercise the functions of the
episcopacy. My ordination as Bishop of Megara is entirely without canonical
effect and I cannot claim the governance of this Diocese. Nevertheless, I
continue to possess the actual grace of the episcopacy, but its operation is
under suspension.
(...)
+++
Blog Administrator note:
The above quote may beg the question: under the circumstances, how could the
G.O.C. justify its episcopal ordinations in 1935, if they admit the apparent
uncanonicity? The below excerpts from the works of St. Chrysostomos of Florina
(translated previously by the Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies) explain
his understanding.
“Bearing in mind the Canons and
the Constitution, we were led, from the [earlier] proclamation of our
depositions without due process, to the conclusion that the Ruling Synod had
acknowledged the document in which we declared our severance of communion, in
which case it was incumbent upon us, as the provisional ecclesiastical
authority of the Old Calendarists, to provide for their religious needs, chief
of them being the appointment of Bishops for the specific provinces in which
there were concentrated groups of Old Calendarists. This is why we proceeded to
consecrate four Bishops [in 1935], as we had the right to do [kat’ oikonomia;
see following quote] on the basis of the divine and sacred Canons. We performed
these Episcopal Consecrations to fill the religious needs of the eight hundred
or more communities of Old Calendarists in the various provinces, and also in
order to enable the Ruling Church and the Government to grasp and evaluate
appropriately the sobriety of our enterprise, which aimed at the removal of
scandal and the union of Christians through the restoration of the age-old
Orthodox Festal Calendar bequeathed by Tradition...
“It must be affirmed that we were
led to this decision not because we were pursuing personal aspirations and
ambitions, as the Archbishop of Athens put about right from the outset, but
because we were hoping in this way to compel him to summon the Hierarchy and to
submit to its judgment the document whereby we severed communion with the State
Church and, as well, the entire calendar question in general. We never imagined
that the Ruling Synod would expel us from our thrones without due canonical
process, as appointed by the Canons and the Constitution, and declare us,
heretofore Metropolitans, as subject to trial before a Synodal tribunal.”
- Metropolitan Chrysostomos of
Florina, “Tὸ Ἡμερολόγιον ἐν Σχέσει πρὸς τὴν Ὀρθόδοξον Ἀνατολικὴν Ἐκκλησίαν”
[The calendar in relation to the Eastern Orthodox Church], March 31, 1938.
***
We admit that this step [the ordination
of bishops] was hasty and, from a canonical standpoint, fraught with the risk
of putting the cart before the horse, but we undertook it, ever hopeful that
our Hierarchical Council, cleaving steadfastly to the venerable institutions
and traditions of Orthodoxy, would be recognized, albeit according to
ecclesiastical oikonomia, by the other Orthodox Churches until a valid
resolution by a Pan-Orthodox Synod of the calendar issue, the matter under
dispute.
- Metropolitan Chrysostomos of
Florina, “Ὑπόμνημα Ἀπολογητικὸν ὑπὲρ Ἀναστηλώσεως τοῦ Πατρίου Ἐκκλησιαστικοῦ
Ἡμερολογίου” [Memorandum in defense of the restoration of the traditional
Church calendar], 1945.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.