On the canonical distinction of “in actuality” and “potentially”

From the 1944 Pastoral Encyclical of St. Chrysostomos the New, Hierarch and Confessor, Concerning the breakaway bishops, Matthew of Vresthena and Germanos of the Cyclades

 

 

In our view of this matter, we are in harmony with the Pedalion of the universal Orthodox Church, which, in the first footnote on page 18, [26] makes a clear distinction between a potential and an actu­al schismatic and calls those who equate these two terms foolish and their language sacrilegious, since they do not understand that unless it is actually implemented by a Synod, the imperative force of the Can­ons remains unexecuted and does not act of itself, either immediately or before a decision.

For further proof of what we are saying, we cite verbatim the rele­vant footnote of the sacred Pedalion, so as to silence those who think and speak to the contrary:

We must know that the penalties which the Canons pre­scribe, that is, ‘let him be deposed,’ ‘let him be anathema,’ and ‘let him be excommunicated,’ are issued, according to gram­matical usage, in the third person, there being no one present to impose them. In such a case, of necessity, the presence of a second person is required if this injunction is to be enforced. I will explain this better. The Canons enjoin a Synod of living Bishops to depose Priests or to excommunicate or anathema­tize laymen who transgress the Canons. But if the Synod does not actually effect the deposition of the Priests, or the excom­munication or anathematization of the laymen, these Priests and laymen are neither actually deposed nor actually excom­municated nor anathematized. However, here on earth, they are liable to stand trial, with regard to deposition and excom­munication or anathematization, while in the hereafter they are subject to Divine retribution.... Hence, those foolish peo­ple greatly err who say that in the present times all clergy who have been Ordained contrary to the Canons are actual­ly deposed. Sacrilegious is the language of those who witlessly babble such words, not understanding that, unless it is actu­ally put into effect by a second person, that is, by a Synod, the imperative force of Canons remains unexecuted and does not act of itself, either immediately or before a decision. Later on, the same Divine Apostles clearly explain themselves in their Forty-sixth Canon, since they do not say that any Bishop or Presbyter who has received Baptism from heretics is immedi­ately and actually deposed, but ‘we enjoin that he be deposed,’ that is, ‘we enjoin that he stand trial and that, if it be proved that he did this, then let him be stripped of the Priesthood by your own decision.’ [27]

From this it follows that no clergyman who deviates from the boundaries of Orthodoxy is reckoned to be actually deposed. If he does not appear before a valid ecclesiastical tribunal, he can nonethe­less be considered such potentially, and prior to a Synodal verdict and a final decision about him.

Thus, from a canonical standpoint, the following basic legal prin­ciple and dictum holds good: “No one is to be condemned without a defense.” Hence, in order for us to declare the innovating Hierarchs schismatics in actuality, as the conventicler Bishops have arbitrarily and uncanonically done, we would have to have all the requisite ecclesias­tical and canonical wherewithal for setting up an ecclesiastical tribu­nal. This cannot be done, except by a Church that is recognized by all the local Orthodox Churches as autocephalous and endowed with the right validly to condemn those of her clergy who sin, whether in faith or in morals.

We Old Calendarists, however, do not constitute a particular, inde­pendent Orthodox Church in Greece, because no Church has recog­nized us as such; rather, we exist within the recognized Autocephalous Greek Church as a sentinel that guards the institution of the Orthodox Festal Calendar, which was violated—as it should not have been—by the majority of the Hierarchy; and we, who are the resplendent and unsullied part of the Autocephalous Church of Greece,* are continuing her history in the spirit of Orthodoxy.

 

NOTES

26. Concerning the Third Canon of the Holy Apostles.

27. Πηδάλιον, pp. 4-5, n. 2.

* Characteristic is the case of Saint Gregory the Theologian, in which this illustrious luminary of Orthodoxy neither deposed his far more numerous Arian opponents, who had prevailed throughout Constantinople, nor proclaimed a Church of his own. What he did was to catechize his flock concerning the dreadful heresy of Arius and, by the example of his splendid and blameless life, to bring it back into the rational flock of Christ, which he also succeeded in doing by the Grace of God. Subsequently, when through superhuman efforts he had brought the ship of the Church back onto its canonical course, he convened an Ecumenical Council, anathematizing Arius and those who persisted in his heresy. By contrast, our own hierarchs [i.e., Matthew of Vresthena and Germanos of the Cyclades], without having [yet] undertaken any struggle, made any sacrifice, or accomplished any constructive work, but, on the contrary, amid scandals, quarrels, and violations of the Sacred Canons—and with most of them living like Eastern patriarchs, surrounded by nuns—declared the Mysteries of the New Calendarists invalid, thus widening the gulf between New Calendarists and Old Calendarists and cutting off even the slightest hope for the reunion of those who had been divided. We have cited the example of Saint Gregory in order to demonstrate that, had our Bishops followed in deed and word the example of that Ecumenical Teacher of the Church of Christ, Orthodoxy in our country today would be united into one body and would have prevailed in every sphere of daily life.

 

Translation of the Encyclical text and footnotes 26 and 27 from the published edition of the Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, Etna, CA.

Asterisk text translated from the original Greek in Ἅπαντα πρώην Φλωρίνης Xρυσοστόμου Kαβουρίδου (1871-1955) [The Complete Works of Chrysostomos Kavourides, Former Metropolitan of Florina], Gortynia, Greece: Holy Monastery of Saint Nikodemos, 1997, Vol. 2.

 

For more information on the Patristic distinction between “in actuality” and “potentially,” see

https://orthodoxmiscellany.blogspot.com/2024/08/on-ecclesiastical-distinction-of.html