Blessed Theodoretos Mavros and the Old Calendar Church

Hieromonk Theodoretos Mavros, the G.O.C., and the “Newly Walled-Off”

Nikolaos Mannis | May 22, 2016

[Note: For those who are unaware, Hieromonk Theodoretos Mavros (+2007) was an Athonite zealot well-known – in both Greece and America, through articles in St. Seraphim of Platina’s The Orthodox Word – as an advocate of the “moderate” and prudential Orthodox ecclesiology of St. Chrysostomos the New. He was a graduate of the University of Athens School of Theology and a spiritual disciple of Elder Kallinikos of the Skete of Saint Anna. He also was publicly in agreement with the ecclesiology of the Holy Synod in Resistance, though he never was a member of that community. It is noteworthy that he was selected (as mentioned below) as a theologian by Metropolitan Chrysostomos Kiousis of Thessalonika (along with Metropolitans Gabriel of the Cyclades, Akakios of Diavleia, and Petros of Astoria) to give an analysis of the contemporary state of the G.O.C. in 1985, prior to Metropolitan Chrysostomos’s union with and election as Archbishop of the G.O.C. – Blog Admin.]

 

 

On a blog of the “newly walled-off,” [1] we saw a post concerning the ever-memorable Hieromonk Theodoretos Mavros and his relationship with the G.O.C. Specifically, the following was written:

“With great sorrow, we have for some time been witnessing the systematic efforts of certain people to identify the great struggler for Orthodoxy, Hieromonk Theodoretos Mavros, with the factions of the G.O.C. The time has therefore come to restore the truth concerning the confessor Elder. For this reason, we are publishing a Divine Liturgy which he himself celebrated as a priest, and at which no bishop was commemorated, whether of the New or the Old Calendar!” [2]

Although we have not identified any “systematic efforts” to identify the late Fr. Theodoretos with the G.O.C., for the sake of truth his relationship with them should nevertheless be presented, after first posing the question that ought above all to concern the esteemed administrator of the blog Apoteichisis Now:

“What was your personal relationship, dear sir, with the ever-memorable Fr. Theodoretos? Did you perhaps know him personally, or at least read his writings, so as to understand what his position regarding the G.O.C. actually was before crudely presenting him as an adherent of the theory of the two extremes?” [3]

* * *

a. Fr. Theodoretos, together with his ever-memorable Elder Kallinikos, broke communion with the Ecumenists in 1970 and aligned themselves with the company of the Zealot Fathers (those in communion with the Synod of the G.O.C. under Archbishop Auxentios). In 1972, he wrote in a work defending the Old Calendarists:

First of all, I must state that I have never been in communion with the Matthewite faction; I am in communion only with the Chrysostomite faction (now under Archbishop Auxentios). Nevertheless, the latter faction happens to maintain a reserved attitude toward me and those who share my views. The reason? Nothing other than the disagreement that has existed for years between us and the Zealots, especially the Athonite Fathers, concerning the time and manner of approaching the most divine Mystery of the Holy Eucharist. Regarding this disagreement, you may learn every detail from our recently published work, Eucharistic Participation on the Holy Mountain. Consequently, I decided to appeal to the Russian Church Abroad, which is in communion with the Chrysostomite faction, in order to avert a rupture between the Zealot Fathers here and the hierarchy of Archbishop Auxentios.

Reply to the newspaper, Ecclesiastical Struggle – 1972.

And in another work of his from the same year:

As is well known, the whole of the Holy Mountain is subject to (= belongs to) the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and indeed is directly dependent upon it, having as its proper bishop the Ecumenical Patriarch for the time being. In the event that the Ecumenical Throne should proclaim some false doctrine or heresy—as is happening today—every Athonite who wishes to preserve the Orthodox Traditions is obliged to sever all ecclesiastical communion with it, notwithstanding his now merely formal dependence upon it, and henceforth to be in communion only with any Orthodox Church that, for the aforementioned reason, is not in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

In our view, at the present time, such Orthodox Churches are the Russian Church Abroad (under Metropolitan Philaret), the Church of the G.O.C. of Greece (under Chrysostomos), and the martyric Church of the Catacombs in Russia.

Second Open Letter to Protopresbyter Eugenios Tombros

Thus, the Synod of the G.O.C. (the successors of Metropolitan Chrysostomos, formerly of Florina), with which he had been in communion, was an Orthodox Church, and not a “Schism,” as the “newly walled-off” would have it.

b. In 1975, together with his Elder, Fr. Kallinikos, and his spiritual father, Fr. Maximos Agiovasileiatis, he broke communion with the episcopal leadership of the G.O.C. for specific reasons: (a) communion with the Russian Church Abroad, which at that time was still in communion with certain official Churches; (b) the Matthewite error concerning the invalidity of the Mysteries; and (c) bishops and hieromonks keeping syneisaktoi [women living with them]. He did not, however, break communion with those clergy or laypeople of the G.O.C. who were of like mind with them on the issues raised by these objections:

FOR THESE REASONS

Just as, years ago, we duly acted toward the ecclesiastical authority presiding over us here, to which we canonically belong, on account both of the calendar innovation and of the contemporary false teaching of Ecumenism, so now also we consider it incumbent upon us to declare hereby that:

We sever all ecclesiastical communion with the hierarchy of the Church of the G.O.C. of Greece under Archbishop Auxentios—which, until today, we had regarded as canonical—because of its deviation and fall from canonical order and from the purpose of the sacred struggle, as sufficiently explained in sections 1 and 2 above. Henceforth, we shall be in communion only with those among its clergy and laity who, rejecting the aforementioned uncanonical practices, unite themselves with the positions set forth in the present Declaration.

We believe, moreover, that the Builder of the Church, Who in the beginning blessed the sacred struggle by various signs, both visible and invisible, will not ultimately permit it, today, when heresy brazenly raises its head, to be brought to an inglorious end because of its unworthy leaders; rather, He will soon raise up men of aspiration and discernment, capable and worthy of shepherding the elect remnant of the new Israel of Grace. These may come from the ranks of either the New Calendar or the Old Calendar, but with one desire and one consuming passion: the preservation of that which is free from innovation and of the genuineness of the Orthodox proclamation, far removed from every adulteration or exploitation of things sacred and holy.

Finally, greeting in the Lord everyone who embraces this present Declaration of ours, we pray that the Lord our God may soon raise up our sacred struggle from its fall, once again to the glory of His Name and of the Church, “which he hath purchased with his own blood” (Acts 20:28).

Holy Mountain, March 25, 1975

Hieromonk Maximos
Monk Kallinikos
Monk Theodoretos
Monk Vasileios

Orthodox Word — May 1975

c. In 1985, following the deposition of Auxentios and before the election of the new Archbishop, Chrysostomos Kiousis—with whom he maintained relations throughout their lives—he was invited, together with other theologians, by the four independent hierarchs of the G.O.C. (Akakios of Diavleia, Chrysostomos Kiousis of Thessaloniki, Gabriel of the Cyclades, and Petros of Astoria), to give his opinion concerning the further course of the Sacred Struggle of the G.O.C.:

ADVISORY OPINION

We, the undersigned theologians, having been called upon by Their Eminences the Hierarchs Akakios, Chrysostomos, Gabriel, and Petros to express our opinion as to what position the aforementioned Hierarchs should adopt with regard to the present crisis of the Sacred Struggle, respectfully submit the following:

Archimandrite Chrysostomos Spyrou [A walled-off member of the Official Church, interestingly enough – Blog Admin.]
Protopresbyter Chrysostomos Oikonomakos
Monk Theodoretos [Mavros]
Stavros Karamitsos
Vasileios Premos
Avraam Tsimbrikas

d. In 1990, he wrote the following in his book The Antidote (I wonder whether his supposed “successors” have read it):

(Whether Fr. Nikodemos will place himself under the G.O.C. or not is purely a matter of personal choice, in view of our “ecumenical” times, given that the G.O.C. do not constitute a parasynagogue, as some maintain, but rather the continuation of the uninnovated Church of Greece.)

For, as one pious priest of the Russian Church Abroad also writes: “The purpose of the Most Holy Church of the G.O.C., Fr. Nestor, is not the observance of STRICTNESS, but the SALVATION OF MEN AND THEIR SANCTIFICATION.” The Most Holy Church of the G.O.C. recognizes no other purpose.

Your attempt to tarnish the righteous struggle of the G.O.C. on account of certain deviations that have occurred and continue to occur within this noble resistance places you beside the point and outside the substance of the matter. We are all aware of the weaknesses and passions of the leaders and people of the G.O.C.... This, however, by no means signifies that the New Calendarists are characterized by strength and dispassion.

Let us not, then, confuse ideas with those who represent them!

In any case, it would be highly desirable for the various “irregularities,” “human teachings,” and “administrative disorders” soon to disappear completely from among the G.O.C. The times demand it, the people demand it, and so does the “symbol” of their struggle. Only in this way will every critical tongue and malicious disposition be silenced which, relying on the foregoing, seeks to diminish the overall theoretical position of the Old Calendarist movement.

From the book, The Antidote (1990)

e. But the Church of the G.O.C. also regarded him as one of its own clergymen, and not as an enemy, as is evident from an article published in what was then (1998) its official periodical:

Hieromonk Theodoretos the Athonite, The Antichrist and His Mark.
Published by the Monastery of the Annunciation, Paros, 98 pp., Athens 1998.

The author, Fr. Theodoretos, an accomplished theologian, is one of the most prolific clergymen of our Church and has, over the years, dealt with many important and pressing issues.

In this book, he refutes the erroneous views concerning the Antichrist held by the New Calendarist bishop Meletios Kalamaras, well known for his ecumenist positions in connection with the Chambésy Agreement with the Monophysites, as well as the corresponding views of Protopresbyter Vasileios Voloudakis.

Fr. Theodoretos’s work is indeed a very serious one, and is the fruit not only of the author’s well-known piety, but also of his extensive learning and scholarly training. We warmly recommend the reading of this book, as well as its further dissemination for the benefit of souls. We congratulate Fr. Theodoretos and pray that he may give us other works of such importance.

Church of the G.O.C. of Greece (September–October 1998)

f. In 2003, he published in Orthodoxos Typos the following, indeed very instructive, reply to a commemorator, in which the differing understanding of the G.O.C. held by the ever-memorable Fr. Theodoretos and by the “newly walled-off” is clearly evident:

Dialogue with Zealots

Dear Editor,

Greetings in the Lord,

My dear Fr. Maximos, commenting on my article concerning the calendar innovation, concludes that “Fr. Theodoretos speaks quite well against the New Calendar....” He does, however, have a few questions, which I answer here.

1. He is perplexed by the many factions of the Old Calendarists and asks in which one he will be saved. The answer is simple. It is a thousand times preferable for him to follow one of the existing Synods than to commemorate a heretical patriarch. The difference is an immense abyss! And let him not forget that, as I have written many times in the past, most of the divisions were created and perpetuated by the New Calendarists, in order to bring this splendid movement into disrepute—a movement far superior in significance and importance to that of the Kollyvades.

Since behind Fr. Maximos’s above question lies the position, “We of the New Calendar, by virtue of our unity, demonstrate the correct position regarding the calendar question,” we inform him that unity has importance and significance only when it serves the truth; otherwise, it degenerates into Papism—that is, unity in falsehood and manifold wrongdoing.

2. He then adds: “The calendar is not a dogmatic issue, and for that reason Christians should not be divided over it.”

By this statement he shows that he did not pay due attention to my article, which proves precisely this point: namely, that even for reasons that are not dogmatic, cessation of commemoration is required.

With regard to the Old Calendar Synods, which he criticizes, he should know that their ordinations are dogmatically valid and that they are fully covered by the Sacred Canons, since they do not maintain communion with the New Calendarists, who since 1924 have been following the heresy of Ecumenism. In proof of the above, I refer him to the recent and comprehensive articles by Mr. D. Chatzinikolaou (St. Agathangelos, April 2003, pp. 11–19) and Fr. N. Dimaras (The Holy Kollyvades, April 2003). Let him study them carefully, and he will see to what degree of heresy Mr. Bartholomew and his followers have led him; and let him not stop at the calendar innovation, which constitutes the beginning of the ecumenist false teaching and scourge.

3. For the New Calendarists simply to return to the Old Calendar would not remedy the situation, just as the lifting of the anathema of 1054 by itself does not remedy the Pope’s position.... Since 1924, so many heresies have followed that one would now need a computer just to keep track of them....

4. His final conclusion, that the G.O.C. must come to terms with one another, “otherwise they remain outside the Church,” is ecclesiologically unacceptable; for if each Synod does not constitute a saving Church, neither will they create such a Church by uniting with one another.

Finally, with regard to the “contemporary miracle-working saints” whom he mentions, I have dealt with this subject almost exhaustively in my book When the Guardians Betray, pp. 63–68, in response to a related question by the theologian Mr. N. Sotiropoulos.

Thank you for the hospitality.

I remain, with love in the Lord,

Hieromonk Theodoretos
Holy Monastery of the Annunciation
84400 Paros – P.O. Box 27

Orthodoxos Typos, June 27, 2003

g. The fact that Fr. Theodoretos did not commemorate aloud any particular bishop of the G.O.C. (but commemorated “EVERY ORTHODOX BISHOP”) has nothing whatsoever to do with the reason invoked by the “newly walled-off” for doing the same—namely, their appeal to Canon 16 of the First-Second Council of Constantinople, which the late Fr. Theodoretos never cited in order to attack the G.O.C. [4]

On the contrary, this unifying practice that he followed with regard to commemoration arose both from the division of the G.O.C. (the successors of Chrysostomos, formerly of Florina) into more than one Synod—a fact over which he grieved, since, unlike the self-styled “newly walled-off,” he was not indifferent to the Sacred Struggle—and from the fact that, at that time, none of these Synods was beyond reproach, whether with respect to ecclesiological views or to canonical order, so that he could attach himself exclusively to one of them while rejecting communion with members of the others.

The ever-memorable Fr. Theodoretos, whom we had the blessing to know personally and from whom we benefited greatly, never distanced himself from the Sacred Struggle of the G.O.C., nor was he ashamed to bear the marks of the reproach directed against them. Let the “newly walled-off” keep this firmly in mind. They have the right to believe whatever they wish, but not to present as sharing their views that unforgettable struggler for Orthodoxy, with whose spirit, unfortunately, they have no connection whatsoever, as has been clearly demonstrated by the evidence presented above.

 

NOTES

1. By “newly walled-off” (to distinguish them from those who walled themselves off earlier), we mean a significant group of faithful who walled themselves off from the official Church following the Pope’s visits to Athens (2001) and the Phanar (2006). They are divided into two groups:

a. the New Calendarist “newly walled-off,” under Fr. Euthymios Trikaminas; and

b. the Old Calendarist “newly walled-off,” who express their views online through the blog Apoteichisis Now.

2. http://apotixisis.blogspot.gr/2016/05/blog-post_59.html

3. According to this “theory of the two extremes,” which was taught by Fr. Epiphanios Theodoropoulos, the Ecumenists and the G.O.C. constitute two extremes. Fr. Theodoretos opposed this theory in his books Dialogues of the Desert Concerning Ecumenism and The Antidote.

4. Indeed, if the “newly walled-off” wish to be consistent with their “ecclesiology,” they should not commemorate “every episcopate of the Orthodox” (since they recognize no bishop as Orthodox), but rather “For our Archbishop,” omitting the name.

 

Greek source: https://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2016/05/blog-post_22.html