The First Letter of the Holy Synod to Us
Prot. No. 111
Athens, September 7, 1984
THE HOLY SYNOD OF THE
CHURCH OF THE GENUINE ORTHODOX CHRISTIANS OF GREECE
25 Koumoundourou Street
Athens
Your Eminence, holy Brother Cyprian of Oropos and Phyle,
The Holy Synod of the Church of
the G.O.C. of Greece, at its session of September 4, 1984, O.S., having taken
cognizance of your letter no. 103/6-8-1984, the contents of which it found to
be directly contrary to the received teaching of the Orthodox Church, as
echoing the pan-heresy of Ecumenism, in conjunction with the fact that, on
Sunday, August 27 of the current year, you not only received the New
Calendarist “Patriarch” Nicholas of Alexandria in common prayer, but also
announced with particular gladness to the congregation the fact of his presence
and participation in common prayer in our church, although he is a known
Ecumenist, and, finally, with the fact that, without the knowledge and approval
of your presiding canonical Authority, you traveled to the United States, which
lies under the jurisdiction of our Synodal Exarch, thus intruding into
another’s diocese contrary to the prohibition of the divine and sacred Canons,
decided, with anguish of soul and great sorrow, to place Your Eminence at its disposal
and to summon you to appear before it on Tuesday, September 19, 1984, O.S., at
5:00 p.m., at the Holy Monastery of the Transfiguration of the Savior in Glyka
Nera, Attica, and answer the above charges, and, in the event that you do not
appear, the Holy Synod shall proceed in your absence to examine the above
charges.
By order of the Holy Synod,
The President,
† Anthony of Attica and Megara
* * *
Blog Admin. note: For
further information on the incident involving Patriarch Nicholas of Alexandria,
see the eyewitness testimony of Metropolitan Ambrose of Methone:
https://orthodoxmiscellany.blogspot.com/2024/10/on-metropolitan-cyprians-supposed.html
* * *
Our Third Letter to the Holy Synod
Prot. No. 110
Phyle, Attica, September 18, 1984 (Church Calendar)
Feast of Saint Eumenios of Gortyna
To the Holy Synod of the G.O.C.
25 Koumoundourou Street
Athens 104 37
Your Eminence, Most Reverend President,
Holy Brethren,
In the single, long periodic
sentence of your reprehensible document, Prot. No. 111, dated September 7,
1984, and addressed to our humble person, there are piled up inaccuracies,
ill-considered judgments, distortions of facts and statements, as well as newfangled
and alien practices belonging to a Church secularized by bureaucracy and given
to arbitrary conduct. Meanwhile, the author of the document, writing
breathlessly, reveals his hidden aims by imposing an unknown and unlawful
penalty before… trial (sic).
What happened, Holy Brethren,
that you hastened to imitate the practices favored by innovation and by the
totalitarianism of earthly authority? How could you consent to apply the
Stalinist principle: “First the execution, and then the investigation”?
The Church and Her non-innovating
pleroma suffer when the actions of hierarchs lack episcopal discernment
and appear to be products of arbitrary conduct and of the reduction of the
episcopal office to the status of a civil-service post. A bishop can under no
circumstances appear as an adversary, because he always conducts himself as—and
truly is—the father of all, and all the more of the lost sheep of the rational
flock. He never takes revenge or casts away those who approach him, but benefits
and soothes their souls through the only unquestionably appropriate means: the
Truth, the Faith, and the Mysteries of the Church.
Before proceeding to refute the
assertions improperly set forth in the aforementioned reprehensible document,
and given that my humble person is a member of your Synod:
a) I observe that, before sending
the foregoing document, you ought to have awaited my return from America; and
b) I make it known that what
follows is not a defense or an explanation, but an episcopal reproof required
by duty. Its purpose is not to create estrangement but, on the contrary, to
assist you in restoring the Canonical Order to its proper course.
Thus:
A. The contents of the document
delivered to you by my humble person under the title An Ecclesiological
Position Paper for Orthodox Opposed to the Panheresy of Ecumenism are
identical in meaning to, accord with, and supplement my three previous
documents sent to you at various times, which apparently did not surprise you.
On the other hand, the Ecclesiological
Position Paper, as formulated, possess crystalline Orthodox clarity,
leaving my humble person unable to excuse any “misunderstanding” of them
whatsoever. By way of example, we cite several positions from our treatise:
1. “Spiritual maladies within the
Church are cured either by repentance or by judgment. Until the judgment or
expulsion of a heretic, schismatic, or sinner—either by the Church or, in a
more direct manner, by the Lord—, the opinion of a believer cannot be a
substitute for the sentence of the Church and of her Lord, Jesus Christ, even
if the resolution of a situation be prolonged until the Second Coming.
2. “He who preaches heresy or he
who brings innovation into the Church divides her and abrogates her oneness or
unity. He who opposes the preaching of heresy, or who separates himself from
it, is eager to save the oneness or unity of the Church.”
3. “Yet the current innovation in
the festal calendar is presented as an innocent chronological change. It is,
however, for us the inception and clear manifestation of ecumenism. This change
is not simply part of an extensive religious and ecclesiastical reformation,
but it is one with ecumenism, which aspires to the assimilation of Orthodox by
heretics and the submission of Orthodoxy to the Papacy.”
4. “Therefore, the Orthodox
Tradition of the Holy Ecumenical Synods and of the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox
Church prescribes that that part of the divided Greek Church that is ailing in
Faith be received by one of the foregoing means of repentance and returned to
the ranks of Orthodoxy. For they are not condemned schismatic or heretical
Christians, but members of the Church who have not yet been brought to trial.”
5. “Insofar, then, as a unifying
Synod is sought for and takes place in the future, and the fight now is one of
Orthodox objection, the existing Synods that stand in opposition to innovations
represent the good fight for the Faith. That is, they should be considered
groups and convocations of Bishops who have, in an Orthodox fashion, made
objections, as opposers of heresy, on behalf of Orthodoxy and for the unity of
the Church.”
6. “Every unifying Ecumenical
Synod of the Church was the fruit of the holy struggles of Orthodox who stood
opposed to heresy.”
7. “Today, also, we will attain
to a unifying Synod of the divided Greek Church by imitating the holy and
heroic strugglers for Orthodoxy who have gone before us. This demands, then: Orthodoxy;
a Patristic footing; that our protest be modelled on that of the Saints;
collaboration among those putting forth opposition, that is, those rooted in
the Orthodox Faith and in the love ‘of the truth,’ as the Apostle Paul says [II
Thessalonians 2:10]; and a struggle against the change in the festal calendar
and, more generally, ecumenism.”
The question therefore arises:
Which position is contrary to the received teaching, since all of them rest
upon patristic and synodal texts? And in what way do they echo Ecumenist
notions, since they utterly demolish Ecumenism?
B. His Beatitude Patriarch
Nicholas of Alexandria came on Sunday, August 27, 1984 (Church Calendar), as a
pilgrim to the Holy Monastery of Saints Cyprian and Justina during the Divine
Liturgy—specifically, around the middle of the Communion Hymn. During my sermon
to the congregation, I said, among other things, concerning him: “…I pray that
the All-Good God will restore His Beatitude’s health and grant him the inward
assurance and strength to contribute to the restoration of the Patristic
Calendar and the condemnation of Ecumenism…”
The facts speak for themselves
and admit of no distortion, for the Church and Her non-innovating pleroma
know nothing of turning a pilgrim away; such a thing is dreadful even to hear.
At this point, my humble person gave a reminder of the duty owed to the Church.
C. Our journey to the United
States—and specifically to the Holy Monastery of Saint Gregory Palamas in Etna,
California—had solely the character of a canonical visitation by the Abbot of
the mother Holy Monastery of Saints Cyprian and Justina to its metochion.
My journey was also made with the knowledge of the Synodal Exarch, His Eminence
Matthew of Oinoe. I am therefore astonished that you transform this canonical
jurisdictional right into an intrusion into another’s eparchy. Do you perhaps
dispute this right, or are you “correcting” Tradition?
All the foregoing is self-evident
and admits neither misinterpretation nor, much less, paltry arrogance. Be
assured, Holy Brethren, that I would have overlooked the inaccuracies,
ill-considered judgments, and distortions, and would have prayed that the pious
People be delivered from scandal without calling anyone to account. Now,
however, your document has introduced a newfangled and alien institution,
borrowed from the totalitarian spirit of innovation—the institution of
“administrative suspension”!!!
“Administrative suspension” is
unknown even as a word throughout the Church’s two-thousand-year history, and
as a term it is found only in the disciplinary law governing civil servants (sic).
Thus, administrative suspension is provided for by Article 9 of Legislative
Decree 2500/1953, under which: “Civil servants are placed on administrative
suspension… if they do not possess the competence or suitability necessary for
the unobstructed functioning of the service or for the performance of an
increased volume of work, or if they do not display a spirit of cooperation
with their colleagues or with the Minister in charge.”
Subsequently, the ruling [i.e.,
Official] Church of Greece, which follows the innovation, alone yielded to
extra-ecclesiastical pressure and, in order to remove the Metropolitan of
Cephalonia, unconstitutionally applied the earthly institution of
“administrative suspension.” The State then, anti-canonically, added paragraph
8 to Article 34 of Law 509/1977 (the Statutory Charter) in 1984, by which the
Standing Holy Synod: “places a Metropolitan at the disposal of the Church of
Greece for a period of six months, whenever grounds exist concerning his
person, the interests of the Church, public order, or social peace.”
In this manner, a devastating
blow was dealt to the Apostolicity of the Church, since a successor of the
Apostles is transformed into a civil servant who may at any moment be driven
from his throne for any reason—or even for no reason at all (sic).
Throughout the two-thousand-year
history of the Orthodox Church, a bishop is not expelled from his diocese
before the proceedings against him have been fully concluded in accordance with
the Sacred Canons. “…For no Christian can consider it right that his episcopal
see should be taken from him before the case against him has been decided”
(Canon 87 of Carthage). Commenting on this, Zonaras and Balsamon conclude: “It
is therefore evident from this that, even if someone comes under accusation or
even under excommunication, he remains a bishop until the judicial proceedings
against him are concluded, and he is not driven from his episcopal see”
(Rallis–Potlis, vol. III, p. 517). Demetrios Chomatenos, summarizing the
Church’s practice and tradition in this matter and fully conforming to it,
writes: “For it is contrary to the merciful custom of the Church and to the
provisions of the Divine Canons that one should be expelled from the Church
before a formal and complete condemnation” (On the Excommunication and
Deposition of Bishops, in Analecta Sacra, Pitra, Paris–Rome, 1891).
In other words, administrative
suspension constitutes a penalty not provided for by the Sacred Canons, yet it
is imposed without… trial and without… a finding of guilt!!! Its consequences
for the Church are destructive:
a) The Apostolicity of the Church
is struck, since the unbreakable, lifelong bond between a bishop and his
diocese is shattered anti-canonically and in an earthbound manner.
b) Those who impose
“administrative suspension” violate the Sacred Canons and the Canonical Order,
since through their personal tyranny they abolish the synodal governance of the
Church, imposing a penalty without a finding of guilt and without a trial.
c) The bishop, the successor of
the Apostles, is reduced to the status of a civil servant, thereby striking at
his sacramental relationship with the diocese allotted to him by God. The
threefold office of the Lord is thus anti-canonically and impermissibly debased
into an employment relationship or into a dangerous and harmful occupation (sic)—on
grounds of “public order” and “social peace.”
With sorrow of soul, I observe
that the venomous serpent of innovation, after the anti-episcopal rupture
within the ruling Church, has left its hideous traces even in a document of our
Holy Synod. Thus, the non-innovating pleroma of the Holy Church is now
directly struck as well. Following the calendar innovation, the pan-heresy of
Ecumenism is now advancing toward a deadly blow against the Apostolicity of the
Church, borrowing from Protestantism’s abolition of the third degree of the
Priesthood. Reducing the head of the Local Church—that is, the bishop—to a mere
employee is tantamount to that abolition.
* * *
All the foregoing—and especially
the new blow dealt by the alien, and indeed Protestant, intrusion of
“administrative suspension”—is causing grave scandal among the People of God,
with unforeseen consequences.
Therefore, being bound by my
awesome episcopal oaths and pastoral obligations,
I DEMAND that, immediately upon
receipt of the present letter, you proceed without further ado and on your own
initiative to withdraw the aforementioned reprehensible document sent to me,
and thereby deliver our storm-tossed Holy Church from new trials and divisions;
otherwise
I DECLARE that the present letter
is to be regarded as a FORMAL CANONICAL ACCUSATION AGAINST YOU for your
established canonical offenses.
I FURTHER DECLARE that, until
your sinful conduct, as set forth in the present accusation, has been
adjudicated,
I BREAK COMMUNION WITH YOU for
reasons of Faith and Justice
(Canon 31 of the Holy Apostles;
Canon 15 of the First-Second Council).
The least among hierarchs,
† Cyprian of Oropos and Phyle
(To be continued.)
Part 1: https://orthodoxmiscellany.blogspot.com/2026/08/in-defense-of-metropolitan-cyprian-2013.html
Part 4: https://orthodoxmiscellany.blogspot.com/2026/09/in-defense-of-metropolitan-cyprian-2013.html
Part 1: https://orthodoxmiscellany.blogspot.com/2026/08/in-defense-of-metropolitan-cyprian-2013.html
Part 4: https://orthodoxmiscellany.blogspot.com/2026/09/in-defense-of-metropolitan-cyprian-2013.html
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.