Relations Between the Genuine Orthodox of Greece with the Patriarchate of Jerusalem

Greek source: Archive of the Sacred Struggle: A Periodical on the History of the Sacred Struggle of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece, Issue 7, 2018, pp. 7-36. Compiled under the responsibility of the Synodal Committee for the Historical Archive of the Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece and published with the blessing of His Beatitude Archbishop Kallinikos and the Holy Synod.

Written by Bishop Klemes of Gardikion and Nikolaos Mannis

 

 

Introduction

In an article in a previous issue concerning the relations of the Genuine Orthodox of Greece with the Patriarchate of Alexandria, [1] the following was written by way of introduction:

“One of the slanders levelled by the Innovators against the Genuine Orthodox of Greece (Old Calendarists) is that they supposedly broke ecclesiastical communion ‘with the entire Church’ and thus became ‘schismatics’. This slander—like many others—is refuted through the study of modern Church history, which demonstrates that the Old Calendarists were in communion with all the official Local Churches that did not accept the Calendar Innovation, even though these Churches did not break communion with the New Calendar hierarchies, in anticipation of the expected Great Council, which was supposedly going to resolve the Calendar Question. It was only much later that this communion was broken, at the initiative of the Old Calendarists, because of the ecumenist overtures of the official Churches. Thus, the Genuine Orthodox demonstrated that they did not believe in a barren ‘thirteen-dayism’, but that their Struggle was a Struggle for all Orthodox Dogmas and Traditions.”

The article in this issue examines the relationship of the Genuine Orthodox with the Patriarchate of Jerusalem.

The Patriarchate of Damianos (†1931)

 

 

From the outset, the Genuine Orthodox of Greece based their Struggle and opposition on the refusal of the Eastern Patriarchates—and especially the Patriarchate of Jerusalem—to accept the Calendar Innovation. In 1924, the Patriarch of Jerusalem was Damianos, who had resisted any suggestion of changing the Church Calendar, both in 1902 (following an approach by the then Patriarch of Constantinople, Joachim) and in 1924. [2]

Because of his stance, the Old Calendarists regarded him as their Leader, especially after the death of Photios of Alexandria (†1925). All the Old Calendarist organizations and newspapers maintained relations with Patriarch Damianos, as the publications of the period show.

In 1929, the Genuine Orthodox welcomed yet another act of resistance by Patriarch Damianos: his rejection of the proposal to change the Paschalion as well, which the Freemason Patriarch of Constantinople, Basil, had requested in accordance with the decisions of the Pseudo-Pan-Orthodox Congress held in Constantinople in 1923. In 1931, in their obituary of Patriarch Damianos, they bade him farewell as “one of the most precious—or rather, the sole—pillars” [3] of Orthodoxy.

The Patriarchate of Timotheos (†1955)

 

 

As is well known, after bishops assumed leadership of the Struggle of the Genuine Orthodox of Greece in 1935, and following the repressive measures taken against them by the Innovating Church and the Government, Saint Chrysostomos, former Metropolitan of Florina, travelled to the Middle East in December 1935 to explain to the Patriarchates of Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria the Calendar problem and the significance of their action for the restoration of Orthodoxy. That visit lasted until May 1936. It is also well known that his return from the Holy Land, where he had been “stranded” because of an order from Greece, came about through a miracle of Saint George on the day of his feast according to the Church Calendar. [4]

About a month later, at the “Panhellenic Congress of the Genuine Orthodox Christians at Saint Marina in Piraeus,” on 15/28 June 1936, Saint Chrysostomos, former Metropolitan of Florina, referred in his address to his meetings with the Patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem. He said that, in response to his appeal for them to help settle the Calendar question, which had shaken the Church and scandalized the consciences of Christians, they had promised him that, at the appropriate time, they would take the necessary steps to convene a Pan-Orthodox Council, so that it might address and resolve the question in a valid and canonical manner. [5]

Saint Chrysostomos, former Metropolitan of Florina, referred specifically to his meeting with Patriarch Timotheos of Jerusalem in another text, [6] in which he writes that the Patriarch of Jerusalem expressed his deep sorrow over the division among the Orthodox in the observance of feasts at a time that was critical in every respect. He promised that, once local problems with the indigenous flock had been resolved and his election had been recognized by the British Government, which then held the Mandate, he would approach the Ecumenical Patriarchate to request the convocation of an Ecumenical Council or a Great Local Synod to resolve the serious Calendar question.

Of course, despite these assurances and the hopes they fostered, we know that no such thing took place. Indeed, a later source informs us that Saint Chrysostomos, former Metropolitan of Florina, was not received during that visit as he should have been, but in a disparaging and even hostile manner. [7] Nevertheless, there is evidence indicating that both the Saint, former Metropolitan of Florina, and other clergy adhering to the traditional calendar maintained good relations with bishops and, more generally, clergy of the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulchre belonging to the Patriarchate of Jerusalem who sympathized with our Sacred Struggle. Some of them, such as the well-regarded Archimandrite Theodosios of Bethany (†1991), had received their spiritual formation within traditional-calendar circles.

The Patriarchate of Benedict (†1980)

 

 

During the difficult period for our Church following the repose of Saint Chrysostomos, former Metropolitan of Florina (†1955), the Governing Ecclesiastical Committee of the Sacred Struggle, consisting of twelve of our prominent clergy, made continual and persistent efforts to find a solution: either through the return of the New Calendar Church to the traditional calendar, to heal the division; through the assumption of leadership of the Sacred Struggle by a bishop who would join those adhering to the traditional calendar; or through the consecration of candidates from among our clergy by an Orthodox ecclesiastical authority abroad. In addition to these efforts, an approach was made to the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, for which the Greek Old Calendarists had always maintained respect and reverence. This turn towards Jerusalem was supported by the lay theologian of blessed memory, Dionysios Batistatos (†1991).

In a letter dated 8/21 May 1956 from archimandrites who were members of the Ecclesiastical Committee governing our Church, addressed “To the Holy and Sacred Synod of the Most Holy Church of Jerusalem,” it was stated that Professor Panagiotis Panagiotakos, a canonist and former Governor-General of Mount Athos, and the theologian Dionysios Batistatos were being sent to Jerusalem, authorized to present to the Mother of the Churches the canonical proposal for finding a canonical and spiritual means of placing the Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece under the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulchre and the Patriarchate of Jerusalem. [8]

At that time, however, following the death of Patriarch Timotheos the previous year, in 1955, complications had prevented the election of a new Patriarch, making it impossible for any position to be taken on that proposal from the Greek Old Calendarists. For this reason, the mission of Professor P. Panagiotakos and Dionysios Batistatos did not take place until the following year, 1957, in late May or early June, after the election of Benedict as the new Patriarch of Jerusalem in January of that year. [9]

The Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulchre formally received the delegation and appointed Metropolitan Stephanos of Gaza as its guide. Several meetings were held to discuss the purpose of the mission’s visit, with even diplomatic figures in attendance. Professor P. Panagiotakos also presented the question of bringing the Greek Old Calendarists under the Patriarchate of Jerusalem as a matter of national importance, strengthening the status of the Holy Sepulchre. Members of the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulchre were favorably impressed and moved to tears. In this sense, it was written that the mission had secured—if nothing else—many helpful friends for the Greek Old Calendarists among the members of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem. [10]

Patriarch Benedict, for his part, showed understanding and did not refuse in principle to discuss the matter, although he raised the objection that he did not wish to oppose the official Church of the state, despite Professor Panagiotakos’s efforts to persuade him to exercise independent judgment, on the grounds that the Patriarchate’s standing was far greater than that of the official Church of Greece. [11]

In the spring of 1958, a group of Greek Old Calendarist pilgrims, led by the theologian Stavros Karamitsos, travelled to the Holy Land. Upon their return to Greece, it was reported that Stavros Karamitsos had shared his impressions with the Ecclesiastical Committee and conveyed the blessings of Patriarch Benedict of Jerusalem and the members of the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulchre. [12]

In the middle of the following year, 1959, Patriarchs Christophoros of Alexandria and Benedict of Jerusalem were in Greece and received a visit from a three-member committee of the Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece, consisting of Archimandrite Akakios Pappas (the Elder), Mr. Pan. Kossaras of the Genuine Orthodox Christian Community of Thessaloniki, and the theologian Mr. Stavros Karamitsos, to exchange views on the Old Calendar question. The meeting lasted more than an hour, and the Patriarchs showed understanding. [13] Indeed, Benedict of Jerusalem is reported to have declared emphatically, “I am the leader of the Old Calendarists”! [14]

However, the Genuine Orthodox at that time voiced justified complaints and made sorrowful observations. For although the Patriarchate of Jerusalem’s adherence to the centuries-old festal calendar lends moral support to the position of the Old Calendarists in Greece, that same Patriarchate’s attitude towards them is paradoxically cold and indifferent. When representatives of the Patriarchate come to Athens, they enter into ecclesiastical communion with the New Calendar Church, being afraid to meet with the Old Calendarists (with certain exceptions, of course). Nevertheless, an appeal was made to Benedict of Jerusalem to take a magnanimous initiative, so that either a Pan-Orthodox Council might be convened or the matter might be resolved within the Church of Zion, provided, of course, that it ceased communion with the Innovators. [15]

Nevertheless, during those days Benedict of Jerusalem concelebrated with the New Calendarists at the Metropolitan Cathedral of Athens, prompting representatives of our Church to write that, although his arrival had been seen as bringing with it the Church Traditions, his conduct had contradicted what he professed, violated his duty, and grieved and deeply scandalized the Old Calendarist faithful, who had been awaiting his actions to restore the Old Calendar and unite the Church. Thus, it was aptly written of him that “he is more concerned with the stones and buildings of the Holy Land and less with the ideas that proceeded from them”! [16]

Following that disappointment, we had no significant official information concerning relations with the Patriarchate in question during the period under consideration, apart from the cultivation of good relations on a personal level, [17] as well as the reception into the Church of the Genuine Orthodox of Greece of clergy from the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulchre—receptions which, unfortunately, were not always successful or free from the creation of serious problems for our Church.

Zealot monks also served in Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and elsewhere, such as Elder Ioannis Papaleontiou from Cyprus, who sent information about events there to our publications. [18] Other fervent zealots for the traditional calendar ended their lives there, such as the ascetic hieromonk of Chozeba, [St.] John Jacob from Romania (†1960), who, as is well known, left behind incorrupt holy relics. [19]

We must, of course, emphasize that the failure of our request to be placed under the Patriarchate of Jerusalem at that time was a divine dispensation, safeguarding us from the far greater and more serious danger of Ecumenism and from even indirect participation in it through communion with those taking part in it, for the Calendar question constitutes a significant aspect of Ecumenism and a practical application of it.

The Patriarchate of Diodoros (1981–2000)

 

 

After the long tenures of Patriarchs Timotheos (1935–1955) and Benedict (1957–1980), [20] with whom the Genuine Orthodox maintained relations in the manner briefly described above, we come to the tenure of Diodoros of blessed memory [21] (1980–2000) as Patriarch of Jerusalem.

As the theologian Aristotle Delimbasis [22] of blessed memory, known for his work against heresy, writes in an unpublished work, “Patriarch Diodoros was Orthodox in his convictions, disposition, and endeavors, and opposed to the ecumenist heresy and its innovation in the festal calendar.”

Diodoros of Jerusalem maintained friendly relations with bishops adhering to the traditional calendar, and it is known that he visited prominent holy monasteries of our Church, chiefly in Attica, where he was received with honour. He also maintained a friendship with His Eminence Petros of Astoria, the bishop of our Church based in America, partly because they both came from the island of Chios.

The year 1989 was a milestone in the patriarchate of Diodoros of blessed memory for two reasons: first, because the Patriarchal and Synodal Encyclical of 9/22 May 1989 decreed the discontinuation of ecumenist dialogues with heretics:

Our Orthodox Church firmly believes that she possesses the fullness of the truth, that she is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and the Treasury of Grace and truth. She is the secure Ark within which the Dogmas of our blameless Faith and our Sacred Tradition are preserved in all their clarity and with their distinctive salvific character. The participation of the Orthodox Church in the Dialogues proves harmful and dangerous. The heterodox exploit the Theological Dialogues to the detriment of our Orthodox Church. Particularly in the Holy Land, they say that “together with the Orthodox, we are striving to find the truth.” In this way, they succeed in proselytizing ever more Orthodox faithful into their ranks. Furthermore, the heterodox show our faithful photographs and videotapes in which our representatives—hierarchs, clergy, and laity—appear embracing the heterodox, and say: “Look, union has taken place; come to our churches for common prayer.” To these activities are added their enticing offers of housing (since this problem greatly affects the majority of the Arab population), employment, and financial assistance, if they convert to another confession. Thus, the draining away of our Flock, but above all our desire to preserve our Orthodox Faith and tradition unadulterated and free from the dangerous activities of the heterodox, prompted us to discontinue the Dialogues, not only with the Anglicans, who introduced the ordination of women years ago, but also with the Papists, the Anti-Chalcedonians, the Lutherans, and the Reformed Confessions, in the dialogue with which the Church of Jerusalem had not participated from the outset.”

And second, because it was chiefly from that year onwards that the Local Church of Jerusalem, officially through her Primate, recognized not only the Orthodoxy but also the Apostolic Succession of the Genuine Orthodox of Greece.

Following the aforementioned Confessional Encyclical of Patriarch Diodoros, His Beatitude Chrysostomos Kiousis (†2010) of blessed memory, Archbishop of our Church of the Genuine Orthodox of Greece, also speaking on behalf of the Holy Synod of our Church, sent him a congratulatory telegram. [23] The Patriarch replied in a letter dated 26 July 1989, in which he addressed our First Hierarch as “His Beatitude the Archbishop”. [24]

Telegram

To His Beatitude Diodoros, Patriarch of Jerusalem

GREEK ORTHODOX PATRIARCHATE
P.O. BOX 19632 — 633
JERUSALEM - ISRAEL

We heartily congratulate Your Beatitude on your courageous and historic decision to discontinue dialogue with heretics.

Proceed, Your Beatitude, undaunted by any ecumenist opposition, in the good fight of faith, walling off Mother Zion from those who undermine Orthodoxy and reject the Patristic Traditions.

In such a bold decision, you will find us standing beside you and ready to make every sacrifice.

On behalf of our Holy Synod

ARCHBISHOP CHRYSOSTOMOS II

* * *

Protocol No. 532

To His Beatitude Archbishop Chrysostomos,
Athens.

With brotherly love, we have received the congratulatory letter of Your Beatitude, whom we dearly love, concerning the decision of our Most Holy Church of Jerusalem, taken by us and at the session of our Holy and Sacred Synod gathered around us, to discontinue theological dialogue with all the heterodox in general.

Expressing our warm thanks to Your Beatitude for the brotherly sentiments of support thus shown towards the Mother of the Churches, who fulfils her saving mission amid countless adversities, striving to preserve our Orthodox Faith and Sacred Tradition intact and free from innovation, as she received it through the Holy Apostles from her Divine Founder, our Lord Jesus Christ, we do not cease to pray that both we and all our Orthodox brethren may be strengthened to rise resolutely to this arduous struggle set before us, “looking to Jesus, the author and perfecter of our Faith” (Heb. 12:2), who is “the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Heb. 13:8).

Furthermore, we wish once again to declare that our Patriarchate of Jerusalem, as the Mother of the Churches, feels the pressing need to raise its voice, as the voice of the Lord, proclaiming the undeniable reality that our Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and possesses the fullness of the Truth. Therefore, the joint search for truth with the heterodox in theological dialogues diminishes her authority and scandalizes her faithful followers, who, joining the Apostle to the Nations, Paul, exclaim: “Reject a heretical man after a first and second admonition” (Titus 3:10).

Accordingly, beseeching our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ to grant us His blessing and strength in our sacred struggles for the Faith, and invoking these upon the entire flock of our Holy Orthodox Church, we remain yours in brotherly love.

In the Holy City of Jerusalem, 26 July 1989.

With love in the Lord,

DIODOROS I

Patriarch of Jerusalem.

A little later during that period, Patriarch Diodoros came to Athens and visited the Holy Monastery of Saints Cyprian and Justina in Phyle, Attica, on the afternoon of 2/15 October 1989, during the Vespers following its patronal feast. During his visit, he delivered a significant address without a prepared text, excerpts from which we quote here:

“…Hierarchs of the Church, beloved children in the Lord, it is with particular joy and emotion that I find myself at this moment in this sacred place, in the church celebrating its feast in honor of Saint Cyprian. My joy and emotion are great, for I am among bishops, priests, and strugglers who, over the past decade, have carried the light of Orthodoxy to almost every continent… My beloved Christians, I have been here in our beloved homeland for a few days, and today I considered it my duty to join you, to rejoice together, to celebrate, and to greet His Eminence Metropolitan Cyprian… Ecumenism (and the Dialogues, whose sole purpose is to undermine the Church and which consider it easy to subject Orthodoxy to the dictates of Papism and Ecumenism) has been working for years to destroy Orthodoxy in those regions (the Holy Land). Yet God has preserved the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, this Mother of the Churches, amid dangers for so many centuries. He always illumines it through the grace of the Holy Sepulchre and saves it from every danger… It was regrettable that for decades the Patriarchate, supposedly to avoid disrupting the unity of Orthodoxy, followed the other Churches in the matter of the Dialogues, without, of course, being influenced or yielding. Yet its presence encouraged some and emboldened them to say that the Patriarchate of Jerusalem was also participating… We reflected on our responsibilities before God; before the Church; before our Orthodoxy; before history and our national privileges in that region. And with God’s illumination, we decided to discontinue every Dialogue between the Patriarchate and the other heretical “churches.” For no positive result came from this prolonged contact with them. We announced this to all the sister Churches, and we are bound and determined to uphold this decision and to go still further, as far as possible, until other Churches also reflect on their responsibilities before God, history, and Orthodoxy, and cease all contact with the heterodox. As you know, the Patriarchate follows the traditional, Old Calendar. It does not change, nor can it ever change, even by a jot, the Canons and the Teaching of the Church. It will preserve them at any cost. We shall all strive to preserve them, even at the cost of sacrifices. The threats hurled daily and the actions they take daily do not frighten us. We shall remain steadfast guardians, faithful to the Dogmas and the Teaching of our Orthodoxy…” [25]

In December of that year (1989), His Beatitude our Archbishop Chrysostomos sent a second letter, [26] once again on behalf of the Holy Synod, to which Patriarch Diodoros of Jerusalem again replied:

ATHENS, 19 December 1989

PROTOCOL NO. 254

To His Beatitude Diodoros, Patriarch of Jerusalem

Jerusalem

Your Beatitude, Master,

On the world-saving feasts of Christmas and Theophany, graciously accept our sincere sentiments of love and esteem, together with our warmest humble prayers for your unfailing health and enduring pastoral leadership for many years to come, for the good of the Church, and for divine assistance in fulfilling your lofty mission throughout Orthodoxy, following the historic cessation of dialogue and communion between the Church of Zion and the heretics who profess false doctrines.

We pray also that the dawning new year of the Lord’s goodness, 1990, may bring every blessing and God-given peace on earth, and fulfil every pious desire.

On behalf of the Holy Synod

CHRYSOSTOMOS
ARCHBISHOP OF ATHENS

PRESIDENT

* * *

To His Beatitude Chrysostomos, Archbishop of Athens of the Genuine Orthodox Christians, greetings in the Lord, who was born supernaturally of the Virgin, and wishes for health in both soul and body.

With great joy we have received Your Beatitude’s brotherly wishes and greetings on the Divine Incarnation of God the Word.

Wholeheartedly reciprocating these, we beseech Christ, who was laid in the God-receiving Cave of Holy Bethlehem, to bestow upon Your Beatitude every good gift and to grant you a spiritually fruitful and peaceful New Year.

With these sentiments, we remain yours with prayers and love in the Lord.

CHRISTMAS 1989

DIODOROS I

Patriarch of Jerusalem.

The correspondence continued in 1990, with the Patriarch receiving telegrams and letters and replying in similar terms both to His Beatitude our Archbishop and to other hierarchs of the Holy Synod of our Church:

To His Beatitude Diodoros I, Patriarch of Jerusalem

GREEK ORTHODOX PATRIARCHATE
P.O. BOX 19632 - 633
JERUSALEM - ISRAEL.

We protest in the strongest terms against the attack by Jewish anarchists upon the venerable Patriarch of Jerusalem.

Such actions justify suspicions of a planned attack by Zionism against Orthodox Hellenism.

We demand effective protection of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem by the Government of Israel; otherwise, we propose organizing a crusade to defend the rights of the threatened Patriarchate in accordance with the spirit and principles of international conventions.

The clergy and faithful of the Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece stand ready to struggle alongside the beleaguered Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulchre.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF THE CHURCH OF THE GENUINE ORTHODOX CHRISTIANS OF GREECE

CHRYSOSTOMOS II

* * *

To His Beatitude Diodoros, Patriarch of Jerusalem

GREEK ORTHODOX PATRIARCHATE
P.O. BOX 19632-633
JERUSALEM - ISRAEL

We condemn with indignation the murderous attack upon your beloved and venerable person as a leader of the Church, and rejoice with all our soul and heart at your deliverance.

The Almighty preserves you and the most venerable holy places of His Son from every danger and distress, for the good of Orthodoxy unaltered by innovation and of ancestral piety.

With Paschal wishes in the Risen Christ.

GERONTIOS
Metropolitan of Piraeus and Salamis of the Genuine Orthodox Christians

* * *

To His Beatitude Diodoros I,
Patriarch of Jerusalem and All the Holy Land

Jerusalem

Your Beatitude,

On the radiant and world-saving Resurrection of Christ, we ask you, together with the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulchre gathered around you, to accept our reverent Paschal greeting, with sentiments of love and esteem for the lofty mission you are fulfilling in this age of general apostasy.

In particular, the recent impious acts against the institution of the Patriarchate and your venerable person have deeply grieved us and aroused the indignation of clergy and faithful.

Your resolute resistance and courageous defense of the rights of the Patriarchate, this pride of Orthodox Hellenism, have moved us. We therefore congratulate Your Beatitude and take this opportunity to declare our unreserved support for the beleaguered Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulchre, which is waging a titanic struggle to preserve the Greek Orthodox character of the holy places of pilgrimage. We express these sentiments with the fervent prayer that the Lord God may preserve you in health for many years and reward your labours and sacrifices, to His glory and for the triumph of our Orthodox faith over every hostile design.

On behalf of the Holy Synod

ARCHBISHOP CHRYSOSTOMOS II

* * *

Telegram:

TO HIS BEATITUDE ARCHBISHOP CHRYSOSTOMOS

32 KANINGOS STREET

ATHENS

WE DREW COMFORT FROM READING YOUR TELEGRAM OF SUPPORT, FOR WHICH WE THANK YOU HEARTILY, AND ASK YOU TO CONTINUE PRAYING FOR THE SUCCESS OF OUR NATIONAL AND RELIGIOUS STRUGGLE

DIODOROS, PATRIARCH OF JERUSALEM

HOTEL GRANDE BRETAGNE

* * *

Protocol No. 337

To His Eminence Gerontios, Metropolitan of Piraeus of the Genuine Orthodox Christians, greetings in the Lord, who has risen gloriously from the dead.

We drew comfort and strength from the telegram, filled with love and sympathy, which Your Eminence, whom we dearly love, kindly sent us following the distressing events that took place during Holy and Great Week to the detriment of the rights of our Patriarchate of Jerusalem.

Our Most Holy Mother of the Churches, contending in these days against the “principalities and powers of the world of this age,” buffeted by the waves but not submerged, courageously demands, on behalf of the entire Orthodox and Christian world, respect for her privileges and rights in the Holy Land, certain of the ultimate vindication of her struggle through the grace of the Risen Lord.

Expressing our heartfelt thanks to Your Eminence for the support shown to our ancient Patriarchate in its struggle, we ask you to continue praying for strength and success in our arduous struggle, and remain yours.

In the Holy City of Jerusalem, 15 April 1990.

DIODOROS I

Patriarch of Jerusalem.

 (“The Voice of Orthodoxy” No. 834, June–July 1990)

We must, of course, emphasize that this spontaneous expression of support from our Church for Diodoros of Jerusalem was intended to assist him and his Church in pursuing a truly Orthodox position and course. It also constituted a grateful expression of thanks for the Patriarch’s courageous “overture” in publicly recognizing our ecclesial character, at a time when we faced such intense opposition and challenges to our standing from the New Calendarists of Greece and elsewhere. It did not, however, under any circumstances signify full mutual recognition between us and the members of the Church of Jerusalem as being in communion, nor did it constitute direct or indirect permission for any form of Eucharistic communion between our Churches.

For this deliberate misrepresentation also occurred, and certain bishops of our Church in America at that time (Paisios and Vikentios), known for their frivolity and their desire to enter “official” and “recognized” Orthodoxy, proceeded on their own initiative, without any relevant Synodal permission or decision, to commemorate the name of Patriarch Diodoros and to spread the claim that they constituted a part (or an exarchate?) of the Patriarchate in America or (also) in Greece. This deviation was addressed [27] shortly afterwards, when the aforementioned bishops, together with other disorderly and troublesome individuals, caused a schism and fell away from our Church.

Nevertheless, to return to our subject, according to the testimony of many of our Fathers and Brethren, Patriarch Diodoros always supported and praised us. One of our clergy, the Reverend Fr. Nikolaos Dimaras, relates that, while he was still following the New Calendar, he visited the Patriarch together with other pilgrims from Aigio and Germany and asked him whether the faithful could attend Old Calendarist churches. He received the following answer from the Patriarch’s own lips: “The Old Calendarists are the only Orthodox, my child.” He also discouraged the faithful from attending churches where Ecumenists celebrated the services, telling them: “Do not go there at all.” Another of our clergy, Hieromonk Patapios Argyros, recalls that when our faithful met the Patriarch during pilgrimages to the Holy Land and told him that they followed the Old Calendar, he would say to them: “You are doubly blessed!”

The Ecumenists of the Phanar and their associates sought, and largely succeeded, to curtail Patriarch Diodoros’s activities, including through their so-called “Great and Supreme Synod” in Constantinople in July 1993, ostensibly over the question of the Jerusalem metochia in Australia, but in reality because of his resolute stance against the false union then being contrived with the Anti-Chalcedonians, his vigorous opposition in general to the advance of Ecumenism, and his open contacts with, acceptance of, and praise for the Genuine Orthodox. [28] Moreover, following the so-called “Pan-Orthodox Gathering of Primates” at the Phanar in March 1992, Patriarch Diodoros had issued a separate statement in which he maintained his views in support of the Genuine Orthodox.

Certain venerable Fathers of Jerusalem, such as the Abbot of the Lavra of Saint Savvas, Archimandrite Seraphim (†2002), were, as is well known, defenders of the traditional calendar and fervent friends of the Genuine Orthodox of Greece.

Following the repose of Patriarch Diodoros of blessed memory and the developments that followed, we come to the present, when there are two Patriarchs of Jerusalem: one regarded as supposedly “canonical,” Theophilos—if someone who is an Ecumenist can be considered canonical—and one confined, Irenaios, who has expressed in writing his opposition to Ecumenism and his friendly disposition towards the Genuine Orthodox, although he has not openly aligned himself with them, despite the opportunities afforded him to do so, especially in recent years. These two, however, will be the subject of study for the Church historian of the future. Here we shall confine ourselves to publishing Patriarch Irenaios’s Proclamation against Ecumenism, with the prayer that he may put what he writes into practice in his dealings with those who continually and persistently deviate, especially after the Pseudo-Council of Kolymbari, Crete, in June 2016, so that he may be numbered among the truly Orthodox in these evil days of apostasy through which we are passing:

GREEK ORTHODOX PATRIARCHATE
JERUSALEM

Protocol No. 86

PROCLAMATION

Our Humility addresses our flock and the entire Christ-bearing plenitude of Orthodoxy throughout the world, our brethren the Primates of the Orthodox Churches, and our brethren in Christ, the Fathers of the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulchre.

On the grounds that our forcible dethronement and removal from the throne of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem in 2005 took place uncanonically and unlawfully, we declare that we remain the sole valid and true Patriarch of Jerusalem.

Since our Humility is accused of heresy, ecumenism, and schism, we consider it necessary to point to an incident widely known in the Church. Venerable Agathon calmly accepted every insult, but when they told him that he was a heretic, he objected, saying: “I accepted those insults because they benefit my soul, but being a heretic means separation from God, and for this reason I did not accept it.” Thus did our Holy Fathers act, and thus does our Mother the Church teach us to act.

We therefore consider it our duty to declare the following:

1. Our Humility has never been, nor is, a heretic or an ecumenist. Ecumenism is a mosaic composed of heresies and schisms. Ecumenism is a heresy.

It is the complete gathering of all heresies and distortions of the faith, since ecumenism gathers and unites everyone in a single fold, from those who stand in the truth to heretics, incorporating into itself schismatics who long ago fell away and became perverted in their faith, and even adherents of other religions. All this takes place without the question of repentance being discussed; instead, all are recognized as having equal standing before God. Where can truth be found in this impious parasynagogue? Can edible fruit and poisonous fruit grow on the same tree? Sweet fruit and bitter fruit? The Ecumenist church is not living but dead, since the falsehood within it kills all truth.

2. Our Humility did not reintroduce the Patriarchate of Jerusalem into the World Council of Churches, which is an ecumenist parasynagogue.

I agree fully with, and have supported and continue to support in every way, the decision of the ever-memorable Patriarch Diodoros of Jerusalem, who withdrew the Church of Jerusalem from the WCC in 1979.

The branch theory, implanted and recognized by the World Council of Churches, is unfounded, because the communities that have separated from the Church are not living branches, but branches that have been torn off and are withering: “If anyone does not remain in Me, he is cast out like a branch and withers; they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned” (John 15:6).

3. Concerning the Pan-Orthodox Council being prepared for 2016.

His All-Holiness the Patriarch of Constantinople, together with the Local Churches, is preparing a Pan-Orthodox Council, so that supposedly unresolved questions of the Orthodox Church may be brought before it.

However, first, most of the questions being prepared for the agenda have already been resolved by the Orthodox Church: ecumenism, relations with the heterodox, fasting, the calendar, Orthodox baptism, marriage, and so forth. There is therefore a grave danger that a treacherous revision of Orthodox theology and anthropology may take place at this Council. Second, His All-Holiness the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Primates of the Orthodox Churches completely disregard the Ecumenical Crime committed against me in 2005. Or have they perhaps quieted their consciences by supposing that I voluntarily “shut myself away,” demanding and begging for my place on the throne?

The Patriarch of Constantinople himself, “standing in the holy place,” ignited the Schism within the bosom of the Mother of the Churches, Holy Zion, from which Truth and Light shone forth into the world.

The Holy Spirit works only with Orthodox Christians who stand in the truth. He cannot cooperate in unjust deeds. Therefore, the disregard shown by the Primates of the Orthodox Churches for the unresolved problem of our Humility’s uncanonical removal from the throne renders divine inspiration of the forthcoming Council impossible, and in that case it will be devoid of grace and displeasing to God.

Now more than ever, at this fateful juncture, the Primates of the Churches and bishops, appointed by God and called to safeguard the faith, must adopt the confessional stance of the Holy Fathers, defending Orthodoxy against those who make merchandise of her and draw her into a policy of pleasing this world, which lies in wickedness.

One can be saved only by returning to the God-Man through wholehearted and complete repentance and by embracing the Orthodox faith of the Holy Apostles, the Holy Fathers, and the Holy Ecumenical Councils.

Our paternal heart can no longer bear to behold the Body of the Church of Christ bleeding because of transgressors and apostates, and calls upon and implores all the members of Zion, the Mother of the Churches, and of all Orthodoxy, as well as all representatives of the competent authorities, to come and contribute, with fear of God, faith, and love, to the restoration of canonical order in our Patriarchate, so that, once Satan and his angels have departed from Christ’s flock, we may enter into communion in Truth with the Mother of the Churches, established as such by Christ, to the glory of the faith and to the glory of the people of our God.

Bestowing our blessing abundantly, we await all those in positions of authority, praying that the Life-giving Lord may illumine everyone with the radiance of His unwaning Light.

In the Holy City of Jerusalem, 20 June 2015

YOUR CONFINED PATRIARCH OF JERUSALEM

IRENAIOS I

 

 

Epilogue

The evidence presented above has demonstrated that the relationship of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece with the Patriarchate of Jerusalem underwent various fluctuations. It began with promising prospects, but disappointments arose along the way because of the inconsistent stance of the members of the Church of Jerusalem. There was also a remarkable anti-ecumenist initiative by Patriarch Diodoros of blessed memory, which brought us considerably closer together and which the deposed Patriarch Irenaios appears to share to some extent. May the grace of the Holy Sepulchre bring forth from the Mother of the Churches an Orthodox stance and confession upheld in practice, serving as a point of reference for all the Genuine Orthodox in the good Struggle of Faith, for the triumph of the Truth!

 

NOTES

1. See the periodical “Archive of the Sacred Struggle,” no. 5, 2017, pp. 5–31.

2. Although Patriarch Damianos gave assurances that the Patriarchate of Jerusalem would not change the Calendar, owing to its disadvantaged position at the All-Holy Places of Pilgrimage in relation to the Latins and their proselytizing designs, nevertheless, in a published letter to the Innovating Archbishop Chrysostomos Papadopoulos of Athens, he unfortunately expressed his consent to the supposed “correction” of the Calendar in the Church of Greece, ostensibly to prevent confusion among the people arising from the simultaneous use of two calendars, religious and civil! Consequently, the well-known Archimandrite Philotheos Zervakos addressed a letter of rebuke to him on 6 November 1924, explaining the terrible division in the Church of Greece caused by the Calendar Innovation and its grievous consequences in general, and urging him to work for the restoration of the traditional calendar among those who had abandoned it because of the scandal-mongers and innovators (see its reprint in the periodical “Archive of the Sacred Struggle,” no. 3 [Autumn/Winter 2015], pp. 61–64). Perhaps that letter, together with other events, helped Damianos of Jerusalem adopt a more careful and traditional view of the matter, leading him to look favourably upon the Old Calendarists of Greece and Romania, whom he had assisted in practical ways through Hieromonk [and later Holy Hierarch] Glicherie (see Bishop Klemes of Gardikion, The Godly Struggles and Wondrous Contests of the Confessor Hierarch Saint Glicherie of Romania, 1891–1985, Phyle, Attica, 2014, pp. 37–38).

3. Newspaper “Herald of the Orthodox,” no. 17 [10/23 August 1931].

4. See the account of this in the book by Ilias Angelopoulos and Dionysios Batistatos, Chrysostomos, Former Metropolitan of Florina—A Champion of Orthodoxy and the Nation, Athens, 1981, pp. 22–25.

5. See the periodical “The Voice of Orthodoxy,” no. 1 (Second Series), 22 June 1936, p. 2.

6. See Chrysostomos, Former Metropolitan of Florina, “Report to the Governing Synod of Greece on the Views of the Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem concerning the Church Calendar,” dated 10 November 1936, pp. 9–10, in the work: Memoranda, Letters, and Defenses concerning the Julian Church Calendar, Athens, 1941.

7. See “To His Beatitude Benedict, Patriarch of Jerusalem,” in the periodical “The Voice of Orthodoxy,” no. 321, 14 September 1959, p. 1.

8. See Nun Parthenia, Humble Bishop Merkourios—In the Service of Orthodoxy and Love: A Tribute of Respect, edited by D. M. Batistatos, published by the Merkourion Foundation, Piraeus, 1989, p. 54. In pursuing this initiative, there was evidently the hope, perhaps even the condition, that placing the Old Calendarists of Greece under Jerusalem would entail Jerusalem’s cessation of communion with the New Calendarists.

9. An article written in preparation for that visit, entitled “Towards Jerusalem” (“The Voice of Orthodoxy,” no. 258, 15 April 1957, pp. 1–2), extols the importance of the Patriarchate as the Acropolis of Greek Orthodoxy because it did not accept the Calendar Reform. Its mission is therefore regarded as being of the utmost importance, with the prayer that the members of the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulchre may become not only guardians of the Holy Places of Pilgrimage but also bearers of a spirit of struggle, and assume a pioneering role throughout Orthodoxy. The Patriarchate of Jerusalem is also urged to give particular attention to the problem of the Old Calendarists and examine it prudently, since many members of the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulchre at that time came from Old Calendarist circles in central Greece.

10. See “The Patriarchate of Jerusalem,” in the periodical “The Voice of Orthodoxy,” no. 307, 2 March 1959, pp. 2–3. Although unsigned, the article, published approximately two years after that visit (!), was evidently written by Dionysios Batistatos.

11. See “To His Beatitude Benedict, Patriarch of Jerusalem,” in the periodical “The Voice of Orthodoxy,” cited above, p. 2.

12. See “The Voice of Orthodoxy,” no. 284, 21 April 1958, p. 8. It should be noted that it was during that visit to the Holy Land that Stavros Karamitsos went to the Lavra of Saint Savvas and contacted the Greek-speaking Russian ascetic monk Antonios of Saint Savvas, who became the link with the Russian hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. In particular, he directed him to contact His Eminence Seraphim, Archbishop of Chicago and Detroit, and also gave the Archbishop the appropriate encouragement, with the result that the latter ultimately performed the consecration of Bishop Akakios of Talantion in Detroit, USA, in December 1960 (see Stavros Karamitsos-Gamvroulias, The Consecrations of the Genuine Orthodox Christians from a Canonical Perspective—A Response to an Abominable Slander, Athens, 1997, pp. 19–20, and the correspondence on this matter on pp. 24–37).

13. See the periodical “The Voice of Orthodoxy,” no. 321, 14 July 1959, p. 8.

14. See the periodical “The Voice of Orthodoxy,” no. 324, 26 October 1959, p. 1.

15. See “To His Beatitude Benediktos, Patriarch of Jerusalem,” in the periodical “The Voice of Orthodoxy,” cited above, pp. 1–2.

16. See “Caution and Vigilance,” in the periodical “The Voice of Orthodoxy,” no. 327, 7 December 1959, p. 1.

17. See, for example, the official ceremony at which an authentic fragment of the sacred rock of the dread Golgotha was presented by a representative of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem—specifically, the then Archimandrite and later Patriarch Irenaios—to our Church’s Holy Monastery for Women of Venerable Irene Chrysovalantou in Lykovrysi, Attica, on 16 January 1968 (for a description and photograph, see Nun Paisia of Chrysovalantou, From the Monastery of Chrysovalantou to Eternity, published by the Holy Monastery of Venerable Irene Chrysovalantou, Lykovrysi, Attica, 2005, pp. 196–198).

18. See, for example, the periodical “The Voice of Orthodoxy,” no. 411, 11 February 1963, p. 8, which publishes a report by the aforementioned monk concerning the clashes on the eve of the Feast of Christmas at the Basilica of the Nativity of Christ in Bethlehem between 25 Greek Orthodox monks and their attackers, 100 Latins and 50 Armenians. After a fierce struggle, the 25 heroic Guardians succeeded in putting the attackers—who outnumbered them six to one—to flight in disarray!

19. Much has been written about the contemporary Venerable Ascetic John the Chozebite, even by New Calendarists, but the fact that he was a great Zealot for the traditional calendar is carefully concealed. A concise and truthful account of him was written by his disciple and fellow ascetic, the monk Fr. Ioannikios: The Life of Fr. John, a Contemporary Ascetic of the Holy Land, Athens, 1984, 40 pp. This booklet, with some additions, was republished in a third edition in Athens in 1994, comprising 48 pages, in which the ascetic Fr. John is now recognized as a Saint. Moreover, the first to write about him, through articles in “Orthodoxos Typos” (no. 109, 10 October 1969, p. 2, and no. 110, 1 November 1969, p. 2), was the likewise well-known Zealot monk Fr. Paul the Cypriot, who knew the Venerable personally, having been his “neighbour” near the Skete of Saint Anna in the vicinity of the Monastery of Chozeba in the Holy Land.

We would say the same of Fr. Philoumenos, who suffered a martyr’s death, being slaughtered at Jacob’s Well in Samaria († 1979), concerning whom there is testimony that he would not even eat at a table if a New Calendarist clergyman had blessed it! (See The Elder of Saint Savvas, Archimandrite Seraphim of Kythera, Abbot and Spiritual Father of the Holy Lavra of Saint Savvas the Sanctified, 2nd ed., Jerusalem, December 2010 [edited by Monk Chrysanthos of Saint Savvas], pp. 604–605).

20. The See of Jerusalem was vacant during the years 1931–1935 and 1955–1957.

21. In the world, Damianos Karivalis of Chios (1923–2000).

22. He also served for a time (possibly unofficially) as a legal and theological adviser to the Patriarchate of Jerusalem.

23. See the periodical “The Voice of Orthodoxy,” no. 828, August–September 1989, p. 24.

24. This carries particular significance and weight in silencing those accusers of the clergy who dispute the episcopal dignity of our bishops.

25. See the periodical “Agios Kyprianos,” no. 232, September–October 1989, pp. 95–96.

26. See the periodical “The Voice of Orthodoxy,” no. 831, January–February 1990, p. 17.

27. And, of course, it could not have been otherwise, since even under different circumstances, in another era, at least three decades earlier—namely, in the mid-1960s—when a prominent clergyman of our Church ventured to officiate in the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, claiming in justification that he was thereby “elevating” our Church, which was persecuted in Greece, in the eyes of those plotting against her, our then four-member Holy Synod (Bishops Auxentios of Gardikion, Chrysostomos of Magnesia, Gerontios of Salamis, and Akakios of Diavleia) imposed upon him the penalty of suspension from all priestly functions for a certain period.

28. See A. D. Delimbasis, Refutation of an Uncanonical “Decision”—A Rebuttal of the Uncanonical “Decision” of the Robber “Council” of the Phanar of 30–31 July 1993, Athens, 1993, 46 pp.