A Declaration of Athonite Monks
Concerning: a) the
contemporary canonical irregularities and inconsistencies in the sacred
struggle of the Genuine Orthodox Christians (G.O.C.) of Greece; b) the measures
required for the restoration of its prestige; and c) the impending division of
its Ecclesiastical Leadership.
March 25, 1975 |
Mount Athos
“And if a man also
strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned,
except he strive lawfully.”
With great and lively interest,
we have been following the division within the leadership of the G.O.C. of
Greece, which began already a year ago, and whose dramatic scenes and phases
are presented to its readership by the militant periodical Orthodoxos Logos.
The feelings aroused in us by the above dispute are mixed: sorrow, on the one
hand, at the banishment of the blessing of peace and unity from among the
Hierarchs of the sacred struggle; and, on the other, the beginnings of
satisfaction, in the hope that a leadership more capable in every respect may
emerge, worthy of its past and of its flock, as well as of the critical nature
of the historic times through which we are passing. The contents in particular
of the January–February issue of this year of Orthodoxos Logos
constitute a vivid and most accurate picture of the feelings set forth above.
Among its brighter aspects are not only the presence of a select body of laity
at the side of the four Bishops [i.e., Metropolitans Chrysostomos (Kiousis) of
Thessaloniki, Akakios of Diavleia, and Gabriel of the Cyclades, with Bishop
Petros of Astoria], who, as they maintain, desire the restoration of the
prestige of the Church of the Genuine Orthodox, but also the decisions of the
Thessaloniki conference of January 20, 1975, which simply and sincerely point
out to all the ulcer and the hemorrhaging of the great patient...
All the paragraphs of the
resolution of the conference in question find us in complete agreement, and we
rejoice particularly because, after nearly three decades, self-criticism is
being undertaken vigorously and sincerely, with sufficient grounds for a return
to the path of canonical order and good order. Unfortunately, however, there
are also unfortunate aspects in the picture and situation described above
which—and we say this with great sorrow—unless they are duly eliminated through
correction, will not only render the above efforts fruitless, but positively
harmful, adding evil upon evil and confusion upon confusion. We shall explain.
The Scriptural sayings are very
well known: “Physician, heal thyself,” and “if the blind lead the
blind, both shall fall into the ditch.” In other words, an indispensable
prerequisite for anyone undertaking moral purification and the restoration of
canonical good order in the Church is that he himself be pure and above
reproach; that is, not only that he refrain from participating in the sins and
canonical irregularities which he proposes to correct—at least during the
period of this sacred undertaking—but also from every other kind of
transgression, even a single one, since, according to Scripture, “he that
offendeth in one point is guilty of all.” Only under such prerequisites and
conditions can the purification being undertaken readily provide the faithful
with the necessary guarantees that it is a sincere effort, whose results will
certainly be beneficial and in the interests of the Church. On this crucial
point, with great sorrow and sincerity, we wish to set forth the following
three basic and fundamental conditions.
1. Communion with
the Russian Church Abroad
The sacred struggle of the G.O.C.
of Greece was formed and continues to exist because its purpose is to preserve
itself aloof from every uncanonical and anti-traditional theory and
practice—that is, aloof from the fall of the “Orthodox” Churches of today—in
order precisely to safeguard the uninnovated character and genuineness of the
sacred deposit handed down to us. We ask, however: Is it possible to achieve
this so long as the communion of the G.O.C. with the Russian Church Abroad
continues, which, as has now been conclusively demonstrated—although itself
having no part in the calendar innovation—nevertheless continues to maintain
communion with Churches which indiscriminately commune with or accept both the
calendar innovation and the most grievous ecumenist heresy of our age? When the
Primate of the above Church RECEIVES COMMUNION from the Chalice of the
Patriarchate of Jerusalem, while its sacred establishments there COMMEMORATE
Patriarch Benedict in their divine services to this very day, how is it
possible, we repeat, for us to regard Philaret as being in communion with us
and virtually first among the Hierarchy of the Genuine Orthodox Bishops, while
regarding Benedict as one with whom we have no communion and as an
ecumenist!... What could be more inconsistent than this, and more capable of rendering
the entire sacred cause of the struggle reprehensible—not to say an
exploitation—in the eyes of our elders? When will it finally be understood
that, so long as the above communion is maintained, the present leaders of the
struggle can in no way claim that they are continuing the line of their
ever-memorable leader and predecessor, the holy Chrysostomos [of Florina], and
that they therefore worthily represent the sacred struggle, since the
ever-memorable hierarch maintained no communion of this kind whatsoever with
any of the Orthodox Churches? The use of double standards should be, and indeed
is, a characteristic of the ecumenists alone, but never of those who desire to
pride themselves on being Genuine Orthodox Christians...
2. The Recent
Transmission of the Matthewite Error
From 1937 until today, the
unsound proclamation that Grace was lost on account of the calendar innovation
has caused innumerable evils within the ranks of the G.O.C. The most
distressing thing in this connection, however, is that the present leadership of
the struggle, having completely disregarded and scorned the abundant experience
furnished by the sorrowful past in this matter, as well as the recent canonical
recommendations made in order to prevent its repetition, has lately proceeded
to issue the well-known Encyclical No. 1191 of June 5, 1974, in which the
erroneous mindset of Matthew, which from the outset had doomed the sacred
struggle, is repeated—this time with Archbishop Auxentios as its chief
exponent!
Consequently, the present
leadership of the G.O.C. of Greece under the aforementioned hierarch,
Archbishop Auxentios, HAS NOW CEASED TO REPRESENT OUR SACRED STRUGGLE, since it
has completely abandoned the original genuine spirit and purpose which, for so
many consecutive years (1937–1947), the hierarchs gathered around the former
Metropolitan of Florina—the leading founders of the struggle—steadfastly
followed and by which they shepherded the people of God. IT HAS CEASED, we say,
and can no longer lay claim to its SUCCESSION and LEADERSHIP, since it has
become in every respect assimilated to Matthew, the originator of the schism
among the G.O.C., while remaining, entirely without justification, separated from
his successors. For through the above Encyclical it has done nothing other than
embrace in its entirety his erroneous mindset, which was also the original and
sole cause of the division of the pleroma of the Genuine Orthodox
Christians of Greece.
And Matthew—irrespective of his
erroneous conception—was sincere in his beliefs, since from 1937 onward he was
in communion with no Orthodox Church whatsoever. Thus, standing alone in the
midst of the “graceless” New Calendarists and the Old Calendarists who, because
of their communion with them, were gravely culpable and condemnable, he had the
right, on the basis of his convictions, to proclaim as correct that which he
believed and consistently put into practice, regardless of the fact that,
following the “laying-on of hands” of his successors, his faction continues to
this day, through the Russian Church Abroad, to be in communion even with New
Calendarists! The Synod around Archbishop Auxentios, however, by means of its
latest Encyclical, while accepting the Matthewite mindset and at the same time
remaining in communion with the Russian Church Abroad, displays neither
consistency nor sincerity, since it believes one thing, acts differently, and
finally preaches the opposite! This contradictory policy inevitably places it
within the following tragic dilemma: either it accepts the Encyclical of 1950,
in which case it automatically renders itself liable to deposition, since the
consecration it received was performed—according to the Encyclical of 1950—by
uncanonical hierarchs who were themselves liable to deposition because of their
communion with the impious New Calendarists; or it rejects that Encyclical,
together with the similar recent Encyclical of 1974, as well as its communion
with the Russian Church Abroad, in which case, and only then, is it entitled to
shepherd the Orthodox flock of the G.O.C. of Greece, which desires to have a
leadership that is above reproach and canonical.
Consequently, if those
undertaking the work of purification and reorganization of the affairs of the
Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians do not properly perceive and assess
the immense damage inflicted upon the prestige of the sacred struggle by their
recent Encyclical and by the matters mentioned above, we regret to say—but are
obliged to declare—that they are building upon sand, concerning themselves only
with the embellishment of their future edifice while disregarding its
foundations! We insist upon this point because the Encyclical published in the
aforementioned issue of Orthodoxos Logos equivocates in the clearest
possible manner, by referring simultaneously both to the relevant decision of
the Russian Church Abroad concerning the Mysteries and to “the principles and
convictions” of Chrysostomos of blessed memory! For who is unaware that the
departed leader, despite his firm and unwavering opposition for a full decade
(1937–1947) to the erroneous Matthewite mindset, ultimately, under various
moral pressures from his associates and from certain “ignorant super-Orthodox”
members of his flock, accepted—at least in writing only, in the Encyclicals of
1948 and 1950—the aforementioned erroneous mindset? (For details, see Monk
Theodoretos, The Calendar Schism, p. 15 ff.)
How, then, is it possible for it
to interpret the Creed of the struggle in this manner, when even the Keratea
faction can very easily shelter behind what it has written?... Is it possible
for nectar and vinegar, milk and water, to flow from the same spring? For this
reason, we firmly believe, as we have emphasized on other occasions as well,
that those among the Chrysostomites—clergy and laity—who accept the beliefs of
the Matthewites and unite with them will render a very great service to the
sacred struggle. What service? Quite simply, they will help to bring together
at last, in one faction, all those who hold and proclaim the condemnable
mindset of Matthew, so that those who disagree may form the other faction,
possessing a healthy mindset and confession of faith. Thus, through the above
realignment, the division of the Old Calendarists will at last be justified not
only canonically but also logically, and there will cease to exist not only the
present grotesque situation of divided factions which nevertheless hold the
same mindset and beliefs, but also the inexcusable exploitation and
inconsistency being perpetrated to the detriment of the sacred struggle!
Consequently, unless this FALL of
the otherwise noble and great blessed Chrysostomos is clearly REPUDIATED, the
above four Most Reverend Hierarchs accomplish nothing! We write “fall,” and
indeed a grave one, because, whereas according to his own declarations he
undertook the sacred struggle with the purpose of curbing the extremes into
which the calendar struggle was lapsing after being left without pastoral
guidance, in the end he himself, yielding to the pressures and opinions of
others, invested the above canonical irregularities with prestige and authority
through his Encyclicals of 1948 and 1950, thereby demolishing the beautiful
edifice which, with innumerable labors, he had built up over the course of an
entire decade! Consequently, the declaration of the four Hierarchs that they
follow the “principles and convictions” of the ever-memorable Chrysostomos is
something akin to the policy pursued by Kaningos 32, which from 1960 until
today has vacillated according to expediency and circumstances! Proof of what
we are saying is furnished by its consecrations, its communion with the Russian
Church Abroad, and the introductory remarks to the recently circulated
Encyclical No. 1191, signed by Archbishop Auxentios, which state at one point
as follows: “In the first part of the present booklet we publish, on the one
hand, the Encyclical of the former Holy Synod of our Church, whose President
was our ever-memorable Archbishop and Confessor, the former Metropolitan of
Florina, Chrysostomos, and, on the other hand, the pastoral Encyclical recently
issued by us, through which the Orthodox confession of faith is proclaimed with
boldness and clarity, a confession which must be one and the same, identical
and common to every clergyman and layman struggling within our Church.” In
other words, it is as though they were saying—to recall for a moment the folk
wisdom of our people, suitably adapting one of its sayings—“Do you want Grace?
Take it; do you want the loss of Grace? Take that too”...
Consequently, the four Hierarchs,
as well as all their collaborators, must clearly understand that half-measures
no longer have any place in this matter, nor are they even permissible! It is
therefore imperative that they make the clearest possible repudiation not only
of the latest Encyclical, which unfortunately also bears their signatures—with
the exception of that of the Bishop of Astoria [Petros]—but also of its
precursor, the Encyclical of 1950, if they wish in this respect to differ from
their remaining colleagues at Kaningos 32, who have now become Matthewites... No
timidity or fear should possess them lest those who oppose them call them
traitors and babblers on account of this stance, as they have lately been doing
so profusely, precisely for lack of any other canonical and theological
arguments. This has been and will remain the method employed by the sons of
error and falsehood against truth and light when confronted with sound
criticism. If the Synod around Archbishop Auxentios persists in its positions
and in its Ieronymos-style systems of administration, and especially in its
teaching concerning the loss of Grace, this gives the aforementioned Bishops
and their collaborators, clergy and laity alike, every right henceforth to
repudiate the Matthewite situation represented at Kaningos 32, in order to
preserve the sacred baton handed down to them, even at the last moment.
The division of the faithful
which will necessarily arise will, moreover, constitute the beginning of the
final purification of the pleroma of the G.O.C. of Greece, with the only
way open to the Auxentian Synod being the road leading to... Keratea, as we
have already indicated since 1973... Certainly, some of the faithful, not being
properly acquainted with the facts, will follow this course as well; no one
should be distressed on this account. It will be a salutary realignment, since
immediately thereafter a considerable number of New Calendarist faithful will
join the ranks of the sacred struggle—people who until today had refrained from
doing so precisely because of the erroneous teaching concerning the Mysteries. Furthermore,
we personally believe that beneficial cooperation will soon be achieved with
leading figures and members of the New Calendar, who, desiring to free
themselves from responsibility for the condemnable course of their Church, will
with great joy behold the canonical restoration of the sacred struggle of the
Church of the G.O.C. of Greece.
* * *
Here, with sorrow, we consider it
our duty to add that a considerable number of today’s Zealot Athonite Fathers,
instead of continuing the work of their predecessors, those pioneers of the
sacred struggle, on the contrary imitate them wholly indiscriminately—not their
virtues and the rich experience gained through their struggles, but whatever
was spurious and uncanonical that, together with the baton of the struggle,
they left to them as an unfortunate legacy owing to their limited education. For
this reason, no prophetic gift is required to foresee that the aforementioned
monks will oppose this regenerative and salutary movement, should God ever be
pleased that it come into being under the conditions and with the aims set
forth above. To confirm our suspicions, it is enough to note the fact that,
although several months have passed since the circulation of the condemnable
Encyclical, they have taken no courageous action against it. On the contrary,
some of them, through culpable silence, and others through scandalous activity
in support of the mindset of the Auxentian Synod, are seeking once again to
become responsible for, and advocates of, the propagation of the erroneous
Matthewite mindset, which they are now attempting to revive and establish as
the Creed and Statutory Charter of the struggle!!
And while Archbishop Auxentios
writes to them in a personal letter dated February 2, 1975, which was also
recently published in The Voice of Orthodoxy (Issue 709, p. 9), that
“whoever does not accept this Encyclical is not an Old Calendarist, but
deceives and exploits the Old Calendarists,” not one of those who disagreed
dared to say to him: “We are Old Calendarists, and we reject your Encyclical;
and we fraternally urge you to go to Keratea, where you belong”!
The most distressing thing,
however, is that the same may also be observed in their attitude toward the
continuing culpable communion—on the basis of what has been said above—of the
leadership of the G.O.C. with the Russian Church Abroad. For although the
Zealot Athonite Fathers here have been struggling heroically since 1924 against
every form of innovation and false teaching, and for this reason have even
severed ecclesiastical communion with their superior ecclesiastical
authorities, nevertheless they have shown no corresponding concern or zeal
regarding the aforementioned canonical irregularities, thereby rendering, as it
were, their own struggle and confession vain and fruitless. Thus, these
otherwise praiseworthy Fathers appear timid and speechless before those who
undermine the struggle and exploit its healthy mindset, forgetting, surely,
that such conduct inevitably places them, on the one hand, on the same footing
as the schismatic conventicle of the Matthewites and, on the other, brings them
into communion with those very persons whom they repudiated whole decades
ago...
As for the conduct of the Zealots
described above—fortunately, not of all of them—we were not greatly surprised,
since we know well that in 1937 they too were the principal supporters of the
Matthewite schism. We are perplexed, however, by the stance of the Holy
Monastery of Esphigmenou, which, despite the fact that nearly a year has
elapsed since the issuance of the Encyclical by the leadership at Kaningos 32,
and despite its continuing communion with the Russian Church Abroad—as we also
emphasized above—continues, wholly without justification, to aggravate its
position through an impermissible silence and indifference, thereby
compromising the prestige of its praiseworthy anti-unionist confession.
3. The Scandalous
Uncanonical Practice of Unmarried Clergy Residing in Convents
As we observed at the outset,
notwithstanding our agreement with all the articles of the resolution of the
conference held in Thessaloniki, let us be permitted to point out here one most
serious omission: namely, its failure to condemn the residence (including
overnight stays) of unmarried clergy in convents—the practice of the syneisaktoi.
Moral purification can never be achieved so long as this unlawful practice
continues, which, according to the testimony of competent persons, keeps the
sacred clergy in a state of continual corruption and decline.
A clergyman who is constantly
moving about among nuns can accomplish nothing good! The words of the sacred
Canons and the Holy Fathers on this matter are perfectly clear, and every
justification offered by those who think and live otherwise testifies to nothing
other than the existing malady, which, the more it is concealed and justified
under countless and varied pretexts, the more clearly reveals both its
seriousness and the grievous condition of its victims. A bishop, and indeed
every clergyman in general, must devote all his diligence, care, and dedication
wholeheartedly and equally to his entire flock, and not restrict and expend
them upon a monastery which, to the scandal of the faithful, in violation of the
sacred Canons, and—more tragically still—to the neglect of the general duties
of his Diocese and Church, he has made his base and residence!
Consequently, the continuation of
the above canonical irregularity can bring about not purification, but moral
decline and the complete collapse of the prestige of the sacred struggle, as is
clearly demonstrated by an assessment of its fruitless and corrupting results.
Concluding Remarks
— Conclusions
These are the observations we
wished to make briefly and in all sincerity, as spokesmen for God, concerning
the existing inconsistencies and canonical irregularities and the painful
crisis in the leadership of the struggle. We would add, finally, that if those
who, as they maintain, desire the purification and regeneration of the Church
of the G.O.C. succeed in implementing, together with what was proclaimed by the
Thessaloniki conference, the above three fundamental requirements as well, then
they may rest assured that, even if their fellow hierarchs ultimately reject
the hand of cooperation so fraternally extended to them, they have every right
and obligation to proceed with the completion of the reorganization of the
struggle, BUT ALWAYS UNDER THE ABOVE THREE BASIC CONDITIONS, which alone are
capable of demonstrating the degree of sincerity in their declarations. Any
reaction or movement on their part
lacking the healthy and indispensable elements described above will contribute
nothing to the sacred cause of the Old Calendarist movement except the creation
of a harmful and culpable schism—a situation new in name only, while in reality
it will be the same malady...
Nor should the pious pleroma
(clergy and laity, and especially the holy monasteries) fail to realize that,
if it shows partiality or remains silent in the face of such a critical
situation, or fails to take care to inform itself and, to the best of its
ability, to defend the truth in this matter without any ulterior motive or
personality cult, it will not remain free from responsibility and guilt! For it
is precisely the indifference of the flock that, as always happens, emboldens
bad leaders and thus makes the flock itself an accomplice, allowing error and
lawlessness to persist—just as is happening to a great extent with the New
Calendarist people, who today, after the uncanonical calendar innovation, are
reaping the fruits of the ecumenist tempest...
FOR THESE REASONS
Just as, years ago, we duly acted
toward our local superior ecclesiastical authority, 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 by the present statement 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 regarded as being in communion with
us—on account of its deviation and fall from canonical order and from the purpose
of the sacred struggle, as has been sufficiently set forth in sections 1 and 2
above. Henceforth we shall commune only with those among its clergy and laity
who, not accepting the above canonical irregularities, will cooperate in
accordance with the positions set forth in the present Declaration.
We believe that the Builder of
the Church, Who at the outset blessed the sacred struggle through various
signs, both manifest and hidden, will not ultimately permit it today—when
heresy is brazenly raising its head—to be ingloriously destroyed on account of
its unworthy leaders, but will soon raise up men of aspiration and prudence,
capable and worthy of shepherding the elect remnant of the new Israel of Grace.
These may come from the ranks of the New Calendar or the Old Calendar
respectively, but with one desire and one longing: to preserve the uninnovated
character and genuineness of the Orthodox proclamation, far removed from every
adulteration or exploitation of sacred and holy things...
Finally, greeting in the Lord
everyone who embraces this 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).
On the Holy Mountain, March 25,
1975
Hieromonk Maximos
Monk Kallinikos
Monk Theodoretos
Monk Basil
Greek source: Ὀρθόδοξος Λόγος, Athens, No. 14, May
1975.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.