Zealot Walling-Off: Further Clarification

The Purpose and Deviation of the G.O.C.

Greek source: Ἀποστασία καὶ Διχασμός: Μελέτη–Ἀπάντησις [Apostasy and Division: A Study–Reply], by Athonite Fathers (Hieromonk Maximos Agiovasileiatis and Monk Basil Agiovasileiatis), “Agioreiton Pateron” Editions, Athens, 1981, pp. 69-82.

 

 

2. Purpose of the Sacred Struggle of the G.O.C.

Such, from the beginning (1902) until the present day, has been the state of apostasy created by the shepherds of the Church—both its direct perpetrators and their collaborators—which, when viewed canonically, is utterly condemnable and unacceptable to the genuine “Conscience of the Church,” together with the inexcusable and characteristic indifference of the Hierarchs of the individual Churches. These, in no way responding to the duty incumbent upon them “in piety and righteousness,” have to this day disdained to take the position required of them in the face of this situation. These things justly aroused the sacred indignation of the abandoned Pleroma of the Church and compelled it to raise an uninnovating voice of active protest and canonical disapproval. [43]

The uninnovating Pleroma of the Church of Greece, consisting of the truly Genuine Orthodox Christians (G.O.C.), from the very creation of the Calendar Schism, began to resist, with a distinctive Patristic spirit of struggle and boldness, the apostasy which has continued ever since and has increased day by day. Thus, through its walled-off separation in 1924 from its then-innovating Hierarchy, in accordance with what is canonically enjoined by the Church, it laid full canonical and ecclesiological foundations for the purpose of the Old Calendarist struggle which it had undertaken.

The exact and unalterable observance of the objective purpose of the sacred struggle of the G.O.C., which secures unimpeachable ecclesiological foundations, concerns the preservation of the Orthodox character of the Uninnovating Pleroma of the Church. This purpose is achieved so long as, through its walled-off separation, this Pleroma remains uninvolved in the Calendar Schism and in the Ecumenist heresy now being proclaimed, in which the already condemned Hierarchy of the Church of Greece is implicated. It is likewise achieved so long as the uninnovating course of the Pleroma canonically continues “its mission and its history in the Orthodox sense.” The ultimate purpose of this active protest by the Uninnovating Pleroma of the Church is the definitive restoration of canonical good order and unity, given that the disruption of liturgical unity within the universal Church, caused by the Calendar Schism, has destroyed the external mark of her unity. [44] This theological foundation renders the purpose of the Old Calendarist struggle unassailable, firmly established, and valid. For this reason, the uninnovating Pleroma of the Church (the G.O.C.) engaged in this struggle, precisely on the basis of this purpose, finds itself and remains proceeding “within the Church,” insofar as it thereby safeguards and preserves, without innovation, her Orthodox understanding and standing.

Accordingly, the “Uninnovating Pleroma” of the Church of Greece (the G.O.C.), by pursuing a course in accordance with the canonical and traditional Patristic course, became the guardian and “protector of its Faith,” in accordance with the aforementioned declaration of the Patriarchs of the East (1848), provided, of course, that it remains wholly unrelated to and independent of the ecclesiologically erring “Church of the G.O.C. of Greece.”

The canonically grounded act of the walled-off separation of this Pleroma from its ecclesiastical Hierarchy, which is erring “in piety and righteousness,” and which frees it from the guilt, responsibility, and liability to judgment arising from the schism and heresy existing “potentially,” constitutes a complete and clear means of safeguarding the “Orthodox understanding” and ecclesiological reality of its Church, within which, according to every principle of divine and ecclesiastical law, it duly stands.

Hence, in the present case, the “Orthodox understanding” and ecclesiological identity of the Church of Greece are safeguarded ONLY through the uninnovating line and direction of her Pleroma. Only on this SOLE condition is the existence of the “Uninnovating Pleroma” (of the G.O.C.) within the Church of Greece, and its ecclesiological standing within her, to be understood. In other words, the Church of Greece cannot be constituted, ecclesiologically and canonically and “in the Orthodox sense,” either by the “erring...” Hierarchy of Greece, or by its innovating Pleroma, or by the self-styled “Church of the G.O.C. of Greece,” but, by Divine Law, ONLY by her “Uninnovating Pleroma,” even if this consists of “two or three gathered together in the Name of Christ... and abiding in the truth of the Orthodox Faith.”

The right arising from the “Orthodox understanding,” character, and ecclesiological standing of the Uninnovating Pleroma (of the G.O.C.) of the Church of Greece is, when considered from both the ecclesiastical and legal standpoints, inalienable. Accordingly, this right may be freely exercised and asserted before every lawful ecclesiastical and civil authority and power, as constituting the “Genuine Conscience of the Church,” that is, her “supreme authority,” which, according to the “Practice of the Church,” is capable of ratifying or invalidating even decisions of Ecumenical Councils, whose “ecumenical authority it seals.” [45]

And this is so because the Hierarchy of the Church of Greece, having deviated through the aforementioned acts—as continuing the schism of 1924 and being in communion with the Ecumenist heresy—ceased to preserve without innovation the Orthodox understanding and character of the Church of Greece, since it no longer safeguards the UNITY of the Church. For both the Constitution presently in force and Ecclesiastical and Canon Law “do not protect whichever particular Synod happens to exist at a given time, but rather the Synod that observes the Canons... unwaveringly.” (And especially those Canons relating to the dogmatic condition of the unity of the Church, which unity, in the present case, is safeguarded by the “Uninnovating Pleroma” of the Church—emphasis ours.) (Cf. the Report of A. N. Marinos, Councillor of State, in Orthodoxos Typos, 1981, no. 452, p. 4.)

3. Deviation of the G.O.C. “Leadership”

The general conception and significance of the above-mentioned purpose—upon which, it should be noted, the act of walled-off separation of this Uninnovating Pleroma of the Church of Greece from its innovating Hierarchy in 1924 is founded in Canon Law, and in accordance with which the founding Episcopal Leadership of the sacred struggle of the G.O.C. proceeded during the first years of its canonical, unerring, and uninfluenced pastoral governance—is radically OVERTURNED and REPUDIATED, in an entirely uncanonical and arbitrary manner, with all the ecclesiological ramifications and consequences arising therefrom, by the PRESENT-DAY “LEADERSHIP” of the G.O.C. of Greece. It should be noted that this entire “Leadership”—of all the parties—is of one mind among itself and remains a faithful adherent of the erroneous position concerning the “... Mysteries,” even to the present day!

This was officially proclaimed as a decision by the above-mentioned “Leadership” of the G.O.C. in its published Encyclical no. 1191/5 June 1974, by which the Mysteries celebrated by the New Calendarists are declared to be devoid of Divine Grace. Consequently, the Church of Greece is also declared by it to be schismatic “in actuality,” while it is further emphasized that “whoever does not accept this Encyclical is not an Old Calendarist, but deceives and exploits the Old Calendarists”!

The position proclaimed through this “decision,” “openly and publicly in the Church,” is judged canonically to be seriously contrary to the relevant provisions in this matter and to the polity of the Church. Consequently, being devoid of any ecclesiological foundation, it is condemnable and unacceptable for the following reasons:

1. Because the “Leadership” of the G.O.C. of Greece does not acknowledge that it constitutes the ecclesiastical leadership of the Uninnovating Pleroma of the Church of Greece, without rights of “hierarchical authority,” but has proclaimed itself to be another, separate Church of its own, the so-called “Church of the G.O.C. of Greece.”

2. Because this act constitutes, on the one hand, a usurpation of synodal right and authority, and, on the other, an overstepping of the canonical right of walled-off separation, so that, instead of the “salutary” result for the Church that should come through such separation, the opposite results—namely, “divisions and schisms” within her (Canon 15 of the First-Second Council).

3. Because, canonically, no individual Local Church possesses the right, by a decision of “Synodal judgment,” to declare the Mysteries of a Church invalid (or to declare that grace has been lost from them)—much less an unrecognized body such as the so-called G.O.C.—but only a Council representing the universal Church, Ecumenical or Pan-Orthodox, which would first declare a Church to be Heretical or Schismatic (that is, “in actuality”—what had previously been latent), thereafter out of communion, and finally devoid of sacramental grace.

4. Because, while it proclaims the loss of grace... and mandates rechrismation in connection with the Mystery of Baptism, nevertheless it regards its own episcopacy as valid, even though this derives in part from a New Calendarist hierarch; while, furthermore, it receives New Calendarist priests by means of a simple absolution prayer for penitents, which, as is natural, is read with the laying on of the spiritual father’s hand—the so-called “cheirothesia” according to them—and by means of a “confession.” *

5. Because the act of the “Leadership” of the G.O.C.—that is, its self-proclamation as a Church—apart from lacking ecclesiastical authority and validity, utterly destroys the aforementioned purpose and mission of the Old Calendarist struggle, upon which depend the existence and establishment of the Uninnovating Pleroma within the Church of Greece, whose aim, as stated above, is to safeguard her ecclesial identity and to continue her mission and “her history in the Orthodox sense” and character. Furthermore, the declaration, by the G.O.C. as a Church, “by Synodal judgment” of the invalidity of the New Calendarist Mysteries clearly constitutes a blasphemous expression against the Holy Spirit, while at the same time rendering the grounds for their walled-off separation from the Church of Greece devoid of canonical foundation.

6. The arbitrary and erroneous character of the aforementioned decision of the G.O.C. concerning the “... Mysteries” is evident, in addition to the foregoing, from the fact that even the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad, which the “Leadership” of the G.O.C. ** supposes to be of one mind with it and considers to be in communion with it, holds a position entirely contrary to its own, declaring in this regard: “With respect to the question of whether grace exists among the New Calendarists or not, the Orthodox Church Abroad does not consider any official or Local Church to possess the authority to render a final decision, until a definitive ruling on this matter is made solely by a canonically convened competent Ecumenical Council, with the necessary participation of a free Russian Church” (September 12/25, 1974).

As regards the actual and true position of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad, and the direction and course followed by it, it should be noted that until the beginning of 1970, these were not precisely known, since this Synod was in fact regarded by the Uninnovating Pleroma of the G.O.C. in Greece, as well as by us Athonite Fathers, as the sole Orthodox Church proceeding without innovation and as a faithful adherent of “Canonical Ecclesiastical Exactitude” in confronting both the Calendar Schism existing since 1924 and the Ecumenist heresy subsequently proclaimed down to the present day. The various actual events that followed thereafter, however, as they unfolded, revealed the ecclesiastical situation presently prevailing in the Church Abroad to be entirely different from what had been supposed above, owing to its manifest departure from the standard of applying “Canonical Ecclesiastical Exactitude” in the pressing and most fundamental matter of its ecclesiastical communion with other Churches that do not proceed without innovation.

The fact that the Ecumenist-minded Archbishop Anthony of Geneva (who had been accused as such by Presbyter Basil Sakkas of Geneva) was vindicated by the Great Council of the Hierarchy of the Church Abroad held in Canada in 1974, together with the condemnation of the latter and the inclusion therein of the “report” submitted there by the former, attests to and confirms the certainty that such communion is being maintained (see the relevant discussion of this matter in Memorandum–Report..., Mount Athos, 1979, pp. 4–7).

For this reason, the Uninnovating Pleroma of the Church (the G.O.C.) of Greece is unable to maintain ecclesiastical communion with the aforementioned Russian Diaspora, or to place itself under and become ecclesiastically dependent upon it. Nevertheless, it would be highly desirable, and indeed the fulfillment of a just aspiration of the Uninnovating Pleroma, if the binding canonical considerations concerning ecclesiastical communion were seriously and duly taken into account by the Holy Synod of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad, so that, through a forthright declaration and confession on this matter, it might thereby be enabled to preserve the uninnovating Apostolic Succession within the universal Church.

Only in this way could the Uninnovating Pleroma of the Church of Greece (the G.O.C.), which is already canonically separated from its present “erring” “Leadership,” conscientiously entrust its complete ecclesiastical dependence and spiritual guardianship to the aforementioned Holy Synod (of the Diaspora), in the event that no Orthodox Hierarch proceeding without innovation should appear in Greece, or if none of the Bishops of the present-day “Leadership” of the G.O.C. should be willing to recognize the enormous responsibility arising from the manifest decline of the sacred struggle of the G.O.C. through their own fault, and resolve openly and clearly to repudiate the reasons and causes of this decline, with a view to the emergence of a new, worthy, and canonical Leadership of the sacred struggle of the G.O.C., that is, of the Uninnovating Pleroma of the Church.

It should be noted here that, with regard to all the matters discussed in this Chapter—namely, the purpose of the struggle, the right of walled-off separation, the erroneous situation, and so forth—the entire present-day “Leadership” of the G.O.C. of Greece has in the past been duly informed through successive written communications and oral reminders and admonitions. Nevertheless, despite all the foregoing, it continues, as it ought not, along its own ideological line and course, showing no disposition whatsoever to retract its erroneous position—the Lord knows for what reason—and, as usual, always invoking in this regard considerations of expediency, which admittedly place it outside the bounds of canonical conscience.

In this way, the “Leadership” in question appears to have been wholly unwilling to understand the indisputable ecclesiological truth according to which its walled-off separation from its erring ecclesiastical Hierarchy is canonically grounded, in accordance with the aforementioned canonical provisions, ONLY insofar as it constitutes the Uninnovating Pleroma of the Church of Greece (comprising clergy and laity of every rank and order, together, of course, with its corresponding ecclesiastical Leadership), and not as the “Church of the G.O.C. of Greece.” For the latter constitutes an overstepping of canonical jurisdiction, which inevitably creates a situation gravely contrary to the relevant provisions of the Church. [46] This, moreover, was sufficiently censured by the one-time rightly proceeding Leader of the sacred struggle of the G.O.C., the late Metropolitan Chrysostomos, formerly of Florina, in his detailed “Clarification” of his Pastoral Encyclical dated January 18, 1945—a “Clarification” which, it should be noted, could not be revoked for any canonical reason, not even by its own author—in which the following characteristic statements are made, highly pertinent to the extremely chaotic and deplorable present-day condition of the “Leadership” of the G.O.C. [47]:

“According to the spirit of the divine and sacred Canons and the administrative polity of the Orthodox Eastern Church, in the event that a portion of the clergy and laity, for ecclesiastical and canonical reasons, breaks ecclesiastical communion with the presiding Authority and, for reasons of religious conscience, separates from the governing Hierarchy and establishes its own altar, however much, through its separate worship, its own houses of prayer, and its own ministers, it may appear to constitute a separate Church from that from which it separated, nevertheless, canonically, it does not cease to belong to that same one and indivisible Church... (as constituting) an undefiled and inseparable part of her... (that is, her Uninnovating Pleroma), whose history it continues in the pure and uncorrupted form of the genuine and Orthodox understanding... And this until the dispute (between the Pleroma proceeding without innovation and the Hierarchy that introduced the innovation)... is adjudicated by a Greater Council, in which all the individual Orthodox Churches are represented.”

“But until this is done, ... insofar as (the Pleroma proceeding without innovation) has not received from the Greater Council the right and authorization to represent and exercise authority over the Church, it is indeed entitled to break ecclesiastical communion with the former and to cease commemorating him; nevertheless, although entirely Orthodox in all respects, ... it cannot maintain that it, and it alone, constitutes the one and indivisible Local Orthodox Church” (see the above-mentioned Clarification, pp. 8–9).

The position concerning the “... Mysteries” officially proclaimed in this case by the “Leadership” of the G.O.C. is judged not only to be erroneous and condemnable. It is also regarded as unacceptable because it is based on purely opportunistic considerations, as is evident from the very words of those who hold this position, for they say:

“It should not be said, much less written, that the Hierarchs who introduced the calendar innovation will be deprived of grace and of the right to impart it to the faithful only when they have been declared Schismatics ‘in actuality’ and deposed by a Greater Council, because this not only fails to benefit our sacred struggle, but actually harms it through the defection of our followers from our Orthodox faction, who are held within it by the idea that the New Calendarist clergy, even before being declared Schismatics by a Council, lack the power validly to perform any sacred rite. But this assertion, besides being erroneous, also contains a certain element of demagoguery and deception of the faithful, which is contrary to the divine mission of the Church, which is obliged everywhere and always rightly to divide the word of truth, as well as to the honor and ideology of our sacred struggle.... The error of this assertion lies in the mistaken notion that the Old Calendarists remained faithful to the traditions of their fathers because the Church of the New Calendarists had thereby been deprived of Divine Grace.... The informed Old Calendarists of our Orthodox party (and not Church), however, know well that adherence to the old festal calendar does not derive from whether the Mysteries of the New Calendarists are valid or invalid, a matter upon which ONLY a legitimate Council has the right to pronounce....”

“The demagogic and exploitative character of the contrary opinion lies, on the one hand, in the hope of gaining additional adherents to the traditional calendar by brandishing as a threat the invalidity of the Mysteries of the New Calendarists, and, on the other hand, in retaining their existing adherents, especially those who are credulous and lukewarm in our sacred struggle. But the use of such demagogic and illicit means to recruit adherents to our Orthodox party may perhaps be permitted by the Latin Church, which adopts as an ethical maxim the Jesuit saying, ‘the end justifies the means,’ but not by the Orthodox Eastern Church, which always rightly divides the word of truth” (Clarification, cited above, pp. 11–12).

By virtue of the canonical and ecclesiological reasons and criteria set forth above, it is clearly demonstrated that the present-day “Leadership” of the G.O.C. of Greece, as a whole, stands in complete opposition to the fundamental purpose and mission of the sacred struggle of the Uninnovating Pleroma of the Church. Consequently, when judged according to the Canonical Practice of the Church, it is also liable to judgment before a legitimate Orthodox-minded Synod. For this reason, it can no longer rightfully represent, as its Leadership, the sacred struggle of the G.O.C. of Greece.

And since this “Leadership” may perhaps characterize as “headless” the Uninnovating Pleroma of the Church, consisting of Old Calendarist faithful, clergy and laity, which is no longer subject to it and which, by virtue of the aforementioned canonical reasons, has duly broken ecclesiastical communion with it, the following must be emphasized: this “Leadership,” as has been duly explained above, insofar as through its ecclesiological decline in both its thinking and its conduct of the sacred struggle of the Pleroma of the G.O.C. it stands canonically “condemned” and “denounced” by the genuine Conscience of the pious Pleroma of the faithful, [48] HAS FOR THAT REASON CEASED TO CONSTITUTE ITS CANONICAL LEADERSHIP! And this quite apart from its manifold decline and fragmentation into NUMEROUS “LEADERSHIPS,” culminating in the complete degradation of the episcopal office through the episcopal consecrations recently carried out by it, and in the general undermining of the spiritual prestige of the pious, struggling, Uninnovating Pleroma of the truly Genuine Orthodox Christians.

The Uninnovating Pleroma, therefore, until the emergence of its proper Orthodox-minded and irreproachable episcopal Leadership, being ecclesiologically grounded as stated above, is not justified in maintaining any ecclesiastical communion with the aforementioned fallen “Leadership,” except with the pious and irreproachable clergy of the G.O.C. who think and proceed rightly and without error, and who repudiate the erroneous positions of the aforementioned “Leadership”; by such clergy it ought also to be shepherded. For only in this way can this Pleroma not be regarded as headless, without a bishop, or as a parasynagogue, insofar as, “distinguishing” itself from its “erring” bishops, it seeks the true Bishop who thinks and proceeds without innovation, as the healthy and living Head of the Church. [49]

For this reason, the faithful Pleroma of the G.O.C., clergy and laity, must make it a matter of conscience to secure the theological purification and safeguarding of its sacred struggle and to establish it upon an unimpeachable canonical foundation, as has been extensively set forth above. For only when it becomes free from the responsibility arising from its ecclesiastical communion with the aforementioned deviant “Leadership” will it be able to preserve its Orthodox character; and only then will it truly constitute a genuine part of the Uninnovating Pleroma of the Church of Greece, thereby ecclesiologically safeguarding both the purpose of the sacred struggle and that of its walled-off separation from the deviant Hierarchy of Greece, and thus securely placing itself on a course WITHIN the Church.

This obligatory duty has particular significance for the clergy of the Pleroma of the G.O.C., which, by virtue of its position, performs the Church’s preeminent pastoral work and, together with suitable representatives from among the laity, is called upon today responsibly to UNDERTAKE the salutary REORGANIZATION of this sacred struggle and the Orthodox guidance, without innovation, of its flock, since, for the present at least, there can be no question of subjecting the rightly believing Pleroma (clergy and laity) to the present-day “Leadership” of the G.O.C., which stands canonically “condemned.”

Parallel to the position and mission of the clergy, corresponding obligations and rights also belong, in this matter, to the lay faithful of the pious Pleroma of the G.O.C. Hence, in view of the deplorable situation that has thus developed, it is an incumbent duty upon them duly to REQUIRE of their pious clergy that they undertake, fully and in every respect, THEIR SPIRITUAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL PASTORAL CARE AND, IN GENERAL, THEIR GUIDANCE AND OVERSIGHT, so that in this way they may render the purpose of the sacred struggle of the G.O.C. truly unimpeachable.

After the fulfillment of this sacred obligation, which the mission of the clergy duly enjoins and requires, it will surely be directed toward a canonical and worthy Episcopal Leadership, whenever and however the Divine Counsel of the Lord knows. This, moreover, also occurred during the first years of the sacred struggle (1924–1935), when the Lord deemed the pious Pleroma of the G.O.C. worthy of its uninnovating founding Leadership.

If today it should choose to follow the uninnovating line and course laid down by that Leadership, free from “deviations and extremes,” what is impossible for the Divine Counsel and Providence of the Lord, that He should “bring forth one worthy from among the unworthy,” even from the Hierarchy of Greece itself, and thus once again deem this pious Pleroma worthy, as in the past, of an Orthodox-minded, lawful, and canonical Ecclesiastical Leadership?

Thereafter, both the clergy and the pious Pleroma of the G.O.C., by thus safeguarding their Orthodox identity, will assuredly preserve an “Uninnovating Altar” and a “pure sacrifice,” being freed from every notion and character of a parasynagogue.

Finally, this constitutes an element and an indispensable prerequisite for safeguarding the canonical standing and the overall purpose and mission of the sacred struggle of the “Uninnovating Pleroma” of the Church, for her good and for the safeguarding of our Holy Orthodox Faith.

 

NOTES

* But the “confession” certainly restores the one making it—and repudiating the innovation, schism, or heresy (whether priest or lay believer)—to the right faith and mindset, while the prayer of absolution places him within the Uninnovating Pleroma of the faithful of the Church.

The question of the New Calendarist priest, however, if considered on the basis of the position proclaimed by the “Leadership” of the G.O.C.—namely, the loss of Divine Grace from the New Calendarist Mysteries—must be examined as to whether the ordained New Calendarist priest possesses the priesthood or not. For if he does possess the priesthood (as in fact he truly does), then he certainly celebrates valid Mysteries, irrespective of whether this priest, “because of his own sins”—in the present case, because of the sin of his communion with those who are schismatics and heretics “potentially”—is himself personally “hindered from [receiving] the grace of the Holy Spirit from the Gifts set forth” (Divine Liturgy of St. Basil the Great), that is, from the Divine Mysteries, which he has validly celebrated by virtue of the priesthood that has not yet been “suspended” in his case by a Synodal decision, something which could occur by reason of deposition, excommunication, or exclusion from communion.

But how is it possible, according to the position of the “Leadership” of the G.O.C., for the Hierarch who ordains the New Calendarist priest to perform a valid ordination, if—according always to the aforementioned position—the grace of the Holy Spirit does not operate in the Mystery of the Priesthood performed by him, having been lost?

** We say “supposes” because, as we explain below, the Russian Church Abroad in no way agrees or proceeds in accord with the position and course of the present-day “Leadership” of the G.O.C. of Greece, either with regard to the invalidity of the Mysteries (among the New Calendarists) or with regard to its ecclesiastical communion with other Churches, whether of the New or Old Calendar. Nevertheless, the “Leadership” in question endeavors and seeks to maintain communion with the Russian Church Abroad, apparently for reasons of expediency.

Hence, according to the belief of the “Leadership” of the G.O.C., the Priesthood of New Calendarist priests cannot be regarded as valid, owing to the absence of the “lost” grace of the Holy Spirit necessary for the completion of this Mystery! This theory and position cannot but be judged erroneous, for only an Ecumenical Council, by a specific act and decision, can decree the “suspension” of the always indelible Priesthood from a Local Church and declare its Mysteries devoid of Divine Grace—something which, in the present case, the “Leadership” of the G.O.C. has done entirely arbitrarily, as though acting as a super-synod! Nevertheless, in complete inconsistency with its own belief, it recognizes the validity of the Priesthood of New Calendarist priests, as stated above, by means of a simple prayer of absolution!

The fact, moreover, that this “Church” of the G.O.C. is devoid of canonical standing is evident from the consideration that the Hierarchy of the Church of Greece, which is liable to judgment—as likewise are all the innovating Hierarchies and those in communion with them—has not been judged by an Orthodox-minded Ecumenical or Pan-Orthodox Council and has not undergone a “suspension” of the sanctifying grace operative within it (that is, in other words, the Priesthood within these Churches has not been rendered inoperative). This indicates and signifies that these Churches are not “in actuality” out of communion, nor “in actuality” Schismatic or Heretical.

For this reason, the case of schism or heresy existing “potentially” does not constitute a prerequisite providing lawful grounds for the creation of another Church possessing canonical authority and ecclesiological standing, as the parasynagogue-forming “Leadership” of the G.O.C. of Greece has done in an entirely arbitrary manner.

The above-described course and position of the present-day “Leadership” as a whole of the so-called Church of the G.O.C. of Greece constitutes the fundamental cause of its self-proclamation as a Church, thereby depriving it of the dogmatic condition of unity with the universal Church and of recognition even by a single individual Local Church, given that even the Russian Church Abroad itself differs radically, both in principle and in practice, from this position and course.

Furthermore, the belief of the “Leadership” of the G.O.C. as a Church, besides rendering its very existence devoid of any canonical foundation, as stated above, and depriving it of every valid ecclesiastical-synodal right, also renders unacceptable and rejectable for it the ONLY basic and fundamental ecclesiological justification and theological basis of the G.O.C.: namely, that, according to Canon Law, they constitute the “Uninnovating Pleroma” of the Church of Greece. This, however, constitutes and signifies nothing other, for the “Leadership” in question, than a self-willed and deliberate act on its part, which inevitably places it OUTSIDE the universal Church, in the sense of the condition of her indivisible unity.

The foregoing clarification now clearly sets forth the entirely different direction and position that exist between the “Church of the G.O.C. of Greece” and the “Uninnovating Pleroma” (of the G.O.C.) of the Church of Greece (both being Old Calendarist), as well as which of them possess canonical ecclesiological standing and which, likewise, are devoid of it, as being in a parasynagogue.

It should therefore be emphasized, in view of the foregoing, that all the Churches of Orthodoxy, taking into account the aforementioned differing situation of the Old Calendarists of Greece, are OBLIGED to DISTINGUISH properly which of them they may IGNORE, as they themselves suppose, although the preeminent work of the Church is not to ignore those who have gone astray, but rather to strive to seek them out and gather them in, with a view to their restoration and salvation within the rational flock of Christ.

In view of the foregoing, it is inconceivable that the individual Orthodox Churches should IGNORE the Old Calendarists of Greece (even those among them who have gone astray), since their ecclesiological deviation is due, to a considerable extent, to the wrongly understood and applied “ecclesiastical economy” of ecclesiastical communion maintained by the aforementioned Churches among themselves—an economy which they continue to apply, with such harmful consequences, toward the Hierarchy of Greece and the other New Calendarist Hierarchies, resulting in the consolidation of the Calendar Schism and the Ecumenist Heresy.

 

FOOTNOES

43. S. Karamitsos, The Agony..., Athens, 1961, p. 73.

44. Monk Theodoretos, A Canonical Consideration of the Calendar Schism, Athens, 1976, pp. 20–21.

45. Ioannis Karmiris, Orthodox Ecclesiology, cited above, p. 349, n. 2.

46. Athonite Fathers, Memorandum–Report, cited above, pp. 1–4.

47. Athonite Fathers, Confession–Appeal, cited above, pp. 38–40.

48. Athonite Fathers, Confession–Appeal, cited above, pp. 36–38.

49. Athonite Fathers, Confession–Appeal, cited above, p. 42.