Chrysostomos of Phlorina

8/8/2019 Chrysostomos of Phlorina

1/18

1

Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Phlorina:An Heroic Confessor of the Faith

and Restorer of HallowedTraditions

His Grace, ishop Klemes (lement) o Gardikion,Secretary o the Holy Synod in Resistance

EVEN as ecumenism charges orth in all o its orms, pronounce-ments, and maniestationsindeed, precisely at the outset o apotentially decisive meeting o the concessionary theological dialogue

between Orthodox and Roman atholics in ienna, ustriawecommemorate at the Liturgy three anniversaries o a leading gure incontemporary Orthodoxy: the th anniversary o the repose in theLord o Metropolitan hrysostomos (Kabourides) o Phlorina, theth anniversary o the initiation o his struggle as a onessor or the

His Grace has in mind, here, the numerous compromises made by the Orthodoxparticipants in this ongoing dialogue. For example, having originally insisted on theexclusion o Uniates rom any o the deliberations o the dialogue, the Orthodoxhave now acquiesced to the presence o Uniate clergy. Tus, at the Seventh Meet-ing o the Dialogue in 13, in alamand, Lebanon, almost one third o the Romanatholic participants in the dialogue were Uniatesrans.

Te welth Meeting o the Joint nternational ommission or the TeologicalDialogue etween the Roman atholic hurch and the Orthodox hurchrans.

On the fifty-fifth Anniversary of the

Repose of The Confessor-Hierarch

Metropolitan Chrysostomos(Kabourides), of Phlorina

(1955)


2/18

2

raditions o the Holy Fathers, and the1th anniversary o his birth in Mady-tos, Eastern Trace.

Our celebration is not untimely, and

his multiarious messages are not unre-lated to the tragic realities o the hurchtoday.

From history, we are aware that, evenas ar back as postolic times, the mys-tery o iniquity has been active and at

work, be it openly or in hidden manner.ts ulterior purpose is to impede and, ipossible, to thwart the mystery o salva-tion within the mystery o the one and unique hurch o hrist, andin particular by adulterating the ruth o the Faith through heresies.Te aim o the mystery o iniquity is to bring about the spread anddomination o apostasy,4 which, at its apogee, will beget and disclose

the man o sin..., the son o perdition,5 to wit, the ntichrist, or thenal tribulation o the hurch prior to the Second and glorious om-ing o our Lord Jesus hrist.

* * *

Te great heresyo Papism, which was cut away rom the hurch

in the eleventh century, has unleashed, as is well known, an uncontrol-lable torrent o innovations and alse teachings. One o these was theconcoction, in the sixteenth century, o the so-called Gregorian al-endar, which was condemned by three Pan-Orthodox Synods in on-stantinople, in 13, 1, and 13. Since then, the persistence o theLatins in oisting their calendar innovation on the Orthodox hurchhas been looked upon as Papal intrigue and was categorically rejected

by Orthodoxy up until the beginning o the twentieth century. II Tessalonians 2:.4 II Tessalonians 2:3.5 II Tessalonians 2:3. t is striking that Metropolitan hrysostomos, in his essay - [o the Greek Orthodox ntellectuals], which hewrote in the wake o his return to the Old alendar in 13, summarizing the attitude


3/18

3

n 12, the Encyclical o the cumenical Patriarchate o on-stantinople o the hurches o hrist Everywhere proclaimedthe ecclesiological heresy o ecumenism in the midst o the Ortho-dox hurch, proposing as a rst practical measure or rapprochement

with the heterodox a common calendar or the joint celebration o thehristian Feasts.

Te ecumenist ongress o 123 in onstantinople, under Patri-arch Meletios (Metaxakes), a Freemason, decided on the calendarinnovation, with the intention o also changing the Paschalion, along

with a series o ecclesiastical reorms, so as to abrogate and trampleupon the Sacred anons and the radition o the hurch.

n 12, the cumenical Patriarchate unilaterally resolved, aterexerting suitable pressure on rchbishop hrysostomos o thens,to impose the calendar innovation on just a ew o the local Ortho-dox hurches. Te hurch was divided and sundered into innova-tionists and anti-innovationists, with regard to the issue o the alen-dar. small ock in our country [Greecerans.], which increased

daily, initially without Hierarchs, resisted in a sel-sacricial mannerthis pro-heretical imposition, which lacked any ecclesiastical, canoni-cal, or pastoral oundation, being based solely on worldly and pseudo-scientic arguments.

o the Orthodox hurch to the Papal calendar innovation, addressed the innovation-ist rchbishop hrysostomos (Papadopoulos) with the ollowing series o questions:

(I) Why did the six remaining cumenical Synods, ater the First cumeni-cal Synod, which determined that the Feast o Pascha should be celebrated on therst Sunday ater the ull moon o Spring, on the basis o the equinox o the Julianalendar, not undertake to correct this supposed error in the Julian alendar, giventhat the Fathers were aware o its inaccuracy?

(II) Why is it that thereater, when the Pope attempted to impose the Gregorianalendar on the Orthodox hurch, the Fathers condemned it (at the Synods o1 [sic; 13, 1] and 13), during the reign o cumenical Patriarch Jeremiah II,

characterizing it as an innovation o the Elder Rome, as a universal scandal and as ahigh-handed violation o the Divine and Sacred anons...?(IV) Why, under cumenical Patriarch Joachim III, did the Orthodox hurch-

es, with the cumenical Patriarchate at the oreront, reject the Gregorian alendaras un-Orthodox and uncanonical? (Elias ngelopoulos and Dionysios atistatos,

. [Metropolitan hrysostomos Kabourides o Phlorina: Struggler or Ortho-doxy and the Nation] [thens: 11], pp. 6-61).


4/18

4

Te innovationist hurch in Greece, which dubbed the New al-endar the revised Julian alendar, even though it will not coin-cide with the Gregorian alendar until 2, had no inkling o the

grave conusion7 that this reorm had introduced into the lie o the

hurch or o the reaction8 o the God-loving ock. Tus, the inter-vention o the civil authorities9 proved necessary or the implemen-tation o the calendar innovation, which is or this reason, too, con-temptible and rejectable.

Te unortunate repercussions0 o the innovation were palpa-ble. air number o the aithul reused to accept it and ormed the

Greek Religious ommunity o rue Orthodox hristians.

* * *

Tere was a dierence o opinion within the Hierarchy o theinnovationist hurch over the issue o the alendar. Many tradition-alist Hierarchs reacted against the innovation and strove or the resto-ration o the traditional hurch alendar. One Hierarch among them

oered a very judicious observation, which touched on the heart o thematter. o be precise, Metropolitan hrysostomos o Phlorina saidat the enth Session o the Hierarchy, on June 2, 12:

n submitting a memorandum on this subject, implore you to takeinto consideration the act that the alendar ought to be examinedprimarily rom the standpoint o the dierence with the atholics(Papists), against whom the Old alendar constitutes a bulwark or

Orthodox hristians. Tis has great signicance or our nation andwill have momentous consequences, the responsibility or which amunable to bear.

7 Nikolaos Zacharopoulos [Proessor Emeritusat the University o Tessalonica], 20 [Te Orthodox hurch inGreece During the wentieth entury], in [History o Ortho-

doxy], ol. VII, 20 [Te Orthodox hurches in thewentieth entury] (thens: Ekdoseis Road, 2), p. 21.8 Ibid.9 Ibid.0 Ibid. Earlier o mbros and enedos and subsequently o Pelagonia (now itola in theRepublic o Macedonia)rans.

rchimandrite Teokletos Strangas,


5/18

5

n truth, the hurch alendar is a bulwark against the machi-nations o heretics, and has rom o old been regarded as such in theOrthodox world, until the Shepherds themselves decided to demolishit, thereby putting the Divine ineyard in jeopardy.

Later on, the same onessor-Hierarch, now as the ormer Met-ropolitan o Phlorina and leader o the anti-innovationist Old alen-darists, wrote elegantly that the Holy Fathers, in order to saeguard theOrthodox hurch rom the alse teaching o the West,

raised in the orm o ramparts and bastions the bulwarks o the an-ons and Synodal decrees.... One o these ramparts o Orthodoxy is thehurch alendar, which separates the Orthodox hurches rom theheretical ones in the celebration o the Feasts and the observance othe asts, and thus provides the simpler among the aithul with a per-ceptible conception o the ecclesiastical dierence between the Ortho-dox hristian and the heretic or heterodox hristian.

However, since this rampart was demolished, the ecumenistdivagation o the innovationists was thenceorth to be expected, as we

see it unolding today!

* * *

Te calendar innovation did not come about or the sake o astro-nomical and chronometrical accuracy, as its deenders maintainedand continue to maintain, even though they are well aware that thehurch never posited such a criterion. Rather, it came about, asMeletios Metaxakes admitted, or the sake o rapprochement with the

(1817-1967) [History o the hurch o Greece From Reliable Sources (11-16)](thens: 11), ol. III, p. 16. - [Memorandum in deense o the restoration o the raditional hurch al-

endar] [1], in ngelopoulos and atistatos, . , p. 1. Further on in this document, the onessor-Hierarch emphasizesthe ollowing essential aspects o the issue: Te question o the hurch alendar isnot one o times and dates or our hurch, but a matter o unity and a concerted lineo deense o Orthodoxy against heresy and alse belie, as represented by the Westernhurch, which is aiming by all means and at all costs to demolish one ater anotherthe ramparts o the Eastern hurch, in order ultimately to proane the precious pearlo Orthodoxy (ibid., p. 1).


6/18

6

heterodox and to make an impression on the civilized world throughthis rapprochement!4

Tese anti-Orthodox motivationsagain, according to the greatinnovator, Patriarch Meletiosaim also at the inevitable adjustment

o the Paschalion to the New alendar.5

Te issue o the common celebration o Pascha according to theNew alendar as it alreadyoccurs in the hurch o Finland, or accord-ing to some other putative calendrical reckoning o more recent prove-nance, requently recurs in ecumenical circles. t is, moreover, no secretthat the Orthodox ecumenists have a deep desire and longing or this,

since it is here that their calendar innovation o necessity ends up.Just a ew days ago, the ecumenist Patriarch rinej o Serbia, dur-

ing his visit to ustria, stated (September 1, 21 [New Style]), interalia, at an ecumenical get-together with the Roman atholics, thatthe common celebration o Pascha with the atholics is a matter ogreat necessity.

4 Ibid., p. 126. On the issue o rapprochement between East and West, the on-essor-Hierarch writes elsewhere: o be sure, rapprochement between the two hris-tian worlds o the East and the West in the celebration o hristian Feasts is desiredby all and is a matter o great moral value and signicance. However, it must bepursued and attained in the service o hristian truth and or the glory o the God-Man Jesus hrist. Were such to be the case, the moral interests o the entire hristianworld would truly be served in the right Faith. ut when this rapprochement springsrom materialistic and worldly interests and motives and is undertaken at the expense

o Orthodoxy and to the diminution o the glory o hrist, then personal interests,and especially ecclesiastical ambitions and desires, are served, to the detriment o theidea o the hurch and o the prestige o Orthodoxy in general. Her soul consists othe traditions and the God-inspired and unerring documents o theApostolic Consti-tutionsand the decisions o the Seven Holy and cumenical Synods, the distortiono which diminishes the Divinely wrought and inviolable authority o the Divineessence o the hurch o hrist. Tus, all harm done to Orthodoxy and every dimi-nution thereo becomes the harm and diminution o the Divinity o hrist, rom

Whom there shines the sublime and Divine character and the deeper and Divinemeaning o the hristian religion ( [Reutation o the ensure o rchbishophrysostomos Papadopoulos], in . [Te omplete

Works o (Metropolitan) hrysostomos o Phlorina] [n.p.: Ekdosis Hieras MonesHagiou Nikodemou Hellenikou Gortynias, 1], ol. I, pp. 26-261).

5 Ibid. [Pa-


7/18

7

s may easily be inerred rom theexamples cited above, we cannot separatethe calendar issue rom the panheresy oecumenism or, by implication, rom the

apostasy which is paving the way or thepan-religion o the ntichrist and is sore-ly putting the members o the hurch tothe test.

* * *

Metropolitan Chrysostomos, whoretired rom the See o Phlorina in 132,knew well that we Orthodox are not othem who draw back unto perdition, but othem that believe to the saving o the soul.7For this reason, with aith, condence,8and patience9 as his sole provisions, he unyieldingly did the Will o

God in order to reap the good ruits o his vocational vows, and alsoin order to check the incursion o pro-heretical orces into the hurch,hence providing solid ground or an Orthodox witness o resistanceand a reuge or the children o the persecuted hurch at a time whenapostasy was in the ascendant.

Tus, in May o 13, together with Metropolitans Germanos oDemetrias and hrysostomos o Zakynthos, he took the step o wall-ing himsel o rom the innovationists and assumed the pastoral careo the anti-innovationist community o the hurch.

We scarcely need to emphasize that this act o onession requiredheroism o soul.

triarch rinej o Serbia Seeks the Reconciliation o the wo hurches], http://www.romea.gr/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3:eirhnaios&catid=13.

7 Hebrews 1:3.8 Hebrews 1:3.9 Hebrews 1:36.
http://www.romfea.gr/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5835:eirhnaios&catid=13http://www.romfea.gr/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5835:eirhnaios&catid=13http://www.romfea.gr/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5835:eirhnaios&catid=13http://www.romfea.gr/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5835:eirhnaios&catid=13http://www.romfea.gr/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5835:eirhnaios&catid=13http://www.romfea.gr/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5835:eirhnaios&catid=13


8/18

8

n their Statement o bjuration to the Hierarchy o the Newalendar hurch, the three onessor-Hierarchs invoked the ollow-ing serious reasons or their action:

the unilateral and uncanonical introduction o the Gregori-

an alendar into the hurch, contrary to the traditions o the sevencumenical Synods and the age-old practice o the Orthodox hurch;

the rupture o the unity o the Orthodox hurch and the divi-sion o the hristians through the introduction o the Gregorian al-endar, without the consent o all the Orthodox hurches;

the contravention o the Divine and Sacred anons, which gov-

ern Divine worship, and in addition, the violation o the Fast o theHoly postles;

the rupture o the unity o the Orthodox hurch in the celebra-tion o the Feasts and division among hristians, which pertains indi-rectly to the dogma o the One, Holy, atholic, and postolic hurcho the Symbol o Faith;

the instigation o scandal, division, and recrimination amonghristians and the rejection o concord, love, and solidarity.

For these reasons, they were o the opinion that the ruling Hierar-chy o the hurch o Greece had cut itsel o, according to the Sacredanons, rom the wholeness o the Orthodox hurch and had ren-dered itsel in essence schismatic, with the proviso that they (the resist-ing Metropolitans) were struggling or the return o the raditionalhurch alendar and the restoration o Orthodoxy and the peace othe hurch and the nation.0

* * *

Tis persistence on the part o Metropolitan hrysostomos in con-essing the Faithboth then, at that critical juncture, and also later on,

until his deathwas characteristic o him and unshakable. He neverlost the opportunity to proclaim that

0 [Te hurchalendar as a riterion o Orthodoxy], in . , ol. I,pp. 13-131.


9/18

9

We have boldly and courageously unurled not the banner o rebellionagainst Orthodoxy and o division among hristians as have they [theinnovators Meletios Metaxakes and hrysostomos Papadopoulos], butthe glorious and honorable standard o the union o disunited Ortho-

doxy and o the pacication o the hurch on the basis o hallowedraditions and the Divine and Sacred anons.

He believed that we resisters have ull canonical justication ortemporarily severing ecclesiastical communion with the Hierarchy othe New alendar hurch, prior to a Synodal verdict, and or orm-ing our own religious community provisionally, until there is anauthoritative and nal resolution o the calendar question by a Pan-

Orthodox Synod.Te purpose o his action, ar removed rom any personal motiva-

tion, was to reunite all o the Orthodox hurches, which had becomeseparated through the unilateral alteration o the Festal alendar, inthe celebration o the hristian Feasts and the simultaneous obser-vance o the asts.

* * *

Given these fewbut wholly pithy points, how can there be anyvalidity in the accusation o schism and disobedience against Metro-politan hrysostomos as regards the hurch o Greece, and how canthe decision to depose him, based as it is on this erroneous line othought, be considered valid?

Schism occurs when one reuses to obey a lawul and canonicalecclesiastical authority and displays insubordination towards it,4 andcertainly not when one withholds obedience and subordination rom

Ibid., p. 13.

See note 3 in the article : [Te nspirers and Ringleaders o thealendar nnovation: Tese wo Luthers o the Orthodox hurch], in

, ol. II, No. 1 (October-December 1), p. ; http://hsir.ino/p/ib.

, p. 1.4 See Protopresbyter Evangelos Mantzouneas, -[Ecclesiastical Penal Law] (thens: 1), p. 16.
http://hsir.info/p/ibhttp://hsir.info/p/ibhttp://hsir.info/p/ibhttp://hsir.info/p/ib


10/18

10

an ecclesiastical authority that has introduced innovations and whichone has disavowed or reasons o aith and righteousness.5

Metropolitan hrysostomos did not disavow the Hierarchy o theinnovationist hurch o Greece out o a desire or leadership or out

o sel-seeking, but or ecclesiastical and canonical reasons, which per-tained not only to the Sacred anons concerning Divine worship, butalso to the very unity o the One hurch.

Tere had been no rebellion against the canonical ecclesiasticalauthority, the onessor-Hierarch afrmed, nor against the Ortho-dox hurch o Greece per se, but a rupture o ecclesiastical commu-

nion with the ruling Synod, since it had deviated, through the calendarreormaccording to a strict Orthodox understanding o the matterrom the anons and raditions o the hurch, and since he could notbrook any complicity in this deviation and rupture in the unity o theOrthodox hurch in the celebration o the hristian Feasts.7

* * *

In spite o this, the innovationist Hierarchy proceeded hastilyon June 1/1, 13 to sentence the three Hierarchs to deposition andmonastic house arrest.8

Tis alse and unjust deposition alls at, since it was based onthe alleged insubordination and rebellion o the accused. ut it isalso invalid or the reason that the members o the Synodal tribu-

nal were themselves subject to trial and in contest against the Hier-archs who had walled themselves o; since the innovationists had noright to sit in judgment on the anti-innovationists who had disavowedthem; the decision included the unheard-o penalty o house arrest;and the proper order or summonsing a Hierarch to stand trial wasnot observed.9

Tough at least the vast majority o the anti-innovationist ockhad accepted the onessor-Hierarch, who had been persecuted in this

5 See anon XXXI o the Holy postles and anon XV o the First-Second Synod. , p. 1.7 Ibid., p. 11.8 Strangas, , ol. III, p. 23.9 , pp. 11-12.


11/18

11

way as their Shepherd, he was twice exiled by the authorities, at theinstigation o the innovationists, as a maleactor (13, 11), requent-ly hauled beore law courts on charges o allegedly usurping authority,humiliated, despised, treated unjustly, and slandered,though with-

out losing his sense o purpose, his vision and hope, or his boldnessas a onessor.

* * *

Certain ill-disposed persons, both then and now, have raised, anddo raise, the question as to why the onessor-Hierarch did not hasten

to align himsel with the Old alendarist ock rom the outset, but waited or eleven whole years (12-13), maintaining communionwith those whom he later denounced as innovationists.

Metropolitan hrysostomos himsel declared, rom the place ohis rst exilethe Holy Monastery o St. Dionysios o Olymposin13, that although, along with other Hierarchs, he had not endorsedthe calendar innovation, he bore with it out o ecclesiastical oikono-

mia0 and out o concern lest he create a schism, in the hope that,ater suitable enlightenment, the Hierarchy would reintroduce theOrthodox Festal alendar. However, despite his eorts and the mea-sures that he took, the majority o the Hierarchy, under the inuenceo the innovationist rchbishop, stubbornly and obstinately persist-ed in the innovation. Since peaceul means had been exhausted, hethenceorth disavowed the ruling Synod. Furthermore, he only grad-ually became aware o the gravity o the issue, having not originallybeen ully enlightened about it. n act, he had condence in assuranc-esprimarily those o the innovationist rchbishopthat this issuehad no bearing on the Faith or Divine worship, and that all o the localOrthodox hurches would adopt the New alendar at the suggestionand urging o the cumenical Patriarchate.

n the meantime, division among the Orthodox continued to existand became wider. nd the innovationist Hierarchy, like an inhuman

0 [Proclamation o Metropolitan hrysostomos o Phlorina or the En-lightenment o Orthodox Greeks], in ngelopoulos and atistatos, . , p. 6. , p. 16.


12/18

12

and hardhearted stepmother, persecuted her Orthodox children ortheir adherence to hurch radition, while the Old alendarist com-munity veered towards extremes because it lacked leaders with eccle-siastical authority.

Tus, Metropolitan hrysostomos was led little by little, alongwith his original ellow-strugglers, to assume the pastoral care o theanti-innovationists, moved by the hope that the Hierarchy, compelledby the invincible orce o the truth and o Orthodoxy, and avoidingthe creation o what would henceorth become a ormal schism, wouldsee t to reintroduce the traditional Festal alendar or the union othe Orthodox Greek people.

* * *

Te steadfast tenacity, the virtu-ous way o lie, and the indeatiga-ble activity o the onessor-Hier-arch Metropolitan hrysostomos o

Phlorina, in spite o the vicissitudesand difculties o those times andcircumstances, and in spite o rever-sals, persecutions, and machinations,imprinted his personality on the con-science o the Old alendarist Ortho-dox community, and more widely,too, as its unquestioned leader.

Nevertheless, the tergiversationso his ellow ishops were a grave

disappointment or him and caused him great and unbearable distress.n the course o the struggle, he remained the sole Hierarch, whereasat the beginning (13), the three Metropolitans had consecrated our

other ishops.4 Some o them retreated to the New alendar hurch Ibid., p. 131. Ibid.4 act indicative o the sensitive and exceedingly meticulous ecclesiological andcanonical conscience o the onessor-Hierarch is that ten years later, in 1, hecharacterized the Episcopal onsecrations as hasty, raught with peril, and pre-cipitous, while he called the original ecclesiastical organization o the Hierarchs who


13/18

13

out o ear and instability, while others split o and became marginal-ized owing to their lack o a healthy ecclesiology.

lready in 13, ishops Germanos o the yclades and Matthewo resthene had denounced Metropolitan hrysostomos or not

teaching aright the word o ruth, since he had begun to issue clari-cations about what the characterization o the innovationists as schis-matics and indeed, deprived o the Grace o the ll-Holy Spiritmight mean in ecclesiological terms.

Metropolitan hrysostomos insisted that such issues were a mat-ter o personal opinion and denoted something that applied poten-

tially and not in actuality. Te innovationists were declared to besuch, but in order or this to hold good in truth and in actual act,they would have to be judged and condemned by a lawul ecclesiasticalauthority; that is, by a recognized utocephalous Orthodox hurch,or more clearly and more ully by a Pan-Orthodox Synod o the entirehurch.5

Te action o clergy and laity which had broken ecclesiastical

communion with the ruling Hierarchy did not constitute a distincthurch, but belong[s] canonically to the same one and undividedhurch, as an unsullied and integral part o her.

Te onessor-Hierarch emphasized that the original resisters hadset out on their struggle or the sake o restoring the traditional al-endar to the hurch, and not in order to make permanent or perpet-

uate a division in the hurch.7

had assumed pastoral oversight o the anti-innovationists a Hierarchical ounciland not a Holy Synod! (See , p. 136.)

5 See his 1.6.1 [Pastoral Encyclical o June 1,1], translated into English in Resistance or Exclusion? Te Alternative Ecclesiologi-cal Approaches of Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina and Bishop Matthew of Vres-thene, tr. Hieromonk Patapios (Etna, CA: enter or raditionalist Orthodox Studies,

2), pp. 63-2; see also http://hsir.ino/p/p. Te original Greek is ound in . , ol. II, pp. 13-2; see also http://hsir.ino/p/w. (1.1.1) [ larication by Metro-politan hrysostomos o His Pastoral Encyclical (January 1, 1)], translated intoEnglish in Resistance or Exclusion?, p. 12; see also http://hsir.ino/p/bx. Te originalGreek is ound at http://hsir.ino/p/u6.

7 [ ] [n Epistle othe Erstwhile (Metropolitan) o Phlorina (to ishop Germanos o the yclades)], in
http://hsir.info/p/phttp://hsir.info/p/whttp://hsir.info/p/bxhttp://hsir.info/p/u6http://hsir.info/p/u6http://hsir.info/p/bxhttp://hsir.info/p/whttp://hsir.info/p/p


14/18

14

t is plain that he did not have any sense that the Religious om-munity under him or the provisional Holy Synod were the hurchin Greece, to the exclusion o all others.

* * *

Even when, on May 26, 1, he signed an Encyclical8 that stat-ed that the innovationists were deprived o Mysteriological (Sacramen-tal) Grace, that retracted the terms potentially and in actuality, andthat said that those coming rom the New alendar hurch shouldbe rechrismated, he did not indicate to anyone, at a broader level, that

he had truly changed his ecclesiology and, in general, his ecclesiolog-

ngelopoulos and atistatos, . , p.3. [Tis text is translated into English in Resistance or Exclusion?, pp. -62rans.]n this wonderul epistle, which is ecclesiological in nature, Metropolitan hrys-ostomos deals, inter alia, with the question o the meaning o the condemnationspronounced against the calendar innovation in the sixteenth century. Tere are some,

even to this day, who, motivated by an extremely simplistic, and also nave and lim-ited, understanding o the matter, opine that on the basis o those resolutions thecontemporary calendar innovation has been condemned in advance and that there-ore a resh condemnation o it is not required. Te onessor-Hierarch provides theollowing incontrovertible elucidation:

Likewise, Your Grace, you dissemble and utter outright alsehoods when youassert that it is unnecessary and superuous to convene a PanOrthodox Synod or amajor local Synod or the authoritative and denitive condemnation o the calendar

innovation by the rchbishop, since the PanOrthodox Synods o 13, 1, and13 condemned the Gregorian alendar.nd this is so, because you know ully well that the aorementioned Synods

condemned the Gregorian alendar, but that this condemnation concerns the Latins,who implemented this calendar in its entirety, whereas the rchbishop adopted halo it, applying it to the xed Feasts and retaining the Old alendar or Pascha andthe moveable Feasts, precisely in order to bypass the obstacle o this condemnation.

n view o this, the innovation o the rchbishop in applying the Gregorian al-

endar only to the xed Feasts and not to Pascha, which was the main reason why theGregorian Calendar was condemnedas conicting with the Seventh postolic anon,is an issue that appears or the rst time in the history o the Orthodox hurch.

onsequently, the convocation o a PanOrthodox Synod is not only not super-uous, as Your Grace declares ex cathedra, like another Pope, but is actually requiredor the canonical and authoritative adjudication o this issue (Resistance or Exclusion?,pp. -).

8 See , No. 6 (June 12, 1).


15/18

15

ical thinking and belies.9 Tat Encyclical, with the three discordantpoints mentioned above, was patently unionist, aimed at uniying theragmented adherents o the Old alendar, and displayed oikonomiaand diplomacy in view o coming woes.40 Te Metropolitan himsel

did not enorce it and stated, in act, that he signed it in sel-deense.4Moreover, in this Encyclical he does not express the slightest

remorse or regret as culprit or the schism o the Matthewites, whobroke away precisely because Metropolitan hrysostomos did notaccept the ideas contained in this document!

t is also well known that Metropolitan hrysostomos never

explicitly declared, concerning the innovationists or the anti-innova-tionists who seceded rom him at various times, that they had allenaway rom the hurch, nor did he ever judge anyone or his eccle-siastical outlook. Finally, i he had the sense that he alone was theauthentic personication o the entire hurch, how is it that he lether orphaned? He ought, as the saying goes, to have moved heavenand earth to ensure his succession. However, the audacious act o the

onsecration o ishops by a single ishop was committed by his ide-ological adversary, Matthew o resthene, who was consistent in hisextremist ecclesiology as, supposedly, the sole remaining Orthodoxishop! Metropolitan hrysostomos never had such a belie or sensi-bility, as can be demonstrated with perect clarity by a simple compar-ison o the two men on this issue.4

9 Te same applies also to circular memoranda on this subject published romtime to time by certain persons, and letters, instructions, etc. o the onessor-Hier-arch, chiey to the clergy serving under him, in which one can nd similar ideas andstatements.

40 For a clear summary o these woes, that is, the terrible persecution visitedon the Old alendarists under rchbishop Spyridon, see rchbishop hrysosto-mos, ishop mbrose, and ishop uxentios, Te Old Calendar Orthodox Churchof Greece, th ed. (Etna, CA: enter or raditionalist Orthodox Studies, 2), pp.

22-2rans.4 .D. Delembases, [Te Lords Pascha] (thens: 1), pp. -.4 Let us remember what the onessor-Hierarch wrote to ishop Germanos othe yclades in the aorementioned Epistle o 13 on the issue o the Matthewiteview concerning the sole remaining Orthodox Hierarchs:

you take this step, Your Grace, you will put an end to the lie and the ageoldhistory o the Orthodox hurch, since you are proclaiming all o the Orthodoxhurches as a whole to be heretical, thereby alsiying the declaration o the Lord


16/18

16

* * *

Te correct ecclesiological outlook o the onessor-Hierarch andthe steadastness o his principles are worthy o admiration and emu-

lation. He waged a truly theological struggle against both the innova-tionists and the erroneous ecclesiology o the anti-innovationists.4 Heconstantly aced smear campaigns, polemics, and attacks rom bothsides, such that the saying o the postle applies to him: [W]ithout

were ghtings, within were ears.44 Under pressure, he made con-cessions to the impetuosity o the anti-innovationists or the sake oagreement on more undamental and less contentious issues,45 some-

thing that arguably has a Patristic basis.4His contribution, in our view, is incalculable, and the message that

he sends to us rom eternity, where he enjoys rest rom his labors, isabundantly clear:

Tat we should remain Orthodox in deed and word in all matters andthat we should at all costs avoid communion with those who deviate:there are no small points in matters o Faith; the preservation o ra-

dition as a treasure involves the crown o incorruption; maintaininga judicious course between extremes is a laborious tightrope walk, inthat it draws re upon itsel rom both sides; it is worth enduring anddying, even i one is abandoned or the sake o the ruth!

to His Disciples when He said: Lo, am with you alway, even unto the end o theworld.You see, Your Grace, to what absurdities and to what an abysmal precipice this

reckless and populist policy leads you; or you not only dele the sanctity o ourstruggle, to serve which we elevated you to the vantage point and honor o a ishop,but you also annul the meaning and substance o the universal Orthodox hurch(Resistance or Exclusion?, p. ).

4 Delembases, , p. .

44 II orinthians :.45 t should, o course, be emphasized that in the end this condescension remainedineectual and ailed in its purpose, save that it acilitated the return o just a smallgroup o Matthewite clergy and monastics. Yet, in a certain way it darkened the radi-ant witness o the onessor-Hierarch and provided a strong argument or the harshpersecution that ensued under the innovationist rchbishop Spyridon (lachos).

4 See, or example, Epistle CXIII, o the Presbyters in arsus by St. asil theGreat, Patrologia Grca, ol. XXXII, cols. 2B-2A.


17/18

17

Te postolic exhortation, [S]tand ast, and hold the traditionswhich ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle,47 doesnot lead to a sclerosis and ossication in our spiritual lie and journey,but to a spiritual rebaptism in the waters o piety. Only by living in

the Holy Spirit can we resist the mystery o iniquity48 and avoid all-ing into the apostasy49 o the heresy o ecumenism. Let all who havecensured, and do censure, the anti-innovationists in word and in writ-ing understand that the maintenance o living radition entails obedi-ence, humility, and love or God, the hurch, and the truly spiritualFathers and Saints. Only within this blessed state do we elicit the gito God through sanctication o the Spirit and belie o the truth.50

Only through this God-pleasing attitude do we receive the love o thetruth5 and are we not abandoned to the acceptance o strong delu-sion, that [we] should believe a lie5 and the unrighteousness o her-esy and iniquity.

* * *

Even though ecumenism, especiallysince 16, has advanced and developedrapidly, in our view the guiding eccle-siological principles o the onessor-Hierarch Metropolitan hrysostomos oPhlorina have not lost their orce, validi-ty, or value. His discrete stand, in gener-

al, his entire spirit, and his unitive visionexpress our outlook and move us.

Te sacred legacy o this holy on-essor and Hierarch, as we have come toknow it in the aith, conession, activ-ity, and return [to the Old alendar]

o His Eminence, Metropolitan yprian o Oropos and Phyle, First

47 II Tessalonians 2:1.48 II Tessalonians 2:.49 II Tessalonians 2:3.50 II Tessalonians 2:13.5 II Tessalonians 2:1.5 II Tessalonians 2:11.


18/18

Documents

Chrysostomos of Phlorina