So, in reading Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina and Bishop Matthew of Bresthena, I have come to a conclusion, tell me what you think:
It seems that Met. Chrysostomos tried very hard to distinguish between
- A schism which is actual and a schism that is potential. According to him, only the Church could authoritatively declare whether a schism was actual or not.
- In addition, he also held that the canons of the church are not self-acting, but specifically need to be applied to specific situations by competent authority, canonical synods.
Now, it is my opinion that he is correct on the latter point, but not the former. In an effort to make fine distinctions, he overdistinguishes the nature of schism. This is because he approaches the nature of schism from a purely legal standpoint while avoiding the spiritual reality of the nature of schism. It is a fact that a schismatic is one who breaks the unity of the church over remediable matters. In this the New Calendarists were objectively and actually schismatic, because they broke the unity of the church over remediable matters. We all ought to agree on this. The spiritual consequence of this is that we are to consider them pseudo-bishops with pseudo-mysteries, because those who place themselves objectively outside the church by virtue of their actions cannot hold any rank or office within the church, because by their own actions they have separated themselves from it in an obvious way.
BUT, as to their putative rank and standing within the administrative structure of the Church itself: Yes, that is capable of being resolved by a council alone. When it comes to the CANONICAL penalties and the CANONICAL standing of these bishops in regard to their administration and their putative offices, Only a CANONICAL synod of CANONICAL bishops can render depositions, impose anathemas and excommunications. But this is quite a different thing from recognizing that they have abandoned the church and created a schism.
For example, a man is caught cheating on his wife with another woman. The cheaters wife goes and gets her friends and some of her husbands friends, and they confront him and he leaves his wife. They live in a state of separation until death.
Now, is it NECESSARY for a court to declare this man as an adulterer? No. But if we want to accuse him of adultery UNDER THE LAW, and subject him to the penalties of LAW that are imposed upon adulterers, then yes, it is necessary for him to be accused and properly tried in court. But the trial is not to determine whether or not he is actually an adulterer, but rather to apply the proper penalties according to justice in order to discourage the situation from arising again.
But no matter what, this man is an adulterer, whether accused under the law or not, and his wife and him suffer the same hostility and estrangement, whether under the law or not. On the people who matter, this act of adultery has the exact same effect whether it is tried under the law in court or not. So why try it in a court? On account of justice and as an example to the people, and hopefully for the remediation of the offender.
Now, apply this to the schismatic bishops, and the bride of Christ, the Church. Whether taken to trial or not, whether canonically penalized or not, whether subjected to formal deposition, excommunication or anathematization or not, these schismatical bishops relation to the church remains the same: One of spiritual estrangement resulting in mysteriological barrenness. How do we know? Because they have been caught. Their heresy is obvious to anyone with any patristic conscience, the schism is clear in the historical sense, since the Church of Greece itself set up a committee to examine what would be the effect of adopting the New Calendar, and the committee itself said: "The Church of Greece would become schismatic."
These are not mysteries (no pun intended) and we have the proof in the putting: Those accused of behaving in this way have never sought to withdraw their actions or repent of their antipatristic attitude. On the contrary, they have justified themselves with violence. In my reading of church history, a rather good indication of the presence of pseudo-bishops and pseudo-synods is justification through violence, such as Dioscorus and the Robber council of 449.
In conclusion, what can we say? Was bishop Matthew Justified in at least TREATING the New Calendarists as full-fledged schismatics who had abandoned the church and been bereft of grace? Yes, because that is EXACTLY what they behaved like, and in all appearances did actually do. BUT would he have been justified in declaring them specifically deposed, or defrocked or excommunicated or anathematized? No, in THIS sense, these things are only potential. In terms of purely canonical penalties.
Was Met. Chrysostomos justified in trying to distinguish between that which is actual and potential? In so far as we are talking about canonical penalties to be imposed by a competent and canonical synod, then yes, these things can exist in either actuality (Having been imposed) or in potency (In a condition ripe for imposition). But to speak of SCHISM itself as either potential or actual is a mistake, for what is a POTENTIAL schism? An act that MIGHT be schismatic but is not CLEARLY schismatic? A potential schism has a name: A conventicle. An illegitimate gathering in disobedience. Conventiclers are still inside the church, though they are gravely disobedient. And yet, even if we granted that a "Maybe" schism would exist, why would you separate from a "Maybe" situation if you are unsure of the consequences and the outcome Met. Chrysostomos? If you are unsure of whether or not a body of bishops is schismatic, you have no business leaving in the first place, thus basically invalidating your entire stance! By your own actions of resistance, separation, confession of gracelessness, and ordination of NEW bishops, you speak louder and more eloquently than any other paper you may write to the contrary!
The final proof of this understanding is the fact that Met. Chrysostomos revoked his former opinion and adopted the same position as Bishop Matthew in respect to the New Calendarists: They are schismatics and graceless.
It seems that in the end both of these confessing hierarchs spoke past one another. It looks like both were on the right track in certain respects, and made mistakes in others.
