The Sacred Synod of the Church of the True Orthodox Christians of Greece
ENCYCLICAL
Protocol No. 3280/28-11-2007
Published in ATHENS (Only The Original In Greek Is Official)
FEBRUARY, 2008
To the Sacred Clergy, the Monastic Orders and the Pious Laity
“The right hand of the Lord hath wrought power……”
In these latter days of the world, where there is apostasy and rebellion of the many against the principles of Faith and Orthodox Confession, there are, according to the prophetic words of the Apostle Paul “terrible times.” “For men will be,“ he writes, “lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, truce breakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despises of those that are good, traitors, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof.” And concluding, he counsels all of us saying, “From such, turn away.” (II Timothy 3:1-5)
Code: Select all
Living in our times, we are all witnesses of the emboldening of the devil against the righteous God. On a daily basis, we observe, because of our own sins and the permission of God, the continually spreading authority of the enemy over the nobility of human nature and over all our natural environment.
All around us, we see shamelessly manifested and praised: alienation, corruption, degeneration, and the imposition of that which is unnatural as if it were natural. Beginning with the opening of the way by desensitization, there follows the total overturning of every principle and every moral order and justice. And all this in the name of progress and human freedom.
But our Lord God doth live unto the ages! And His Church, which is “the pillar and foundation of truth,” as the Apostle of the nations declares, lives unto the ages founded upon the Lord’s words: “and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.”
She walks humbly and piously upon her martyric path in the world from the time of the holy Apostles even until today, while her children, in the words of Holy Scripture, are “…destitute, afflicted, tormented,” but being witnessed to by faith, they “…subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness and obtained promises….”
From the very day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit descended upon the disciples of Christ, leading them unto “all the Truth,” the Church has never ceased facing the attacks and assaults of the devil, the enemy of Truth, who as the “prince of this world,” desperately attempts to take revenge upon our God in Trinity, the Former and Creator of all, by abusing all of the Divine creation, but especially man, who was formed in the image of God.
Schisms, heresies, and rebellions have throughout the ages troubled, and even now trouble, the Church and are all the works of the “prince of this world,” having as their source his continual maniacal warring against the Creator God.
Children beloved in the Lord!
The “first schism” in the New Testament, the rebellion and betrayal of Judas, is the pattern and example of every schism or apostasy that followed throughout the ages. Similar movements and behaviors are manifested and realized from then even until today.
The Seven Ecumenical Synods; Pan Orthodox Synods held in various places; and the Local Synods; stood up to, with the Grace of the holy Spirit, the imitators of Judas throughout the ages, that is, the leaders of heresies, and showed them to be in error, and their heretical teachings to be kakodoxies.
Gnostics, Cathars, Nikolaites, Arians, Nestorians, Monophysites, Patropaschites, Monothelites and others, (in our days, the Ecumenists and whatever other deniers of the Orthodox Faith and Confession), are all examples of those who troubled the people of the Church, tearing asunder the unsewn Robe of Christ as imitators of Judas.
But the Church of Christ lives unto the ages!
However, it is natural and understandable that every heresy, every ecclesiastical schism or separation that sprouted forth, brought difficult times to the peace, like-mindedness, and unity of the members of the Church.
The harmony, concerning God, of those who are sincere in their relationship to God, that is, the Orthodox Confession of the members of the Church, is threatened by the disagreement and the battling evoked by those who do not have an Orthodox Confession, that is, by those members of the Church who act insincerely toward God, in opposition to the Orthodox Confession which they held up to now. And, as we are informed by St. Gregory the Theologian: “Nothing is mightier for the harmony of those who are sincere toward God as their agreement in Godly matters. And nothing creates antagonism like disagreement in this matter.” (Sermon VI Eirenical I).
But while the Church receives attacks and wounds from those who deny the Truth, and even while many of her children distance themselves and fall from the Truth, she, herself, as the Body of Christ, remains unto the ages. According to St. John Chrysostomos, “… being warred against, she is victorious; plotted against, she prevails; being cursed, she is made even more brilliant; she receives wounds, but does not succumb to the ulcers; she is battered by waves but does not sink; she is tempest tossed, but suffers not shipwreck; she wrestles, but is not beaten; stricken by fists, but is not crushed….” (Second Homily To Eutropios) Yet, all the while, she struggles and uses every means, and tries in every way to return to her all who have been beguiled into error from the Truth and Tradition of Orthodoxy.
All of this is true, because the work of the Church in the world is the revelation of the will of God unto mankind and its participation in the eternal life and the Kingdom. In addition, she works for the gathering of those who are scattered and the return of those who have strayed from the path of Truth. As we read in the prayer of the Anaphora of the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil the Great: “… gather up those who are scattered, restore those who have strayed and unite them to the Holy and Apostolic Church …”
The Holy Church experienced a tempest in our times when, in 1924, the Ecumenical Patriarchate; the local Church of Greece; and, in consequence, other Patriarchates and local Orthodox Churches, accepted the introduction of the New Papal Calendar and its imposition upon the Ecclesiastical Festal Calendar as the first step to the pan-heresy of Ecumenism.
Having come to this difficult situation, the Orthodox Church in Greece remained, as is known, until 1935, without Orthodox Bishops, even while many of her clergy, along with many monastics, mainly from Holy Mountain, labored to fortify the people in the struggle for piety and the defense of the Tradition of the Fathers.
Thus, In 1935, the Orthodox Church in Greece (having found her canonical, Orthodox, ecclesiastical leadership by means of the return of three Bishops from the New Calendarist Innovation and their rejection of the Innovation) struggled to accomplish her purpose: the healing of the New Calendarist schism and the returning to her (due to the rejection, by the three Bishops, of New Calendarist Ecumenism) of those who had been led astray.
In 1937, however, a new schism troubled the Church when Metropolitan Chrysostomos, formerly of Florina, rejected his original Orthodox Confession and put forward his kakodox teaching of the “potential but not actual” schismatic nature of the New Calendarist schism, which made, by this means, the New Calendarist “Church” simply “subject to trial,” but not in actual schism from the beginning (as she had been considered by all the faithful members of the Church) with all the consequences of this condition,
In 1948, by condescension, the ever-memorable Bishop of Vresthena and afterwards Archbishop of Athens, Matthew I, after many fruitless attempts to re-unite all the Bishops who followed the traditional Ecclesiastical Festal Calendar in the Orthodox Confession of Faith, consecrated Bishops alone, thus passing along Apostolic Succession to those Bishops he consecrated and thus preserving unchanged and pure the traditional Orthodox Faith and Ecclesiastical teaching.
The unjust attacks and the theologically unfounded assaults by those who strayed from and who were torn from the Body of the Church (the clerical and lay followers of Metropolitan Chrysostomos, formerly of Florina) under the pretext of the “consecrations by one bishop” (consecrations of Bishops by Matthew of Vresthena) once again threatened the struggling Church with a tempest.
Under the Episcopal leadership of the successors of Archbishop Matthew, the Church continues her work. In addition, she continues to struggle for the healing of the New Calendarist schism along with the return of those who were, and are today, torn away: Metropolitan Chrysostomos, formerly of Florina, who refused, and now his followers, citing uncanonical status because of the consecration of Bishops by one Bishop.
In this continuous attempt of the Church, that is, the return to her of those who had strayed according to St. Basil, there occurred by the permission of God inapt deeds and actions on the part of the Ecclesiastical Leadership, and human errors, among which were the cheirothesias of the year 1971. When, in that year, a Synodical representation of Bishops traveled to America, and coming into contact with the Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad, and placing before their Synod the request that they examine and judge the matter of the Episcopal consecrations by one bishop of 1948, so that the excuses relating to this matter by the followers of Metropolitan Chrysostomos, formerly of Florina, might cease, accepted the relevant Decision of the Synod of the Russian Church Abroad.
Wherefore, because of the lack, to date, of a consistent, single, stable, and correct (from an Orthodox standpoint) position concerning the cheirothesias of 1971, and because of this lack, many and various questions concerning this matter which are expressed via a variety of opinions which of late became the cause of things concerning the cheirothesias of 1971 (being said by persons who war against the Church in various ways) the Sacred Synod of the Bishops of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ of the True Orthodox Christians of Greece, moved by pastoral concerns and responsibility, needed to act accordingly.
And so it was that the Holy and Sacred Synod, the time having come and the circumstances insuring (and the impediments for the ecclesiastical confrontation in its fullness having disappeared) in the fear of God and with full understanding and sure knowledge of our Episcopal responsibility, met and considered together this matter (of the cheirothesias) during the Meeting of the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy of the Church of the T.O.C. of Greece, which took place on the 27th of December, 2007, under the presidency of His Beatitude Archbishop Nikolaos of Athens and All Greece,, and with the participation of all the Members of the Holy Synod: that is, the Metropolitan of Argolis k.k. Pachomios, the Metropolitan of Peristerion k.k. Galaction, the Metropolitan of Verroia and Naousa k.k. Tarasios, the Metropolitan of Thevae and Levadeia k.k. Andreas, the Bishop of Phillipi k.k. Chrysostomos, who was represented by the Very Rev. Abbot Archimandrite Stephanos Tsakiroglou, and the Chief Secretary, the Very Rev. Protopresbyter Demetrios Tsarkatzoglou. It is concerning this work (matter), and of the unanimous Decision taken in this regard, that we, as canonical Shepherds and leaders of the rational Flock of the Church of Christ, now humbly inform you by these presents.
The ambition and the greedy disposition of burdensome men, and the general spirit of our times, inspired by Western philosophy and shaped on the anvil of impiety and the denial of our God, were the motivational power behind those who attacked ecclesiastical piety; who by many and various excuses acted and succeeded in the imposition of New Calendarism as the first step of the already planned-upon and since applied (as is provided for by the (Ecumenical) Patriarchal Encyclical of 1920)) pan-heresy of Ecumenism, which, for reasons God alone knows, was followed by all the Bishops of the Church of Greece.
Thus, the Church of Greece which was left orphaned of Orthodox Bishops in 1924, after 11 years, in 1935 acquires once again canonical ecclesiastical leadership in the persons of the three Bishops who returned from the Innovation and confessed Orthodoxy; that is, Metropolitan Chrysostomos Demetriou of Zakynthos, Metropolitan Chrysostomos Kavouridis formerly of Florina, and Metropolitan Germanos Mavromatis of Demetrias, who also consecrated four Bishops to form a canonical Holy Synod, among whom was the Athonite Hieromonk Matthew Karpathakis, who was canonically consecrated Bishop of Vresthena.
Therefore, his consecration, as well as those he performed in 1948, proceeds in succession from the Holy Apostles and their successors, the Orthodox canonical Bishops of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. And all the Episcopal consecrations of Bishops of the Church of Christ (which is called in these times the Church of the T.O.C. or True Orthodox Church to distinguish her from the Innovating Church) in Greece, up until now (given indeed that no other Bishop, not of those who returned in 1935, nor of those four who were consecrated in that same year, performed consecrations in Greece) draw their succession in these latter times from the aforementioned Consecrations of 1935 and those performed in the year 1948 by the Confessor of Orthodoxy, the ever-memorable Archbishop of Athens, Matthew (+1950).
And without question, the Episcopal consecrations which were performed in 1948 by the then Bishop of Vresthena and later Archbishop of Athens, Matthew (the first of which he performed alone) are considered to be (and are, indeed, from a dogmatic and ecclesiological point of view) complete and genuine, in so far as the grace and authority of the episcopate was transmitted.
We say this despite the noted transgression, or rather deviation, from the order provided for by the sacred canons concerning the participation of at least two or three bishops at the consecration of a bishop, taking into account the ecclesiastical situation then: that is, on the one hand the refusal of the bishops in Greece, who followed the traditional calendar, (Metropolitans Chrysostomos formerly of Florina and Germanos of the Cyclades Islands), to act together with him (under the condition that they would have previously been in harmony as regards Orthodox Confession) in the Consecration of Bishops. Bishop Matthew responsibly urged these ordinations for the good of the Church and the salvation of the faithful, even though and despite his advanced age he continued to struggle mightily for the Orthodox Confession; and on the other hand the stubborn clinging of the aforementioned two bishops in supporting kakodox positions and theories and the unquestionable ecclesiastical need, in the midst of this situation, of the assurance of the Apostolic succession of the episcopate.
This, in retrospect, has been clearly certified by the consequences (of the consecrations) to the point that, today, those consecrations are considered of the greatest importance for the Church of Greece and even beyond, relevant to the Struggle of True Orthodox against the Innovation of New Calendarism and the Pan Heresy of Ecumenism.
The cheirothesias which occurred in 1971, under whatever form and meaning they took place, and under whatever interpretation they might be viewed, according to the faith of the True Orthodox Church of Greece and indeed in the conscience of her ecclesiastical flock, neither added to, nor completed, anything to the validity, to the fullness, to the grace, or to the power of the Episcopate of the Bishops of the Church of the T.O.C. of Greece; and further, from a strictly canonical point of view, it should never have even occurred, because Bishops consecrated by one Bishop according to the canonical order of the Church are either recognized by her, or they are condemned and punished; since they are considered, in one way or the other, as Bishops having the fullness of the Episcopate from their very consecration.
“Cheirothesia” performed upon Orthodox clergy is not provided for at all, nor is it permitted under any interpretation whatsoever. In the practice of the Church, cheirothesia was implemented only upon schismatics to validate the invalidly performed mystery of their ordination. Even if understood as a blessing or a simple prayer, cheirothesia means a vitalization and validation of those things performed invalidly by heretics or schismatics. (See Canon VIII of the First Ecumenical Synod, the Letter of the First Ecumenical Synod to Alexander of Alexandria, Act I of the Seventh Ecumenical Synod, and the relevant commentary of St. Nikodemos in the Rudder.)
Consequently, in order for the relevant Decision of the Synod of the Russian Church Abroad (Prot. No. 16-II/15)28-9-1971) concerning the Bishops consecrated by the Bishop of Vresthena in 1948 (by which the “cheirothesia” upon the Bishops of Corinth Callistos and Kition Epiphanios was decided) to be within the limits of canonicity, it was necessary for it (the ROCOR Synod, trans. note) to choose theoretically between only two choices, either of which required indispensable canonical foundation for either choice. Either there is the simple recognition, as consecrations performed by oikonomia because of real and unquestionable necessity, or condemnation and punishment as inexcusably (the consecrations) performed, together with the appropriate ecclesiastical penalty, and nothing further.
In this case, the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad should have, if it was to judge justly on the basis of the divine and sacred Canons (the practice of the Church, and the historical conditions and circumstances of that particular ecclesiastical period) recognized these consecrations as dogmatically complete, and as certainly neither wanting nor needing anything further. Instead, as it is known, the aforementioned Synod, accepting and receiving suggestions and pressures of third parties, especially from the Auxentian party (as is obvious from the very text of the Decision), made its choices and decided upon this altogether anticanonical and unfounded decision concerning the cheirothesias of the aforementioned Bishops.
Therefore, as canonical Shepherds of the Church of Christ, with understanding of our responsibility, and humbly accepting the paternal advice of that Atlas of Orthodoxy, St. Mark of Ephesus, according to whom: ”No ecclesiastical matter was ever set aright by compromise, for between truth and falsehood there is nothing,” we unanimously declare that: The actions and deeds of that period, (which occurred in the context of the effort of the Church for union within the Church and the healing of schisms, [especially that of the followers of Metropolitan Chrysostomos formerly of Florina, the leaders of whom, on the pretext of the “consecration by one bishop,” gave this (“consecration”) as the excuse against union, and among which actions is the cheirothesia which was based upon an unacceptable and most condemnable (from an ecclesiastical and canonical point of view) Synodal Decision; as well as the previous to this hasty entering into communion with the Russian Church Abroad without the required canonical presuppositions and guarantees, and the acceptance of her as Judge in our ecclesiastical matters, but especially the subsequent acceptance in Greece of the aforementioned Synodal Decision of the Russian Church Abroad1, and the application subsequently of this Decision’s requirement of “cheirothesia” of the rest of the Members of the Holy Synod) were, and are, adjudged ERRONEOUS, and as such are condemned and rejected.
Code: Select all
The Holy Synod, with the very same Faith and Confession which she had from the beginning concerning the Episcopal Consecrations of 1948, (by which Apostolic Succession was assured) has even, up until today, consecrated her Bishops; and again, whenever she judges it needful, she will proceed to elect and consecrate new Bishops for the further strengthening and progress of the work of the Church of Greece, which, by Divine Grace, she preserves unchanged the sacred Deposit and especially the Apostolic Succession unsullied, these two characteristics of the Church of Christ, are indeed the necessary presuppositions of the salvation in Christ of the faithful within the Church.
Concerning the Decision of the Bishops to refer the matter of the ordination by one Bishop of the ever-memorable Hierarch and Confessor of Orthodoxy Matthew, to the Synod of the Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad, it must be clarified that there was never any doubt or ambivalence on their part concerning the validity and fullness of these ordinations, but only of the theoretical recognition, and this as the result of a healthy ecclesiastical mentality of an ecclesiastical “being subject to trial” before the appropriate ecclesiastical body for judgment and investigation if, and to what extent (the ordinations by one Bishop) were, or were not, justified. And even this, not because there was any ambivalence on our part, but chiefly as an expression of the concern of the Church for those outside of Her who followed the traditional Calendar, but who used, as reasons, such things as excuses and justifications for the continuation of schisms and divisions among them, in order precisely to heal these very schisms. This desire was not expressed willy-nilly, from time to time, but formally and Synodically. It was expressed clearly and in documents (among other times) by the Pastoral Encyclical of the Holy Synod on March 1, 1957, which, it must be noted, was signed (along with the other signatory member Bishops) by the four Bishops who were consecrated in 1948 by the ever-memorable Archbishop Matthew, where, among other matters, the following is mentioned:
“…And the portion of those who disagree, being led astray and leading others to stray, causes division by preaching that the Bishops not be recognized because of the taking place of the supposedly anticanonical consecration of a Bishop by one Bishop.
“Children beloved in the Lord,
“This refusal to recognize is an error; it is an excuse for division. It has been witnessed scientifically and historically that dogmatically the consecration is valid. Dogmatically, the Bishops are in order. They are Bishops having the fullness of Episcopal authority. The matter is solved. For the sake of ecclesiastical order from the standpoint of administration in this matter the question is judgeable before the appropriate Synod for investigation if the consecration was justified, and if it was not, then the application of the appropriate penalties. Therefore there might be some justification to contend that there is here a matter yet to be judged, which neither invalidates, nor impedes, nor suspends the full exercise of the Episcopal authority. All of our Episcopal activities and deeds are absolutely valid canonically and dogmatically until the calling-together of an Orthodox Synod in which circumstance we might be condemned administratively. Therefore it is an excuse which is put forward as an unjustified reason to justify the work of division.
“Even though this canonical and NOT DOGMATIC pretext is offered, it is not generally accepted, yet, for the sake of unity, for the sake of the Struggle, for the sake of love, for the sake of peace, we accept being administratively subject to trial, eager to come before a Canonical Orthodox Synod, whenever it might come together to render an account and to be judged for the administrative rationale of the consecration of a Bishop by one Bishop, which took place in a time of circumstantial need for the sake of the faithful …
“Your Fervent intercessors before the Lord,
The Holy Synod,
+Demetrios of Thessalonika, President
+Spyridon of Trimythus, +Andreas of Patras
+Kallistos of Corinth, +Bessarion of Trikki and Stagae
+Ioannis of Thevae and Levadeia, Meletios of Attica and Megaris
+Matthew of Vresthena, +Anthimos of Piraieus