Crucea.ro

The Holy Synod in Resistance and the Holy Synod of the Church of the True Orthodox Christians of Greece under Archbishop Chrysostomos [Kiouses]
The Cessation of Informal Dialogue
Informatory Introduction, Observations, and Documents
† Bishop Cyprian of Oreoi
Acting President of the Holy Synod Phyle, Attica

May 18, 2009 (Old Style) Holy 318 God-Bearing Fathers

Informatory Introduction

1. The Holy Synod in Resistance, by the Grace of God and with the aid of the Theotokos, has since 1985 been shepherding those pious Orthodox Christians who are by principle anti-ecumenists and who follow the traditional Church Calendar, thereby constituting the Ecclesiastical Community of the Old Calendarist Anti-Ecumenists.
2. The Orthodox Community in Resistance is assuredly ecclesial in nature, since it has as the visible center and head of its Eucharistic Synaxes [Assemblies—trans.] Orthodox Bishops who possess indisputably canonical and valid Consecrations and Apostolic Succession. This point has been additionally confirmed by their Eucharistic communion with the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, which is ubiquitously recognized. The Bishops preside at Synaxes, preach the word of God, and offer the Eucharist as “Icons of Christ” the Great High Priest and as those presiding “in the place of God,” as St. Ignatios of Antioch puts it (cf. Patrologia Græca, Vol. V, cols. 668A, 853A).
3. The Orthodox in resistance, along with all of the Old Calendarist anti-ecumenists, can be characterized with theological exactitude as an Orthodox Church, since Bishops embody and express in place and time the Catholic Church, that is, the entire Church.
• Where the whole Christ is embodied and where there is partaken the whole of Christ, there the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is actualized and revealed as a Theandric organism, wherein the Holy Trinity dwells, according to the Saints: “Wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church,” and “the Bishop is in the Church and the Church in the Bishop” (St. Ignatios of Antioch, cf. Patrologia Græca, Vol. V, col. 713B, and St. Cyprian of Carthage, “Epistle LXVI,” §8. Cf. Ephesians 4:5-6 and I Corinthians 10:15-16: The Body of Christ as an Ecclesiastical and Mysteriological [Sacramental—trans.] Synaxis).
4. Within the domain of the Old Calendar Church in Greece, since 1984—with regard specifically to the Orthodox in resistance—there has existed an estrangement and division (though not in essence a schism), inasmuch as in that year Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Phyle lodged a “Canonical Charge” against the Synod (under [Metropolitan—trans.] Antonios of Attica and Megara) to which he briefly belonged and broke communion therewith “for reasons of faith and righteousness,” on the basis of Canon XXXI of the Holy Apostles and Canon XV of the First-Second Synod (see the chronicle of these events in Ἅγιος Κυπριανός, No. 191 [November 1984], pp. 377-407).
5. Given the foregoing fundamental theological and historical data, our Synod in Resistance, in accordance with Resolution IX of its Thirty-Fourth Regular Annual Meeting (October 4, 2007 [Old Style]) commenced, on February 16, 2008 (Old Style), an informal dialogue with the Holy Synod of the Church of the True Orthodox Christians of Greece under Archbishop Chrysostomos [Kiouses], in order to promote a ministry of reconciliation.
6. The two Synods were represented by two Episcopal Committees, each comprised of three members, which convened in seven meetings (I, February 16, 2008 [Old Style], in Megara–VII, November 28, 2008 [Old Style], in Piræus). Unofficial minutes were kept separately by each committee.
7. The members of our Holy Synod received precise notification of the exchanges at these meetings through reports compiled by the Secretary of the Synod, His Grace, Bishop Klemes of Gardikion, and approved by our Standing Holy Synod (Report I, February 20, 2008 [Old Style]–Report VIII, December 2, 2008 [Old Style]).
8. At the last meeting (VII, November 28, 2008 [Old Style]), it was decisively resolved that a detailed response should be given by our Holy Synod to the “Synodal Letter of the Church of the True Orthodox Christians of Greece ‘To the Orthodox Community in Resistance’” (Protocol No. 3-1141 [September 9/22, 2008]), containing ten “points” regarded by its compiler, His Grace, Bishop Photios of Marathon, as “very important and nonnegotiable” (for this “Synodal Letter,” see the attached documents, §III.1).
9. Our Holy Synod, by way of its three-member Committee, and with the approval of the Standing Synod, responded to the aforementioned “Synodal Letter of the Church of the True Orthodox Christians of Greece” through a “Synodal Epistle” (Protocol No. 527 [December 17, 2008 (Old Style)]), in which, inter alia, our observations on the “points” made by the other side are enumerated in the form of “positions” and it is stated, in conclusion, that “we are not suspending informal dialogue, but are addressing an appeal for a magnanimous waiver, on your part, of what you consider ‘nonnegotiable points,’ in order to open the way for the unity that we desire” (for this “Synodal Letter,” see the attached documents, §III.2).
10. On February 15, 2009 (Old Style), an “Epistle of Archbishop Chrysostomos II of Athens and All Greece” (Protocol No. 480 [February 10/23, 2009]) was delivered to our Secretary by Bishop Photios of Marathon. Through this “Epistle,” we were notified of the decision of his Holy Synod that ripe “conditions for full rapprochement” do not exist at present and that, insofar as we do not, in essence, “have the same common Faith,” we cannot “speak about any unity of Faith between us” (for this “Archiepiscopal Epistle,” see the attached documents, §III.3).
11. Finally, on April 30, 2009, a document “from the Holy Synod” entitled “Communiqué” was posted on the website of the Church of the True Orthodox Christians of Greece. Through this document it is made known that “under the present conditions, the necessary presuppositions for the continuation of dialogue with the ‘Orthodox Community in Resistance’ do not exist,” since “it has been determined that we do not have identical views on matters of ecclesiology” (for this “Communiqué,” see the attached documents, §III.4).

II. Observations
1. Our Holy Synod in Resistance, in the wake of the “Archiepiscopal Epistle” and the “Communiqué” of the Church of the True Orthodox Christians of Greece, deems it expedient to publish the aforementioned documents pertinent to our informal dialogue, which in essence lasted for exactly one year (February 2008–February 2009).
2. These documents will afford the opportunity for a meticulous comparative study of our discussions and the deduction of correct conclusions, since, in our judgment, the “Communiqué,” although polite and, at the same time, also circumspect, is not in general clear, precise, or complete.
3. For example, in one note the “Communiqué” characterizes as a “positive step” an alleged “agreement not to offer the Mysteries to New Calendarists,” as if the two committees had agreed on this point, whereas our position (6.5) is crystal clear: the Synod in Resistance has already implemented this by synodal resolution!
• Likewise, it is stated that “there were certain contacts between the Hierarchs,” whereas, in fact, three-member Episcopal Committees were officially appointed. These committees engaged in seven three-hour meetings, for almost a year, in joint prayer and with an amicable disposition.
4. Nevertheless, it is our conviction that the informal dialogue that we conducted constitutes an exceptional ecclesiastical event within the ranks of the Old Calendarist anti-ecumenist Orthodox in Greece and has enriched the experience of the Hierarchs who took part in it.
5. Thus, the sudden decision of the Church of the True Orthodox Christians of Greece to discontinue further deliberations caused us no small surprise. Our surprise is founded on three crucial questions:
i. If our informal dialogue, as a preliminary process, led to certain basic conclusions, why, one might wonder, has it not advanced to a formal dialogue, so as to bring the ministry of reconciliation to its fulfillment?
ii. If it emerged that a “sameness of Faith” was lacking, is there perhaps some reason why a formal dialogue is not being inaugurated for the purpose of removing our differences and achieving such a sameness of Faith?
iii. When, indeed, did the One Church declare “by a common universal resolution” that the three putatively firm “points” of difference between us constitute rudiments of the “unadulterated correct Faith of the Church” and are consequently necessary presuppositions for Eucharistic unity?

III. The Documents
1. Synodal Letter containing the ten [nonnegotiable—trans.] “points” [of dialogue—trans].
2. Synodal Epistle [from the Synod in Resistance—trans.] regarding the ten preceding “nonnegotiable points.”
3. Archiepiscopal Epistle [of Archbishop Chrysostomos (Kiouses)—trans.]
4. Communiqué [issued by the Church of the True Orthodox Christians of Greece—trans.]

Document 1
Republic of Greece Church of the True Orthodox Christians of Greece Holy Synod Kaningos 32 (3rd Floor)106 82 AthensTel. 210 38 28 280–Fax. 21038 47 385 GREECE
Protocol No. 3-1141 Athens, September 9/22, 2008
To the Orthodox Community in Resistance,Holy Monastery of Sts. Cyprian and Justina,Phyle, Attica
Beloved brethren in Christ:
Recapitulating all that we said in the oral discussions between us, we hereby make it clear [sic: “διευκρινίζομεν,” not “διεκρινίζομεν,” as in the original—trans.] that the points which must be contained in any document of yours to us and which we consider very important and nonnegotiable are the following:
• The document must be addressed to the Holy Synod of the Church of the True Orthodox Christians of Greece and must contain:
• an acknowledgement that the walling-off [of your Synod] in 1984 and the subsequent formation, through Consecrations, of a new Synod was a hasty act.
• an unequivocal condemnation of ecumenism as a heresy.
• a rejection of the idea of New Calendarism as the “mother Church.”
• an acknowledgement that members of the New Calendarist-Ecumenist “Church” must not commune of the Immaculate Mysteries before being incorporated into true Orthodoxy.
• the acceptance through Chrismation of those coming from New Calendarism/Ecumenism.
• the acceptance through Baptism of all who do not bear even the form of Orthodox Baptism.
• a retraction of the expression “ailing members of the Church” [a Patristic expression—trans.] in the case of heretics.
• an avowal of the validity of the condemnation of Ecumenism by the Russian Church Abroad [ROCA—trans.] and by the Church of the True Orthodox Christians of Greece [with which the latter maintained no communion, whereas the Synod of Resistance did, from 1994 until the ROCA’s union with Moscow in 2007—trans.].
• an avowal that those competent to condemn heresies have always been the Bishops who abide in Orthodoxy, whatever their number or whether or not Patriarchs are among them. Today it is the Bishops of the Church of the True Orthodox Christians who have the right to condemn Ecumenism and every heresy.
Also, it would behoove you not to substitute “in Resistance” for “True Orthodox Christians” in any of the foregoing [sic: “ἀνωτέρω,” not “ἀνωτέρῳ,” as in the original—trans.], so as to avoid misunderstandings. Such a document would facilitate us in lifting the major impediment between you and us, that is, the [“null and void,” as characterized by the ROCA, on opening communion with our Bishops in 1994—trans.] depositions of [your Metropolitan and Bishops in—trans.] 1986.
The Secretary of the Holy Synod
† Bishop Photios of Marathon
Document 2
Old Calendar Orthodox Church Holy Synod in Resistance
Protocol No. 527
To the Holy Synodof the Church of the True Orthodox Christians of Greece Kaningos 32, 3rd FloorAthens
Phyle, Attica December 17, 2008 (Old Style )Holy Prophet Daniel and the Three Youths

_____________
Your Beatitude;Most Reverend and Right Reverend Holy Hierarchs;Beloved Brothers and Fathers in Christ:We greet you with a kiss of peace and love in Christ!
1. This past February, our Holy Synods, by way of three-member Episcopal Committees, inaugurated an informal dialogue, with a view to the restoration, with God’s help, of our ecclesiastical communion, which has been disrupted since 1984.
2. In the seven Meetings of the Joint Commission to date (I: February 16/29, 2008–VII: November 28/December 11, 2008), we, the Committee for Dialogue of the Synod in Resistance, have displayed a clear and sincere disposition for the realization of the God-pleasing vision of unity.
3. This disposition of ours was manifested in its fullness when, at Meetings V (September 19, 2008 [Old Style], in Piræus) and VI (October 29, 2008 [Old Style], in Phyle), we stated explicitly that, in spite of the substantial differences that have obtained in our ecclesiological self-understanding, we, the Synod in Resistance, were ready to make concessions, wherever this might prove possible, for the sake of overcoming the division between us.
4. Indeed, at the Seventh Meeting (November 28, 2008 [Old Style], in Piræus), we indicated in writing (“First Memorandum and Appeal,” November 25, 2008 [Old Style]) the fundamental and essential issues on which it had become clear that both committees concurred, during their aforementioned Meetings, since we jointly avowed the following points:
i. We are Orthodox, belonging to a single family, together constituting the Orthodox anti-ecumenists in Greece.
ii. The unity of this family has been disrupted on account of mistakes made, albeit with good intentions, on both sides.
iii. The major issue that concerns us is the confrontation of the heresy of ecumenism (1920-), within which the calendar question (1924-) is included.
iv. A common point of reference for our respect and gratitude is the venerable person of the Confessor, Metropolitan Chrysostomos (Kabourides, †1955) of Phlorina.
v. Our Hierarchical Consecrations have a common origin (through the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, 1960 and 1962), being ratified (1969-) at the most official level.
vi. Up until 1979 (and further, until 1984), ecclesiastical communion existed between us.
5. In spite of this, you have requested (see your letter, Protocol No. 3-1141 [September 9/22, 2008]) that our Holy Synod take a position on certain “points,” which you consider “very important and nonnegotiable.”
6. Our Holy Synod in Resistance, during its Thirty-Fifth Regular Annual Meeting (October 4, 2008 [Old Style]), examined these “points” in depth, article by article, and our observations thereon are listed concisely in what follows, in the form of positions:
6.1. Our document to you, obviously in the event that we submit a request for union, “must be addressed to the Holy Synod of the Church of the True Orthodox Christians of Greece.”
• This “point” does not in principle constitute an essential issue for us, especially since it pertains to the final and—with God’s help—auspicious outcome of the dialogue.
6.2. You ask us, the Synod in Resistance, to acknowledge “that the walling-off in 1984 and the subsequent formation, through Consecrations, of a new Synod was a hasty act.”
• Although our walling-off in 1984 was not an action directed against the then, or present, Holy Synod of the Church of the True Orthodox Christians of Greece, nonetheless, twenty-four years ago, in accordance with the prevailing climate, as far as we are concerned, that walling-off, and also our subsequent Hierarchical Consecrations, were imperative actions, which we undertook in good faith.
• Despite this, for the sake of peace and reconciliation, we feel able, today, to characterize the aforementioned actions as hasty.
6.3. The Synod in Resistance is requested to issue an “unequivocal condemnation of ecumenism as a heresy.”
• All of the members of the Holy Synod in Resistance have always considered, and unreservedly characterized, ecumenism as a heresy—indeed, a pan-heresy—and, in line with this view of ecumenism, they call themselves anti-ecumenists and promote anti-ecumenism by means of innumerable special articles, books, periodicals, products, and presentations.
6.4. We are asked to “reject the idea of New Calendarism as the ‘mother Church.’”
• This indeed inexpert expression, which has been employed by one of our Bishops and which has already been withdrawn by him as inapposite, has never been officially proclaimed by our Synod in Resistance, nor has it ever been used in, let alone incorporated into, the basic and foundational documents that express our ecclesiological and anti-ecumenist self-understanding.
6.5 It is requested that we acknowledge “that members of the New Calendarist-Ecumenist ‘Church’ must not commune of the Immaculate Mysteries before being incorporated into true Orthodoxy.”
• We consider this practice, which we have also put into effect, to be correct in principle. Furthermore, by synodal resolution we announce in our Churches before Holy Communion that—aside from general preparation—only those who confess to spiritual Fathers belonging to our jurisdiction and, more broadly, to the Old Calendar movement, are permitted to commune.
6.6. We are asked to implement “the acceptance through Chrismation of those coming from New Calendarism/Ecumenism.”
• Although the practice of our Holy Synod hitherto has made provision for the anointing of those coming to us with Holy Chrism, with the consent of the local Bishop and on the basis of a special service composed by us for this purpose, we consider it impossible to adopt a universal and uniform practice of reception through Chrismation, a topic on which the Orthodox Church has not yet made a decision through a Major or OEcumenical Synod.
6.7. We are asked to implement “the acceptance through Baptism of all who do not bear even the form of Orthodox Baptism.”
• Although in principle our attitude is, of course, condemnatory towards Baptisms celebrated contrary to the prescribed formula by certain innovationist Churches, we think nonetheless that only a Pan-Orthodox or Major or OEcumenical Synod ought to issue a definitive and irrevocable declaration on this thorny issue, since the Orthodox Church, albeit with preconditions, has never repeated from the beginning an Orthodox Baptism which, while imperfect, has been performed in the Name of the Holy Trinity, with the sole exception—and this, when necessary—of that part which is imperfect or defective (see Canon LI of St. Nikephoros the Confessor, Patriarch of Constantinople: “Church canons appoint…”).
• It should be noted, for complete clarification especially of our foregoing positions on “points” 6 and 7 and for the avoidance of any misunderstanding, that they pertain, not in general to heretics explicitly condemned by the Church, but to those of wrong belief who have yet to be judged, towards whom we are in resistance and from whom we have walled ourselves off (Canon XV of the First-Second Synod).
6.8. It is proposed that we “retract the expression ‘ailing members of the Church’ in the case of heretics.”
• Although we believe that this ecclesiological phrase, which appears in official texts of our Synod in Resistance, with reference to as yet uncondemned heretics, has been misunderstood, we could in the future, for the sake of peace, refrain from using it.
6.9. It is proposed to us that we avow “the validity of the condemnation of Ecumenism by the Russian Church Abroad and by the Church of the True Orthodox Christians of Greece.”
• Although we consider the stand of our Synod in Resistance towards ecumenism to be sufficient (see §6.3 above), and although we can also in principle accept—under certain conditions and in the framework of our theological perspective—the practice of the ROCA, we nonetheless observe, in this regard, that these two “condemnations” are subject to many interpretations and are not identical in meaning, since they have in principle different ecclesiological starting points and different goals (anathematization of a belief [in the case of the ROCA—Trans.] and anathematization of persons [in the case of the Church of the True Orthodox Christians of Greece—Trans.]), because of which there is an internal conflict of authority between them, and for this reason our attitude towards them has always been critical.
6.10. It is proposed, finally, that we avow “that those competent to condemn heresies have always been the Bishops who abide in Orthodoxy, regardless of their number or of the inclusion of Patriarchs among them. Today, it is the Bishops of the Church of the True Orthodox Christians who have the right to condemn Ecumenism and every heresy.”
• We resisters have always had the well-founded conviction, in direct relation and reference to the preceding “point,” §6.9, that anathematization and condemnation are not the business either of individuals among the faithful or of those ecclesiastical administrative bodies which have a temporary synodal structure, yet which do not possess all of the canonical prerequisites to represent the Church fully, validly, and suitably for the proclamation of anathemas and condemnations.
• So great a right and “dignity” is “granted” only to the choir of the Apostles “and those who have truly become their successors in the strictest sense, full of Grace and power” (St. John Chrysostomos), and we are unable to understand the hasty tendency in our day to anathematize and condemn, since until such successors come into existence, “everyone who is Orthodox in every respect anathematizes every heretic potentially, even if not verbally” (St. Theodore the Studite).

* * *

Your Beatitude; Holy Hierarchs:
7. On the basis of our preceding observations, it can be ascertained that your weighty agendum also contains “points” to which we are unable to add our signatures and on which we are unable to issue joint declarations, since, in our view, as Orthodox in resistance, the entire Orthodox Church must pronounce on them by way of a “common universal resolution” (St. Photios the Great).
8. Submitting for your review our positions on the “points” in your truly weighty agendum, we, the Synod in Resistance, are not suspending informal dialogue, but are addressing an appeal for a magnanimous waiver on your part of what you consider “nonnegotiable points,” in order to open the way for the unity that we desire.
In an embrace of peace and love in Christ,
The Committee for the Synod in Resistance
The Acting President
Bishop Cyprian of Oreoi
Members
Bishop Ambrose of Methone
Bishop Klemes of Gardikion

Document 3
Archbishop Chrysostomos IIof Athens and All Greece
Protocol No. 480 February 10/23, 2009
To:The Orthodox Community in ResistanceHoly Monastery of Sts. Cyprian and Justina,PHYLE, ATTICA
Beloved brethren in Christ:
In response your document, Protocol No. 527/December 17, 2008, which was read to our Synod at its meeting on January 9/22, 2009, we notify you of the following points:
As you well know, during the past year, on the occasion of the illness of your elder [His Eminence, Metropolitan Cyprian—trans.], there were for the first time certain contacts between us for the sake of a desirable rapprochement, to the end of restoring the unity of our Church that was ruptured in 1984.
These contacts, although informal, were undertaken, at least on our part—but we believe the same is true on your part—with enthusiasm and expectations for healing the wound of schism, which has greatly harmed the Church in difficult times for her, such as the apostasy of mankind from the true God.
The Orthodox Church has always endeavored to heal schisms, in order that the members cut off from her might return to her fold, for she is the one and only Ark of salvation. To this end, wherever they discerned a sincere desire in the faithful separated from her for lifting a schism, the Synods, using every legitimate oeconomy, healed these situations. On one issue alone they would not make concessions, on the confession of the Right Faith, which they required [ἀπήτων, sic–trans.] in its entirety, so that 15
it might become common to the whole Church, according to the Apostle Paul, who says “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Ephesians 4:5).
The question that has concerned our Holy Synod is whether you and we have the same common Faith.
With regard to this, you admit in your aforementioned document that on certain “fundamental and essential issues a concurrence of views was discerned,” whereas on other issues you do not agree with us, insofar as you demand “that the entire Orthodox Church must pronounce on them”!
This view of yours constitutes a fundamental and essential difference in ecclesiology, which pertains to the Faith of the Orthodox Church, and takes its starting-point from all that the sometime leader of your Community, Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos, declared in 1984. Of course, we appreciate that your committee has taken positive steps in recent times towards rapprochement with us on matters of the Right Faith, but it is necessary that you accept this Faith of the Church in its entirety.
For the present, we are of the opinion that conditions are not ripe for us to speak about any unity of Faith between us, such that we could examine how to heal your Consecrations.
Until conditions for full rapprochement ripen, we, the clergy, monastics, and laypeople, will pray that the Lord bless this endeavor and deign to bring it to a successful conclusion.
With best wishes,
† THE ARCHBISHOP
[signed “Chrysostomos of Athens”]

Document 4
DOCUMENTS
Date 30/04/2009
Subject Dialogue with the Synod in Resistance
Protocol No.
Keywords
COMMUNIQUÉ
On the occasion of the illness of the Elder of the Holy Monastery of Sts. Cyprian and Justina, in Phyle, Attica, [Metropolitan–trans.] Cyprian, there have been certain contacts between the Hierarchs of the Holy Synod with the Orthodox Community in Resistance, which is separated from the Church of the True Orthodox Christians of Greece.
Discussions took place with the aim of restoring the unity between us that was ruptured in 1985. From these discussions it emerged that, in spite of the positive steps [1] that have been accomplished by the aforementioned Community towards rapprochement, it has nonetheless been determined that we do not have identical views on matters of ecclesiology [2].
Thus, in our judgment, under the present conditions there do not exist the necessary preconditions for the continuation of dialogue.
We call on all of the faithful members of the Church, clergy and laity, to pray for the creation in the future of the indispensable conditions for the restoration of unity on the foundation of the truth, in accordance with the will of the Lord.
From the Holy Synod

__________________________________________
[1] We regard as positive steps the consent on the part of the Community in Resistance to refer to us as the Church of the True Orthodox Christians of Greece, the unequivocal condemnation of Ecumenism on their part, their categorical statement that they have never considered the New Calendar Church their “Mother Church,” a cessation in their proclamation of the theory of “ailing members of the Church,” their agreement not to offer the Mysteries to New Calendarists, and their acceptance of the principle that the remnant Orthodox Bishops of every age have the right to condemn every heresy.
[2] Agreement was not reached on the reception of New Calendarists and ecumenists by confession and Chrismation, on the reception through Baptism of all who do not bear even the form of Orthodox Baptism, or on the recognition of the condemnation of Ecumenists by name, since the Resisters think that only a Pan-Orthodox Synod has the competence to do this. (The Resisters discuss these points of difference in detail in their communiqué of December 9, 2008.)

Source: synodinresistance.org

Gheorghe Vanau