Why the GOC is not a Schism, regardless of what New Calendarists think.

This is a safe harbor for inquirers and catechumen to ask questions and share their journey into Holy Orthodoxy. Please be kind to our newcomers and warmly welcome them. All Forum Rules apply. No polemics. No heated discussions. No name-calling.
Post Reply
User avatar
Isaakos
Member
Posts: 266
Joined: Sat 4 January 2014 8:27 pm
Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin- Discerning the GOC’s.

Why the GOC is not a Schism, regardless of what New Calendarists think.

Post by Isaakos »

WHY is the GOC not a schism?

There are many people, mostly New Calendarists and ecumenists, who decry the Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians as a schismatic movement. They will say:

"See, they have condemned everyone! They have initiated Kangaroo courts and non canonically deposed the CANONICAL Orthodox Churches! They have declared the whole world anathema and kept to themselves! They are the new Donatists, the NEW Catharii, the NEW Schismatics."'

This is a very easy conclusion to come to; it seems reasonable, after all, the GOC is small. It's practically a splinter of a log, and now this SPLINTER wants to declare to the log that it isn't living up to the ideal of the splinter?! What audacity!

But this is the wrong approach. it has many false working assumptions:

  1. That the true church will not be reduced to a mere handful.

  2. That numbers decide the truth.

  3. That cessation of communion and denunciation are EQUIVALENT to attempted canonical condemnations and anathemas.

  4. That willfully embracing an anathematized position has no effect on one's priesthood or ecclesiastical standing.

  5. That the decrees of Pan-Orthodox synods and the anathemas issued by them and their teachings are disposable and subject to personal interpretation.

However, consider the often abused and misquoted canons of the 861 a.d. 1-2 synod of St. Photius the great. The 13th canon basically says that if a priest ceases to commemorate his bishop on the grounds of some charge against him (a moral/canonical infraction), that priest is a schismatic and is to be deposed.

Similarly the 14th canon says the same for bishops in regard to their metropolitan. If a bishop ceases to commemorate his metropolitan on account of some charge against him of a moral/canonical nature, he is creating a schism and is also to be deposed.

The 15th canon says the same for metropolitans in relation to their Patriarch/Archbishop.

Yet, the same 15th canon concludes thusly:

"But as for those persons, on the other hand, who, on account of some heresy condemned by holy Councils, or Fathers, withdrawing themselves from communion with their president, who, that is to say, is preaching the heresy publicly, and teaching it barehead in church, such persons not only are not subject to any canonical penalty on account of their having walled themselves off from any and all communion with the one called a Bishop before any conciliar or synodal verdict has been rendered, but, on the contrary, they shall be deemed worthy to enjoy the honor which befits them among Orthodox Christians. For they have defied, not Bishops, but pseudo-bishops and pseudo-teachers; and they have not sundered the union of the Church with any schism, but, on the contrary, have been sedulous to rescue the Church from schisms and divisions."

St. Nikodemos confirms that these canons are condemning those who are separating from their bishops for moral matters and canonical issues when, in his interpretation he says:

"But these provisions are of effect if presbyters separate from their bishops, or bishops separate from their Metropolitans, or Metropolitans separate from their Patriarchs, on account of certain criminal charges, of fornication, say, of sacrilege, and of other serious crimes. If, however, the said presidents are heretics, and are preaching their heresy openly, and on this account those subject to them separate themselves, and even though it be before there has been any conciliar or synodal trial concerning the heresy, but are even deemed to deserve fitting honor as Orthodox Christians, since not only have they caused no schism in the Church on account of their separation, but have rather freed the Church from the schism and heresy of their pseudo-bishops."

So, what we have clearly established here is that the exception to the rule of maintaining communion with your bishop, no matter what his personal failures, is the sin and crime of heresy, and by extension schism, which the fathers teach is equivalent to heresy and its beginning:

"Between heresy and schism", explains St. Jerome, "there is this difference, that heresy perverts dogma, while schism, by rebellion against the bishop, separates from the Church. Nevertheless there is no schism which does not trump up a heresy to justify its departure from the Church (In Ep. ad Tit., iii, 10).

"Those, indeed, who belong to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church - they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: it anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion." (St. Ignatius of Antioch, hearer of St. John the Apostle, c. 110 A.D.)

Notice St. Ignatius' organic progression from schismatic to heretic.

Now at this point the New Calendarists love to emphasize: "It is one thing to simply stop commemorating your bishop, quite another to declare the entirety of the synod deposed! It's one thing to act within the limits of the canons, another to be rash and exceed them!"

Yes, this is certainly true. I would even point out that many New Calendarists make the excellent point that once you cease commemorating ONE bishop, you better find another ASAP. It is neither safe or healthy to be headless especially as a priest, though it is allowable for a time.

Yet I will state this clearly and from the rooftops: THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO THE GOC!

And how??? the ecumenists gasp.

Here is how: It is quite correct that any priest who ceases to commemorate his bishop ought to find another bishop to place himself under as soon as possible. It is also correct that priests have no authority to judge or to implement canons, this is solely the prerogative of bishops in synod.

But what of bishops who cease commemorating, say, their archbishop? Say a bishop is fed up with the Archbishop and bishops of his synod willfully invoking anathematized positions (Which if you research you will find all anathemas are related solely to the potential for heresy or schism. Do a word search for "anathema" in the Pedalion). He of course has the right to cease commemorating them.

But what is he to do when suddenly the cacodox bishops rain down upon him and the souls entrusted to him persecutions and threats, banishments, imprisonments, trials and all manner of tribulations? Well, certainly survival mode kicks in, and finding another bishop can wait.

And again, suppose OTHER bishops come to the same conclusion as the first and cease commemorating the Archbishop of the Synod.

Will they not cooperate amongst one another for their mutual survival? Certainly. And what canon could fault them for this?

And would they not, due to lack of opportunity and persecutions, content themselves with commemorating ONE ANOTHER in their liturgies? And will they not CLEARLY choose to concelebrate together? Who could doubt it.

And yet in all of this what canons have been violated? Do not the confessors of the faith have the right to maintain a pure confession by maintaining communion with other confessing bishops?

Of course. Yet what ELSE is this mutual cooperation and commemoration than a SYNOD?

And so the serious question must be considered: Between the bishops who have opposed the Archbishop who invokes anathema, and the others who have NOT and even cooperated in persecuting the Non-Commemorating bishops, which has continued to exist as that local church?
Obviously those who refuse to capitulate to the anathema and refuse to hold any communion with those who do capitulate. Remember, every bishop IS the local catholic Church, for, as the fathers say, the Church is in the Bishop and the Bishop is in the Church. But WHAT Church will the synod of non-commemorating bishops be? What else than the living existence of the Archbishops synod? After all, What Church did St Mark of Ephesus belong to when all the bishops surrounding him fell into heresy? What other than the Church of Greece? HE was the Church of Greece then.

Then the issue of the Archbishops Pertinacity arises: say 10 years go by and he refuses to correct himself and maintains his anathematized view even when confronted continuously and openly resisted by many bishops. Are we to hold him guiltless of placing himself under anathema? Are we to imagine there is no great consequence to this objective bare-headed spitting upon the truth? Certainly not! So at this point not only is it completely justified to cease commemorating him, but to truly consider him, as the canon says, a pseudo-bishop. a FALSE bishop. He has become a schismatic, if not heretical. For remember that schism ALSO consists of overstepping one's authority and trying to speak in the name of others when they do not agree, to say nothing of refusing correction and continually subjecting oneself to anathema.

But then we must ask, what is the NATURE of the anathema? What is its effect on those willfully embrace it?

Listen to the Holy Theophan the Recluse:

"If anyone fears the act of anathema, let him avoid the teachings which cause one to fall under it. If anyone fears it for others, let him restore him to sound teaching. If you are Orthodox and yet you are not well disposed toward this act, then you are found to be contradicting yourself. But if you have already abandoned sound doctrine, then what business is it of yours what is done in the Church by those who maintain it? By the very fact that you have conceived a different view of things than that which is maintained in the Church, you have already separated yourself from the Church. It is not inscription in the baptismal records which makes one a member of the Church, but the spirit and content of one's opinions. Whether your teaching and your name are pronounced as being under anathema or not, you already fall under it when your opinions are opposed to those of the Church, and when you persist in them. Fearful is the anathema. Leave off your evil opinions. Amen."

We see that a man who embraces anathema, by the very fact has severed himself from the Church.

And ESPECIALLY to the Holy Ignatius Brianchaninov:

"The word anathema means severance, rejection. When the Church anathematizes a teaching, it means that that teaching contains blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and for the sake of salvation it should be rejected and removed, as poison is removed from food. When a person is anathematized, it means that he has irreversibly adopted a blasphemous teaching, and through them deprives himself and those near him, to whom he has imparted his line of thought, of salvation. When a person has made the commitment to abandon the blasphemous teaching and to receive the teachings upheld in the Orthodox Church, he is obligated, according to the rules of the Orthodox Church, to anathematize the false teaching that he formerly upheld, which was destroying him, alienating him from God, keeping him locked in enmity against God, in blasphemy against the Holy Spirit and communion with satan."

And here we see that those things which are anathematized are blasphemies against the Holy Spirit, and to adhere to them is to be kept in bondage to Satan.

So consider in this light the actions of the GOC:

  1. It begins as a reaction to the State Church of Greece adopting an anathematized position (The Papal Menaion directly and paschalion indirectly, anathematized on three occasions ). It is led by Monks on Athos and Lay People in Athens.

  2. The Hieromonks cease commemorating the Patriarch and Archbishop and instead begin to commemorate "Every Orthodox bishop" just as the canons allow.

  3. After years of oppression and persecution, the community of the GOC recognizes the nature of the State Church of Greece as being essentially schismatic, by persecuting piety, despising tradition, embracing anathema, refusing to hear objections and enslaving itself to Satan, just as the Holy Ignatius says above.

  4. Finally, in 1935 three metropolitans decide to shepherd the GOC. THey make a public adjuration of faith, and are received by the holy father Matthew the athonite into the GOC. Many will contest this saying, "HOW can a priest receive a schismatic bishop? HOW will he return his episcopacy?! This is fanaticism and falsehood!"

That's understandable, but wrong. These objectors apparently don't read the Pedalion.

What do we see in the Canons of St. Basil the Great? In Canon 1 we read:

"It therefore seemed best to those who dealt with the subject in the beginning to rule that the attitude of heretics should be set aside entirely; but as for those who have merely split apart as a schism, they were to be considered as still belonging to the Church; as for those, on the other hand, who were in parasynagogues, if they have been improved by considerable repentance and are willing to return, they are to be admitted again into the Church, so that often even those who departed in orders with the insubordinates, provided that they manifest regret, may be admitted again to the same rank."

Here we see that parasynagogues, those disobedient and unruly gatherings of disciplined clerics, although outside the Church, can yet be returned to the Church, in rank, through repentance. And certainly, those bishops who were ordained before the Synod called down an anathema upon its own head were true bishops, and on account of their struggle to fight from within not from malice or stubbornness, but to avoid being schismatic, certainly could not be termed schismatics and no worse than parasynagogue bishops. Hence they could legitimately be received INTO the GOC in RANK by confession alone, for certainly Fr. Matthew, as a priest had the power to hear confessions and remit sinful acts. And if they confessed to him and then in public, as they did, then these bishops certainly could be received by common acclamation without need for cheirothesia or ordination. And in fact, two of the three bishops received PERFORMED an act of regularization on the THIRD Bishop because he was made a bishop AFTER 1924. This shows they clearly considered the State Church of Greece schismatic from that time forward.

We have so far demonstrated that far from being a schism, the GOC existed as the legitimate continuation of the Church of Greece. Far from being schismatics, its priests and bishops had every right to CEASE commemorating those bishops who had willfully taken upon themselves the terrible curse of anathema, which is communion with Satan. FAR from being schismatics, the many bishops who no longer commemorated the Archbishop certainly were not proscribed from commemorating one another and cooperating in their sacred struggle against anathematized innovation. Far from being ALIENS to the Church of Christ they were the true sons of the Church. The same Church of a St. Mark of Ephesus, or St. Maximos the Confessor, or St. Nicetas, to the SAME Church in the SAME way, they belonged and WERE.

But now the final objection: "But they couldn't canonically condemn the New Calendarists! They didn't have the required numbers to declare them deposed!"

It is debateable whether the canons regarding a specific number of bishops apply to a Church so small and weakened by persecutions to begin with, BUT, be that as it may, the objection is irrelevant.

WHY???

Because at NO TIME did the GOC EVER try to impose canonical penalties on any member of the State Church Synod!

They DENOUNCED the State Church, they EXPLAINED why it should be considered schismatic, they called their followers to hold it as such, and on the basis of logical argument reached and promoted the conclusion that they could not have valid sacraments.

BUT on no individual were canonical penalties pronounced. The new Calendarists are baffled when confronted with this, because they can't conceive of such a sharp resistance that yet doesn't mis-wield the canons.

An example is the 1957 Encyclical of the GOC:

Declaration Against the New Calendarists, Modernists and Ecumenists

"The official state schismatic [church] by its transgressions and apostasies, remaining in schism, is becoming heretical. In the commentary of the First Canon of St. Basil the Great (footnote 1) is declared: “A schism persisting wrongly becomes a schismato-heresy, and a schismato-heresy becomes a complete heresy” (Divine Chrysostom).We confess with all the strength of our hearts and with a tyrannical trumpet we declare our Faith and confession as follows: We remain firmly unshaken in the Faith of our Fathers, in the injunctions of the New Testament, the Symbol of the Faith, the sacred Canons decreed by the holy seven Ecumenical and Local Councils, in the Teachings of the God-bearing Fathers, in the Decisions of the Pan-Orthodox Councils and Patriarchs, and in the Sacred Traditions. We exclude and reject every deviation, every addition or subtraction of even one iota. We are obedient only to decisions of Orthodox Councils. We denounce the “official” [church] as innovationist, as schismatic, as cacodox, paving directly towards heresy. We have no communion with the cacodox “official” [church], not recognizing the validity of its mysteries, not considering its acts and condemnations against us to have any authority. We are indifferent to, and by no means fall by, the persecutions, the placing of the spears, the imprisonments, the defrockments, the slanders and insults, the banishments, with which the “official” [church] unmercifully treats us, thereby becoming “God-fighting” according to St. Athanasius the Great; [the “official” church] bears not a single power, nor has the capability to shake our faith and confession in regards to the Patristic [traditions] and separate us from the Holy Church, the Bride of Christ."

  • Metropolitan Demetrius of Thessalonica (President of the Holy Synod)
  • Metropolitan Spyridon II of Trimythus
  • Metropolitan Andrew of Patras
  • Metropolitan Callistus of Corinth
  • Metropolitan Bessarion of Tricca and Stagae
  • Metropolitan John of Thebes and Lebadia
  • Metropolitan Meletius of Attica and Megaris
  • Metropolitan Matthew II of Bresthena
  • Metropolitan Epiphanius of Citium
  • Metropolitan Anthimus of Piraeus
  • Metropolitan Theocletus of Salamis
  • Metropolitan Agathangelus of Tinos

Archpriest Eugene Tombros (Secretary of the Holy Synod)

Notice, the Encyclical is a declaration, a denouncing, and yes, even a condemnation, but it is not an attempt to foist canonical penalties upon individuals over which this synod did not have direct authority! It is merely a CONCLUSION, albeit a tight and theological conclusion based upon the faith.

For example, there are no three canonical summons of any New Calendarist Hierarch and an attempt to have him accused by a person in good standing with their synod and judged by at LEAST 12 bishops and rendered an authoritative synodical verdict. This would be the canonical method of defrocking any bishop.

BUT The GOC didn't take that power into its hands, its position is officially one of not only resistance, but rejection. Rejection of anathema, rejection of schism, rejection of gracelessness, rejection of heresy, rejection of cacodoxy.

Again, the stance taken is simply: "Because our faith teaches schismatics are not with Christ, and you are schismatic, given you embrace anathema and reject Christ, we reject you as foreign to Christ."

This is strict, but not uncanonical.

Therefore, when we examine what is allowable by the canons, when we consider what the GOC has actually DONE and we look at history and the facts, we cannot come to the conclusion that these men are schismatics, but that they are zealous for the truth and for the honor of God and in fact love him very much to fight so hard and for so long.

The New Calendarists and Ecumenists are very much deluded as to the truth of who these men are.

Blessed is the man who has volunteered to hold and keep until the end of his life our holy Orthodox faith, the faith of the one Church of Christ and our mother, the Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Archbishop Matthew Karpathakis

Justice
Sr Member
Posts: 816
Joined: Fri 5 May 2017 4:39 pm
Faith: Deism
Jurisdiction: Possible Inquirer
Location: United States

Re: Why the GOC is not a Schism, regardless of what New Calendarists think.

Post by Justice »

Beautifully written Isaakos!

Post Reply