jgress wrote:Thank you, Cyprian. However, the position I hold, and I believe the GOC holds it, too, is that Met Chrysostom was wrong to waver, but he did so out of understandable uncertainty and good intention, given the circumstances.
You're welcome, Jonathan. Until I know more of what took place back then, I cant quibble with this understanding. I don't know any different, not having personal knowledge of all that transpired during that tumultuous time. I was not even alive when any of this transpired, and so I do not pretend to have anything close to a complete picture of the facts. Still, it seems that it would have been better for the faithful in Greece if Met. Chrysostom had never betrayed the original confession, and had returned to the original declaration of 1935 much sooner, and had agreed to consecrate bishops with Abp. Matthew.
There were New Calendar bishops who appeared on the brink of repentance, but insistence on their schism might hinder their return.
I'm not sure I understand this line of thinking. It seems logical that the innovators would be on the brink of repentance only if they recognized that they were somehow in the wrong. Recall, the state church of Greece declared the bishops who returned to the Patristic Calendar to be schismatics. The official GOC confession was that the state church were the actual schismatics. Therefore, the only thing that needed to be determined by everyone was, which side was correct in their view of the other being schismatic?
When Met. Chrysostom harbored notions of a third possibility, in addition to the two aforementioned opinions of each side, this could only serve to engender more confusion. Before, it was as simple as taking one side or the other. Met. Chrysostom's change in position may have led the innovators to the impression that perhaps they really didn't need to repent of anything, because "potentially" they were not in actual schism, and still bore grace. I think this was most unfortunate.
So it would seem, the wavering was the real source of hindrance to a return to the Patristic Calendar, and a firm and unyielding stance would have brought more over from the state church. Or is it claimed that after Met. Chrysostom "softened" his stance, people from the innovating church came over to him in droves? It would be helpful if there was some documentation somewhere detailing how many people were coming over to the GOC each year. I don't even know how many people there were originally in 1924, and in 1935, and then how the proportions changed after the bishops went their separate ways in 1937.
And Met Chrysostom changed his mind on schism after conversation with the Patriarch of Jerusalem, who, along with the other patriarchates that hadn't yet changed the calendar, maintained that the new calendarists couldn't be declared in schism until a Pan-Orthodox synod was convened.
Did this same Patriarch of Jerusalem ever show any movement toward getting together with his brethren from the other patriarchates, in order to put his money where his mouth was, and convene said council which he deemed was necessary? What use was it to advise Met. Chrysostom to wait for a Pan-Orthodox synod, all the while sitting on his hands? The Oecumenical Patriarch was one of the schismatic innovators, so he certainly would not have called a council to have himself condemned. The Church in Russia was bereft of its God-anointed Tsar, fighting for its life, under intense persecution from the Bolsheviks, so were they in any position to lead the convening of a council? Perhaps Met. Chrysostom should have not heeded the advice of the Patriarch of Jerusalem, who, if your account is accurate, was also wrong. Is it any wonder that the Jerusalem Patriarchate is presently mired in the WCC and World Orthodoxy?
Again, hindsight is 20/20: it is easy to condemn Met Chrysostom now given what we know has transpired
Please understand Jonathan, that I have never condemned Met. Chrysostom. Saying that I believe the metropolitan erred, is not equivalent to condemning him. I am not excusing him either. I simply do not feel it is my place to pass judgment on the man, not having all the facts.
How do we know we would have chosen differently under the same conditions? And even today we are debating the authorities of local synods to make final and binding judgments of anathema; it was a much less settled question back then.
Why should Met. Chrysostom have chosen differently? The miraculous sign of the cross over Athens, 1925. New Martyr Catherine Routis +1927. Forced shaving of beards, blasphemous trampling of the holy gifts, imprisonments, confiscations, exiles, tortures, martyrdoms, etc. Is it at all reasonable to believe that "potential" schismatics, assumedly still bearing the grace of the Holy Spirit, could act in such a vile, despicable, hateful and unchristian manner toward their Greek brethren, whom they later brandished as schismatics?
When the Greek GOC stood all alone in declaring the new calendarists in schism, while EVERY OTHER jurisdiction, including ROCOR, maintained communion with them, is it a wonder some doubted the wisdom of making such a judgment so soon?
The faithful Russian Christians suffered unspeakable trials and sufferings at the hands of the adulterous renovationists, who conspired with the God-hating Bolsheviks, and so the Catacombniki and the Church Abroad's hostile attitude toward Stalin's para-synagogue "MP" for all these decades is only natural and wholly justified! Did the persecuted Church in Russia and abroad wait around for the rest of the local churches of the world to call a Pan-Orthodox synod to justify their separation from the renovationist heretics? No! They were fully capable of judging their own situation, being first-hand parties to it.
It is no different for the persecuted and suffering Christians of Greece. Why should the True Orthodox Christians of Greece have to sit around on their hands waiting for the Patriarch of Jerusalem or some other patriarchate to pass judgment from their comfortable perch?
Are you implying that the Greeks were not capable and fully within their right to judge their own situation, as the Russians had done with theirs? The True Orthodox Russians anathematized the renovationist church and separated from it, and the True Orthodox Greeks justifiably separated from the schismatic New Calendarists and anathematized them as well, in 1935.
Which brings us to ROCOR and St John. Cyprian quotes St John referring to the "schism" of the new calendar.
If you are going to put the word "schism" in inverted commas, then you ought to have at least used the phrase "frightful schism" that St. John used.
It might be pertinent to add that St John remained in formal communion with this schismatic church until his death (though I don't know how often, if ever, he concelebrated with new calendarists).
If St. John never concelebrated with the New Calendarists, thereby not communing at the chalice with them, then how can you call anything such as that "remaining in formal communion"? If not concelebrating and communing implies "formal communion," then what would "informal communion" look like?
Once more, hindsight tells us Met Chrysostom's wavering was wrong and Bishop Matthew was right to maintain the original confession. The new calendar was ALREADY condemned by the Pan-Orthodox synods of the 16th century: the 1935 local decision of the GOC only confirmed the existence of the schism that had already occurred. But did Met Chrysostom's language of "potential schism" constitute a heresy?
A heresy? I do not have enough information to pass judgment. I don't know exactly what Met. Chrysostom was saying and doing back then. I just hear lots of second and third-hand stories. If people want to convince me of their point of view, they need to show me documentation. They do have scanners and computers over in Greece, don't they? One would suppose the partisans on both sides only want to scan the documents that will place their side in a favorable light.
That I submit is not the case, and therefore Bishop Matthew's severance of communion, and subsequent actions like single-handedly consecrating bishops, were not justified.
I can't say for certain if Met. Chrysostom confessed a heresy, not knowing all the facts, however his actions perhaps constituted at least some form of betrayal. Bishop Matthew may very well have been justified in separating from Met. Chrysostom, if the metropolitan did not publicly adhere to the synod's original confession, thereby aiding and abetting the schismatic New Calendarists.
