Minutes of the report of SIR to its flock

Publié le par Theophylactère

Prior the union between the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece (that is called TOC in the document, the hierarchy of the Synod of Resistance updated its flock during a meeting. The following document is made up with the notes an attendant took during the meeting. They were published first in Greek at this link (see the first three files)

We find they are worth reading because it gives indication on the thinking among the former Cyprianites and the modality of the union. If the notes are correct, they confirm that the Cyprianites never renounced their belief mysterial grace is existing but simply reached a deal with TOC so that no declaration would be made on the topic, which justifies our many questions from the first start of this union.





It was clarified from the start of the presentation that it concerned a gathering with the purpose not to inform about, decided upon events and decisions, but to fully update with a complete and responsible way, about everything that took place up to now, and following a discussion of the audience’s objections and solving doubts, to try to reach  an agreement of the flock, something that it is a prerequisite for the final step of validating the union by the great Synod.

The cause for the gathering was the great agitation, confusion and extreme behaviors caused by the publication of the 13th common announcement of the two individual commissioners who conversed aiming the union. It concerns a non dogmatic text that has been approved by the Synods, and therefore allows corrections and re-wordings. Due to this followed:

Updating (9 hours) of the Synod in Resistance’s clergy on Tuesday 11/03/2014 and

Updating of the laypersons on Wednesday 12/03/2014.

There are three main parts in the area of the patristic calendar: the Synod in Resistance, the most numerous part with archbishop Kallinikos and the Matthewites In 2008 the first informal approach was realized by the T.O.C., with purpose the union, which was unsuccessful (the T.O.C. departed from the dialogs). In 2012 a new approached was realized by the T.O.C. Two committees were appointed, one of the Synod in Resistance with 6 members (Cyprianos, Ambrosios, Klimis and father Glykerios, father Agelos, father Georgios), and a T.O.C. committee with three members (an archpriest and two theologists laypersons), and the discussions were mainly relating to the text points of view by the Synod in Resistance, because the text placed on the dialog table by the T.O.C. was generalized and vague and not suitable as a steady base for the commencement of the dialog. The attempts seemed ineffective, however, from the 06/2013 (following the death of blessed Cyprianos, as they themselves emphasized), suddenly a new instigation was given to the dialog with favorable perspectives, and so today the vision of the union is within our grasp. The expectation of the union is not something recent; therefore a non favorable response would have been self-revocable for the Synod in Resistance. “We must not be infected by the unhealthy introversion» they emphasized. “The union will be father Cyprianos’s personal triumph as it will be an accomplishment that for its realization his spiritual children were the protagonists. However, we must avoid being triumphant and we must grant merits and express our gratitude to the other party, because they comprehended us, they became temperate and they ceased to exhibit a dogmatic nature of their views. We wish the union and we are working for that end and – God willing – it will be realized”.


The bishop is a minister of Peace, Love and Union.

When the schism occurs without cause and it does not occur due to dogmatic reasons it is a scandal and a mortal sin, and if the archpriest does not work towards the union and the entirety of God’s Church, he will be liable. Besides, the union will lead to the mutual enrichment of charismas for the participants involved. 

The union constitutes the wish and the vision of the blessed memory of Cyprianos and its realization will form a landmark in the historic course of the Synod in Resistance. (The reasons for the 1984 isolation do not offer support any longer and besides that, the Synod of the Synod in Resistance had from the start a temporary nature. “By the union we return to the source, to communion with our brothers”).

[In 1955 the head of the patristic calendar was Chrysostomos Kavouridis. Following his death he left no successors and for 5 years the patristic remained an orphan. In 1960 ordinations were made by the Russians living abroad and thus a continuation of succession was provided. Since then the T.O.C. move within a strict spirit and according to the opinion of the Synod in Resistance, they had deviated, a fact that leaded to the 1984 isolation.]



The Ecumenism gallops and compulsorily defines our choices, leading us to a mutual confrontation of the exhortation. The genuine orthodox must not remain apathetic in the presence of the greatest threat. (United we are stronger and more effective – mentioning 2016 Synod).

In the T.O.C. world, persons and mentalities have changed – they are more temperate and open.

Within approximately the same time period the Synod in Resistance relations are weakened mainly with the Rumanians, but also with the Russians and Bulgarians. The Rumanians (being stricter) requested corrections in the fundamental text, of the Synod in Resistance’s isolation. Specifically they asked from the Synod in Resistance to leave unsaid in their text that:

The new calendarists mysteries are valid

That the innovators are ill members of the Church.

The Synod in Resistance chooses temperance and prefers for unity’s sake legal and rightful withdrawals. The Rumanians’ requests are a happy occurrence for them to declare the union on an ecumenical level.



In the beginning the attempt was very difficult as the T.O.C. questioned even the anti-ecumenism nature of the Synod in Resistance.

As the discussions for the union proceeded and arrived to a satisfactory level, the matter of the mysteries was raised, for which the T.O.C. and the Synod in Resistance disagree upon. In order to find a solution the Synod in Resistance proposed to adopt the view of Philarete of the Russians and Photios of Bulgaria (who was ordained by the blessed Cyprianos). Thus they agree for the Synod in Resistance to leave unsaid their view (that the mysteries of the new calendarists are valid) and the T.O.C. to leave unsaid their view (that the mysteries of the new calendarists are invalid), and to refer the final decision for this matter and for other difficult issues, to a future Synod. Thus a unifying ideology comes forth that also addresses the remaining of the patristic calendarists and all those new calendarists who are interested.

Since this obstacle was overcome, they agreed on a mutual wording of one announcement text based on Photios’s text. Its compiling was initially assigned to the T.O.C. They brought the text to an incomplete form and due to their own inability they requested from the Synod in Resistance to complete it carte blanche (free rein). The latter did this with great diligence and they presented it as a union plan with a wide potential.

The T.O.C. were delighted about the text despite the fact that it did not have its final form yet and needed small corrections. In parallel it is translated into the languages of thosefrom abroad who were interested in this text.

The Rumanians (hasty) asked to send representatives to be near, in the midst of Lent to discuss and agree upon the text. In the event of an agreement they requested for a concelebrating to be realized. The T.O.C. proposed on the 10/03 (Remembrance Day for the innovation). Despite the fact that it is also the wish of the Synod in Resistance who considers the said date ideal, they do not commit themselves before all matters are resolved and a compliance of their flock is reached (in relation to the latter they also urged the T.O.C.).



Union Theology



Various countries’ official Orthodoxy being in a decline

Foreign countries’ T.O.C. (mainly in ex-communist countries) that continue the correct tradition.

Return to the true Orthodoxy.

In this chapter the following disputed matters are raised:

The mysteries: (as aforementioned)

How the innovators can become members of true Orthodoxy: (The T.O.C. consecrates them while the Synod in Resistance normally does not). Based on the text, the responsibility for the necessity of consecration is undertaken by each bishop until the difficult issues are decisively decided upon by a future Ecumenical Synod of the True Orthodox. 

Convergence of Great Orthodox Synod of the True Orthodoxy.



The whole attitude of the T.O.C. against the Synod in Resistance changed radically. In the beginning of the dialog they had a distorted picture – they questioned their anti-ecumenism nature and they did not consider them as bishops (they did not kiss their hands).

Due to the first issue, the prejudices that the T.O.C. had against the Synod in Resistance were renounced.

The Synod in Resistance became the center of a pan-orthodox effort for union of international interest.

The memory of father Cyprianos is restored in the conscience of the patristic calendar Church (he managed by himself in 30 years everything that others could not manage in 90 years and he is designated as a confessor of Orthodoxy).

The T.O.C.does not dispute the Synod in Resistance ordinations.

Following the union the Synod in Resistance will not maintain their Synods or their title (there is no longer need for it) and they will be integrated in the Synod with archbishop Kallinikos – the T.O.C. title will not be changed as it carries a legal trademark registration and it is of historic value. In the new order of things, the Synod in Resistance will not be absorbed but, will keep some autonomy: every bishop of Filis in cooperation with another two bishops (3 members committee).

Will continue to manage the external mission.

Will constitute the connecting link between the bishops from abroad who were ordinate by the Synod in Resistance and the archbishopric

Will be responsible for the care of all the monasteries – churches – places of retreat and other property created by the Synod in Resistance.

The Fili and Oropos archbishopric retains its name for historical reasons and its boundaries are set identified by the geographical limits of the kallicratian municipality (name of boundary settings by the state) with some annexations.




Frequency of Holy Communion (the Synod in Resistance urges the frequent Holy Communion).

The Synod in Resistance is against the eschatology (for example AMKA (Social Security Registration Number) is not considered a mark.

The Synod in Resistance does not adopt acts of beatification by the patriarch and they are not committed by them, however unofficially they respect and honor the new saints (they do not project them). The other party (T.O.C.) is more closed and introvert in relation to this issue.


At this point the updating of all that has come to pass is finished and follows the submission of questions, objections and other queries from the listeners to the committee.


Publié dans orthodoxie-libre

Pour être informé des derniers articles, inscrivez vous :
Commenter cet article