This document is an encyclical from the Sacred Synod of the Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece addressing recent schisms and heresies that have troubled the church. It outlines how the church has faced attacks from those who deny the truth since the time of the Apostles, including the heresies of Gnostics, Arians, and modern Ecumenists. Most recently, the church struggled with a schism caused by the introduction of the new papal calendar in 1924 and another in 1937 over the issue of whether the new calendar movement was actually schismatic. The encyclical affirms the church's ongoing work to heal schisms and return those who have strayed

1. A
The Sacred Synod of the
Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece
ENCYCLICAL
Protocol No. 3280/28‐11‐2007
Published in
ATHENS
FEBRUARY, 2008
To the Sacred Clergy, the Monastic Orders and the Pious Laity
Children, beloved in the Lord!
“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, despisers 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)
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

2. 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; faced, 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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,

8. 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.
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,

9. 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

10. 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
Concerning the problematical reception from the beginning, at least in
Greece, of whether or not to accept the cheirothesias that had occurred, there
must be a reference to the reluctance of certain Bishops to accept it upon
themselves, their total refusal, as that of the rest of the clergy to act and to
received it upon themselves, despite whatever the Synodal Decision required
in this relevant matter.
As for the clear rejection of the cheirothesias under the meaning of
completion or of activation of the Episcopate of the Hierarchs who drew their
Episcopate from the Bishops consecrated by Matthew of Vresthena, there was
the characteristic canonical confrontation of the then Metropolitan Callistos

11. who believed such things (the canonical need for cheirothesia) who was
finally deposed by the Holy Synod in September of 1977, and who then joined
the Auxentian party.
It is important that it be noted, that all the bishops of the True
Orthodox Church and successors of the Bishops consecrated by the ever‐
memorable Hierarch Matthew (despite whatever they might be accused of as
appropriate and certainly responsible for ecclesiastical matters from the
standpoint of human frailties, omissions and mistakes) they, nevertheless,
never accepted the cheirothesias that occurred as a completion or activation or
establishment of their Episcopate, but as a means of lifting the “subjection to
trial” because of the infringement of the canonical order in the consecration of
a bishop by one bishop, and even this, by fear of God and respect for
canonical order, being ignorant or having unclear knowledge of it, and by
extension a clear position of it in this meaning, it (the cheirothesia, trans. note)
was permissible or acceptable. Unfortunately, instead of the Bishops of that
time being helped by their theological advisors, who were better educated,
they were given by them unfortunate advice. So, because of weak support
from these advisors of strong and correct ecclesiological positions, and
receiving instead confused, ignorant or otherwise poor positions, they
depended upon weak foundations. Consequently, by adopting and accepting
these positions, the ecclesiastical and canonical confrontation of this matter
was alienated, and was replaced by positions and declarations or Decisions
which could be challenged as to the consistency and canonicity of their
foundations and criteria.
Concerning the admixture or the participation in the dealing with the
matter of the cheirothesias of those who have only recently come forward as
critics of the Holy Synod, that is, the former Metropolitan of Mesogaea and
Lavreotiki k.k. Kirikos2 and those with him, who have chosen this matter to
distract their followers from the shipwreck they have suffered in matters of
the Faith which has been accomplished by their support, even unto warring
against the Church, of the ecclesiological and Trinitarian innovation
concerning “the communion of the three Divine Persons as the first beginningless
Church,” we must refer to the Patristic saying of Saint Basil the Great: “We will
instruct the ignorant, but we will not tolerate evil doers,” that during the thirty
years that have passed, their position and contribution in this matter (the
cheirothesia) has been, in the final analysis, negative. They have been
unsuccessful, in any case, in hiding behind their supposed confessional zeal
and their merciless condemnation and judgment of everyone as diminishers
and deniers of an Orthodox confession; they are greatly responsible for the
obvious dearth of theological and Patristic criteria in their positions and

12. activities, and for their unprecedented immoderation in their positions,
opinions and suggestions relevant to this matter.
It is especially indicative and revelatory concerning them that they
(while in 1977, by their “Report/Accusation” of 9‐10‐1977 to the Holy Synod
of the T.O.C., among other things) accept that the cheriothesias took place,
which indeed they characterize as “anti‐canonical and blasphemous;” and while
yet a lay theologian, the former Metropolitan of Mesogaea, already from the
year 1972, supported in his relative “Opinion” that the cheriothesias that had
occurred were an attack on the consecrations of 1948, and that we must,
having confessed the error of accepting it, reject it3. They have, therefore,
become their own deniers: on the one hand, denying the historical truth and
reality saying that the cheirothesia did not even occur as an event, or that, of
late, they have supposedly been informed of what really happened, “playing,”
essentially, “in things that should not be played with;” and on the other hand,
contending that whoever should imagine and declare “that mistakes were
made” on the matter of the “cheirothesias” of 1971, attacks and does away
with the Episcopal Consecrations of 1948! (“Confession of Orthodox Faith,” Holy
Metropolis of Mesogaea and Lavreotiki, 6‐9‐2006.)
We pray, however, 1) that the grace of God will help them to take up
their responsibilities in coming to an understanding of their great and
burdensome activities against the Truth of the Church; 2) they will repent;
being helped in this effort by the exhortation of one of the great fathers of the
Church who, very much to the point, comments, saying: “We shall see all these
things together as if presented before us: all of our works shown before our faces in our
minds in their individual forms, each thing as it was pronounced and as it was
enacted.” (St. Basil the Great, Sermon on Repentance)
However, as is our responsibility, according to the Psalms: “Incline not
my heart unto words of evil to make excuse with excuses in sins …” (Psalm 140).
We reject the cheriothesias that took place under whatever form in which it
may have taken place, because according to the divine Scriptures “ … there is
shame which brings about sin and there is shame of glory in Grace. Take not into
account persons against your soul and be not ashamed in your fall. Impede not word
in time of salvation; for in the word shall be known wisdom and trial in the words of
the tongue. Unto death struggle for the sake of truth and the Lord God shall fight for
you.” (Wisdom of Sirach) At this point, it is required that we refer to the
agreeing opinion concerning the ecclesiastical and canonical confrontation of
this matter according to God of our ever memorable Archbishop of Athens
and our Spiritual Father Kyros Andreas, who (according to his text which he
read before the meeting of the Holy Synod of Bishops of 5/2/2003) on the one
hand, spoke of the mistakes that had been made in the handling of this matter

13. because of human weakness, and on the other hand, he emphasized that in
the consciences of the bishops, there had never been any doubt or question of
the fullness and completeness of the Episcopal consecrations of the ever
memorable Bishop Matthew in 1948. We know and we bear witness that our
ever memorable First Hierarch had a fervent desire that the Holy Synod act so
as to bring about the final ordering of this matter. This time has come.
Wherefore, the Holy Synod of the True Orthodox Church of Greece
by Her unanimous decision of all the holy Bishops of which It is composed
(showing care for the Truth and only for the Truth, for according to the sacred
Scriptures, the Church is “… the Pillar and Foundation of Truth.” (1 Timothy
3:15), and according to the voice of the fathers, “ …those who are of the Church
are of the Truth; and those who are not of the Truth are not of the Church of Christ.”
(St. Gregory Palamas), and having responsibility before God and men, by the
Grace and the help of our Lord and God Jesus Christ, Who is the Eternal
Head of the Church, shepherding the flock of the Church unto pastures of
salvation) recognizes and confesses, as it should, that those human errors
which happened in this matter because of ignorance, and carelessness, and
erroneous understanding of Her representative and ministers for which she
begs the mercy of the man‐befriending God according to the Wisdom of
Sirach: “… we shall fall in the hands of the Lord and not into the hands of men, for as
His majesty is great so is His mercy”, are rejected (as has already been said, not
only the cheirothesias that occurred in the United States of America, but also
that which occurred in Greece) as actions incompatible with the Canonical
order and the Orthodox Tradition relevant to the validity and fullness of
Episcopal Consecrations by one canonical and totally Orthodox Bishop, even
if alone, especially when this action was required by a truly unquestionable
ecclesiastical need to transmit the Episcopate and to continue the work of the
Church of Christ, embattled as She is by heresies and schisms and especially
by the Pan‐Heresy of Ecumenism..
This being the case, we call upon the Lord our God as our helper, and
taking to heart the fear of Him, and having in mind the future judgment, we
gird the loins of our intellect in truth and being vigilant in everything in an
apostolic manner, we judge a balanced judgment: so that every innovation,
subtraction or addition we weed out without further delay as being as weeds
admixed with pure wheat and as being antagonistic to truth and warring
upon the Church. For those things passed onto the Church are not simply yes
and no, but are yes in Truth and remain impregnable and unshaken unto the
ages.
Wherefore, together with the authentic recapitulation of the Orthodox
Teaching of the Holy Fathers and of him who has been shown forth as the

14. Greatest Theologian nearest to our time, our God‐Bearing Father of the
Church, Saint Gregory Palamas Archbishop of Thessalonica, we confess:
+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+
“One God before all, over all, in all, and above everything do we
worship and believe in, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. He is Unity in Trinity
and Trinity in Unity, unconfusedly united and indivisibly divided, the same
Unity and Trinity, being all‐powerful.
“The Father is without beginning, not only as being outside time, but
also as being in every way without cause. He alone is the cause, root and
source of the Godhead beheld in the Son and the Holy Spirit; He alone is the
primary cause of what has come into being; He is not the Creator alone, but
the sole Father of the one Son and the sole Originator of the one Holy Spirit.
He always is, and is always the Father and always the sole Father and
Originator, greater than the Son and the Spirit, but only as cause; in all other
respects He is the same as Them and equal in honor.
“Of Him there is one Son, without beginning, as being outside time, but
not without origin, as having the Father for origin, root and source, from
Whom alone He came forth before all ages incorporeally, immutably,
impassibly, and by generation, but He was not divided from the Father, being
God from God; not one thing insofar as He is God, but another insofar as He
is the Son, He always is, and is always the Son and always the sole Son.
Always being unconfusedly with God (St. John 1:1), He is not the cause and
origin of the Godhead apprehended in the Trinity, since He exists from the
cause and origin of the Father, but He is the cause and origin of all that came
into being, since an things came into being through Him {St. John 1:3}, Who,
being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God
(Philppians2:6), but at the end of the ages emptied Himself, taking the form of
a servant for our sake. (Philippians 2:7), and was by the law of nature both
conceived and born of the Evervirgin Mary by the goodwill of the Father and
the cooperation of the Holy Spirit, God and Man at the same time; having
become truly incarnate, He was made like us in all things except sin (Hebrews
4:15), remaining what He was, true God, uniting without confusion or change
the two natures, wills and energies, and remaining one Son in a single
hypostasis even after the Incarnation, performing all the Divine actions as
God and all the human actions as Man, being subject to the blameless human
passions. Being and remaining impassible and immortal as God, but
voluntarily suffering in the flesh as Man, He was crucified, died, and was
buried, and rose again on the third day. He appeared to His disciples after the
Resurrection, and when He had promised them the power from on high and

15. exhorted them to make disciples of all the nations, to baptize them in the
name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and to teach them to
observe all that He had commanded (St. Matthew 28:20), He was taken up
into Heaven and sat at the right hand of the Father (St. Mark 16:19), making
our mixture equal in honor, enthronement and divinity, the mixture with
which He is going to come in glory to judge the living and the dead, and to
reward each man according to his deeds (St. Matthew 16:27).
“It was then that after ascending to the Father, He sent upon His holy
disciples and Apostles the Holy Spirit Who proceeds from the Father. He is
co‐beginningless with the Father and the Son as being outside time, but not
without beginning as Himself also having the Father for root, source and
cause, not as generated, but as proceeding; for He also came forth from the
Father before all ages immutably and impassibly, not by generation, but by
procession being indivisible from the Father and the Son. as proceeding from
the Father and resting in the Son, having union without confusion and
distinction without division. He is God and is Himself from God, not one
thing insofar as He is God, but another insofar as He is the Comforter; He is
the self‐subsistent Spirit, proceeding from the Father and sent, that is
manifested, through the Son, the cause of all that came into being, since they
were perfected in Him; the same equal in honor with both the Father and the
Son without ingenerateness and generation. He was sent from the Son to His
own discip1es, that is, He was manifested. For how otherwise would He Who
is not separated from Him be sent by Him? How otherwise, pray tell, would
He come Who is everywhere? Wherefore, He is sent not only from the Son,
but also from the Father and through the Son; and He comes from Himself
when He is being manifested. For the sending. that is the manifestation, of the
Spirit is a common work. He is manifested. not according to essence, for no
one hath ever either seen or declared the nature of God, but according to
grace, power and energy which are common to the Father, the Son and the
Spirit. For the hypostasis of each, and whatever belongs to it, is peculiar to
each of these. Not only is the super‐essential essence, which is entirely
nameless, inexpressible and incapable of participation. since it is above every
name, expression and participation, common to Them all, but also the grace,
the power, the energy, the radiance, the kingdom and the incorruption. and in
general everything according to which God communicates and is united by
grace with both holy angels and holy men. Departing from His simplicity
neither on account of the divisibility and difference of the hypostases, nor on
account of the divisibility and variety of powers and energies, we thus have
one all‐powerful God in one Godhead.. For neither from perfect hypostases
couId there ever come about any composition, nor could what is potential,
because it has power, or powers, ever truly be called composite by reason of
potentiality itse1f.

16. “In addition, we accord relative veneration to the holy icon of the Son of
God, Who was circumscribed as having become incarnate for us, ascribing
veneration in a relative manner to the prototype. We venerate the precious
wood of the Cross, and all the symbols of His sufferings, as being true divine
trophies over the common enemy of our race. In addition to the saving image
of the precious Cross, we venerate the divine churches and places, as well as
the sacred vessels and the divinely transmitted Scriptures, because of the God
Who dwells in them. Likewise, we venerate the icons of alI the Saints. because
of our love for them and for God, Whom they truly loved and served, in our
veneration lifting our minds up to the figures depicted in the icons. We also
venerate the relics of the Saints, since the sanctifying grace of the same has not
departed their most sacred bones, just as the Godhead was not separated
from the Masterʹs body in His three‐day death.
“We know of nothing that is essentially evil; nor is there any other
origin of evil than the perversion of rationaI men, who abuse the free will
given them by God. We cherish all the ecclesiastical Traditions, both written
and unwritten, and above all the mystical and all‐sacred Rite, Communion
and Assembly, the source of perfection for all the other rites, at which, in
recollection of Him Who emptied Himself without emptying and took flesh
and suffered on our behalf, according to the divine command which He
Himself fulfills: the most Divine Consecration of the bread and the cup is
celebrated, in which these become the life‐giving Body and Blood. He bestows
ineffable communion and participation on those who approach in purity. We
cast aside and subject to anathema al1 those who do not confess and believe
as the Holy Spirit foretold through the prophets, as the Lord decreed when
He appeared to us through the flesh, as the Apostles preached after being sent
by Him; as our Fathers and their successors taught us, but who have either
started their own heresy or followed to the end those who have made an evil
start
“We accept and salute the Holy Ecumenical Synods: the one in Nicaea of
the 318 God‐bearing Fathers, against the God‐fighting Arians, who impiously
degraded the Son of God down to the level of a creature and sundered the
Godhead that is worshipped in Father, Son and Holy Spirit into created and
uncreated.; the one after it in Constantinople of the 150 holy Fathers, against
Macedonios of Constantinople, who impiously degraded the Holy Spirit
down to the level of a creature and no less than the former sundered the one
Godhead into created and uncreated; the one after it in Ephesus of the 200
Fathers, against Patriarch Nestorios of Constantinople, who rejected the
hypostatic union of divinity and humanity in Christ, and completely refused
to call Theotokos the Virgin who truly gave birth to God; and the fourth in
Chalcedon of the 630 Fathers, against Eutyches and Dioscoros, who

17. propounded the evil doctrine of one Nature in Christ; and the one after it in
Constantinople of the 165 Fathers, against Theodore and Diodoros, who
entertained the same ideas as Nestorios and commended his ideas in their
writings, and against Origen, Didymos and Evagrios, who were from an older
period, but had attempted to infiltrate the Church of God with certain fables;
and the one after it in the same city, of the 170 Fathers against Sergios,
Pyrrhos and Paul of Constantinople, who rejected the two energies and two
wills appropriate to the two natures of Christ; and the one in Nicaea of the
367 Fathers against the Iconoclasts
“In addition to all these affirmations, we await the resurrection of the dead
and the unending life of the age to come. Amen.”
+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+
In addition to these, we accept and embrace all the Holy Synods which
according, to the grace of God, were called together in various times and
places to certify matters of piety and evangelical behavior, among which are
those called together against the Innovation of the New Calendar and
Paschalion in the years 1583,1587, 1593 and 1848, and in general against all the
innovations by which the Faith and Order of the Church is upset, and by
which those things which we have received from our Holy Fathers are
rejected, which for this reason are condemned according to the words of God
Who declared aforetime through His prophet Jeremiah concerning them who
would introduce innovations into the Church of Christ: “Two evil things have
they done: they have abandoned Me Who am the source of the water of life, and they
have dug for themselves crushed pits which cannot hold water.” These “crushed pits”
are the words of heretics, from which these introducers of this Christianity
condemning heresy (as is every heresy and innovation) have brought forth
and irrigated their simple followers with this muddy potion, and unto whom
the “woe” is directed by the prophetic voice.
If, therefore, there are some who quarrel with those things which are
commanded by their disobedience, they kick against the thorns and are unjust
to their own souls and clash with Christ. They slander the Church of Christ
and fight with manic warfare against piety, and, in this manner, they are
communicants with the ancient heretics, being in conformity and of one
nature with them according to their impiety, so that even as our Fathers so
regarded them, in like manner do we view these.
We tread the straight and most unerring and most secure path of
salvation which was laid for us by the Holy Fathers before us through their
decisions: the path of total separation from the New Calendarist innovation,

18. which in its implementation caused the creation of the New Calendarist
schism. This is the path our ever‐memorable Father and Hierarch Matthew,
trod, and this self‐same path, we tread and confess following in his footsteps
which he verified by the Episcopal consecrations which he performed in 1948,
by which he gave unto us the Apostolic Succession, which we hold along with
the Apostolic Faith, and by which we have until now trodden, and by the
grace of God we will continue to tread.
Regarding the cheirothesia which took place in 1971, we regard it
(whether in its parts or whether in its entirety) as a decision or as an action (or
procedure, or a deed, or as a movement or an attempt by whomsoever,
whensoever and under whatsoever form or meaning it took place, or it is said
to have taken place,) and is put forth as having occurred. And by whatsoever
interpretation the events around it may be viewed, in part or in whole, we
remove far away the causes of the unhealthy doubts and whatsoever
questions which lead to confusion and error, granting unto the Church her
mighty health, and to her members by being in agreement of heart, tongue
and hands with the unerring and most secure Confession of the Holy Fathers
who preceded us, and of him who followed them in these latter times our
ever‐memorable Father and Confessor Hierarch Matthew, being as Shepherds
leading the Flock, and we judge that this cheirothesia, in whatever way it
might be viewed, according to the above mentioned, as being adjudged and
understood as ecclesiastically erroneous, and it is therefore rejected and
denied, as being without basis and as though never having occurred.
In addition to all of this, as being of the Body of which our Lord and
God and Savior Jesus Christ is the Head, and as following the exhortation of
the holy Father of our Church St. John of Damascos, who wrote: “We stand
upon the rock of Faith, and upon the Tradition of the Church, not moving the
boundaries which were placed by our Fathers; giving no place to those who would
wish to innovate and demolish the edifice of the catholic and apostolic Church of God.
For if such license were to be given to anyone who wished it, bit by bit the entire
edifice of the Church would be demolished;” we condemn and reject the
ecclesiological and Trinitarian Innovation concerning the communion among
the divine Persons as being the “first, uncreated Church” as coming from the
heresy filled West, indeed from atheist and anti‐Christ Papism, and widely
disseminated among the New Calendarist/ecumenists being used as a basis
for the theories of the pan‐heresy of Ecumenism, as a position not witnessed
to by the Fathers, as not being transmitted to the Church, and therefore an
innovation, and those who defend it and use it as a crutch to theologize as
totally excommunicated from the Church until such time as they reconsider
and confess the traditional Faith according to the God‐inspired theology of
the Saints and the reverent piety of the Church.

19. Thus do we understand, thus do we believe and thus do we preach.
This Encyclical, having been read during the regularly‐scheduled
Meeting of the Sacred Synod on the 28th of November of this year, with the
participation of all of her members as well as of the hierarchs of the
Autocephalous Church of Cyprus, and having been approved, it is signed as
follows:
In the Year 2007, the 28th of the month of November.
The Sacred Synod
+ [Archbishop] Nicholas of Athens, President
+ [Ruling Bishop] Pachomius of Argolis
+ [Ruling Bishop] Galaction of Peristerion
+ [Ruling Bishop] Tarasios of Berrea and Nausa
+ [Ruling Bishop] Andrew of Thebes and Lebadia
+ [Suffragan Bishop] Chrysostom of Philippi
+ [Ruling Bishop] Panteleimon of Piraeus and the Islands
+ [Ruling Bishop] Ignatius of Larisa and Tirnavo
For the G.O.C. of Cyprus
+ [Ruling Bishop] Sebastian of Citium
+ [Suffragan Bishop] Lazarus of Amathus
The Chief Secretary
+ Protopresbyter Demetrios Tsarkatzoglou
1 Broken off by the Decision of the Sacred Synod No. 1097 of 2/5/1975.See the
relative document Prot. No. 1158/20‐1976 formal document of the Sacred
Synod of the Church of the T.O.C. to the Hierarchy of the Russian Church
Abroad.
2 Who is already deposed for kakodoxy and schism by Decision No. 3282/28‐
11‐2007 of the Sacred Synod of the Hierarchy of the Church of the T.O.C. of
Greece.
3 Characteristically among other things it refers to the following: “Wherefore
let the holy Bishops study this matter and let them seek its remedy. The
Church can remedy everything. Let them reject this deed… Let them reject the
cheirothesia, while confessing that the made a mistake” (Menas Kontogiannis:
“The Cheirothesia,” Athens, 1972)