Saint Nikodemos: Those who are in the Church must be united.

Those of you, Christians, who go to the Church of Christ, be careful to not be divided and separated among yourselves, having enmities and hatreds and discord, but to have love and concord and reconciliation, all to have the same mind, "all breathing the same thing," all to be as one body and one spirit, with one hope of our calling, according to the Apostle. And let this name of the Church, in which you gather, urge you toward this spiritual love and unity, because [the name] Church means union and gathering. And just as it unites all of you Christians bodily in one place and gives you one common word of teaching, one holy bread, the body of the Lord, and one common cup of the blood of Christ, so likewise it requires from you to be united in spirit, mind, and disposition.

For this reason, blessed Paul, wishing to urge the Christians of that time toward love and unity, used to mention frequently the name of the Church; therefore, at one time he wrote: "To the faithful of the Church of God in Corinth" (1 Corinthians 1:2), and at another time: "To the churches of Galatia" (Galatians 1:1), which, interpreting, the Golden-Mouthed one [St. John Chrysostom] said concerning the first: "He calls it Church of God, showing that they must be united [...] for the name of the Church is a name of union and not of division"; and concerning the second he said: "For this reason also he put the name of the Church, in order to make them ashamed and gather into one; for those who are divided into many parts cannot be called by this name; for the name of the Church is a name of agreement and concord."

Therefore, outside the Church of Christ be the discord, outside the enmities, outside the hatreds and resentments; inside the Church of God be concord, inside be love, inside be agreement. Therefore, one of two things you must necessarily do, Christians: either to abandon enmity and hatred toward your brothers and then enter the Church of God, or, having hatred and discord, you are not worthy to enter the holy Church. For Church and enmity, Church and hatred, Church and discord are two utterly opposed things, which can never be joined together.

(Excerpt from the Christian Morality, by Saint Nikodemos the Hagiorite, pp. 409-410).

 

Greek source: https://entoytwnika1.blogspot.com/2020/01/blog-post_15.html

So that Shepherds and laity who commune with the heretical Ecumenists may learn the Tradition of the Church

Panagiotis Simatis | October 10, 2018

 

Nikephoros Kallistos Xanthopoulos (13th-14th c.) distinguished himself as a historian, interpreter of the Scriptures, poet of ecclesiastical hymns, etc.

From his "Ecclesiastical History" we receive valuable information — among other things — also about the stance of the faithful towards heresies. We have previously presented some texts on this subject. Today we present the stance of the faithful of Samosata, in the interval between the First and Second Ecumenical Councils, when, through the interventions of heretical emperors or the Arian-minded bishops favored by them, Orthodox bishops were being persecuted and in their place Arian-minded ones were being installed, who had not been condemned by a Council. In this case, the faithful applied the patristic stance of Cessation of Communion or Walling Off, long before this was secured by the Fifteenth Canon of the First-Second Council.

Thus, as (Nikephoros Kallistos narrates to us) the band of the heresy of Arius had expelled the Orthodox Shepherds from the Churches, the same thing happened also in Samosata; they expelled the Orthodox Bishop Eustathios and in his place installed Eunomios. And then all the Orthodox, from the least to the greatest, ceased to attend church! And the Bishop remained alone in the Episcopal residence, and no one visited him, nor spoke to him!

"For as the band of Arius, having stripped all the churches of their shepherds, in Samosata likewise introduced another in place of Eustathios, by the name of Eunomios; not one of all the people, neither poor nor rich, neither young nor old, simply no one at all would enter the church, as was the custom; but he alone remained in the episcopal residence, with no one seeing him, nor at all exchanging a word with him. And yet, they say that he was otherwise mild and moderate; and this is acknowledged."

And when he went to a public bath and the attendants closed the doors, he learned that outside there was a multitude of people, and he ordered the attendants to open the doors, so that whoever wished might use the bath. And when some entered, he urged them also to enter the baths. But since those who had entered remained in silence without entering the baths, he considered this stance as one of respect toward his person, and he quickly departed from the bath.

"For when he went to a public bath, and the attendants had closed the doors, having learned that a multitude was standing before the doors, he ordered the attendants to open again the doors of the bathhouse, and without restriction allowed whoever wished to make use of the bath. He did the same also within the halls. And when some entered and stood around, he urged them to partake of the warm waters. But when they stood and still maintained silence, considering their stance as an honor toward him, he quickly left the bath and departed."

They, however (when he departed), because they considered that if they used the same water for their bath, it would be as if they participated in the defilement of heresy, poured the water into the sewers and took their bath after filling the baths with other water!

"But they, considering it a defilement of heresy to partake of that water, poured it out into the sewers; and having drawn other water, they bathed."

When Eunomios learned this, he immediately left the city and returned "home!" For he considered it pointless and foolish to remain in a city where everyone was against him!

"Eunomios, having learned this, immediately left the city and went home; for he considered it very foolish to choose to remain in a city that was entirely opposed to him. And thus he willingly departed from Samosata." (Nikephoros Kallistos, P.G. 146, 633BD)

When Eunomius departed from Samosata, the Arians appointed another Bishop, "by the name of Lucius, truly a wolf and not a shepherd. Yet the sheep, although not having a shepherd, nevertheless performed the deeds of shepherds, preserving inviolate the doctrine of the faith." (op. cit., P.G. 146, 633D-636AB)

We see here that the faithful, realizing that the shepherd appointed to them was a false shepherd, a wolf instead of a shepherd, did not wait for the decision of some Council, but themselves did what the shepherd ought to have done; and thus, by not communing with the false shepherd, the Arian-minded bishop Lucius, they preserved intact the doctrine of the Faith, as we shall see.

And towards him — the faithful of Samosata — behaved in a similar manner as towards Eunomius, as was shown by an incident.

One day, that is, while the children were playing, throwing a ball from one to another, Bishop Lucius was passing by. And it happened that the ball slipped from the hands of one child and passed under the feet of the mule on which Bishop Lucius was seated. And the children "cried out aloud," shouted in terror, because, as the ball passed under the animal of the heretic, they believed it had been defiled! (And how would they play afterwards.)

He, not understanding the behavior of the children, told one of his attendants to remain in the place and find out why the children had acted in such a manner. And (the attendant saw) that the children lit a fire and threw the ball upon it, wishing to disinfect—"cleanse"—it from the defilement (which it had acquired by passing under the mule of the heretical Bishop).

And Theodoret (from whom Nicephorus borrowed the incident) concludes: It is, of course, a childish reaction, but it shows how great was the aversion the inhabitants of Samosata had towards the Arian-minded, who were corrupting the Doctrine of the Faith:

"And this may perhaps be childish; yet it is sufficient to show how deeply this city had nourished hatred towards those who had chosen to falsify the doctrine of the faith." (op. cit., P.G. 146, 636AB)

 

Greek source: https://paterikiparadosi.blogspot.com/2018/10/blog-post_37.html

The heretical principle of the "independence" of Orthodoxy in communion with heresy!

Nikos E. Sakalakis | April 5, 2019

 

Undoubtedly, certain "theological" formulations today are regarded as a confession of faith in the Church, without being in absolute relation to what the Church believes and holds and to what constitutes Patristic tradition.

An example is the statements of Fr. Aimilianos of Simonopetra before His Eminence Maximos, who had gone to the Holy Mountain as a Patriarchal exarch, regarding the steadfastness of the reinstatement of the commemoration of the Ecumenical Patriarch and the punishment of the Holy Monastery of Esphigmenou.

Fr. Aimilianos: "For this reason, before you, holy president, I confess that my devotion to the Mother Great Church of Christ is such that I would prefer to be in error but to hold firmly to the Holy Mother Church, rather than to be correct independently of her, because I would not have the certainty that I am standing on secure ground" (Proceedings of the Second Session [assembly] of September 28, 1979, p. 2).

In contrast to Fr. Aimilianos, St. Gregory Palamas declares:

"That we believe rightly in God, that is, that we think well and securely and piously concerning Him—whence is the proof for us? From the agreement with our God-bearing Fathers;" that is, "that we believe rightly in God, that is, that we think well and securely and piously concerning Him—whence does the proof come? From the agreement with our God-bearing Fathers" (Homily VIII, E.P.E. 9).

This delusion of Fr. Aimilianos, who desires Orthodoxy as an opposing current to Ecumenism while being in communion with it, is also reflected in contemporary Episcopal, Eldership, and Academic positions. His Eminence Maximos spoke (at that time) to the Holy Community about the promotion of Orthodoxy through Dialogue (instead of the correct [approach], which is reproof). Before he went to the Holy Mountain, he had declared:

"The unity and union of the Churches, which constitutes the final and much-desired goal of the Dialogue, cannot be achieved when each church excludes for itself the possibility of delusion. The conviction of each church that only it possesses the truth and that it is never in error excludes dialogue, and consequently, renders it incapable of seeing the truth clearly. The Dialogue does not seek to impose the truth, but to discover it" (Orthodox Migrant, May 1972, p. 5).

To the ecumenistic–heretical propositions of His Eminence Maximos, the abbots and superiors of the Holy Monasteries of the Holy Mountain did not respond.

Questions: How were they able, in their conscience, to "reconcile" the timeless confessional disposition of the Athonite tradition with the ecumenistic activities of the Ecumenical Patriarchate?

Why this inferiority of the "contemporary" abbots before the ecumenistic arrangements? I believe that, until today, the onslaught—penetration of Ecumenism (a chronic illness) has created altered consciences, which seek to confine within "logical" limits the confessional practice—perspective of the Fathers.

They now adopt/profess the principle (heretical) of the independence of Orthodoxy while in communion with heresy, believing that this post-patristic tactic does not negate the identity of an Orthodox. They are in error!

In reality, all those "anti-ecumenists" who do not follow the practice of the Fathers against Ecumenism believe and accept:

• A "new Church," which constitutes the abolition of the first Orthodoxy, as it was delivered to us by the Apostles and the Fathers.

• They accept and believe in the principle of the independence of Orthodoxy, as an opposing current to Ecumenism, while in communion with it.

• They reinforce the "new" ecumenistic Church, which removes from them the identity of the Orthodox.

Behold the infectious axes of life, which they "baptized" as economy. Before the heresy of Ecumenism, its falsehood, its hypocrisy, and its traps, the contemporary "spiritual fathers" and the people they influence respond:

"Better to be in error within the Church than to rightly define the word of truth outside of her."

This open proclamation of communion with heresy does not constitute patristic teaching, as they claim. No special knowledge of the science of Logic and Theology is required for the faithful to perceive that this is a sophism.

St. Gregory Palamas writes:

"Those who have fallen away from this only and one piety rush into the manifold and multiform course of delusion, with which is naturally united falsehood, which divides the soul from the truly existing things…

For this reason, every heresy contains within itself inconsistency and self-destruction..." (Antirrhetic VI, E.P.E. 6).

In the Philokalia (Volume IV, pp. 61-62, 135), we read:

"The great adversary of the truth, which today draws people to perdition, is delusion. Through this, the ignorance of darkness prevailed in the souls of slothful people and alienated them from God...

In delusion, therefore, these three passions exist:

Unbelief, malice, and slothfulness, one giving birth to the other and being allied together."

By studying the words of the Holy Fathers, we understand—and it is not at all paradoxical—that there exists (today) an escalating neo-patristic effort to withdraw the practice of the Fathers, which is also supported by "spiritual fathers"!

In this ecumenistic effort, the historical/theological basis of the stance of the Fathers against heresies is systematically/methodically disregarded.

For this reason, every anti-ecumenistic effort/tactic, which has no connection with the confession of the Fathers, manifests today heresy, inconsistency, and self-destruction...

Greek source: https://paterikiparadosi.blogspot.com/2019/04/blog-post_68.html

Obituary for St. Ieronymos of Aegina

Source: Ἡ Φωνὴ τῆς Ὀρθοδοξίας [The Voice of Orthodoxy], No. 504, November 1, 1966, p. 7.

 

From the funeral of St. Ieronymos, presided over by Bishop Akakios of Diavleia of the Church of the G.O.C. of Greece

 

Obituary

Father Ieronymos, the venerable figure and beloved by all of us, as of yesterday, passed away. The fullness of time came, which had been appointed by the Master of both the dead and the living, Holy God, in order to receive from the temporal into His eternal and true dwellings the most beloved of His creatures of these times through which we are passing, the creature who, as much as is humanly possible, had pleased the Lord.

A lifelong struggler, it was also appointed for him to be perfected through one final trial—the trial of dreadful illness—so that he might be perfected as “gold in a furnace.” The judgments of the Lord are unsearchable. The much-revered Father Ieronymos was born in the regions of the East, of most pious parents. From a tender age, he had as a living example the faith and reverence of his ever-memorable parents, Anestis and Elisabeth [Apostolides], and at the urging especially of his mother, he was turned toward the divine. “Vasileios, it is good for you to dedicate your life to God.” This prompting was what the elect soul, chosen from his mother’s womb, was seeking, in order to give himself with all his soul and heart to the keeping of the evangelical commandments and to the transmission of them to others through the lively and convincing manner which he had the gift to possess.

At a young age, he was ordained a Deacon; he visited the Holy Places, where he remained for a considerable time, delighting in holiness, asceticism, and virtue. He served for eighteen years as a Deacon at the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and after the Asia Minor catastrophe, he fled to Mother Greece, where, by divine Providence, he came and settled on our island, Aegina. Here he was ordained a Priest and ministered for only a short period, because, according to his confession, he saw a dreadful vision and therefore ceased the ministry of the Priesthood. His way of life here is well known to all. As a chanter and preacher at the Chapel of the Hospital, he acted in many ways and beneficially, both for the Institution, which was maintained by the income of the Church, and for the congregation, which was literally captivated by his divine word.

He was the only one who, with the fervor and zeal of his preaching, satisfied the spiritual thirst of his flock. From then on, he became the eminent Spiritual Father of our land. What praise concerning him are we, the unworthy, able to weave? The humility of his character, his kindness, his ascetic life, and, in general, the unique example of his lack of self-interest won over the soul of all our compatriots.

Every person has, in the innermost depths of his soul, an altar upon which he has set whatever he has esteemed as most perfect and spiritually superior in the world in which he lives. If each one of us were to freely open our heart, it is certain that there we have established our much-lamented and much-revered Father Ieronymos. For this reason, our spiritual grief is indescribable; for this reason, the eyes and hearts of us all weep. We are losing the treasure that the All-Good One had especially granted to us, the people of Aegina. Now that he is departing from our midst, now we are troubled, now we awaken and realize the irreplaceable loss. We were astonished when he would tell us the thoughts of each one of us before we had the chance to open our heart to him; it was not necessary! He had already read its contents. What greater proof of the purity of his soul and of the divine Grace that dwelt within him?

Now he departs from our midst for eternity, which throughout his entire life he envisioned and which, like a powerful magnet, drew him, so that he regarded all earthly things as temporary and insignificant! Standing before the Throne of God’s Justice, he will be able to repeat the words of the Apostle Paul:

“I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith; henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day.”

Much-revered Spiritual Father, pray for us all.

May the Lord God grant rest to your soul, where the Light of His Countenance watches over, and where there is the dwelling of those who rejoice with Him. Eternal be your memory!

- P. Togias

 

Greek source online: https://ecclesiagoc.gr/index.php/%E1%BC%84%CF%81%CE%B8%CF%81%CE%B1/%E1%BC%B1%CF%83%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%81%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AC/646-koimisis-osiou-gerondos-jeronymou

Historical Review of the Festal Calendar Issue

St. Chrysostomos the New, Confessor and Hierarch (+1955)

Source: Ἡ Φωνὴ τῆς Ὀρθοδοξίας [The Voice of Orthodoxy], Issue No. 7, May 20, 1946 (O.S.), pp. 1-3.

 

On the 13th of May, 1935, according to the Patristic Calendar, eleven full years were completed since we entered into the sacred and national Struggle for the Patristic and Orthodox festal calendar. We do not deem it pointless nor unprofitable, on this occasion, to proceed to a historical review of this, and to show to the Greek public, on the one hand, the reasons which impelled us into this Struggle, and on the other hand, the reasons for which it prevailed despite so many severe persecutions and reactions on the part of the Greek Hierarchy and the then Greek Government.

Exactly eleven years ago, three Hierarchs—the venerable Germanos of Demetrias, Chrysostomos of Zakynthos, and this writer, Chrysostomos, formerly of Florina—not tolerating the scandal and division which the accursed festal calendar innovation caused to the Orthodox Christian flock, and having previously in vain exhausted all peaceful means for the return of the Hierarchy to the festal calendar order handed down by tradition for the peace of the Church, were compelled, at the dictate of our Orthodox conscience, by written declaration to inform the then Governing Holy Synod that we were severing all ecclesiastical communion with it, not wishing to partake ourselves in the responsibility for the uncanonical introduction of the Gregorian calendar into the Church, as well as for the anti-ecclesiastical and medieval persecution against the faction of the Old Calendarists.

We undertook this serious action, moved by the desire to remove the scandal caused by the festal calendar reform and driven by the hope that the Governing Synod, becoming aware of the responsibility it bore before God for the division of the Orthodox flock, would deign, as it was obliged, to place our serious protest under the judgment of the entire Hierarchy, providing an occasion for it to proceed to the reconsideration of its previous relevant decision. Unfortunately, the Governing Synod at that time, instead of doing what it ought to have done, forgetting its high mission, not only did not give the due attention and the owed response to our document but also, without previously making use of the peaceful means prescribed by the Canons for mutual explanation and enlightenment, rendered us liable and condemned us in absentia to deposition and to five years of physical confinement in the more remote and inhospitable of the holy Monasteries, as if we had committed a crime of sacrilege, having defended the sacred and Orthodox institutions of the Church.

For this uncanonical, unlawful, and inhuman coup of the Governing Synod, we protested, as was fitting, to the Orthodox Churches and to the then Government, which, unfortunately, became complicit with the Governing Synod, proceeding by force through the Police to our abduction, as if we were felons and criminals, to the places of our exile, because, being faithful to the oath which we gave at our ordination, we wished to preserve inviolate the sacred Traditions of our Church.

It is indeed very grievous, because the seriousness of the festal calendar question, from an Orthodox and national point of view, was neither understood nor duly appreciated, neither by the majority of the Hierarchy, which proceeded frivolously and altogether without discernment to its uncanonical regulation, nor by the Greek Government, which uncritically adopted and recklessly executed an outrageous decision of the Synodal Court, degrading the authority not only of ecclesiastical but also of civil justice. For the calendar, however much it may be a matter of time and days for the state and for astronomy, for the Church it escapes the limits and measures of time, and enters into the framework of the ancient Tradition of the Church and of Orthodox divine Worship, insofar as it serves as a bond of unity and as a standard of liturgical precision and order throughout the long existence of the entire Orthodox Eastern Church. Therefore, its unilateral and arbitrary alteration brought disorder and confusion into Orthodox divine Worship, in violation of the divine and sacred Canons, specifically of the 56th of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, which commands the following: “…It seemed good, therefore, also to decree this: that the Church of God throughout the whole inhabited world should perform the fast with one and the same order… But if they do not observe this, if they be Clergy, let them be deposed; if laymen, let them be excommunicated.”

The utterly irrational and uncanonical introduction of the Gregorian calendar into the Orthodox Greek Church, apart from the fact that it serves the proselytizing aims of the Papal church, which traverses land and sea to make one proselyte, also divides the individual Orthodox Churches in time regarding the celebration of the feasts, and in manner regarding the observance of the fasts, the typikon order of the sacred services, and the fulfillment of the various religious observances, which also touches upon the Dogma of the unity of the Church, namely: “in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.” And this, because the unity of the Church does not consist only in the identity of Faith and divine Worship, but also in the simultaneous and uniform manner of the expression of the Faith and divine Worship, which constitutes an essential element of ecclesiastical unity.

And this, from an Orthodox point of view and in summary, is the seriousness of the festal calendar question, whose unilateral and arbitrary alteration, apart from the fact that it touches upon the divine inspiration of the decisions of the Holy Ecumenical Councils, also diminishes the inalienable rights and the precious chrysobulls of pure Orthodoxy, which the Orthodox Greek Church acquired through the ages by means of precious struggles and sacrifices. Likewise, from a national point of view, this matter is of no lesser importance and gravity; for this festal calendar innovation not only served and continues to serve as the chief weapon of foreign religious propagandas, which covet the chrysobulls of the Greek Church, particularly in Greek Macedonia and Thrace, but also opened a festering wound in the heart of National unity, whose depth and cohesion is chiefly constituted by ecclesiastical unity. Indeed, National unity draws its strength and worth from the unity of the Church, which is the guardian and bearer of National traditions and moral values, which the Church enlivens, preserves, and transmits from generation to generation through the public feasts and festivals, in which the National dances, the patriotic songs, and the National poems—these symbols and marks of National unity—receive life and content. Thus, the Orthodox Greek Church is also an important National factor, because it constitutes the soul of the history and civilization of the Greek people, and consequently, the division of ecclesiastical unity cannot but provoke also the division of National unity, which is indispensable for the progress and civilization of the Greek Nation.

Behold, in broad terms, the greatest national harm which the festal calendar innovation has brought about entirely without cause.

And these, then, are the reasons which impelled us into this Sacred and National Struggle.

As for the reasons which contributed to the fact that this Struggle not only did not succumb to the manifold persecutions and reactions which it encountered from the very beginning on the part of the Church and the State, but also that it was strengthened and fortified even more, they are the following.

The first reason for which the calendar question arose is, as I have already stated, the deep awareness that the Church of Greece, through the unilateral introduction of the Papal festal calendar, deviated from the pinnacle of Orthodoxy, having divided the unity of the entire Orthodox Church in the celebration of the feasts and in the observance of the fasts. As a consequence of this deep awareness, there was born in the hearts of the Old Calendarists the fear of conscience, lest by following the calendar innovation they too should deviate from exact and undefiled Orthodoxy, and therefore, for the appeasement of their Orthodox conscience, they severed all ecclesiastical communion with the New Calendarists and formed their own religious organization, celebrating their religious feasts in their own churches and with their own religious ministers.

To this religious organization, whose ranks were growing denser by the day, as was mentioned above, there also joined Hierarchs, being inflamed with the desire to contribute to the peace of the Church through its return to the festal calendar order handed down by Tradition, which the majority of the Orthodox Churches steadfastly uphold, so that the accursed division of the Church, which was brought about by the introduction of the festal innovation, might thus cease.

From this, it becomes entirely evident that this festal calendar Struggle, far from any religious fanaticism or self-interested motive, was prompted purely by a deep faith in Orthodoxy and by a pure ideology. And this is the principal reason why it did not yield to the manifold pressures and reactions which, from the very beginning, both Church and State raised against it, proceeding even to beatings, imprisonments, exiles, and all manner of other maltreatments, to the detriment of ecclesiastical justice and of Greek civilization. It is, moreover, an axiom confirmed by history and experience, that struggles which are driven by a deep faith in a lofty and noble idea, the more they are persecuted and fought against, the more they are strengthened and fortified in their radiance and unconquerable impetus, proving themselves superior to all their adversaries and persecutors.

This philosophical and historical axiom found its full application in the many years and harsh struggles which the Orthodox Eastern Church waged for the prevalence of Orthodoxy against every religious heresy and false teaching. An unfailing witness to this is Ecclesiastical History, whose most glorious pages are constituted by the rewards and trophies achieved by those champions and athletes who lawfully strove for the truth and for Orthodoxy, confirming the Evangelical saying: “and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against the Church.” It is truly a matter of wonder how the New Calendarist Hierarchs did not take into account this infallible lesson of Ecclesiastical History, having fiercely persecuted those who strove for the peace of the Church and the restoration of Orthodoxy, and having hoped that through depositions, imprisonments, exiles, and the defrocking of the Old Calendarist Clergy they would suppress the lofty festal calendar Struggle, which, thanks to the Orthodox and National ideology from which it is driven, under the leadership of the writer, assisted by the Most Reverend Bishops Christophoros of Megara and Polykarpos of Diavleia, and the host of devout Priests, not only did not bend in the least but was even more strengthened and fortified in its radiance and in its noble and sacred zeal for the truth and for Orthodoxy.

The Orthodox Greek Church, as one of the European historians says, on the one hand enlightened Northern and Eastern Europe and Western Asia with the light of Christianity, and on the other hand bravely struggled against all-powerful Rome, in order to preserve Orthodoxy from the various abuses and arbitrariness of Papism. Therefore, this Church, he says, even after the fall of the Byzantine Empire, is preserved unscathed and unaltered in its faith and worship, still speaking the language of the Apostle Paul and of Chrysostom, offering its prayers in the manner of ancient Christianity, preserving the Creed pure from the profane addition (filioque) of later times, and offering the New Testament for the instruction of the faithful in the original, and not in a translation into another language.

And if those who are today struggling on the ramparts of the festal calendar Struggle have not yielded, nor have in any way been daunted before the pressures and persecutions raised against them by the innovating Hierarchy and the State, this must be attributed not to their ability and courage, but to their deep faith that they are striving to save the Church and the Nation from the dreadful consequences of the Ecclesiastical Schism which the festal innovation created, and to the sweet hope that they might bring peace and unity to the entire Orthodox flock within the framework of Orthodoxy.

As a conclusion to the above, we deem it timely to set forth the following related saying of the holy Chrysostom:

“For not only do the dead, when raised, and the lepers, when cleansed, confirm the Gospel, but we also, when being bound, confirm it; how and in what manner? Because, suffering countless things and not yielding, but becoming even more eager, we provide sufficient proof that we are proclaimers of the truth and that there is some divine power within us accomplishing all these things with ease and not allowing the multitude of trials to overcome those who preach; for it is not within human power to prevail through so many hindrances. These things are a confirmation of the Gospel not only to others but also to ourselves; for faith works us to be more approved and stronger, so that we may scorn the plots of the enemies of the truth.”

The Change of the Ecclesiastical Calendar Disrupted the Unity of the Church

In the very important book, The Real Truth Concerning the Ecclesiastical Calendar, which was written by the Fighter for the Patristic Calendar, Gregorios Efstratiadis (+1950), lawyer-publisher-politician, and published in Athens in 1929, in order, among other things, to confront the unsound arguments of the New Calendarists, that their Innovation does not oppose the Dogma and the Tradition of the Church, nor does it harm Her Unity, it is also emphasized the great truth that the Holy Synods of the Church aimed at the Unity in Truth of the local Churches, and this is the greatest Dogma and the most imperative Definition and Canon of theirs, as well as the principal reason for their convocation.

And indeed, not only with regard to the Feast of Feasts, Holy Pascha, but also concerning the other Feasts, Fasts, and in general the things handed down by the Apostles and the Holy Fathers, all the Synods aimed that these be celebrated in common by all the Local Churches. For this reason, the unilateral change of the Ecclesiastical Calendar in 1924 by the Church of Greece and the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople came into conflict with this purpose of the unity of the local Churches and violated the Canons and Definitions of the Ecumenical Councils, which were established precisely for the Unity of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church (see p. 89 of the aforementioned work).

The interest and purpose of the Synods, Efstratiadis emphasizes, was not only for the common celebration of the Feast of Pascha, but also for all the Feasts which are connected with it, as well as for the so-called immovable Feasts — and especially for Christmas — as well as for the Fasts of the ecclesiastical year. The reference to Pascha pertains not only narrowly to what is related to it, but to the entire Typikon order, which depends upon it and has as its basis the Calendar of the Church, because to this the Paschalion of the Church, the Menaion, the Fasts, and the Cycle of the Gospel readings are adapted. Therefore, whoever disturbs this Typikon order of the Church, which is fundamentally disturbed by the change of the Calendar, inevitably violates the Canons of the Church, the purpose of which is the safeguarding of the Unity of the Church (see pp. 89–90).

The provisions that were established concerning Pascha, especially by the First Ecumenical Council and by the Tradition of the Church, did not have as their purpose the determination of the precise astronomical equinox at a specific time, but aimed that it be celebrated by all Orthodox Christians everywhere on one and the same Sunday, so that the one faith and unanimous piety might be preserved, [and to avoid the co-celebration with the Jews or with the heterodox, we would also add], and that there might not exist any disagreement concerning this Feast, since the Catholic Church of the Savior Christ is one, and therefore it is entirely improper that, on the same days, some should be fasting and others celebrating with rejoicing (see p. 95).

Upon this noteworthy line of reasoning, the ever-memorable Gregorios Efstratiadis continues his work, with the skill and profundity that distinguished this excellent apologist of Genuine Orthodoxy, enlightening even us today in a timely manner in confronting the unacceptable sophistries of the Innovating New Calendarists–Ecumenists, writing also the following important points:

But it concerns the Feast of Pascha [the decision of the First Ecumenical Council], the Innovators will answer us together with the Archbishop of Athens [Chrysostomos Papadopoulos], and we did not innovate concerning Pascha. No, we reply. This is Pharisaism and sophistry. When an Ecumenical Council ordains that the purpose of the determination of Pascha is so that the various Churches may not disagree and so that, when some are celebrating, the others may not be fasting—when, that is, the Ecumenical Council establishes the Unity of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and enjoins unanimity within Her—when such is said to have been the purpose of the Canons of the Ecumenical Council, this purpose exists for every common feast, for every common fast.

Nor was it possible to be understood that the First Ecumenical Council limited the necessity of the unity of the Church only to the Feast of Pascha and that it was indifferent to disagreement concerning other feasts and other fasts. Therefore, if there was an affront to the decisions and Canons of the First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea, insofar as the Feast of Pascha was altered and division and disagreement arose among the Churches concerning the day of Pascha, the same affront to the ordinances of that same Ecumenical Council exists also when, through the change of the Ecclesiastical Calendar, disagreement and division of the Churches arises concerning the celebration of any other feast, particularly the feast of Christmas, the feast of Theophany, the feast of the Dormition of the Theotokos, the Holy Apostles, etc. And then likewise is the unity of the Churches offended, and it was precisely for this unity that the Fathers of the Church were concerned, a unity which is shattered and broken by the change of the Ecclesiastical Calendar, decided unilaterally with such frivolity and such lack of Ecclesiastical conscience.

And that the Ecumenical Councils did not look exclusively to the Feast of Pascha, but had in view all the feasts and the fasts, and for all demanded unity and unanimity, is demonstrated, apart from the above-mentioned Synodal decision, apart from the letter of Emperor Constantine [these are texts which had been cited earlier by the author], also by the following:

From the letter of Saint Athanasius the Great, who—being then a Deacon—participated in the Council in Nicaea, which letter he addressed to the African Bishops and in which he says: "…For it (the First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea) was convened on account of the Arian heresy and on account of Pascha. Because those in Syria and Cilicia and Mesopotamia were differing from us and, at the time when the Jews were celebrating, they also were doing likewise. But thanks be to the Lord, just as concerning the faith, so also concerning the holy feast there came to be agreement. And this was the cause of the Council in Nicaea."

The agreement, therefore, of the Church was the reason for the Council in Nicaea, also according to Saint Athanasius the Great. And if concerning any other feast there had arisen disagreement, as concerning Pascha, an Ecumenical Council would likewise have been convened concerning that. For this reason, primarily, the Councils and their ordinances aimed to secure ecclesiastical unity through common agreement.

That the Fathers regarded also the other Feasts of the Lord in the same manner as that of Pascha was stated by [Saint] John Chrysostom.

From the Homily of John Chrysostom to Blessed Philogonius (Homily III), speaking concerning the Feast of Christmas, which he calls "the Metropolis of all feasts," and he says concerning it:

"For from this feast, Theophany and holy Pascha and the Ascension and Pentecost received their beginning and foundation. For if Christ had not been born according to the flesh, He would not have been baptized, which is Theophany; He would not have been crucified, which is Pascha; He would not have sent down the Spirit, which is Pentecost. Therefore, from this, as from a certain source, various rivers flowing forth, these feasts have been appointed for us."

If such is considered by the Fathers of the Church the Feast of Christmas, how was it permitted that there be disagreement among the Churches concerning it, and how is it that only for Pascha would Ecumenical Councils be convened? And since their ordinances were made so that unity concerning the feasts might be secured, how is it that, concerning the Feast of Pascha, we consider the alteration to be forbidden by the Canons, but concerning the Feast of Christmas and the others, which the change of the Calendar shifted by thirteen days, we consider it not to be in conflict with the Canons of the Councils? Since the spirit of the Canons concerning the Feast of Pascha is that there be unanimity among the Churches concerning the day of all the feasts, how then is the Calendar change not uncanonical, by which some Churches celebrate the feasts of Christmas, Theophany, etc., on one day, and others celebrate them on another day?

The Fathers of the Church, therefore, attributed the highest importance to Her Unity and proclaimed as a foremost Dogma the agreement of all in the matters of the performance of external Worship. (pp. 95–98)

As becomes immediately evident and understandable, the Calendar Innovation conflicts with the letter and especially with the spirit of the holy Canons of the Church concerning unanimity and agreement in the celebration of the entire festal cycle of the Church, as is demonstrated with such clarity by the Confessor of the Faith Gregorios Efstratiadis, revealing the enormous error and responsibility of the Innovators, who gravely harmed the external expression of the Dogma of the Unity of the Church. The fact that they dare to celebrate Christmas together with the Heterodox, separating themselves from the Festal Tradition of the Church, which prescribes the celebration of Saint Spyridon on that day and the continuation of the blessed period of Fasting in view of the great Feast of the Christmas of the Orthodox, manifests the chasm which separates them from Orthodoxy and their continual preference and sin to apostatize, rejoicing in Ecumenistic fashion together with the enemies of God in a far country! May God grant them repentance and return!

+E.G.K.
December 12/25, 2017
Saint Spyridon of Trimythous

Greek source: https://ecclesiagoc.gr/index.php/%E1%BC%84%CF%81%CE%B8%CF%81%CE%B1/%E1%BC%B1%CF%83%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%81%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AC/649-h-metavoli-toy-ekklisiastikou-hmerologiou-diespase-thn-enothta-ths-ekklisias

Excerpt from the newly-translated "One Hundred Years Since the Calendar Reform," by Metropolitan Clement of Larissa and Platamon.

[As translated by Hieromonk Savvas (Anastasiou)]

Chapter 10. Rebuttal of Frequent Accusations

When examining issues in this book, we have had the opportunity to provide some necessary clarifications and explanations on some specific points, to address misunderstandings and controversies about them, usually on the part of Innovators and their followers.

In this last chapter, we wish to summarize our responses to such objections which are raised against the anti-ecumenical followers of the Patristic Calendar, whether maliciously, ignorantly, or out of confusion.

A careful study of all the material in our work is of course a necessary condition if what we have herein set forth is to be understood in its proper context. Without this, it is not possible to understand these facts objectively and impartially.

With what we write here we think that we are not apologizing but rather providing good faith information to dispel prejudices. So that the Small Flock of Genuine Orthodox, as well as every general opponent of today's ongoing apostasy, may receive support and consolation.

As a general observation, we say that usually our accusers when they do not belong to those who are not among those corrupted by Ecumenism, or those who are completely prejudiced against us, instead of getting to the essence of the issues presented here, they prefer to postpone and evade the problems in order to avoid the unpleasant confrontation with the terrible reality, and the particularly pressing and compelling voice of conscience that then arises about what must be done. This requires fortitude of soul, heroism and bravery.

Therefore, since there is no sincere willingness to present the Truth and to understand the confessional path of the remnant of piety, it is easy to accuse the despised Genuine Orthodox Christians of being burdened with errors and un-canonicities. But is this so? 

Those who participate directly or indirectly in the above-described path of apostasy, can they therefore go from being accused to becoming accusers and, mainly because of quantitative superiority and other advantages, to feeling superior and easily attack those who consciously and sacrificially hold the Treasure of Faith intact and immaculate? 

We want to emphasize first that the separation of our Forefathers from the Modernists because of the Calendar Innovation of 1924 did not constitute a schism, as we have already mentioned, and it did not at all provoke a division for personal and selfish reasons, as unfortunately various accusers wrongly accuse them of doing. 

Those who reacted to the Calendar Innovation with divine inspiration and impulse and were strengthened in it even by miraculous blessings, despite the initial persecutory fury against them, fought well, not for the establishment and perpetuation of the division but for the restoration of ecclesiastical order. 

The canonical walling-off which they made (according to Canon 15 of the First-Second Council), and which was formalized about two years after the beginning of the Innovation, was a permissible separation from wrongdoers for reasons of "Faith and Justice" (31st Apostolic Canon). "Justice" here means, according to John Zonaras (1074-1145 AD), "according to duty and the law." Violation of "Justice" is public contempt and disregard of written or unwritten Tradition. Every violation of the model of piety and worship, of ecclesiastical order and its institutions, constitutes a reason for a justified rupture of ecclesiastical communion. 

The timeless action of the Church proves that her faithful children fought not only for the doctrines; for matters of Faith when the need arose, but also for the Church Traditions when they were despised by various wicked men throughout the ages. 

This is why St. Nikodimos of Mount Athos writes with certainty: "Time will not allow me to recount the myriad examples of so many saints who have been cut down and died for the sake of ecclesiastical institutions and canons" (see "Concerning Frequent Holy Communion of the Immaculate Mysteries"). 

We have sufficiently explained that the Calendar Innovation was not a small and indifferent act, but one embedded in a much broader level of Ecumenism, as connected with a change of the Paschalion, in the service of an approach towards unification with the heterodox, but not in agreement with the Faith and Tradition of the Orthodox Church. 

We emphasize that obedience is not due to commands and arbitrary decisions against ancient institutions such as the Church Calendar. But the sentences, convictions, penalties, depositions, etc. on the part of the Innovators and violators against those who rightly and piously adhere to the Patristic things, have no validity but, on the contrary, are a crown of glory and honour. They even constitute a persecution of the Faith, according to the words of St. Maximus the Confessor concerning the excommunication of St. Martin of Rome the Confessor by the impious: "He was not excommunicated, but persecuted" (see PG v. 90, column 128). 

Related to the above is the allegation that the ordinations of our Clergy, and especially our Hierarchs, are uncanonical and inefficacious, because they come either from Hierarchs deposed after they joined Patristic Calendar in 1935 (Germanos of Demetrias, and Chrysostomos of Florina, emeritus), or because they were performed "beyond the borders" by Hierarchs of dubious status in America. 

St. Theodore the Studite affirms that in times when the Faith is under trial, ordinations performed "beyond the borders" are acceptable (see PG vol. 99, pp. 1645, 1648). The fact that we have hypostatic, efficacious and real ordinations has been understood in detail, and thoroughly proved through special studies especially in recent years. The evidence is convincing and available to all interested parties. 

Some reproach us that we should not have Hierarchs because there is no such historical precedent since the Innovators were not judged by a Great Council definitively and finally, so that they could be expelled from the Thrones they hold. 

Historical precedents exist at time of the Uniate domination, as was the case with the action of Patriarch Theophanes III of Jerusalem in present-day Ukraine in 1620 after the 1596 false-union of Brest Litovsk, when he restored the Orthodox hierarchy in that region. 

In our time it is purely a matter of spiritual survival, existence and continuity. If we did not have leaders, we simply would not ensure our continuity. This was exemplified during our five-year orphanage (1955-1960), between the repose of St. Chrysostomos of Florina, and the ordination of our Hierarchs by the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad which Church is recognized by all. If it is not known what exactly happened during that crucial five-year period, what and how many efforts we made to resolve our issue and what we faced, it is impossible to understand our continuity, form, and mission after 1960. Meanwhile, never before in history have we had a similar precedent of falling — directly or indirectly — into ecclesiological cacodoxy and newfangled heresy such as that of Ecumenism. Since the 1960's all Local Churches have been organic members of the WCC. The year 1965 also saw the so-called lifting of the anathemas with the Papists, no local Church having differentiated itself from this unauthorised act of decisive importance. What condemnatory Council should we expect? All things up to a certain point. 

Those rationalists who pose such utopian questions and essentially false dilemmas prove that they are outside of place and time. We do not impose our existence on anyone. Everyone is free to accept or reject us. But this does not in any way affect the reality of our existence, which bears a divine seal of blessing and approval, despite the human errors and imperfections among us. 

The New Calendarists claim that the flock of Genuine Orthodox Christians are simply a conventicle not officially judged as schismatics. Condemnatory sentences were imposed only on leading members of what they considered to be separatists. 

As far as our Clergy is concerned, we have just explained above what is true. As for our Flock, we are certainly not concerned with the verdict of the Innovators who wish to appear to be still related to it as far as its definition is concerned, but which Flock has disowned them and does not recognize them. After all, the persecution of the Lord's believers occasionally unleashed as a means of forcing them to "return," clearly proves their errant tactics. 

Another important reason they did not condemn the Genuine Orthodox Christians, namely, to exclude any other characterization of their ecclesiastical identity by the institutional bodies of the state, because according to them, this would unconstitutionally introduce two parallel and rival hierarchies of the Orthodox Church. 

This observation is very important as to who is perpetuating the ambiguity among us, not wishing to settle the issue, to accuse us of "divisions" and "factions," as well as of arbitrariness and disorder. This suits the Innovators very well from every point of view: ecclesiastical, spiritual and institutional. 

Directly related to the above are the accusations that the multiple divisions among the "Old Calendarists" signify a lack of divine blessing and goodwill. 

Those who say this usually multiply the number of so-called factions by dozens, counting every kind of fringe group of a few unaffiliated people or individuals who wear the rasson, who in various forms and variations appear as supposed followers of the Patristic Calendar. They usually change their views and compositions, have a disturbed history with unclear gaps, sometimes pass into obscurity or disappear, but remain in the memory of some who are diligent in these pursuits. 

A typical example of such a recent preoccupation is a booklet by a Cleric of the State Church, who bypasses all the serious problematics of the Calendar Issue and engages in research to compile tables on groups and sub-groups of the supposedly multi-divided "Old Calendarists." 

However, we must remember that it has been proven with evidence that a clergyman of the New Calendar, one Evgenios Tombros (1905-1982) from Corfu, before WWII was enlisted as an initiate in the extreme environment of Bishop Matthew (Karpathakis) of Bresthena (1861-1950) in Keratea, Attica, and became a leading figure in the formation of this group, separate from the canonical Holy Synod of the Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians (G.O.C.) of Greece. He maintained and strengthened the original separation among those who observe the Patristic Calendar (1937) by pushing for the execution of uncanonical and illicit ordinations of bishops by Matthew of Bresthena alone in 1948.

Since the beginning of the evil among us was done with the involvement of the Innovators, who, because of their Reform, were the moral authors of what followed among us, and their persecution led to extreme counter-actions by some, it is too much to blame those who have remained Un-innovative because of the infiltration of problematic elements. That is what happens in any such instance. There were and still are weeds in the Lord's field, which take advantage of circumstances and creep in everywhere, but by the fruits and the development and outcome of each, the work of each can be evaluated and understood. 

However, difficulties even in the relationships between confessors and strugglers for the Faith is not new. There are testimonies that this happened elsewhere, in times of anti-heretical struggle, a fact that caused regret but did not at all undermine the flag of Orthodoxy. St Theodore the Studite, for example, while giving glory to God "who has called us to the confession of his truth" (see Epistle 34) did not, however, remain silent about divisions among the Orthodox of that time: "For it has happens that even among those who contest for piety, the love of being first and the love of rivalry creep in." (see Epistle 11), and "Those who are secretly induced by the devil tend to divide even the healthy part of Orthodoxy." (see Epistle 65). 

So, it is not at all surprising that there are also differences between these Orthodox people, despite the regret and disappointment they cause and the effort to heal them that must be sought. 

But do not those who falsely accuse the followers of the Patristic Traditions have such divisions among themselves? Is the dreadful division over the Ukrainian issue that has recently shaken them a minor separation? 

There are others, who argue that it doesn't matter which Calendar one follows; which is the correct and acceptable one, etc., but the most important thing is the issue of ecclesiastical Communion. Since the other Local Churches that kept the Old Calendar continue to commune with those that accepted the New, therefore all is well and there is no reason for division and discord. 

But this view is a delaying tactic to avoid the essence of the problem. The Calendar Issue was from the outset contentious and was expected to be resolved by a Grand Synod either before or after WWII. Proposals were made and hopes were raised. Then the heresy of Ecumenism increased, and by 1965 included all the Local Orthodox Churches in its main body: the WCC, whether they followed the New or the Old Calendar. 

So, to consider ecclesiastical communion the most important thing regardless of the Calendar is simplistic and certainly not the Traditional and Patristic Orthodox model. Truth is not dependent on ecclesiastical communion, but the exact opposite is true: It is ecclesiastical communion that is dependent on Truth. 

The truly Orthodox commune only with those who agree in the Faith and in the visible and external preservation and expression of the Faith and Tradition of the Church, and not with those who fall short of these because of the adoption of unacceptable innovations for the sake of Ecumenism. This is not a small and easily forgivable matter, but a major and decisive one in terms of the choice of the ecclesial community. 

Unless the main issues of Faith are resolved, it is impossible for the True Orthodox of today to have an ecclesiastical communion with those in error, even if the latter do maintain the Patristic Calendar and some sort of criticism of Ecumenism in general. It is ultimately a matter of consistency and precision of Faith, and not an aspiration to "legitimization" or "normalization" by those who retain the outward form but have lost the essence. The one who is canonical is not the one who enjoys secular and institutional recognition, but the one who remains in the timeless, canonical, and Traditional Truth of the Church of Christ. 

Related to this is the charge that the followers of the Patristic Traditions, through their canonical walling-off from the Innovators, have severed themselves from the entire Orthodox Church, and find themselves in limbo, and are outside the Church. 

This is wrong from every point of view because it makes Canonicity and participation in the Mystery of the Church dependent on the recognition of some ecclesiastical organizations and not on the observance of the Rule of Faith and Piety in Fear of God. 

Even from a historical point of view there were leaders of the so-called official Orthodox Churches, who until very recently, in various ways supported the righteous struggle of the followers of the Patristic Calendar in Greece, both clergy and laity. In this regard, we have published indicative works on the relationship, for example, of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece with both the Patriarchate of Alexandria and the Patriarchate of Jerusalem.

The accusation that the Genuine Orthodox Christians do not recognize modern saints is something that causes us wonder and surprise.

Both because we have established Saints in our country (Greece tr.) and in the Churches in communion with us, and also, because our warm supporters and benefactors were some of the greatest Holy Hierarchs in the second half of the last century: Archbishop St. John Maximovich († 1966) the Wonderworker, and Metropolitan St. Philaret Voznesensky († 1985) of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, who possess incorrupt holy relics. 

If this also refers to Elders of that period who are well known in Greece and elsewhere, we simply remind you that since we are not bound by the actions and decisions of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, from whose leadership we have been separated for a century, we are not obliged to accept the canonizations which it has been making in the last few years in particular, and on occasion we even receive criticism for this from clergy and laity who are otherwise in communion with the Innovators because the Ecumenical Patriarchate canonizes even questionable and controversial persons. 

If we, as Genuine Orthodox, do not officially recognize some figures as Saints because the Ecumenical Patriarchate has declared it, does that mean that we are against them in every way? Who knows exactly, and not prematurely and selectively, what was their actual attitude towards persons, clergy and laity of our Church? Are those who reproach us for this certain that they know all the relevant testimonies and all the facts truthfully and objectively, or have they read some unilateral passages in some works which often serve a specific purpose of the author? 

Here we will quote information about St. Justin Popović who is our guide in this study. Whenever he reported in his official writings that have come to light in the Greek language on the main issues of Orthodoxy in modern times, he also spoke about the "Old Calendar" issue, and not, of course, just about it. It is characteristic that after the publication of the well-known "Second Sorrowful Epistle" of Metropolitan St. Philaret of the ROCOR, St. Justin sent a student of his to New York in 1972 to convey to him in person his enthusiasm and congratulations for this monumental Text of Orthodox Confession against Ecumenism. He also maintained excellent fraternal relations with adherents of the Patristic Calendar such as the distinguished Monk Victor Matthew († 1973), editor of the Great Synaxaristes. He also gave a written blessing to one of his students, a Hieromonk, during his postgraduate studies in Greece in the mid-1970's, to serve as a chaplain in a Convent in Attica, in which the then Archbishop of our Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece was commemorated. Is it possible to conceive that someone of the Patristic stature Justin Popović, with the most intact and pure Orthodox doctrinal sensitivity and conscience, could have induced his disciple to enter a schism and extra-ecclesiastical state? This is patently absurd and an unacceptable blasphemy. 

It is therefore not right for our accusers to rush to conclusions and judgments on this matter, because they are ignorant of all the relevant facts. We can make a more detailed explanation of this if necessary. Currently, we recall our Lord's saying, which applies to this matter: "Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us." (Luke 9:50). 

Even the criticism of such relatively modern figures on certain problems among the adherents of the Patristic Traditions in no way affects the essence of our Holy Struggle. For we, the adherents of the Patristic Traditions, are simply not concerned with things that constitute aberrations, if we maintain the spirit of discernment that must prevail and characterize those who wage the struggle of the Faith for it to be legitimate and God-pleasing. This is what our God-given conscience dictates and what holy figures have handed down to us by their teaching and example. 

In conclusion, we quote extensively from a relatively recent paper of ours, which helps to better understand it, as well as the issues discussed in this chapter and in our present study in general: 

If the much-promoted Ecumenical rites are increasing, and if the concelebrations; co-blessings; and "apologies" not in accordance with the Holy Canons continue, the world will not get back on its feet. It will only accelerate the path toward the great trials of the last days, as apostasy intensifies and expands. 

Those "traditional" brethren who reproach us, the Orthodox Christians of the Patristic Traditions, as supposedly uncanonical, schismatic, agitators and problematic, should understand well that not only do they not trouble us, and inform us that all these unfounded, wrong, and unacceptable things are supposedly in force, but they are simply saddening us by the magnitude of their misunderstanding, so that they miss the point and remain attached even now to the outward appearance. 

Those of us who, by God's grace, do not participate directly or indirectly in a Pan-heresy, such as that of malignant Ecumenism, are not worthy of pity in this respect, but worthy praise, despite our otherwise personal inadequacy. On the contrary, those involved in this tragic situation, the likes of which have not been seen in Church history from the beginning until now, are the ones who are worthy of pity. This is exactly where the essence of the problem is focused, whether it is acceptable and justified, or totally forbidden to consider as co-communicants either those who carry out horrible Ecumenical aberrations, or the little islands of Orthodox resistance in the ocean of confusion, whether and to what extent they meet the Canonical conditions to "breathe freely the genuine oxygen of Orthodoxy," to paraphrase the legendary Avgoustinos Kantiotis (1907-2010) (there is an audio recording of his greeting at the Genuine Orthodox Christians' celebration of the Sunday of Orthodoxy in Athens, 1967), and whether and to what extent their position corresponds to the established practice of the Church. 

Do we need special permission for this? Isn't it a matter of spiritual survival? Is it safer to grow and perfect our spiritual growth and perfection within the horrible fumes of evil Ecumenism? Do these brethren feel spiritually safe when their Shepherds make statements and actions of manipulative Ecumenical plurality? What worse things must be accomplished to alarm them and bring them out of this reprehensible synergy? In any case, the "Common Paschalion" is coming soon, so that the Ecumenist recipe will bind together even better in its poisonous taste. 

May our accusers be freed from their imaginary bonds, because at present they are like those which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel (Matt. 23:24) so that they will not be condemned as blind guides and hypocrites. 

Our forefathers in the Faith, moved by genuine Orthodox zeal, sacrificially preserved the "lesser" (Matt. 16:10) by rejecting the Calendar Reform, and thus were redeemed from the "greater," that is, of the greatest evil of the Ecumenical heresy. What if some of them, in their excessive zeal, were even driven to extremes? Does this tarnish or abolish their good confession and their good faith confirmed by divine signs? We also ask, as the Holy Apostle does, who are you to contradict God? (see Rom. 9:10). We, by divine mercy, have not been, are not, and will not be part of the Apostasy of Faith, and we thank our Lord and God infinitely for the providence of His care for us the unworthy. Only, we pray for those of our brethren, who seem to be ignorant of the size of the "beam" (Matt. 7:3) which darkens their spiritual vision and blasphemes us by appealing to the beam in our own eyes, which we do not deny that it does exist. 

But we want to explain that if some Clerics or well-known Elders who lived some decades before us, are setting an example with their supposedly discerning attitude towards the Innovators and Ecumenists, then they are indeed in a difficult and precarious position. The message of those earlier figures is clearly anti-Ecumenical. But the modern Ecumenical Church leaders have not only not been enlightened by the message and stance of those Elders, even though for many and varied reasons they have even rushed to canonize them, but they are also the first despisers and tramplers of their message on matters of the Faith. If this paradoxical and absurd thing constitutes a "measure of discernment" even for today, then we are in a cowardly state of mind in understanding even these most obvious things. For those who are spiritually covered by this tragedy and who consider this seriously afflicted situation as exemplary, we regret but can only wish for their speedy awakening. 

We know other holy Elders, enriched with evident gifts of the Holy Spirit, who were distinguished champions of our position and attitude. However, what is most important for us is that the timeless hagiographical and Patristic word of our Church is unshakable, absolutely binding and far superior to any elder or spiritual father. It proclaims that we communicate safely only with those who keep the confession of Faith unadulterated and inviolable. 

No one can change this principle and assurance for us, even if he is an angel from heaven. (see Gal. 1:8). We guard and preserve what the Holy Orthodox Church has always guarded and preserved, and consequently we reject and condemn what She has always rejected and condemned, as well as the neo-pagan Ecumenical pan-heresy. This is our humble, but firm and unquestioning stance and position until our last breath, so that we may have the mercy of God and eternal life. 

*** 

Finally, on the question of the appropriate attitude to take following all that has been said above, we dare to suggest that caution, prayer, and a call to repentance are required against the demoralized Ecumenists. We may be socially polite and peaceful people, desiring peace, good relations and understanding, to avoid extremes and tensions, but this does not negate the point. 

The Lord exhorts us to increased caution: "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." (Matt. 7:15). The Apostle Paul urges us to separate ourselves from those who are not of sound mind: "Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate." (2 Cor. 6:17). The canonical tradition of the Orthodox honours those who are separated from false teachers and false doctrines (Canon 15 First-Second Council) even if they have not been externally expelled from their thrones, because they are spiritually and ecclesiastically self-condemned. 

The holy Struggle of the Faith shows love for Christ and His Church, as well as for oneself and one's neighbour. An unswerving and uncompromising opposition "unto death" (Rev. 2:10) is required against the Pan-Heresy of Ecumenism and all the evils that have come, are coming and will come from it. There is no justification for inaction, but support for those struggling and persecuted for the faith. Our Lord will give the crown of victory to those who persevere and endure to the end. He also assured us: "Fear not, little flock" (Luke 12:32). We may be few, remain even fewer, and be despised even more. We need to remain in what we are informed in our souls, regardless of the quantity and visible results, demonstrating humble fidelity to the divine command. We oppose the heresy of Ecumenism and Secularism, without any triumphalism and arrogance, without dishonoring anyone.

We do not seek selfish ends, we do not fight on behalf of any man, we love unity, but in truth. Few are they who are saved from the cataclysm of apostasy; few react to deceptions, impositions, pressures, threats, persecutions and oppressions. Few have always been the yeast for the awakening of those in authority to strengthen the Truth as well as the desirable expulsion and condemnation of any aberration, both Synodally and definitively.

May we remain immovable and un-innovating, with holy zeal according to knowledge, in the Little Flock of Christ, in His True Church, with infinite patience and love even for our enemies, that we may obtain divine mercy. Amen.

Source: One Hundred Years Since the Calendar Reform, Metropolitan Clement of Larissa and Platamon, Larissa: Holy Metropolis of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Larissa, 2024, pp. 166-195.