Questions and Answers Concerning the End Times and the Antichrist

 

Fr. Theodoulos: Would you like to ask a question about some topic, would you like us to talk about something?

About the one whom we are now expecting, in the immediate future, to come. What is going to happen, how will things be, with the [Greek] identity cards, with the wars, with the infamous law?

Fr. Theodoulos: I usually, publicly, do not want to touch upon or deal with these topics. Not because I do not know or cannot express my opinion, but because usually, on these matters, disagreements arise and there will be tensions afterward. For some have their own beliefs, mindsets, and usually on this subject there are disagreements and misunderstandings. I consider it proper to speak about beneficial things, catechetical, that give joy and courage to continue our struggle, rather than to deal with topics which more often create anxiety and concern, and at times we even hear anger and rage.

Since God is absolute and the Holy Fathers speak to us about the last times that are to come, and we must truly be prepared above all, for what reason should they not be discussed, that we might discern things—why should there be tensions? It says that in order to be saved you must do this and that—God is absolute. There is no going down or up, neither right nor left.

Fr. Theodoulos: Yes, listen. Even in the time when the Apostle Paul was living, it was considered the era of the Antichrist. The Apostle Paul himself says it: “For the mystery is already at work.” The Apostle Paul sent a letter to the Thessalonians because, in those days, in Thessalonica, it was being preached that those were the years of the Antichrist, and that we must flee to the mountains, and that we must take measures and resist the state, and become united to confront the Antichrist and the era of the Antichrist, and to be saved, for otherwise we would be damned. The Apostle Paul sent them a letter and calmed them down. He explained to them how wrong it is to think this way—to suppose that it is the time of the Antichrist. This kind of thing has happened in every age, in every century—not once, but hundreds of times people throughout the ages have claimed regarding this or that issue that now is the forerunning era or the era of the Antichrist. That we must resist, that we must, that we must, that we must. But all these things are not from the Saints, but mainly from people who misinterpret the Apocalypse.

Well then, my personal opinion, as I have understood the Holy Fathers and Holy Scripture—of course, everyone has the right to disagree and to believe their own things—I am simply casting some seeds. If you consider them rotten, do not keep them. Throw them away, leave them. I am just expressing my opinion; each person clings to what he loves. What matters most, however, is that when we discuss certain topics, we should do so as calmly, kindly, and lovingly as possible. Because if I am mistaken, and you are supposedly the one who knows what is right, you will explain to me in a good way that I am mistaken. But regarding these topics, whenever I have engaged with some people, most raise their voices, get angry, pass judgment—“that one is deluded,” “you are this,” and so on… In the end, we reach the point of saying, “What you’re saying is not Orthodox,” or “Scripture says otherwise,” or “that elder says something else,” or “what you’re saying is heretical”—and this then causes us to lose our composure, to lack the love we should have. In order for us to speak with love, we must cultivate love—take heed: love for enemies. We do not even love our friends, we do not love our relatives—will we reach the point of loving our enemies? Because you might say, “Father, enemies?” But when we argue and quarrel, we become enemies. Therefore, if there is something to discuss, we must see that if our brother is speaking wrongly, we should pray that God enlighten him to understand the truth—not tell him he is deluded, that he’s doing this or that. We as Orthodox Christians must love everyone—even Muslims, and heretics, and Catholics—we must love all people; we simply refrain from sharing their beliefs. We never say that we should hate anyone or insult them; we should not slander or curse anyone. We must love people, and hate their heresy—even more so within us Orthodox—because that is what has caused the Churches to be divided: because we disagree and say “No, you are deluded,” and “No, you’re the good one,” or “I am the saint.” So, my opinion is: whoever wants to understand the truth about these eschatological matters should not concern themselves with the internet—just my opinion. On the internet there is both truth and falsehood—it’s like a garbage dump, and you're searching in a garbage dump to find something to eat. You might indeed find something edible among the garbage, but it is contaminated by the trash. The source for understanding the truth about eschatological matters—when the Antichrist will come, what the Antichrist is, what harms us and what benefits us—the source is found in Holy Scripture and in the Patristic writings. If each person counted the time they’ve spent on the internet—how many hours and days they’ve occupied themselves reading things—and if they had dedicated even a tenth of that time, not the whole, just a tenth, to reading the New Testament and the Holy Fathers, they would have been far more illumined.

As for the issue with the coronaviruses, with the vaccines, I never once dealt with the internet to find out through the internet whether the vaccine harms or whether the coronavirus is of the Antichrist. Now you’ll say, “those things have passed,” but they are still brought up. Or, in any case, the identity cards in Greece—whether they are of the Antichrist, whether it’s the 666—am I going to sit now and search the internet to have the internet tell me whether it is true? I will go on the internet to find a piece of information, if I want to learn something about a historical event—and even then, some say it one way, others say it another. But the truth is found in Holy Scripture and in the Holy Fathers—how the Holy Fathers interpret Holy Scripture, not through the internet. Whoever wants, let him do so; that is my opinion. We try to concern ourselves with the Holy Fathers, and most importantly, to be in confession, in Holy Communion, so that God may enlighten us. If I am arguing with my brother, if I do not confess, if I do not commune—then even if I don’t take the identity card and I don’t take the vaccine—will I be saved? The more important thing is that I be reconciled with my brother, that I confess, that I partake of Holy Communion, that I study the Holy Fathers—and then God will enlighten me whether I should do it or whether I should not take it. I am not saying to take them. I am saying: how can we arrive at the point of understanding whether we should? I leave every person to judge and to decide for himself and for his family, because we should not interfere and try to persuade one another about what to do, what to take, what not to take, etc.

And when brothers ask, “Father, should we take the identity card or not?”

Fr. Theodoulos – Forgive me for what I will say, but the question is a bit ill‑intentioned. Why? If I say, “Brothers, take the identity card,” it will be: “What did you say? To take the identity card? And what are you saying?!” If the brother who asks already has his own opinion, he’s not really asking because he wants to learn—“Ah, I see! Now I’ve learned whether I should take it or not.” Everyone already has his own opinion within himself. One will say, “I shouldn’t take it.” Another will say, “I should take it”—but even so, he will still ask! As if we’re asking the question just so others can hear it. You know, it’s like: “Let me ask so that the others will learn what’s right—whether we should take it or not—or to see what Father believes, what his stance is.” I’m not addressing anyone personally—maybe now two of you children have just asked the question—I’m speaking generally. Generally and vaguely. We are all brothers, and I’m simply stating my personal opinion. Since each one has his own view and each one is responsible for himself and for his family, let each person do what he believes is right. But if we do want to learn, I suggest we avoid the internet and turn to Holy Scripture and the Holy Fathers. Let us pray for God to enlighten us through the Holy Fathers. To learn the truth, and at the same time to be within the Mysteries of the Church—in Confession and Holy Communion. And then to love one another. Christ said to love everyone, even our enemies. To love as much as we can and to help. And if I want to help someone, to bring him back from his delusion, let me pray for him. That is, if someone thinks that what I am saying now is wrong and that I am deluded, let him pray for me, that God may enlighten me. Since no one is convinced by words anymore. We’re all smart, we’re all first, we’re all second. We all know everything. We don’t accept advice, or correction, nothing. We all know it all. But since we already know it, there’s no need to talk about these things. Let us pray for that person. And when we want even our brothers and our relatives, let us pray for them. Someone comes and says, “Father, I feel sorry—I have my brother, I have my sister. He’s there, or he’s changed faith, or he’s changed Church, or this or that.” Yes—and if you keep talking to him and bothering him, will you convince him? Pray for him. Fine, let’s offer prayers for the other, but first for ourselves—that we might be enlightened—and then that we might enlighten our friends and our relatives.

On one point, if you’ll allow me, I would like to disagree. Of course, we must pray for others—especially for ourselves—that is a matter of self-worth, self-respect. First, to love yourself. If you don’t love yourself, you cannot love your neighbor—it is impossible. Secondly, regarding what you said about the identity card and the vaccine. You all know that we are living in times that are anti-Christian, that Christ is being persecuted, that those who rule over us—that is, those behind the scenes—are satanists. These people believe in the devil, in “the one outside.” Those who produced the vaccine did it for population reduction. They didn’t do it because they love you—they didn’t just meet you yesterday. They don’t love anyone. They have sold their souls for certain interests in this world. Secondly, the matter of the electronic identity is the same—it is also anti-Christian. They have abolished everything. They recently voted in favor of homosexuality—allowing two fathers to take a child—and they say, “It’s better for us to take the child because it’s in an orphanage, and those who left it didn’t love it, and we will love it.” Well, no!

Fr. Theodoulos: I disagree with those things. Of course, brother. With all of them. I would just like to add to that, and I believe it is good to say such things so that people may be awakened. My opinion—if you did not understand it—is something I’ll explain more clearly. I did not say that only prayer and study, and then we’ll tell you—of course, we must also move our hands. I don’t think—if some of you did not understand me—that we should just sit with folded hands. I never said such a thing. Of course, we must also move our hands. But what is more important is prayer, study, the Mysteries of the Church. But as for this subject: if today we are governed by Antichrists once, in earlier times we were governed ten times, a hundred times by Antichrists. Let’s go back again to the time of the Apostle Paul.

When the Apostle Paul was living, the emperor of the Roman Empire was Nero. Nero was the first emperor who demanded to be worshipped as a god. He wasn’t simply an idolater, but what—take note—not only did he mint coins in his own name, but he also required that everyone be registered in his empire as his subjects, as subjects of the god Nero. Today, no prime minister has told us, “Let me give you coins of my own, let me give you documents stating that you are my subjects and that I am God.” That era was far worse. And we will also look at other periods as we go along. So, when Nero proclaimed this—that from now on he was to be worshipped as a god—then again the Christians rose up and said, “Here is the Antichrist!” A greater Antichrist than Nero has never appeared to this day, because he demanded worship. The Roman state always required people to be registered. But when the registration was under Nero’s rule, that was the peak of it all. Now, look what’s happening today: we’re being given new identity cards—who knows what they might contain, whether they have 666, whether they have a chip, or whether they don’t—and everything seems to lead us there, everything to the Antichrist, etc. But even back then, the documents served to prove who was a Roman citizen. Not just anyone could say, “Ah, I’m fine, I’m a Roman citizen,” or “I’m not.” There were documents back then too, in which everyone was registered in the Roman state. And yet, in that Roman Empire, which was vast at the time, there were thousands and millions of Christians—all of whom were registered in the Roman state in order to have the rights of the state. The Apostles existed at that time. If it were wrong, then the Apostles themselves would have said, “Do not be registered in the Roman state.” First of all, the Apostle Paul would have said such a thing. But he didn’t. Do you know what the Apostle Paul did say? “Make prayers for kings and all who are in authority.” That is, at that time, he asked the Christians to pray for Nero. It’s like saying to us today to pray for our leaders. Now, pardon me, but what Christian today prays for Mitsotakis in Greece? Since most curse him and revile him. And then they say not to take the identity cards that Mitsotakis will give us. What are you saying, poor fellow! If you are a Christian and want to go against the Antichrist, you will begin first with prayer. Pray for Mitsotakis. If all Christians prayed for Mitsotakis, God would not allow him to give us the identity cards. Listen to something.

So then, I said that many times there were governments that were antichristian and worse than today’s. Some governments were during the Turkish occupation. Do you know what that means? If you haven’t read and understood how Christians lived under the rule of the Sultans during the time of Turkish rule… I’ll give one example. Saint Cosmas of Aetolia, every time he went to preach, would go and make a prostration and receive the blessing, the permission, from the local Pasha. That is, in order to receive permission to speak publicly, he would go and bow down, venerate him, and say, “My much-honored Pasha, if you will and if you give permission…” In those years of Turkish rule, the Christians were so oppressed that they had someone over them who ruled and who had the religion of the Antichrist—because the Antichrist was also Mohammed. When Mohammed arose—and every Mohammed, and each who ruled in that manner—they were all in a place of the Antichrist.

Regarding the Antichrist, as you mentioned—how will we recognize that he is the specific Antichrist? By his deeds, by his confession? How will we understand that he is the Antichrist?

Fr. Theodoulos: Very good question, and how easily it is answered. So then, today the Prophet Elias and the Prophet Enoch are alive. They have not died. We all know this. The two prophets live—for what reason? To come at the time of the Antichrist. Now pay attention. If, at this moment, the Antichrist were alive on earth, it would be utterly impossible for the Prophet Elias and the Prophet Enoch not to come and tell us. For this very reason they are alive and exist. That is, the Prophet Elias—or rather, the two prophets—are not tinkering with pots and pans. They are not just sitting around waiting: “Ah, humanity is being destroyed, people are perishing, and we just sit here and wait.” Of course not. Listen. If it were the time of the Antichrist—if the Antichrist had come, and if the identity card and the vaccine were a denial, if they contained the 666 and the mark and a denial of Christ—the two prophets would 100% come to warn us. Because otherwise, if they didn’t do that, their existence would be in vain. Since neither the Prophet Elias nor the Prophet Enoch comes to tell us, “Don’t take the identity cards because they contain 666,” then they don’t contain 666! Would they let us take them while the 666 is present, and they just sit there and wait and wait?

There are testimonies, though, that Elias has appeared.

Fr. Theodoulos: Now listen, it’s one thing for him to perform a miracle somewhere, to appear and help—that, yes—but for him to come out publicly for all people to see him, to appear openly and say, “People, Christians, take your precautions, it is the Antichrist, this belongs to the Antichrist”—they would tell us. From the moment the prophets are not coming, then it is not something involving 666 and the Antichrist. For those who wish to understand. As for the rest, my brothers, you have the right to...

Will we recognize them when they come?

Fr. Theodoulos: Of course. Pay attention. If a certain Christian has no relationship with the Church, with Orthodoxy, with the Mysteries—in short, he is only baptized because he happened to be born that way, and he lives a prodigal life, for example, with women and drugs—whether the Prophet Elias comes or not, for him it’s all the same. This also happened in Hades when Christ descended. When Christ entered Hades—how brightly does the sun shine? Christ shone a hundred times more brightly in Hades—He gave light. But who recognized Christ? All those who had the senses of a sound spiritual state. The others hid themselves, turned away, didn’t want to see Christ and the light. The faithful, who were awaiting Christ, longed for Him—and when they saw His light, they recognized Him. We Christians who are in the Church and in the Mysteries of the Church—of course, when the Prophet Elias and the Prophet Enoch come, of course we will recognize them as if the sun itself had descended to the earth.

Will this Synod tell us that these two are the prophets?

Fr. Theodoulos: The Synod doesn’t need to say it. It’s like me telling you: if the sun falls upon the earth, do we need the neighbor to tell us?

When the Antichrist comes, will the Church exist?

Fr. Theodoulos: It will exist, and then it will flee into the wilderness. As soon as the Antichrist appears, the Church flees into the wilderness. The Church of Christ will exist, does exist, and will continue to exist.

It will always exist, yes. We say: when the Antichrist comes one day, will the Church exist then?

Fr. Theodoulos: The Church will exist in the wilderness.

Will the Church, at that time in the wilderness, preach to the world that this is the Antichrist?

Fr. Theodoulos: Yes, yes, yes. It will preach it.

But Scripture says, “Take heed, lest he deceive, if possible, even the elect.”

Fr. Theodoulos: Now listen to this. So then, it says, “if possible,” “if possible to deceive even the elect.” The “if” and the “possible” are conditional. The “possible,” which means could be, is conditional, not active. So, this means that those years will be so very difficult and the man will use such cunning, that with this evil he will do, he could deceive even the elect. Could, but he will not deceive the elect. No elect one will be deceived. Some, of course, will be deceived. What do the Saints tell us—all the Saints of all the ages? When the Antichrist comes, those who will follow him and those who will be deceived by him are precisely those who—even if the Antichrist were never to come—would be damned. Why? What do the Saints say? He will reign among those who are perishing. That is, he will reign only over those destined for perdition. No elect person will be deceived—but if possible, even the elect could be deceived—but the Antichrist will reign only over the lost, those appointed for destruction. Only those—listen—who, even if the Antichrist never came, would be damned nonetheless. And on the other hand, even if not one, but fifty Antichrists were to come, not a single elect person would be deceived—not a single faithful one. But the faithful of those times—in those years—will receive strength only, only, only from the Mysteries of the Church. Whoever is far from the Mysteries, even if he puts up the greatest fight, will be lost, will despair, will give in, will deny. All those today who shout, “I won’t take the identity card,” “I won’t do this,” and shout and shout—because they do not have the virtue of love to the degree that is needed—because the same person shouting about the identity card, if his neighbor gives him a temptation, he wants to hang him! So that person—let’s say—if he is tortured, if they put him through torment, he may endure at first, but then he will cower or the grace of God will abandon him and he will deny, because he won’t be able to endure to the end. Do you know how many martyrs—or rather, how many people during times of torture—succumbed and denied, even though at first they endured and acted like confessors? Why? Simply because they lacked love and humility. It is not enough to shout “Orthodoxy or death” and to confess. If I do not help my neighbor, then even if I shout “Orthodoxy or death” from morning till night, it benefits me nothing. I must have both faith and works. And I must be certain that when I am within the Mysteries and in the Church, God will enlighten me, will help me to resist this Antichrist, whoever he may be. But if I am not within the works of love, if I am not within the Church and the Mysteries of the Church, no matter how much I think I am a watchman, a guard waiting for the Antichrist to come so I can face him—poor fellow, without even realizing it, you will deny.

 

Greek transcription source: https://entoytwnika1.blogspot.com/2026/01/blog-post_28.html

The Contribution of the Zealot Athonites to the Holy Struggle of the G.O.C.

Bishop Photios of Marathon | September 3, 2009

 

 

INTRODUCTION

The Holy Synod of the Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians, by its decision No. 5.S. BS of 12/25 May 2006, dedicated the year 2007 to the Zealot Athonites and their contribution to the Holy Struggle of the G.O.C. on the occasion of the completion of 80 years since the first organized mission of Athonite Hieromonks by the Holy Association of Zealot Fathers to Greece.

In this tribute, we initially refer to the very significant contribution of the Zealot Athonites during the period 1924-1935. Subsequently, we address their contribution from 1935 until 1972. Finally, we present the current contribution of the Zealot Athonites, particularly that of the Holy Monastery of Esphigmenou.

The information for the composition of this was mainly drawn from the historical "Ta Patria" of the late Metropolitan of Pentapolis, Kalliopios, as well as from other sources, and we must admit that the task was not easy due to conflicting information in certain cases. Therefore, if the description at any point is not accurate, we ask for the readers' understanding. If they happen to have knowledge of the precise details of the situation, we kindly ask them not to hesitate to point it out to us by letter. Any additions will be taken into consideration upon the publication of the tribute in the Voice of Orthodoxy.

We must also point out that the nominal references to the Zealot Fathers are illustrative and that we will limit ourselves to those who have fallen asleep, and not to those who are still living and active.

THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE ZEALOT ATHONITE FATHERS TO THE HOLY STRUGGLE OF THE G.O.C.

A. PERIOD 1924-1935

When the new calendar was forcibly imposed on the Church of Greece in 1924 by Archbishop Chrysostomos Papadopoulos, a significant portion of the faithful did not accept it. Not out of stubbornness or "narrow-mindedness," nor, of course, due to some backward perception, as we are accused by the defenders of the innovation. But because they immediately discerned that behind this uncanonical act lay the promotion of the Latinization of Orthodoxy.

Immediately, the pious who opposed the change organized themselves. Just two weeks after the calendar reform, many of them gathered in the hall of the Commercial Employees of Athens and founded the "Society of the Orthodox." Two years later, it was renamed the "Greek Religious Community of the Genuine Orthodox Christians." Since then, those who struggle for the traditional piety have borne the name G.O.C. They began to conduct liturgies and church services in private chapels, with their own priests.

The first heroic clergy of the G.O.C. were very few. The married priests were: Ioannis Floros (the celebrant during the vigil of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross in 1925, during which the third appearance of the Holy Cross took place), and Spyridon Oikonomou, Vasileios Sakellaropoulos, Sotirios Souchleris, Georgios Mavridis, Andreas, Parthenios (both from Drama, surnames unknown), and Stergios (from Nikiti).

Additionally, during the first years following the calendar change, the liturgical needs of the G.O.C. were served by the Hieromonks: Anthimos Vagianos (on Chios) and Arsenios Sakellarios (in Phthiotis). The latter was an Athonite who, with a dismissal letter from the Monastery of Simonopetra, had been in the region of Phthiotis since 1907. He was there during the calendar change, which he did not accept, and thus became the first Athonite to join the Holy Clergy of the G.O.C. (It is worth noting about him that the gendarmes tied him behind their pack animal and dragged him on foot, publicly humiliating him through the villages of the area until they reached the police station, where they defrocked and shaved him!).

Certainly, these very few priests were unable to meet the liturgical needs of tens of thousands of faithful, especially as the resistance against the calendar innovation was growing.

This gap was called to be filled by the Zealot Athonite Fathers.

The Zealot Athonites had already founded (in 1926) the "Holy Association of Zealot Monks" on Mount Athos, whose charter was signed by 450 Hieromonks and Monks, opposing the innovation. This Holy Association was dissolved by law by the authorities the following year, but it continued to operate informally, coordinating the efforts of the Athonite Zealots with the Hellenic Religious Community of the G.O.C. The zealous and learned Monk Arsenios Kotteas greatly contributed to the founding of this holy association.

In 1926, the Athonite Hieromonks Gedeon Papanikolaou and Matthaios Karpathakis (later Bishop of Vresthena) left Mount Athos and settled in Attica, serving the G.O.C.

The following year, nineteen Zealot Monks (from the Monasteries of Vatopedi and Koutloumousiou) were expelled from Mount Athos by the police. Some were released across Greece, while others were confined to monasteries (in Mytilene and Serres).

In the same year, Elder Ieronymos Geroantonakis founded a monastery on Mount Parnitha. Likewise, Matthaios Karpathakis founded one in Keratea.

Around the end of 1927 (on Christmas Eve), following the encouragement of Monk Arsenios Kotteas, the first four-member mission of Hieromonks from Mount Athos arrived in Athens to support the Holy Struggle. It consisted of the Zealot Hieromonks: Parthenios Skourlis (later Bishop of the Cyclades), Eugenios Lemonis, Gerasimos Dionysiatis, and Artemios Nodarakis. In 1929, following the example of the previous group, the Hieromonks Akakios Pappas (later Archbishop of the G.O.C.), Hilarion Ouzounopoulos, Antonios Koutsonikolas, Artemios Xoungos (of Xenophontos Monastery), and Monk Nektarios Katsaros also joined.

In 1929, the married priest Nikolaos Anagnostou was added to the Holy Clergy of the G.O.C.

Thanks to the activity of the aforementioned Hieromonks (primarily) and their collaboration with the Governing Council of the Community of the G.O.C., within two years, 245 branches of the Community were established throughout Greece. Despite the persecutions and hardships, the branches of the G.O.C. multiplied even further, and by the beginning of 1934, they numbered 800 across the Greek Territory.

In the same year, in a record of the Religious Community of the G.O.C., primarily signed by the aforementioned Zealot Athonites, the G.O.C. renounced the official Church and stated that:

a) The Parliament has no right to legislate for the Church; therefore, a separation of Church and State must take place.

b) The introduction of the new calendar was done for ecumenical [ecumenist] reasons.

c) The practice of joint prayer with the heterodox is condemned, and

d) The election of bishops for the G.O.C. is requested.

(To satisfy the last request, they addressed Metropolitan Anthony of Kiev, the primate of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, but without success).

From the above, the foresight of the G.O.C. is demonstrated, as they were the first to point out the danger of Ecumenism and joint prayers, and they indicated the only patristic way of responding: the cessation of ecclesiastical communion.

B. PERIOD 1935-1971

In 1935, three hierarchs of the Church of Greece decided to cease ecclesiastical communion and subsequently assumed the leadership of the holy struggle of the G.O.C. They proceeded with the consecration of bishops and formally established the Holy Synod of the Church of the G.O.C., with Germanos of Demetrias as its president. This event gave new momentum to the G.O.C., who were no longer merely a Religious Community but now represented the continuation of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church in Greece.

The leadership of the struggle was assumed by the hierarchs, who cooperated with the Athonite fathers, both those active in Greece and the Zealots remaining on Mount Athos. The Zealot cells of Mount Athos became the primary refuge for those G.O.C. faithful who sought the monastic life, and from then on, the G.O.C. hierarchs ordained the clergy of the Zealot Athonites, establishing a relationship of fraternal cooperation that continues to this day.

Athonite Hieromonks were elevated to the episcopal rank, such as Matthaios Karpathakis of Vresthena (who, unfortunately, caused the Matthewite schism), Akakios Pappas of Talantion, Parthenios Skourlis of the Cyclades, Paisios Finokaliotakis of Aegina, Petros Astyfides of Astoria, and Gabriel Kalamisakis of the Cyclades.

Athonite Monk Antonios Moustakas was one of the key figures in the Holy Struggle of the G.O.C., serving as a collaborator (from 1941 to 1955) of former Metropolitan of Florina Chrysostomos, the successor of Germanos of Demetrias in leading the G.O.C.

Athonite Hieromonks occasionally joined the ranks of the Holy Clergy of the G.O.C., including: Chrysanthos Vrettaros, Meletios Ioannidis, Azarias Patsoudis, Longinos Hatzistefanou, Panteleimon Tsaloupis, Ephraim Karagiannidis, Gabriel Stamatellatos, Chrysostomos Theodoropoulos, Hilarion Vasiloglou, Gabriel Liveris, Anempodistos Botsis, Eumenios Tsimisiris, Gerasimos Skourtaniotis, Seraphim Papadimitriou, Ioannis Manidakis, Nikodimos Patris, Gerasimos Rogalis, Antonios Chalkias, Vikentios Ladas, Eugenios Klavdianos, Anthimos Proestos, Monk Chrysanthos Skourtaniotis, and others who fought the good fight of faith both inside and outside of Mount Athos. Many other commemorated Athonites, seeing the piety of the G.O.C. and the Zealot Fathers, were also favorably inclined towards them. They facilitated the enrollment of zealots in the Monasteries' registries, despite contrary directives from the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and many Athonite monasteries took G.O.C. monasteries and churches under their protection, shielding them under the status of dependencies to avoid demolition or sealing. Athonite Monk Gordios Karagiannis founded the Monastery of Axion Estin in Varibobi, and Ioasaf Bellas founded the Monastery of the Nativity of the Theotokos in Thrakomakedones, Attica. The latter, a master craftsman in ecclesiastical silver and goldsmithing, adorned many churches and monasteries in our homeland with his masterpieces.

The blind Monk Dositheos Paraskevaidis, an excellent musician and cantor, is the one who improved the system of Byzantine notation for the blind. He also began his first steps as a Zealot Monk on Mount Athos.

Almost all male members of the Church of the G.O.C. considered it their duty to visit—if possible—annually the Zealot cells of Mount Athos in order to receive spiritual strength.

Zealot fathers, such as the renowned Avvakoum the Barefoot, Achilleios of Agiannana, the monks Charalambos and Ephraim Tambakides, and the Hieromonks Matthaios Raptis, along with other champions of virtue "about whom time would fail us to recount," taught through their words and—most importantly—by their example to the visitors on Mount Athos.

The faithful of our Church learned to pray with the prayer rope, to conduct family services using the prayer book, and to frequently attend vigils and other church services—practices foreign to the New Calendarists, who were increasingly distancing themselves from Orthodox Tradition. This is largely due to the positive influence of the Zealot Athonite fathers.

C. PERIOD 1972 - PRESENT

The positive contribution of the Zealot Fathers to the Holy Struggle of the G.O.C. continued unabated during the last decades up to the present. We will only mention, as examples, the contributions of the late Hieromonks Georgios Georgiou (the well-known Father George of Provata), Athanasios Katsounotos, Euthymios Katsampasakis, Monk Paisios Palaskas, Hieromonk Bartholomew (in Rodopoli, Attica), and many others.

However, during the same period, significant changes occurred on Mount Athos.

First, organized brotherhoods from Greece began to flock to and settle on Mount Athos. The new Athonite monks were imbued with a more worldly mindset than their predecessors. Then, European money began to flow abundantly into Athos. As a result, the "commemorating" Athonites distanced themselves even further from the Zealots and the G.O.C.

However, in 1972, another significant development took place on Mount Athos. The ecumenist initiatives of Patriarch Athenagoras had caused a great wave of reactions. Many monasteries of Mount Athos then ceased the commemoration of the Patriarch. They reinstated it, however, after the repose of Athenagoras, despite his successor, Demetrios, declaring during his enthronement that he would continue the same policies. Except for the Holy Monastery of Esphigmenou. This monastery continued to refuse to commemorate the Patriarch's name and maintained communion with the Zealot Athonites and the G.O.C. This was followed by trials, condemnations, expulsions, sieges of the Monastery, and other persecutions, all of which failed.

Over time, the Holy Monastery of Esphigmenou developed into the largest monastic center on Mount Athos, with more than 100 monks, most of whom were young. Despite the financial warfare against it, this monastery became internationally known for its hospitality and the uncompromising character of its monks.

At a time when European gold weakened the Orthodox sensibilities of the commemorating monks, and the ecumenist fervor of the Ecumenical Patriarch had reached its zenith, the Holy Monastery of Esphigmenou, now the center of the Zealot Fathers of Mount Athos, became the living reproach to the commemorating Athonites. Like a burning coal, it sears their consciences, constantly reminding them of the duty they fail to fulfill.

For this reason, they are eager to eliminate every source of zealotry on Mount Athos, starting with the venerable Holy Monastery of Esphigmenou.

The Patriarchate of Constantinople and the "Holy Community" of Mount Athos, in cooperation with the political authorities of our homeland, are working together to carry out their unlawful plans. Once again, Annas, Caiaphas, and Pilate are collaborating to execute their crime.

CONCLUSION

At the beginning of the past century, immediately after the calendar innovation, fewer than twenty Athonite fathers, leaving Mount Athos, managed within a few years to greatly expand the movement in favor of the traditional practices of the G.O.C., leading to the establishment of 800 "branches," that is, communities of devout Orthodox Christians, throughout the country.

Let today's persecutors of the Zealots carefully consider the consequences of fulfilling their intentions. More than 150 Zealot Hieromonks and Monks will flood the Greek Territory, who, with the halo of a confessor, will preach against the Established Church. The Church of the G.O.C. will be enriched. Large gaps in parish ministry will be filled, and new monasteries will be founded. The exiled Athonites will become a magnet for many devout New Calendarists, who will join the ranks of the G.O.C.

Furthermore, once Mr. Bartholomew is freed from the resistance of the Zealots, he will rush with unrestrained zeal to implement his ecumenist plans. This will drive a large portion of the conservative New Calendarists to join the Genuine Orthodox Church.

Mount Athos will lose its living conscience. The monks will be reduced to mere caretakers of historical monuments. Their voice on matters of faith will no longer be taken into consideration.

Mount Athos will deteriorate from a place of asceticism and sanctification into a picturesque tourist destination, much like Meteora.

As Genuine Orthodox Christians, we desire that Mount Athos remain a place of sanctification and asceticism, and not meet the inglorious fate of other monastic centers of Orthodoxy. However, if this should happen, let those who pursue it know that the Church of the G.O.C. will benefit.

Eternal be the memory of the ever-memorable, departed Zealot Athonite Fathers, and for the living, may the Lord be their helper. Amen.

 

Greek source:

https://sites.google.com/site/bishopphotios/%CE%B1%CF%81%CF%87%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AE-%CF%83%CE%B5%CE%BB%CE%AF%CE%B4%CE%B1/%CF%80%CF%81%CF%8C%CE%BB%CE%BF%CE%B3%CE%BF%CE%B9/%CE%B7-%CF%83%CF%85%CE%BC%CE%B2%CE%BF%CE%BB%CE%AE-%CF%84%CF%89%CE%BD-%CE%B6%CE%B7%CE%BB%CF%89%CF%84%CF%8E%CE%BD-%CE%B1%CE%B3%CE%B9%CE%BF%CF%81%CE%B5%CE%B9%CF%84%CF%8E%CE%BD-%CE%B5%CE%B9%CF%82-%CF%84%CE%BF%CE%BD-%CE%B9%CE%B5%CF%81%CF%8C%CE%BD-%CE%B1%CE%B3%CF%8E%CE%BD%CE%B1-%CF%84%CF%89%CE%BD-%CE%B3-%CE%BF-%CF%87

The Inspirers and Pioneers of the Innovation: “These two Luthers of the Orthodox Church” [1]

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

 

The issue of the Ecclesiastical Calendar has deeper causes and motives.

The inspirers and pioneers of this matter, such as Patriarch Meletios of Alexandria [2] and Archbishop Chrysostomos of Athens, [3] lacking, unfortunately, a deep Orthodox spirit, became—knowingly or unknowingly—tools of foreign desires and aims, through which the unity of the Orthodox Churches and the Greek ideology’s bond with Orthodoxy are sought to be broken.

 

 

These two Leaders of the Orthodox Churches of the Patriarchate of Alexandria and of Greece, vying for the glory of being seen as reformist and modernized clerics, [4] lightly raised the banner of Ecclesiastical reforms, beginning with the alteration of the Ecclesiastical Calendar, which constitutes one of the unifying links of the Orthodox Churches and the compass of Divine worship and the works of the Patristic Faith and piety.

 

 

***

The idea of introducing the Gregorian calendar also into the Orthodox Church, as supposedly more perfect, was discussed some years ago even at the Ecclesiastical Congress, [5] which was convened in Constantinople by the then Ecumenical Patriarch Meletios, and which was wrongly called pan-Orthodox, [6] since only three autocephalous Orthodox Churches were represented therein—namely, those of Greece, Serbia, and Romania, the latter two even being represented not by clergy, but by lay delegates. [7]

At this Congress, in which the other Orthodox Churches—and in particular the three Eastern Patriarchates, namely those of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem [8]—shone by their absence, the introduction of the Gregorian calendar into Orthodox divine worship was initially approved in a wholly unstudied manner.

I say unstudied, because had they properly studied the issue, they would have seen that it had been condemned as un-Orthodox by Pan-Orthodox Synods convened in Constantinople in the years 1583, 1587, and 1593, [9] under Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremias II, [10] who characterized it—as we stated in our preface—as an innovation of Elder Rome, as a worldwide scandal, and as an arbitrary trampling of the Divine and Sacred Canons. [11]

Also, had they properly studied this ecclesiastical matter, they would have seen that the Gregorian calendar had also been condemned by all the Synods of the Orthodox Churches when the matter was reopened, and by Ecumenical Patriarch Joachim III, [12] whose responses to the Ecumenical Patriarchate we presented in our printed “Protest” to the Orthodox Churches. [13]

If, we say, the delegates of that Congress had studied all these things, they would not have dared to unilaterally make a contrary decision regarding the Ecclesiastical Calendar.

***

What renders the convocation of this Ecclesiastical Congress suspect is the fact that two clergymen of a heterodox church [14] also sat therein, and—as we have extrajudicial information—so too its un-Orthodox and Protestant-scented decision: that the acceptance of the Gregorian calendar by some Churches should not be considered by the others, who remain steadfast in the Patristic Julian Calendar, as a cause of Schism. [15]

Now, we have stated that this principle is un-Orthodox and Protestant, because in granting freedom to the individual Orthodox Churches to regulate matters of general Ecclesiastical nature and significance according to what seems good to them, it fosters the fragmentation of the Orthodox Churches and the division of Christians. [16]

For how, indeed, can the unity of the Orthodox Churches be preserved in this particular case, when some of them celebrate the feast of the Nativity and of Theophany at a time when others are still traversing the period of repentance and the forty-day fast, through which they prepare for the celebration of these great feasts?

Moreover, how can this Ecclesiastical innovation not constitute a cause of Schism, since it in fact severs the innovating Churches from the others and causes them to celebrate and to fast not together with the Orthodox Churches, but with the heterodox and heretical Western Churches? [17]

Precisely in order to avoid the fragmentation of the unity of the Orthodox Churches, the Holy and God-bearing Fathers, just as they prescribed by the Divine and Sacred Canons [18] the regulations concerning feasts and fasts to be held in reverence by all the Churches, so also they ordained by Canons [19] that the same order should prevail concerning the timing of the feasts and fasts for all the Churches—under threat, indeed, of the deposition of the clergy and the excommunication and anathematization of the laity.

And these things the Fathers of the Church established, in accordance with the command of the heavenly Teacher, who prayed to His heavenly Father for the unity of His disciples, [20] and with the exhortation of the Apostle Paul, who commands the following: “Fulfill ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind,” [21] “endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” [22]

***

Is it then possible to suppose that the then Ecumenical Patriarch Meletios and Archbishop Chrysostomos of Athens were ignorant of these Divine and Sacred Canons, which, under penalty of deposition, excommunication, and anathema, establish the simultaneous celebration of the feasts and the simultaneous observance of the fasts by all the Orthodox Churches, for the sake of the unity of the Christian spirit and the bond of peace among the faithful?

Behold where lies the foreign Achilles' heel of Patriarch Meletios and Archbishop Chrysostomos: introducing a Protestant principle into the Orthodox Church, they lead Her onto the path of Protestantism, which grants full freedom to its adherents not only in the outward ordinances of worship, but also in the very faith and understanding of the Dogmas, having no Ecclesiastical Criterion for their interpretation. [23]

Such indeed did Patriarch Meletios Metaxakis and Archbishop Chrysostomos Papadopoulos dare to do—these two Luthers [24] of the Orthodox Church—who, under the pretext of modernization, did not hesitate nor shrink [25] from trampling upon decisions of Pan-Orthodox Synods and Apostolic and Synodal Canons, in order to draw near to the churches of the West through the calendar innovation, [26] thereby dividing Orthodoxy and annulling the centuries-old practice of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

In the face of their arbitrariness, we three Hierarchs rose up—namely, Germanos of Demetrias, [27] the undersigned Chrysostomos, formerly of Florina, [28] and Chrysostomos of Zakynthos [29]—being filled with a deep ecclesiastical spirit and perceiving the unbreakable bond between Orthodoxy and the Greek Church, we boldly and magnanimously raised—not the banner of rebellion against Orthodoxy and of the division of Christians, as they did—but the glorious and honored standard of the union of divided Orthodoxy and the restoration of peace to the Church on the foundation of the venerable Traditions and the Divine and Sacred Canons. [30]

In the face of their arbitrariness, we three Hierarchs stood upright—namely, Germanos of Demetrias, [27] the undersigned, Chrysostomos formerly of Florina, [28] and Chrysostomos of Zakynthos [29]—being filled with a deep ecclesiastical spirit and perceiving the unbreakable bond between Orthodoxy and the Greek Church, we boldly and magnanimously raised—not the banner of rebellion against Orthodoxy and the division of Christians, as they did—but the glorious and honored standard of the union of divided Orthodoxy and of the restoration of peace to the Church upon the foundation of the venerable Traditions and the Divine and Sacred Canons. [30]

Wherefore, through our renunciatory document [31] addressed to the Governing Synod, we called upon it to return to the ground of Orthodoxy by restoring the Orthodox Festal Calendar in Divine Worship.

 

NOTES

1. This text is a portion of the admirable work of the late Metropolitan Chrysostomos Kavourides, formerly of Florina (†1955), titled The Ecclesiastical Calendar as a Criterion of Orthodoxy.

This treatise of 87 densely printed pages was completed on 1/14 July 1935 by the Confessor Hierarch at the Holy Monastery of Saint Dionysios of Olympus, where he had been exiled by the innovators for his joining the Uninnovated Plērōma of the Patristic Ecclesiastical Calendar.

This enlightened and highly revealing work constitutes, according to the Martyred Hierarch, an “Apology,” in which “the deeper motives of this ecclesiastical issue” are investigated, and it is shown “what meaning and significance it holds for the entire Orthodox Church and how much harm it has caused the Orthodox Church” (p. 14).

The excerpted text is found on pages 14–17 of the first edition of the book, and the… comments, explanations, and general editorial work are ours.

2. Meletios Metaxakis (1871–1935). From the village of Parsas, Lasithi, Crete. A meddlesome, turbulent, great innovator and indisputably a Freemason, he served as Metropolitan of Kition in Cyprus (1910–1918), of Athens (1918–1920), of Constantinople (1921–1923), and of Alexandria (1926–1935). In the year 1908, he was expelled from the Holy Places by Patriarch Damianos of Jerusalem, together with Archimandrite Chrysostomos Papadopoulos, for anti-Hagiotaphite activity.

Methodios Kontostanos, Metropolitan of Corfu (1942–1967), had written of him:

“But the fugitive from the Holy Places, Meletios Metaxakis, formerly of Kition, of Athens, of Constantinople, and then of Alexandria—a restless and unsteady spirit of ambition, an evil genius—even from Alexandria did not shrink from attempting to impose himself as Patriarch of Jerusalem.”

(See: Dionysios M. Batistatos – Reprint, Editing, Introduction: Acts and Decisions of the Pan-Orthodox Congress in Constantinople, 10 May – 5 June 1923, pp. δ΄ and ε΄, Athens 1982. See also: Monk Pavlos of Cyprus, New Calendarism–Ecumenism, pp. 48–59, Athens 1982).

3. Chrysostomos Papadopoulos (1868–1938). From Madytos of Eastern Thrace. Professor at the University of Athens (1914–1923), having previously served as Director of the School of the Holy Cross in Jerusalem, as well as of the Rizareios School in Athens. A friend and collaborator of Meletios Metaxakis, he actively participated from the outset in the so-called Ecumenical Movement.

(See: Monk Pavlos of Cyprus, op. cit., pp. 59–63. See also at the conclusion of footnote no. 17 of the present article.)

4. The following statements by the same Hierarch-author in another part of his revealing treatise are quite interesting and illuminating:

“Indeed, had Patriarch Meletios and Archbishop Chrysostomos of Athens, while touring America to spread their modernist principles among the Orthodox populations, not been photographed in lay attire, Kemal’s Turkey would not have dared to abolish the modest and honored cassock of the clergy and replace it with the lay ‘rétincôte’ in which Meletios and Chrysostomos appear in the said photograph.”

(See The Ecclesiastical Calendar as a Criterion of Orthodoxy, p. 57. “Rétincôte” (riding coat): a garment, jacket, or overcoat for horseback riding.)

5. This concerns the self-proclaimed (Third Session, 18 May 1923) “Pan-Orthodox Congress,” which convened in the year 1923 (10 May – 8 June); see Dionysios M. Batistatos, op. cit.

For a good and concise critical position regarding the “Pan-Orthodox Congress,” see Grigorios Efstratiades, The Real Truth about the Ecclesiastical Calendar, pp. 5–10, Athens 1929.

6. Even the innovating New Calendar Church of Greece, in its “Report” to the Pan-Orthodox Great Council, acknowledges that:

“Although a discussion on the possibility of a change had previously taken place, and many Orthodox Churches had reached conclusions and decisions—of doubtful authority—unfortunately, however, the change was not made with study and preparation, but under the influence mainly of external factors”;

and “we characterized these conferences as of doubtful authority:

a) due to the percentage of participation by the Orthodox Churches—usually only two or three participated!

b) due to the status and competency of the representatives who took part in them (senators, astronomy professors, etc.),

c) due to the ease of their decisions (breaking the continuity of the week, acceptance of a fixed Sunday in April for the common celebration of Pascha, etc.).”

(See: Church of Greece, The Calendar Issue, pp. 7–8, Athens 1971, our underlining.)

Paradoxically, Professor Antonios Papadopoulos writes: “For the first time in our century, the Orthodox Churches gathered in Constantinople and the First Pan-Orthodox Congress was held.”

(See: Ant. Papadopoulos, Witness and Ministry of Orthodoxy Today, Ecumenical Studies I, p. 27, Thessaloniki 1983.)

We refer Professor Papadopoulos and all who are interested in the historical truth to the very enlightening—indeed, literally devastating as regards the un-Orthodox character of it—report and critique of the so-called self-proclaimed “Pan-Orthodox Congress”: in Monk Pavlos of Cyprus, op. cit., pp. 68–82.

We also refer to Aristotelis D. Delēmbasis, The Pascha of the Lord, pp. 667–674, Athens 1985, where it is written by way of conclusion: “Thus, the implementation of the festal innovation of the ‘Congress’ was not only not Pan-Orthodox, but was in fact opposed almost at a Pan-Orthodox level.”

We further refer to Metropolitan Irenaios of Kassandreia (†1945), Memorandum to the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy of Greece, convened on 14 June 1929..., pp. 19–21, § D, and subsequently §§ E–F.

A particularly devastating testimony regarding the non-existent authority of the so-called Pan-Orthodox Congress of 1923 is preserved in the Acts of the 17th Session of the Hierarchy of the Church of Greece (1 October 1937), where Metropolitan Irenaios of Kassandreia, in defense of the Patristic Ecclesiastical Calendar, is recorded as saying, among other things, that at the “Inter-Orthodox Synod” on the Holy Mountain (1930), the representative of the Serbian Church, Bishop Nicholas of Ohrid, “only then consented for the delegation of the Church of Serbia to sit in the Synod, when it was declared that the Inter-Orthodox Synod of the Holy Mountain had no relation whatsoever to the Pan-Orthodox Congress of Constantinople, which had made a definitive pronouncement concerning the correction of the calendar. Otherwise, the Serbs would have condemned the Ecumenical Patriarchate.”

(See Archimandrite Theokletos Strangas, E.E.I., vol. 3, p. 2.140. The “Inter-Orthodox Synod” refers to the well-known “Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission,” which was held on the Holy Mountain, at the Holy Monastery of Vatopedi, 8–23 June 1930, for the preparation of the convocation of a Pan-Orthodox Pre-Synod on the Holy Mountain on 19 June 1932, the Sunday of Pentecost. See also Ioannis N. Karmiris, D.S.M., vol. B, 2nd ed., pp. 979–980.)

This testimony is indeed devastating, for Bishop Nicholas of Ohrid (†1956), from Žiča, was distinguished for his high sanctity, learning, and social activity, and he undoubtedly expressed the Orthodox imperative.

(See: Archimandrite Elias Mastroyannopoulos, Theological Presentations, pp. 68–72, Athens 1986. Nicholas of Ohrid was proclaimed a Saint by the Serbian Church in 2003; see periodical Saint Cyprian, no. 314 / May–June 2003, pp. 227–229.)

The Confessor Hierarch, formerly of Florina, Chrysostomos, referring to this event on the Holy Mountain, preserves the very enlightening testimony that: “The representatives of the Orthodox Churches of Serbia and Poland, firmly adhering to the Patristic Ecclesiastical Calendar, regarding as essentially schismatic the representatives of the Churches that had innovated in the matter of the calendar, refrained, under the strict understanding of their Orthodox identity, from praying together with schismatics; and under the pretext of the language barrier, requested from the Holy Monastery of Vatopedi the Chapel of Paramythia for their private prayer!”

(See the booklet: Of Their Eminences the Metropolitans of the Autocephalous Orthodox Church of Greece—Germanos of Demetrias, Chrysostomos formerly of Florina, and Chrysostomos of Zakynthos, CLARIFICATION concerning the Issue of the Ecclesiastical Calendar, p. 6, Athens 1935).

7. Precisely, the composition of the “Committee of the Orthodox Churches” was as follows:

a) Representatives of the Church of Constantinople: Metropolitan Callinicus of Cyzicus and Professor of Theology at Halki, Mr. Vasileios Antoniades.

b) Church of Russia: The hierarchs residing in Constantinople—Archbishop Anastasius of Kishinev and Khotin (Gribanovsky, belonging to the Synod of Karlovci of the Russian émigré Church and later becoming its second Metropolitan, 1934–1964, successor to Anthony Khrapovitsky of Kiev, †1936), and Archbishop Alexander of the Aleutian Islands and North America (Nemorovsky, later Archbishop of Brussels and Belgium, 1936–1960).
(These participated “at the spontaneous invitation of the Church of Constantinople,” i.e., “not directly,” and therefore were not in essence official representatives of Russia.)

c) Church of Serbia: Metropolitan Gabriel of Montenegro and the Littoral (later Patriarch of Serbia, †1952), and Professor of Mathematics and Engineering in Belgrade, Dr. Milutin Milankovitch.

d) Church of Cyprus: Metropolitan Vasileios of Nicaea (later Ecumenical Patriarch, 1925–1929).

e) Church of Greece: Metropolitan Iakovos of Dyrrachium (Nikolaou, of Dyrrachium from 1911, later of Mytilene, 1925–1958).

f) Church of Romania: Archimandrite Iuliu Scriban and Senator Mr. Petru Drăghici.

(See Dionysios M. Batistatos, op. cit., pp. 11–12.)

8. At that time, the Patriarch of Alexandria was the renowned Photius (Peroglou, 1835–1925); of Antioch, Gregory IV (Haddad, 1906–1928: “After prolonged vacillation, in his final days he introduced the new calendar,” see Theological Encyclopedia of the Church [Θ.Η.Ε.], vol. 4, col. 751).

Damianos of Jerusalem (1897–1931) sent a telegram to the “Pan-Orthodox Congress” in which he declared: “...the replacement of the Calendar-Festal Calendar of the Church is in no way beneficial nor will it be accepted by our Patriarchate, inasmuch as it places us in a highly disadvantageous position in the Holy Shrines in relation to the Latins.”

(See Dionysios M. Batistatos, op. cit., p. 69.)

As for the absent schismatic Church of Bulgaria, a “lesson” on “ecclesiastical communion and unity above nationalism, supra-national,” was delivered to the delegates during the Fifth Session (23 May 1923) of the “Pan-Orthodox Congress” by “the wise hierarch of the Anglican Church, the bishop formerly of Oxford, the Most Reverend Gore”—according to Patriarch Meletios!...

(See Dionysios M. Batistatos, op. cit., pp. 66, 86, our emphasis.)

9. See Athanasios Komninos Hypsilantis, After the Fall, pp. 111, 113, 114, Constantinople 1870;
Dositheos of Jerusalem, Dodekabiblos, Book XI, Chapter VIII, p. 57, B. Rigopoulos, Thessaloniki 1983; Meletios of Athens, Ecclesiastical History, vol. III, pp. 402, 408, Vienna 1784; Philaretos Vafeidis of Didymoteicho, Ecclesiastical History, vol. III, Part I, pp. 124–125, Constantinople 1912; K.N. Sathas, Biographical Sketch of Patriarch Jeremias II, pp. 91–92, Athens 1870.

10. Jeremias II Tranos, Patriarch of Constantinople (1536–1595). He was born in Anchialos. One of the greatest Ecumenical Patriarchs after the Fall. Under him, the Russian Patriarchate was established (1589, 1593). He is considered as one who “most excellently represented the Orthodox Catholic Church before the heterodox,” and is especially known for his most important dogmatic correspondence with the Lutheran theologians of Württemberg at the University of Tübingen.

During his patriarchate, he rejected the Gregorian calendar, “repeatedly condemning the Gregorian reform, particularly through the synodical encyclical of 28 November 1583 together with Patriarch Sylvester (of Alexandria), and another addressed to Konstantinos Ostrogski, by his letter of February 1583 to the Doge of Venice, Nikolaos Daponte, by his letter to the Protestants in Tübingen from September 1589 from Moldovlachia, by another to the Metropolitan of Philadelphia in Venice, Gabriel Seviros, from 7 July 1590, as well as by the decision of the Synod convened in Constantinople in 1593.”

(See Ioannis Karmiris, Theological Encyclopedic Dictionary, vol. 6, col. 781).

11. At that time, the Archimandrite Chrysostomos Papadopoulos, judging favorably the Letter of Jeremias II of Constantinople to the Doge of Venice, Mr. Nikolaos Daponte, writes the following: “This letter of the Patriarch excellently characterizes the position which the Orthodox Church immediately assumed regarding the Gregorian modification of the calendar. It is regarded by her as one of the many innovations of elder Rome, a ‘global scandal,’ and an arbitrary trampling of ecclesiastical traditions.”

(See Archimandrite Chrysostomos Papadopoulos, The Gregorian Calendar in the East, in Ecclesiastical Herald, no. 145/31.3.1918, p. 135. For the Letter of Patriarch Jeremias II to the Doge, see in K. N. Sathas, op. cit., pp. 26–28).

12. Joachim III of Demitrias. He was born in Constantinople in the year 1834. The greatest of the Ecumenical Patriarchs after the Fall. He served as Patriarch first from 1878–1884, and again from 1901–1912. His Encyclicals of the years 1902 and 1904 constitute clear examples of ecumenistic influence for the first time in such an official manner and are forerunners of the 1920 Encyclical.

(See Very Reverend Protopresbyter Georgios Tsetsis, The Contribution of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to the Founding of the World Council of Churches, pp. 31 ff., 51, Katerini 1988).

13. The Confessor Hierarch refers to the following 32-page booklet: By the Most Reverend Metropolitans of the Autocephalous Orthodox Church of Greece, Germanos of Demetrias, the former Chrysostomos of Florina, and Chrysostomos of Zakynthos, A PROTEST to the Orthodox Churches regarding the unilateral and uncanonical introduction of the new calendar, Athens 1935.

On pages 10–13, there are excerpts from the responses of the Orthodox Churches of Jerusalem, Romania, Serbia, Montenegro, and Russia.

Strangely, the reference to the response of the Church of Greece is omitted, which, with Theocletos of Athens as President of the Holy Synod, wrote that the calendar “maintained for centuries in our Orthodox Church” participates in “religious and theological importance only to the extent that the Church’s festal calendar is connected with it,” and accepts the “reform of the calendar” “if all the local Orthodox Churches of the East are persuaded,” and “without disturbing the religious consciences of the simpler [faithful],” and “in mutual agreement with one another.”

(See the complete Responses of the above-mentioned Churches in Antonios Papadopoulos, Texts on Inter-Orthodox and Inter-Christian Relations, Oikoumenika II, pp. 17–74. The material from the Church of Greece is on p. 43).

See also portions of all the responses and the related critique in Gregorios Eustratiades, The Real Truth Concerning the Ecclesiastical Calendar, pp. 132–138, Athens 1929, where it is mentioned that the following Churches did not respond to the Patriarchal Encyclical of 1920:

“1) Alexandria, because at that time Patriarch Photios had no correspondence with Patriarch Joachim due to personal reasons;

2) Antioch, because relations were then severed (1897–1907, intervention of the Russian government, the ‘Arab question,’ effort to Arabize the Patriarchates of Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria [note by the editor]);

3) Cyprus, because it lacked a President; and

4) Karlovci, because the Encyclical had not been sent to it.”

The Church of Bulgaria, we remind, had been declared and condemned as schismatic since 1872 (with this lifted in 1945).

Worthy of mention is the following opinion of Manouel Gedeon concerning the response of the Church of Greece: “The Church of Greece apparently did not understand why or what it was being asked, and uttered certain incoherent statements, whereas it should have said: either ‘I condemn the so-called Julian [calendar],’ or ‘I accept the Gregorian,’ or ‘I construct a new one.’”

(See: The Blessed Meletios Pegas, Patriarch of Alexandria, Letter to Silvester, Patriarch, Concerning the Paschalion, edition of Hieromonk Savvas, Prologue, p. 15, Athens 1924).

14. In the Fourth Session (21 May 1923), Patriarch Mr. Meletios proposed the presentation before the Congress of the Anglican bishop Gore, but ultimately, in the Fifth Session (23 May 1923): “His Eminence Bishop—former of Oxford—Mr. Gore enters, accompanied also by the accompanying priest Baxton, and takes a seat to the right of the Patriarch.” Subsequently, a very illuminating dialogue took place between the Patriarch and Gore, concerning the calendar, the joint celebration, the movement for union, the conditions of union, etc.

(See: Dionysios M. Batistatos, op. cit., pp. 66, 84–88).

15. Such a decision was indeed taken, unquestionably unorthodox, proposed in fact by Patriarch Mr. Meletios, with the support also of the Committee on the dogmatic-canonical aspect of the matter under Professor Mr. V. Antoniadis.

(See: Dionysios M. Batistatos, op. cit., p. 24, §7, and pp. 68–69).

Perhaps for this reason, Mr. Chrysostomos Papadopoulos of Athens was emboldened one year later and proceeded unilaterally with the change of the calendar, his prior hesitations having been dispelled—despite what he had upheld as Archimandrite in the well-known “Report” of the five-member “Committee on the Reform of the Calendar” of January 1923 to the Government: “None of these (the Orthodox Churches) is able to separate itself from the others and accept a new calendar without becoming schismatic in relation to the others.”

(See the “Report” in Government Gazette of the Kingdom of Greece, First Issue, No. 24/25.1.1923, § 8).

16. “For thus indeed is the Ecclesiastical law divinely commanded from above: that matters doubtful and contentious within the Church of God are to be resolved and determined by Ecumenical Synods, in agreement and with the judgment of the bishops who shine forth upon the Apostolic Thrones.” (St. Nikephoros of Constantinople, PG vol. 100, col. 597C).

The “First” of a Holy Synod is obliged “to do nothing without the unanimous opinion and consent of the whole body of bishops or of the Synod around him, or, in the case of the Ecumenical Patriarch and concerning general ecclesiastical matters, only after consultation and agreement with the primates of the Autocephalous Churches or by decision of Pan-Orthodox Conferences and Synods.”

(See Ioannis N. Karmiris, Orthodox Ecclesiology, p. 527, Athens 1973).

17. “Many Orthodox Churches did not accept the change of the ecclesiastical calendar (see Θ.Η.Ε., vol. 6, col. 49). In this way, Orthodoxy was divided. Anglicanism succeeded in dividing Orthodoxy twice: first, on the matter of the recognition of Anglican ordinations, and second—more evidently—on the calendar issue. The Ecumenism that makes much ado about ‘unity’ is, in fact, destroying even the existing unity of the Orthodox for the sake of union with the heterodox.”

(See Aristotelēs D. Delēmbasis, The Heresy of Ecumenism, p. 237, Athens 1972).

“This joint celebrating and joint fasting of the Orthodox together with the heterodox and the heretics of the West—despite the explicit holy-canonical prohibitions (see Canons 10, 45, and 65 of the Holy Apostles; 6, 9, 32, 33, 34, and 37 of Laodicea; 9 of Timothy of Alexandria)—was the aim of the so-called Ecumenical Movement from the very beginning.”

This was advocated in the unorthodox Patriarchal Encyclical of 1920: “By the adoption of a unified calendar for the simultaneous celebration of the great Christian feasts by all the Churches” (referring to both Orthodox and heterodox).

This was also declared by Meletios Metaxakis in his enthronement speech as Patriarch of Constantinople in 1922: “Let me place myself in the service of the Church from her first Throne, for the cultivation—as far as possible—of closer relations of friendship with all non-Orthodox Christian Churches of the East and West; and for the promotion of the work of union with those among them who...”

This was also proclaimed by Chrysostomos Papadopoulos of Athens at his enthronement: “For such cooperation and solidarity, the difficult—unfortunately—dogmatic union is not a necessary prerequisite, for the union of Christian love is sufficient…”

This was the aim of the "Pan-Orthodox Congress" of Constantinople in 1923:

“to serve, in this regard (a common calendar), pan-Christian unity,”

“the drawing together of the two Christian worlds of East and West in the common celebration of the great Christian feasts,”

“this point will concern us as members of the pan-Christian brotherhood,”

and the Anglican bishop Gore declared at the fifth session: “The second step will be taken by the calendar question, which will bring us to the common celebration of the feasts,” because “for us in the West, it would be a great spiritual joy to be in a position to celebrate together the great Christian feasts of the Nativity, the Resurrection, and Pentecost.”

(See: Ioannis Karmiris, D.S.M., vol. II, pp. 957–960; Vasileios Th. Stavridis, The Ecumenical Patriarchs, 1860–present, vol. I, pp. 467–478, Thessaloniki 1977; Monk Pavlos of Cyprus, loc. cit., pp. 53 and 60; Dionysios M. Batistatos, loc. cit., pp. 6, 57, 72, 87, 86, etc.)

Noteworthy: In the funeral oration on the death of Chrysostomos Papadopoulos, delivered by Chrysostomos of Zakynthos, the late hierarch was praised as: “having worked beyond human strength” for the forthcoming union “of all Christian Churches, for which” “he exerted so many efforts.”

(See: Archimandrite Theokletos A. Strangas, E.E.I., vol. III, p. 2160. In a footnote, the author notes: “That is, after Meletios, he too was a pro-ecumenist, and even pro-unionist.”)

18. See Holy Apostolic Canon 63; 52, 56, 79 of the Holy Sixth Ecumenical Council; 19, 20 of the Holy Local Council in Gangra; 37, 51 of the Holy Local Council in Laodicea.

(Note by us: The sacred author refers only to these Holy Canons.)

19. See Holy Canon 56 of the Holy Sixth Ecumenical Council; 19 of the Holy Local Council in Gangra:

"...that the Church of God throughout the whole world should perform the fasts in the same manner and order..." (Canon 56).

"If anyone... abolishes the traditional fasts which are observed in common and kept by the Church... let him be anathema" (Canon 19).

20. “(I ask)... for those who will believe in Me through their (the Apostles') word, that they all may be one, just as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be one in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.”
(John 17:20–21)

21. Philippians 2:2.

22. Ephesians 4:3.

23. "Protestantism, having limited the subjective appropriation of salvation solely to faith, having denied the Holy Tradition, and having inscribed only Holy Scripture and faith upon its banner (sola scriptura – sola fide), and on the other hand having disputed the authority of the historic Church and nearly rejected it along with every ecclesiastical authority—such as Holy Tradition, the Ecumenical Council, or the Pope—reserving only Holy Scripture, was consequently and fatally swept into unrestrained individualism and subjectivism, and went astray in many respects concerning the definition of dogmatic teaching, worship, and the ecclesiastical administration of the Protestants, thus becoming distanced not only from the Roman Catholic Church, but also from the Orthodox Catholic Church."

(See Ioannis N. Karmiris, Martin Luther, in Theological Encyclopedia, vol. 8, col. 363.)

24. Martin Luther (1483–1546). German Professor of Theology, from Eisleben in Saxony. Leader of the Reformation (October 31, 1517, Wittenberg, 95 Theses). He was excommunicated by the Pope (1521). The result of the struggles for the predominance of the Reformation in Central and Western Europe was the Protest—Protestantism (1529, Protestation Record, Speyer, Bavaria, Diet).

25. Ἀπορριγῶ (-έω): I am wholly seized by shuddering; I shiver, tremble, am terrified, afraid, hesitant, I dread to do something.

26. See footnote no. 17.

27. Metropolitan of Demetrias Germanos (Mavrommatis). From Psara. He served as Metropolitan of Demetrias from 14 July 1907. He was endowed with exceptional administrative gifts, rare spiritual strength, and virtues. In the year 1935, he was exiled to the Holy Monastery of Chozoviotissa in Amorgos. He fell asleep in the Lord on 20 March 1944.

28. Metropolitan Chrysostomos (formerly) of Florina (Kavouridis). From Madytos in Eastern Thrace (13 November 1870). A great ecclesiastical and national figure. He studied at the Theological School of Halki. An exceptionally eloquent orator and prolific author. He successively served as Metropolitan of Imbros, Pelagonia (Monastir), and Florina. He opposed the election of Meletios Metaxakis as Ecumenical Patriarch and was therefore persecuted. He undertook the pastoral care of those adhering to the Patristic Calendar (1935). He was exiled twice by the innovators. He fell asleep in the Lord in 1955.

29. Metropolitan of Zakynthos Chrysostomos (Dimitriou). From Piraeus (25 March 1890). A man of vast learning, multilingual, extremely prolific writer, and most knowledgeable in musicology. He served as Metropolitan of Zakynthos from 1934 and, by transfer, of Trifylia and Olympia from 1957. He reposed on 22 October 1958. In the year 1935, having joined the Patristic Calendar, he was exiled to the Holy Monastery of Rombos in Aetolia-Acarnania, where he remained for a short period; having repented, however, he returned to the innovation.

(See former Metropolitan of Lemnos Vasileios, Concise Episcopal History of the Church of Greece from 1833 to the Present, vol. B, pp. 195–196, 177–178, Athens 1953).

30. From this God-pleasing vision “of the union of fragmented Orthodoxy and the pacification of the Church” the sacred struggle of the Confessor Hierarch was inspired, and he frequently expressed this sincere longing.

Later, the blessed Leader would write: “Therefore, we have from the Canons the full right to temporarily, and prior to a Synodal decision, interrupt ecclesiastical communion with the Hierarchy and to temporarily form our own religious Community, until the valid and final resolution of the calendar issue by a pan-Orthodox Council”; and elsewhere: “We entered the struggle under the banner of the restoration of the Patristic Calendar in the Church, setting as our primary aim not the perpetuation and eternalization of the ecclesiastical division, but the peace of the Church and the union of Christians in the celebration of the feasts.”

(See former Metropolitan of Florina Chrysostomos, Refutation of the Calendar Treatise of His Eminence Metropolitan Dorotheos Kottaras..., p. 18, December 1947).

See also the admirable and deeply theological Encyclical of 18 January 1945 entitled: “Clarification of the Pastoral Encyclical of His Eminence, former Metropolitan of Florina Chrysostomos,” a separate booklet of 15 pages. Likewise, the epilogue of the letter of the Confessor Hierarch to Bishop Germanos Varykopoulos of the Cyclades (9 November 1937), in: Ilias Angelopoulos – Dionysios Batistatos, Former Metropolitan of Florina Chrysostomos Kavourides – Fighter for Orthodoxy and the Nation, pp. 83–84, Athens 1981.

Even in the Holy Seventh Ecumenical Council, it is repeatedly stated that it was convened “for the union and concord of the Church,” and: “that we might transform the disagreement of those who are separated into agreement,” and: “that, casting off the division of the Churches, we might draw the separated ones toward union.”

Finally, St. Tarasios himself, in his Apologetic to the People..., before his consecration, declared: “I see and behold the Church of our God, founded upon the rock, Christ, now torn apart and divided…”

(See Mansi, vol. II, pp. 758b, 881b, 880a, 724a).

31. The “Renunciatory Document” addressed “to the Governing Synod” of the “Church of Greece,” bearing the title “Protest and Declaration,” was delivered on May 14/27, 1935 by a Court Bailiff, while the Holy Synod of the innovators was occupied with resolving the issue that had arisen concerning the three Confessor Hierarchs—of Demetrias, of Florina, and of Zakynthos.

(See the “Renunciatory Document” in the present work of former Metropolitan of Florina Chrysostomos, pp. 11–13. See also Archimandrite Theocletos A. Strangas, E.E.I., vol. III, pp. 2036–2037).

 

Greek source: ᾿Ορθόδοξος ῎Ενστασις καὶ Μαρτυρία, no. 17 / October–December 1989, pp. 67–78.

Online: https://www.imoph.org/Theology_el/3a4008Empneustai.pdf