Outline and Summary: The Course of the Anti-Ecumenist Walling-Off Movement in the 21st Century

[This is a summary of a fascinating firsthand account, written in Greek, of the efforts to organize anti-Ecumenist forces within the Official Church of Greece before and after the pseudo-Council of Crete. Written by the late New Calendarist theologian Panagiotis Simatis—a longtime supporter of Hieromonk Euthymios Trikaminas—it is not without personal biases and prejudices, but it does offer one man’s insider’s perspective on the failed efforts to unify the movement and muster the collective courage to put into practice what the Fathers taught concerning separation from those who publicly preach heresy. — Blog Admin.]

 

Author: Panagiotis Simatis (Παναγιώτης Σημάτης)
Greek title: Ἀνασκόπηση τῆς πορείας τῆς Ἀποτειχίσεως κατὰ τὶς ἀρχὲς τοῦ 21ου αἰῶνος
English title: A Review of the Course of Walling-Off During the Early 21st Century
Publication: Republished April 20, 2024, on the blog Ομολογία. The editor notes that Simatis died on February 24, 2023, and that the article had appeared previously.

[Text source: https://apotixisi.blogspot.com/2024/04/21.html]

I. General overview

This is a historical and ecclesiological assessment of the Greek anti-Ecumenist movement, particularly the clergy, monks, and laity who opposed Ecumenism within the official Church of Greece and eventually confronted the question of cessation of commemoration under Canon 15 of the First-Second Council of Constantinople.

Simatis writes from the perspective of an advocate of walling-off who is deeply disappointed by the movement's fragmentation.

His central argument is that the anti-Ecumenist movement suffered from two opposing problems:

1. Excessive hesitation: Influential anti-Ecumenist clergy repeatedly condemned Ecumenism but postponed separating from bishops they regarded as openly preaching heresy.
2. Excessive zeal and ecclesiological innovation: Some of those who eventually walled themselves off adopted increasingly extreme positions concerning the Church, the Mysteries, the Old Calendar, and ecclesiastical communion, thereby dividing the very movement they intended to strengthen.

Simatis maintains that neither approach adequately follows Orthodox canonical tradition.

The article is therefore more than a historical narrative. It is an attempt to recover a coherent ecclesiology of walling-off that avoids both accommodation of Ecumenism and the creation of rival ecclesiastical factions.

An important qualification is that this is a strongly polemical, firsthand account, rather than an impartial institutional history. Simatis quotes documents, correspondence, and conversations, but also attributes motives to individuals and makes assessments that must be distinguished from independently established facts.

II. Detailed outline of the article

1. The beginnings of the organized anti-Ecumenist movement (2001–2009)

Simatis begins with the opposition generated by Pope John Paul II's visit to Athens in 2001.

He describes the mobilization of Athonite monks, theologians, priests, Orthodox associations, and laypeople against the Ecumenical Patriarchate's increasing contacts with Roman Catholicism.

Particular importance is assigned to the Synaxis of Orthodox Clergy and Monks (Σύναξη Ὀρθοδόξων Κληρικῶν καὶ Μοναχῶν), whose prominent members included:

• Fr. Theodoros Zisis
• Fr. Georgios Metallinos
• Other university theologians, archimandrites, and monastics.

The movement initially enjoyed considerable support.

A major achievement was the 2009 Confession of Faith Against Ecumenism, which reportedly attracted more than 30,000 signatures.

However, Simatis emphasizes a fundamental inconsistency.

The clergy repeatedly declared that communion with Ecumenist bishops must eventually cease, yet almost none acted upon these declarations.

He cites Fr. Zisis's statements from 2001, various anti-Ecumenist declarations, and the 2006 open letter of Athonite monks as evidence that the need for walling-off had been recognized long before the Council of Crete.

Simatis characterizes the continued reliance on lectures, declarations, and publications as an ineffective χαρτοπόλεμος—a paper war.

2. The Synaxis of Gatzéa and its unwillingness to implement walling-off

One of the article's principal targets is the Synaxis associated with the Holy Trinity Monastery in Ano Gatzéa, near Volos.

According to Simatis, its leadership initially appeared prepared to implement Canon 15 but repeatedly postponed action.

He identifies several explanations:

• Fear that walling-off would divide the Synaxis.
• Concern over the financial consequences for married parish priests.
• Fear of losing access to churches and congregations.
• Concern that laypeople might join Old Calendarist jurisdictions.
• A preference for waiting until conditions became more favorable.

Simatis believes that these practical considerations became excuses for inaction.

He especially criticizes Fr. Zisis for acknowledging the theological necessity of walling-off while allowing concern over the Synaxis's organizational unity to postpone its implementation.

He also recalls Professor Ioannis Kornarakis's criticism of the movement for substituting statements and publications for concrete ecclesiastical action.

The underlying accusation is that the leadership increasingly prioritized the survival of its association over its stated ecclesiastical principles.

3. The earlier walling-off movement surrounding Fr. Euthymios Trikaminas (2007–2013)

Simatis then discusses the smaller movement that developed around Fr. Euthymios Trikaminas.

Fr. Euthymios had opposed Ecumenism for years and was deposed by an ecclesiastical court of the Church of Greece in 2007.

Simatis regards this deposition as unjust.

He recalls that Fr. Zisis had previously praised Fr. Euthymios's anti-Ecumenist struggle.

In 2011, Orthodox laypeople associated with Fr. Euthymios formally ceased ecclesiastical communion with their bishops and published The Walling-Off of Orthodox Faithful.

This declaration articulated several important principles:

• Walling-off is undertaken in accordance with the 31st Apostolic Canon and Canon 15 of the First-Second Council.
• Those who wall themselves off remain within the Orthodox Church.
• They do not establish a new ecclesiastical faction or join a G.O.C. Synod.
• The Mysteries of bishops who have not yet been synodically condemned remain valid.

Simatis presents this declaration as an attempt to establish a canonical basis for walling-off without adopting extreme zealot positions.

He also recounts an important development involving Metropolitan Artemije of Raška and Prizren.

After reviewing Fr. Euthymios's situation, Artemije reportedly recognized his priesthood and supported his continued celebration of the Mysteries. The two concelebrated in Serbia in March 2013.

This provoked objections from members of the Gatzéa Synaxis, including Fr. Ioannis Fotopoulos and Fr. Zisis.

Simatis condemns their reaction as inconsistent with their earlier support for both Artemije and Trikaminas.

4. The first divisions: The Old Calendar question

Simatis identifies the first significant internal rupture among the walled-off faithful as arising from discussions with Fr. Georgios Angelakakis and Fr. Stavros Vaios.

These priests maintained that proper walling-off required adopting the Old Calendar.

Simatis disagrees.

Although he recognizes the Old Calendar as belonging to Orthodox tradition, he argues that the calendar question should not be imposed as a prerequisite for resisting Ecumenism.

He fears that conflating the two issues would unnecessarily alienate faithful who were already struggling to understand the canonical basis of walling-off.

His fundamental distinction is between opposition to heresy and rejection of a liturgical calendar change.

The 1924 calendar reform, in his understanding, was objectionable, but did not itself automatically remove an Orthodox Local Church from the Church.

5. Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus and the controversy over Canon 15 (2012–2014)

Simatis strongly criticizes Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus and his Metropolis's Office for Heresies and Para-Religions.

He describes Seraphim as publicly anti-Ecumenist while remaining in ecclesiastical communion with those whose activities he condemned.

A particular controversy arose when Fathers Pavlos Dimitrakopoulos and Angelos Angelakopoulos challenged Fr. Euthymios's interpretation of Canon 15.

At issue was whether Canon 15 establishes an obligation or merely permits the cessation of commemoration.

The Piraeus Metropolis organized a conference on this question on November 27, 2014.

Simatis alleges that the event was one-sided and excluded meaningful participation by those defending Fr. Euthymios's position.

His criticism extends to anti-Ecumenist clergy who, in his judgment, defended the institutional position of the Piraeus Metropolis rather than supporting those who had already walled themselves off.

6. The Council of Crete and the revival of walling-off (2016)

The Council of Crete in June 2016 represents a turning point in the article.

Simatis maintains that the Council's decisions vindicated earlier warnings concerning Ecumenism.

He particularly discusses the walling-off of Athonite monks, including Monk Savvas the Lavriote.

In November 2016, a group of Athonite fathers published a Confession of Faith announcing the cessation of Patriarch Bartholomew's commemoration.

Their declaration expressly rejected both the establishment of a new Church and affiliation with an Old Calendarist episcopal faction.

Simatis initially welcomes their action as a much-needed development.

However, divisions quickly emerged concerning whether walling-off should be regarded as mandatory and whether continued communion with clergy who commemorated Ecumenist bishops could be permitted through economia.

He also discusses Professor Dimitrios Tselengidis's withdrawal of his signature from the Gatzéa Synaxis's declaration when it became clear that the statement could be understood as supporting individual cessation of commemoration.

For Simatis, the controversy demonstrated the enduring reluctance of influential theologians to support walling-off in practice.

7. The major rupture: Fr. Zisis and the Athonite fathers (2017)

This is one of the most important episodes in the entire account.

Fr. Nikolaos Manolis and Fr. Theodoros Zisis announced their own cessation of commemoration in February and early March 2017.

Other priests, including four from Crete, also took similar action.

The movement appeared to be acquiring momentum.

An inter-Orthodox conference was subsequently organized in Oreokastro for April 4, 2017, to condemn Ecumenism and the Council of Crete.

Fr. Zisis initially intended to participate, but a disagreement emerged with the Athonite monks over the pastoral application of walling-off.

Fr. Zisis maintained that where faithful could not find a priest who had ceased commemorating an Ecumenist bishop, they might, through economia, attend services celebrated by a commemorating priest.

The Athonites insisted on akribeia and argued that communion with such priests must be avoided.

Fr. Zisis withdrew, and several other clergy associated with him also declined to participate.

Simatis identifies this disagreement as a decisive rupture.

He considers both sides partly responsible, but criticizes the Thessaloniki clergy particularly for refusing to engage in a common theological discussion.

He argues that the dispute should have been settled through a common Synaxis instead of the creation of competing groups.

The conference nevertheless reportedly attracted more than 1,200 participants.

8. Attempts at reconciliation and the appeal of the laity

Following the Oreokastro controversy, Simatis recounts a number of attempts to preserve cooperation.

On July 26, 2017, several walled-off priests concelebrated at the Monastery of Saint Paraskevi in Milochori, Eordaia.

Participants included Fathers Ignatios, Paisios Papadopoulos, Euthymios Trikaminas, and Modestos Diasakis.

Monk Savvas was present, but Fr. Zisis was absent.

Subsequently, more than 300 faithful signed an appeal asking all walled-off clergy in Greece to assemble and establish a common ecclesiastical position.

Simatis regards this appeal as particularly important because it arose from the pastoral needs of the laity.

He believes that the clergy's rivalries left many faithful without clear spiritual direction or access to priests with whom they could conscientiously commune.

9. The rapprochement with the G.O.C. and the ecclesiology of the Old Calendar (2017–2021)

A substantial portion of the article concerns the growing sympathy of some Athonite monks and walled-off clergy toward the Old Calendarist movement.

Simatis discusses in particular:

• Monk Savvas the Lavriote
• Fr. Paisios Papadopoulos
• Fr. Chariton
• Fr. Epiphanios the Kapsaliote
• Fr. Alypios

He argues that several of these individuals began adopting positions associated with the G.O.C.

He objects especially to the contention that the 1924 calendar change was itself the decisive rupture with Orthodox tradition.

His ecclesiological argument rests on several distinctions.

First, the New Calendar was introduced unilaterally and improperly, but this did not automatically nullify the ecclesiastical status of the Church of Greece.

Second, the other Orthodox Local Churches continued ecclesiastical communion with the Church of Greece despite the calendar reform.

Third, the Church historically tolerated differences in calendar observance without necessarily rupturing communion.

Fourth, Simatis maintains that the subsequent emergence of separate Old Calendarist episcopal jurisdictions represented a new ecclesiastical problem.

He particularly criticizes Fr. Paisios Papadopoulos for seeking episcopal consecration from Old Calendarist bishops in the hope of becoming a connecting link between the Old and New Calendar movements.

Simatis regards the establishment of another episcopal structure as an ecclesiologically unacceptable solution to the crisis.

He also challenges attempts to defend parallel episcopal jurisdictions by appealing to earlier historical divisions, such as the Antiochian schism or the controversy between Patriarchs Photios and Ignatios.

10. The problem of the validity of the Mysteries

This is arguably the article's most significant theological discussion.

Simatis rejects the theory that an Orthodox bishop or priest who publicly teaches heresy automatically loses the grace of priesthood and the validity of his Mysteries before synodal condemnation.

He distinguishes between:

• A bishop who teaches heresy but has not yet been canonically condemned.
• A bishop who has been formally examined and condemned by the competent ecclesiastical authority.

He appeals particularly to the historical example of Nestorius, whose heretical teachings were condemned, but who was not treated as having automatically lost his episcopal status before the Council of Ephesus.

For Simatis, walling-off is a legitimate and necessary act of resistance, but it does not constitute a private judicial deposition of the offending bishop.

He also rejects the idea that the Church itself becomes defiled merely because some of its members teach heresy.

Rather, those who teach or knowingly accept false doctrine incur spiritual defilement; the Church herself remains holy.

11. Simatis's disagreement with Fr. Euthymios Trikaminas

This section is particularly revealing because Simatis had previously been a supporter of Fr. Euthymios.

He criticizes what he understands to be Fr. Euthymios's position that the Mysteries of Ecumenist clergy should be regarded as valid only κατ’ οἰκονομίαν.

Simatis considers this formulation dangerous because, in his interpretation, it presupposes that the Mysteries are intrinsically invalid and are merely treated as valid through pastoral concession.

He insists that an individual priest cannot exercise such authority over the validity of the Mysteries of other Orthodox clergy.

He explains that this disagreement, together with deteriorating health, contributed to his decision to relinquish responsibility for the blog Walling-Off and Patristic Tradition.

Nevertheless, he continues to express respect for Fr. Euthymios and reports that the priest was willing to accept the judgment of a common Synaxis of walled-off clergy.

This is an important indication that Simatis does not regard his theological disagreement with Fr. Euthymios as necessarily justifying permanent ecclesiastical separation.

12. Other forms of extremism within the movement

Simatis also criticizes Fr. Angelos Angelakopoulos, who ceased commemoration in April 2020.

He argues that Fr. Angelos moved from a restrictive interpretation of walling-off, which had previously defended Fr. Zisis, to an excessively rigorous position that condemned many other walled-off priests.

He objects to individual priests appointing themselves judges of the canonical legitimacy of their fellow clergy.

Another example concerns Fr. Euphrosynos of Saint Sabbas Monastery.

Simatis rejects his teaching that COVID-19 vaccination constitutes receiving the Mark of the Antichrist and results in irreversible spiritual condemnation.

Although Simatis himself expresses opposition to the vaccination, he regards the claim that vaccinated Christians cannot repent or be saved as contrary to Scripture and Orthodox tradition.

These examples serve his broader argument that resistance to Ecumenism must not become an excuse for introducing new dogmatic assertions or condemning others without canonical authority.

13. The concluding appeal for unity

Simatis concludes by lamenting the fragmentation of the anti-Ecumenist movement.

He attributes its failures to inadequate theological preparation, excessive obedience to ecclesiastical authorities, fear of persecution, personal ambitions, and competing ecclesiological theories.

He calls for the walled-off clergy to meet in a common Synaxis, examine their disagreements in the light of Scripture, the Fathers, and the Canons, and establish a common course of action.

The proposed unity is not unconditional: it must exclude positions that contradict Orthodox tradition.

He also calls for an end to prolonged recourse to economia in maintaining communion with Ecumenists and those who knowingly remain in communion with them.

III. The principal ecclesiological positions of the author

The article's theological argument can be summarized in the following comparison.

Question	Simatis's position
Ecumenism	A heresy against which Orthodox Christians must actively resist
Canon 15	Walling-off is the necessary canonical response to publicly preached heresy, not merely an optional measure in the present circumstances
Cessation of commemoration	Does not constitute departure from the Church or establishment of another Church
Synodal condemnation	Necessary before declaring heretical clergy canonically deposed
Validity of Mysteries	Mysteries of uncondemned Orthodox clergy remain valid, notwithstanding their heterodox teachings
Ecclesiastical communion	Communion with Ecumenists and those knowingly sharing in their error should be avoided
Pastoral economia	Should not become a permanent justification for continued communion
Old Calendar	Part of the received tradition, but not an indispensable prerequisite for canonical walling-off
G.O.C. jurisdictions	Their separate episcopal structures cannot simply be accepted as the solution to the present crisis
Ecclesiastical authority	Individual priests and groups cannot arrogate to themselves the authority of an Orthodox Synod
Reconciliation	Requires common deliberation, humility, repentance, and conformity to patristic tradition

IV. Three especially important observations

A. Walling-off does not automatically entail the invalidity of Mysteries

This is the strongest and most consistently developed ecclesiological principle in the article.

Simatis argues that the ecclesiastical status of a bishop cannot be determined solely by an individual believer's recognition of his doctrinal errors.

He distinguishes the spiritual danger of communion with a heretical bishop from the canonical question of whether that bishop has lost his priesthood.

Consequently, he maintains that faithful may be obliged to separate from a bishop whose preaching endangers their salvation without thereby possessing authority to declare his ordinations and Mysteries null.

In effect, he distinguishes cessation of communion from synodal deposition.

B. Simatis rejects the transformation of walling-off into a new ecclesiastical jurisdiction

For him, the act of walling-off is fundamentally defensive.

It is intended to protect Orthodox faith and ecclesiastical communion from heretical innovation.

It is not a mandate to establish a new Church, assemble competing episcopal hierarchies, or create independent ecclesiastical organizations.

This explains his criticism both of Old Calendarist jurisdictional solutions and of individual clergy who attempt to determine unilaterally which other walled-off priests remain canonical.

C. He believes the Church's synodal character must be preserved even during ecclesiastical crisis

Simatis repeatedly insists that clergy who have separated from heretical bishops remain accountable to the Church's canonical and conciliar tradition.

The authority of the Fathers does not transfer unrestricted jurisdictional powers to individuals who cite their writings.

His proposed common Synaxis is therefore not simply a means of improving relations. It is his practical attempt to restore collective ecclesiastical discernment.

There is, however, a distinction worth maintaining: such a gathering of clergy could facilitate agreement and examine patristic evidence, but it would not automatically possess the authority of a duly constituted episcopal Synod.

V. Assessment of the article

The work is valuable for reconstructing the internal history of the Greek anti-Ecumenist movement, particularly from approximately 2001 to 2022.

Its particular strengths are its preservation of contemporary statements, correspondence, disagreements, and testimonies that might otherwise be difficult to assemble into a coherent historical account.

Nevertheless, several qualifications are necessary.

First, Simatis tends to interpret the hesitation of prominent clergy as a failure of courage or willingness to suffer. Although that is his judgment, their expressed pastoral and canonical concerns deserve examination on their own terms.

Second, the question of whether Canon 15 makes cessation of commemoration obligatory or permits it without requiring it is not resolved simply by asserting that one interpretation is patristic and the other is not. This is precisely the canonical dispute that divided the movement.

Third, his argument concerning the Old Calendar contains an important distinction between an objectionable reform and an ecclesiastical separation caused by that reform. That distinction deserves independent historical investigation.

Fourth, his criticism of the Athonite fathers concerning the validity of the Mysteries sometimes goes beyond their quoted wording. Their statement that one must not declare Mysteries invalid before synodal judgment does not necessarily imply uncertainty about whether any valid Mysteries exist. His interpretation of that statement should therefore be treated as an argument, rather than as the only possible reading.

Finally, his account of Fr. Euthymios Trikaminas's theory of validity κατ’ οἰκονομίαν would benefit from comparison with Fr. Euthymios's own complete explanation rather than relying exclusively on Simatis's characterization.

VI. Final summary

The overarching theme of this article is that the Greek anti-Ecumenist movement failed to achieve the unity and effectiveness that many of its supporters initially expected.

Simatis sees this failure as the result of two successive developments.

The first was the refusal of many prominent anti-Ecumenist clergy to move from theological protest to actual cessation of commemoration. Although they repeatedly condemned Ecumenism, they hesitated to accept the practical consequences of their declarations.

The second was the fragmentation of those who eventually practiced walling-off. Disagreements over the obligatory character of Canon 15, communion with commemorating priests, the Old Calendar, parallel episcopal jurisdictions, and the validity of the Mysteries produced competing groups and mutual accusations.

Simatis's proposed remedy is a return to the canonical and synodal tradition: separation from publicly preached heresy, rejection of private declarations of invalidity or deposition, avoidance of new ecclesiastical factions, and a common gathering of clergy to resolve disputes.

The most consequential theological conclusion is that a bishop's public adherence to heresy justifies cessation of ecclesiastical communion before his synodal condemnation, but does not by itself establish that he has already been canonically deposed or that his Mysteries have become invalid.

This distinction forms the foundation of Simatis's attempt to oppose both accommodation of Ecumenism and extreme zealot ecclesiology.

For research into contemporary Orthodox walling-off movements, the article is particularly useful because it records the evolution of positions held by Fathers Theodoros Zisis, Euthymios Trikaminas, Savvas the Lavriote, Paisios Papadopoulos, and others, demonstrating that the divisions were not merely personal but concerned fundamental questions of ecclesiology, sacramental validity, and canonical authority.

 

Generated by ChatGPT on October 25, 2026.

Outline and Summary of “The Ecclesiastical Calendar as a Criterion of Orthodoxy” (1935)

 

Author: Metropolitan Chrysostomos (Kavouridis), formerly of Florina
Original Greek title: Τὸ Ἐκκλησιαστικὸν Ἡμερολόγιον ὡς Κριτήριον τῆς Ὀρθοδοξίας — Ἀπολογία πρὸς τὴν Ὀρθόδοξον Ἑλληνικὴν Συνείδησιν
Date: July 1/14, 1935
Place of composition: Holy Monastery of Saint Dionysios of Olympus, during his exile
Length: 53 pages in the attached PDF [as published in The Complete Works, Vol. 1, of Metropolitan Chrysostomos Kavouridis].

General summary

This work is one of the foundational documents of the Greek Old Calendar movement and an important primary source for understanding the ecclesiology of Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina during the events of 1935.

It constitutes a theological, canonical, historical, and personal defense of his decision, together with Metropolitan Germanos of Demetrias and Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Zakynthos, to cease recognizing the authority of the governing hierarchy of the Church of Greece and undertake the pastoral care of Orthodox Christians adhering to the traditional ecclesiastical calendar.

Its central thesis is that the ecclesiastical calendar is not merely a means of calculating dates but an established expression of Orthodox ecclesiastical Tradition, liturgical unity, and fidelity to the Church's canonical order.

According to Chrysostomos, the unilateral calendar reform of 1924 was an ecclesiastical innovation carried out without the consent of the Orthodox Churches as a whole. It consequently created a rupture within Greek Orthodoxy and endangered the unity of the entire Orthodox Church.

He maintains that fidelity to Orthodoxy is determined neither by the numerical majority of bishops nor by possession of the official ecclesiastical administration, but by adherence to the dogmas, canons, and traditions received from the Fathers and the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

The work has a particularly important ecclesiological dimension: Chrysostomos distinguishes the Church itself from the hierarchs administering it, and he distinguishes a hierarchy's alleged schismatic condition from a formal synodal condemnation. These distinctions form an essential part of his justification of the Old Calendarist resistance.

The article is also a detailed historical defense of the 1935 episcopal movement. Chrysostomos discusses the failed attempts to secure a peaceful resolution, the formation of the Old Calendarist Synod, the consecration of four bishops, and the subsequent ecclesiastical trials, depositions, and exile of the three original hierarchs.

His fundamental objective, as he presents it, is not to establish a new Church but to preserve the Orthodox tradition of the Church of Greece and ultimately restore ecclesiastical unity.

Detailed outline

The divisions below follow the argument of the work; they are not chapter headings supplied by the author. Page references correspond to the uploaded PDF.

1. Prologue: The inviolability of ecclesiastical Tradition (pp. 1–7)

Chrysostomos begins by comparing major historical events in the life of nations with decisive events in the Church. The Orthodox Church preserves its identity through adherence to the doctrines, canons, and traditions established by the Apostles and the Holy Fathers.

He identifies Meletios Metaxakis and Archbishop Chrysostomos Papadopoulos as the principal architects of the calendar reform and attributes the ensuing division to their unilateral initiative. He also discusses the position of Churches that retained the traditional calendar and the prospect of a future Ecumenical Council judging the innovation.

2. The events leading to the episcopal declaration of 1935 (pp. 7–10)

The author recounts the growth of the Old Calendar movement after 1924, the persecution of its clergy and faithful, and the unsuccessful protests of bishops within the official Church of Greece.

He describes the declaration of May 27, 1935, by Germanos of Demetrias, himself, and Chrysostomos of Zakynthos, through which they repudiated the governing Synod and assumed pastoral responsibility for the Old Calendarists.

Greek Calendar as a Criterion of Orthodoxy .pdf

3. The theological and canonical objections to the reform (pp. 10–13)

Chrysostomos criticizes the 1923 Constantinople congress, arguing that it lacked genuine Pan-Orthodox representation. He appeals to the sacred canons governing feasts and fasts and maintains that allowing individual Local Churches to alter common traditions independently introduces a Protestant principle into Orthodox ecclesiastical government.

He also explains the subsequent establishment of the Old Calendarist Synod, the consecration of four bishops, and the intervention of the civil authorities.

4. The government's intervention and the three purposes of the episcopal movement (pp. 13–18)

Chrysostomos recounts the bishops' arrest, ecclesiastical condemnation, and exile, arguing that the government improperly enforced an unjust ecclesiastical judgment.

He identifies three purposes of their movement: reuniting the divided Orthodox faithful, removing the Archbishop of Athens from office, and purifying the clergy of unworthy elements.

Significantly, he considers the calendar question the canonical basis for their action, while acknowledging that the other two matters required judicial proceedings.

5. Refutation of the charge of rebellion against the Church (pp. 18–21)

The author maintains that the identity of the Church is not determined by the numerical majority of bishops but by fidelity to Orthodox doctrine and Tradition.

He invokes the Arian controversy to demonstrate that a minority of hierarchs can preserve Orthodoxy even when the majority departs from it. Consequently, he argues, resistance to an erring hierarchy is not necessarily rebellion against the Church.

6. Refutation of accusations of foreign influence (pp. 21–27)

Chrysostomos rejects allegations that the Old Calendarist movement was instigated by foreign religious interests. Instead, he argues that the calendar reform benefited Western Christianity by bringing Orthodox liturgical practice closer to that of Roman Catholics and Protestants.

He develops a broader argument concerning the relationship between Greek civilization, Orthodoxy, and the historical character of Eastern and Western Christianity. This portion is strongly polemical and reflects the author's understanding of Hellenic religious identity.

7. Responsibility of the Church of Greece and the Ecumenical Patriarchate (pp. 27–38)

This is one of the most historically substantial portions of the treatise.

Chrysostomos reproduces correspondence from 1924 to argue that Archbishop Chrysostomos Papadopoulos was the principal driving force behind the calendar change and that the Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate was persuaded to accept it despite the opposition of other Orthodox Churches.

He also distinguishes the Ecumenical Patriarchate as an ecclesiastical institution from the twelve-member governing Synod that implemented the reform.

He explicitly maintains that the hierarchs responsible for the innovation were declared schismatic as persons, rather than as representatives of the Church itself.

8. The relationship of the calendar to Orthodoxy (pp. 38–44)

This is the work's principal systematic theological argument.

Chrysostomos maintains that the calendar has a direct relationship to ecclesiastical Tradition, the liturgical order, the sacred canons, and the Paschalion, and an indirect relationship to the dogma of the unity of the Church.

He presents seven reasons for considering the innovators schismatic, focusing on unilateral changes to the festal cycle, violations of canonical order, and the disruption of liturgical unity.

9. Defense of the bishops' repudiation and consecrations (pp. 44–49)

Returning to the events of 1935, Chrysostomos argues that the bishops repudiated an uncanonical synodal decision, not the Orthodox Church.

He emphasizes that they left open the possibility of reconciliation and refrained from liturgical action for ten days while awaiting a peaceful settlement.

Only after the governing Synod dismissed two of the bishops and instituted proceedings against them, he says, did they organize their own Synod and proceed with episcopal consecrations. He disputes the jurisdiction and legitimacy of the ecclesiastical court that condemned them.

10. Concluding reflections on ecclesiastical and national renewal (pp. 49–53)

The author broadens his discussion into a criticism of the political, social, and intellectual forces he believes undermine Orthodox Christianity.

He condemns Freemasonry, Communism, and forms of secular modernization, interpreting the ecclesiastical crisis as part of a wider struggle concerning Greek national and religious identity.

He concludes by encouraging steadfastness in defending ecclesiastical and national traditions.

Principal ecclesiological teachings

Several important theological positions emerge from the text.

1. The Church must be distinguished from its governing hierarchy

Perhaps the most important statement occurs on page 37:

«ἐκηρύξαμεν τούτους Σχισματικοὺς ὡς πρόσωπα καὶ ὄχι ὡς ἐκπροσώπους τῆς ἐννοίας τῆς Ἐκκλησίας.»

In English:

We declared them schismatic as persons, and not as representatives of the concept of the Church.

This distinction is fundamental to his argument.

Chrysostomos does not identify the entire Church of Greece or the Ecumenical Patriarchate with the particular hierarchs responsible for the calendar reform. He maintains that their actions cannot necessarily be attributed to the Church itself.

Indeed, on pages 35–37 he insists that the twelve-member Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate did not possess the authority of the entire patriarchal hierarchy to decide a matter of general ecclesiastical significance.

Thus, he attempts to preserve the institutional and historical continuity of the Orthodox Church while repudiating the actions of particular bishops.

2. He distinguishes an existing schismatic condition from future formal condemnation

This is especially evident in the Prologue, pages 5–6.

Chrysostomos states that hierarchs of Churches retaining the traditional calendar already regard those who introduced the Western calendar as schismatic in substance, notwithstanding their continuing official relations.

He then predicts that a future Ecumenical Council will formally declare the innovating Churches schismatic unless they abandon the reform.

His argument therefore contains a distinction between:

• The present condition of those responsible for the innovation, whom he already calls schismatic.
• A future formal, authoritative ecclesiastical judgment by an Ecumenical Council.

He does not maintain that no schismatic condition can exist before synodal condemnation. Neither does he present a prior Ecumenical Council's condemnation of the new-calendar Churches as an accomplished fact.

Rather, his reasoning anticipates a future definitive synodal judgment on a rupture that he considers already to have occurred.

3. Orthodoxy is not determined by numerical majorities

Pages 19–21 contain a particularly clear exposition of this principle.

Chrysostomos argues that the number of hierarchs supporting a position cannot determine whether that position is Orthodox.

He appeals to the Arian controversy, when a large proportion of the hierarchy embraced error while a minority remained faithful.

His reasoning is that the Church's identity depends upon fidelity to the apostolic and patristic inheritance, not upon the changing opinions or numerical strength of its administrators.

Accordingly, he rejects the contention that three bishops must necessarily be schismatic simply because they oppose the majority of the Greek hierarchy.

4. The calendar is an ecclesiastical, not an astronomical, criterion

This teaching is stated with particular clarity toward the conclusion, on page 51.

Chrysostomos distinguishes the scientific calculation of time, which belongs to astronomers and mathematicians, from the ecclesiastical regulation of feasts, which serves the unity of the Church.

The decisive question for him is not which calendar is astronomically more accurate.

Rather, it is whether an individual Local Church may independently alter the inherited festal order and thereby disrupt the common liturgical life of the Orthodox Churches.

His argument therefore rests principally upon Tradition, canonical authority, and ecclesiastical unity, rather than upon the scientific superiority of the Julian calendar.

5. The calendar has an indirect connection with dogma

On pages 38–41, Chrysostomos makes an important distinction.

He acknowledges that the unity of the Church is founded principally upon unity of faith and divine worship.

Nevertheless, he insists that faith and worship are not merely intellectual or theoretical realities; they must also be lived and expressed.

Consequently, when Orthodox Christians celebrate the same mysteries of salvation at different times, the common practical expression of ecclesiastical unity is impaired.

This is why he argues that the unilateral calendar reform has an indirect relationship with the dogma of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

He is not claiming that thirteen calendar days constitute a new dogma. His position is that the unilateral alteration of established ecclesiastical practice violates the common expression of Orthodox unity.

6. A bishop's ecclesiastical authority is not unlimited

Throughout the treatise, Chrysostomos rejects the proposition that a bishop or governing Synod may introduce ecclesiastical innovations simply because it possesses administrative authority.

He considers the sacred canons and decisions of the Ecumenical Councils binding upon the hierarchy.

On pages 35–37, he applies this principle directly to the Ecumenical Patriarchate, maintaining that the permanent governing Synod exceeded its competence.

This is a significant expression of his understanding of synodality: ecclesiastical authority must operate within the bounds of the received Tradition and the canonical constitution of the Church.

7. The Old Calendarist movement was intended to preserve, not establish, the Church

Chrysostomos repeatedly describes the 1935 episcopal movement as a defense of the Orthodox Church against innovations introduced by its administrators.

He does not claim that the Orthodox Church ceased to exist in 1924 and was newly created in 1935.

Instead, he presents the bishops' action as a continuation of the Orthodox ecclesiastical tradition within Greece.

His justification for the establishment of the Old Calendarist Synod rests upon his contention that the existing ecclesiastical administration had departed from that tradition and refused reconciliation.

This is particularly important when interpreting his defense of the four episcopal consecrations.

Important qualifications

Two points deserve emphasis in any careful study of this treatise.

First, the work does not provide a developed doctrine concerning the sacramental validity of the Mysteries celebrated by New Calendar clergy. Although Chrysostomos describes the innovating hierarchs as schismatic, and argues that they have separated themselves from the Catholic pleroma of Orthodoxy, he does not systematically address whether their ordinations, Eucharists, or other Mysteries are invalid.

Consequently, one cannot establish from this document alone that he taught the automatic cessation of sacramental grace following the calendar innovation. Equally, his forceful language about schism should not be softened into a claim that he considered the change merely an insignificant disciplinary irregularity.

Second, the text is an apologetic and polemical document. Its historical narrative, accusations of manipulation, claims about foreign interests, and predictions concerning future Ecumenical Councils are the author's contentions. The document establishes what Chrysostomos argued in July 1935, not that all his historical allegations or canonical interpretations were independently verified.

Overall assessment

The most significant contribution of this work is its attempt to reconcile three propositions that might otherwise appear difficult to hold together:

1. The calendar innovation of 1924 constituted a serious, canonically impermissible rupture in Orthodox ecclesiastical life.
2. The Church of Greece and the Ecumenical Patriarchate must not simply be identified with the particular hierarchs who introduced or accepted that innovation.
3. Orthodox bishops have a responsibility to resist an unlawful ecclesiastical administration, while maintaining that their ultimate objective is the restoration of unity in the Orthodox Church.

For studying Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina's ecclesiology, pages 35–43 are particularly important. They contain his distinctions between the Church and its administrators, personal culpability and future synodal judgment, and ecclesiastical Tradition and the unity of faith.

Pages 46–48 are also especially valuable because they explain the canonical reasoning he employed to justify the actions of the three bishops, their rejection of the governing Synod's jurisdiction, and the subsequent episcopal consecrations.

In conclusion: This treatise portrays Chrysostomos of Florina not as the founder of a new ecclesiastical institution claiming to replace the historical Orthodox Church, but as a hierarch who believed he was defending that Church against the unlawful actions of its administrators. At the same time, his willingness to declare the innovators schismatic and independently organize an episcopal Synod shows that his resistance went considerably beyond a protest confined to cessation of commemoration.

That tension—between continuity with the historical Church, repudiation of particular hierarchs, and the establishment of a separate episcopal administration—is the central ecclesiological question raised by this important document.

 

Generated by ChatGPT on October 25, 2026.

The Ecclesiological Defense of Archimandrite Chrysostomos Spyrou of Spetses (1984)

Text by Our Legal Advisers

As is fitting, and in connection with the text of the Walling-Off, we reproduce below the text composed by our distinguished and eminent legal advisers, Theodore Theodoropoulos and Vasileios Bonos, who, in the courts, fought "like lions," "breathing fire" and imbued with a genuinely Orthodox mindset. Thoroughly versed not only in legal science but also in Orthodox Ecclesiology and Tradition, they launched a vigorous and devastating attack against today's "sickness unto death," namely, Syncretistic Ecumenism, dogmatic minimalism, and the relativization of Truth. They painstakingly demonstrated that the ecumenists from among the Orthodox are "conforming to the times" (St. Gregory the Theologian), having suffered shipwreck concerning the Faith and fallen in matters of Faith. They publicly denounced and demolished the arguments and the futile efforts of the guilty parties to justify themselves. They emphasized the importance of the "Orthodox, God-pleasing Resistance" required by the Church (Venerable Theodore the Studite, P.G. 99, 1045), and through their courtroom addresses demonstrated that: "For indeed, there is among us a war without weapons of iron, in which words are hurled back and forth; but we possess as our trophy of victory the unconquerable Truth" (St. Tarasios, Patriarch of Constantinople).

 

 

"I testify unto every man that heareth..."

(Rev. 22:18)

 

We have already entered the third millennium since God entered history through His Church. Thus, historical time acquires its meaning as a time of salvation until the end of time, that is, the coming of the Second Advent. Accordingly, between the First and Second Advents of the Lord, history unfolds through His Church as a work of faith leading to salvation.

Specifically, the Church is a spiritual institution founded by our Lord Jesus Christ and governed by the Holy Spirit dwelling within Her, and is consequently invincible, in accordance with the words, "and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). "Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such a high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man" (Heb. 8:1–2). The Church derives "Her origin" "from the Father," receiving from Him "the purpose, the will, the initial impulse, but the fulfillment of these through works comes through Christ" (St. John Chrysostom, P.G. 1, 62, 15).

On the other hand, the path of the faithful member of the Church is also clearly defined and predetermined, following a course parallel to that of the Church, since it constitutes an essential prerequisite—conditio sine qua non—for man's relationship with God. Here it must be noted that man's relationship with God, being an entirely personal relationship, rests solely upon man's free will: "Whosoever will come after me..." (Mark 8:34). This relationship forms the basis of a far-reaching transformation on earth, a second creation of a new humanity, established within an order governed by a spirit that is free, perfect, and derives its origin directly from the Creator: "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" (John 14:6); "The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works" (John 14:10).

Christian teaching soon became a subject of study among men—an exceptionally difficult undertaking in the unparalleled effort to render accurately the divine teaching contained in the Gospel—as well as a subject of lengthy philosophical and dogmatic discussions. Yet it is universally acknowledged that it constitutes the most perfect form of Faith, fully satisfying every restless spiritual disposition in the endless quest to discover the unknown content of the concept of truth. Such was Pilate's searching question concerning it: "What is truth?" (John 18:38). And this quest culminates in the fortunate result of a clear understanding of its objective purpose, namely, the salvation of the human soul.

Consequently, the divine institution, which derives its origin and governance from God, possesses its own dogmas, its own teaching, its own internal Order, and its own liturgical rite. These are not merely human inventions, nor can they be compared with human constructions, or understood and interpreted by analogy with them. Nor are these things subject to change, as human institutions are; neither are they adapted to the times, modified, or abolished by men, nor are they applied at anyone's discretion. As regards their interpretation, only the Church in Her entirety, and not any one particular Local Church, may pronounce judgment upon them. It is an unshakable belief and dogma, also constitutionally safeguarded in our homeland, that when the Church thus pronounces judgment, She does so infallibly, since She pronounces judgment in the Holy Spirit.

Throughout the course of two thousand years of history, and in the effort to render the divine teaching accurately, a multitude of heresies and heterodox teachings appeared, which the Church successfully confronted by condemning the erroneous teachings that deviated from the genuine Christian Faith, and by severing from communion and unity with Her every separate Christian community that disagreed with the dogmatic teaching of the true Church. "A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself" (Titus 3:10–11).

Such severed "Christian" communities now constitute the so-called other Christian "confessions" or "Churches," which, by every means and at all times, seek to strike against the Orthodox Church, having created during the past twentieth century the so-called "Ecumenical Movement," ostensibly for cooperation that would progressively lead to the "unity" of the Churches.

The blow against the Church of Greece was struck in 1924 through the forcibly imposed calendar innovation, ostensibly for the sake of scientific "modernization" and "keeping pace" with the civilized world, but in reality, for the sake of an anti-Orthodox union with unrepentant heretics and heresies.

It follows, therefore, that the disruption of worship through the imposed innovation of introducing the Gregorian calendar, or the supposed correction of the traditional calendar by adding 13 days, constitutes an unlawful action and a heterodox practice that strikes at the very Faith itself. The traditional festal calendar of the Orthodox Church constitutes an institution established by divine good pleasure.

Therefore, the feast days have been sacredly appointed by the Lord and His Church as markers of the stages of the Faith and have been sanctified by the Holy Spirit. Every act of the Church that recognizes rather than abolishes the honor accorded to a feast day is an act that has as its preexisting divine purpose the salvation of man, namely, the directing of the people's aspirations toward unwavering Faith, as a perpetual liturgical expression of honor and reverence.

Thus, every alteration of the clearly established movable and immovable feasts constitutes a disruption, a direct and immediate violation of what has been instituted and steadfastly observed in worship by both the Synods and Tradition.

Furthermore, the uncanonical shifting and alteration of the traditional festal calendar appears, on the one hand, as a product of papal usurpation of authority, and, on the other, the supposedly scientific correction appears as an incursion of a heterodox Protestant spirit. Both together, however, lead to the rapid growth and dominance of syncretistic Ecumenism, since they introduce through the wide gate into the sacred synthronon, as rulers, the sword and calculation, that is, the means of achieving the dominion of the fallen, earthbound world.

Ecumenism is a pan-heresy of communion, communion in pan-heresy, that is, anti-ecclesiastical and uncanonical communion between Orthodox and heretics for the sake of peace, love, and unity or union without a common Orthodox confession and Faith. In other words, it is a syncretistic or even eclectic tolerance of heresies, unresisting silence in the face of heterodox teachings and innovations, silence in the face of attacks against Orthodoxy, and gradual communion and association between Orthodox and heretics outside the Truth and Grace in Christ, and contrary to the canonical institutions of the Church, the ecclesiastical and civil legal order of the state, and the ethical principles governing social coexistence. In other words, it is a directed, concealed, unobtrusive, unceasing, all-encompassing, enticing, and insidious transformation of Orthodoxy into heresy, and a subversion of the very identity of the Orthodox, through the tactic of not contending for the Faith, thereby shifting them outside the Church.

The tactic of the ecumenists consists in tolerating or promoting the ecumenistic innovation and in persecuting the Orthodox confession and resistance, as well as the ecclesiastical communion of salvation in Christ. For this reason, those who tolerate, accept, and defend the ecumenistic innovation and communion, and the ecumenists themselves, unlawfully attack the Orthodox resisters who have canonically walled themselves off, confess the Faith in accordance with the Fathers, and struggle for the Faith in accordance with Tradition. Thus, they contribute to the further division of the Church in Greece.

Since then, that is, since 1924, the Orthodox Church in Greece has been divided into adherents of the schism caused by the calendar innovation associated with the heresy of Ecumenism, and those who canonically resist this innovation, seeking to overcome the ecumenistic schism and restore the unity of the Church through a common Orthodox Synod of Union, which will condemn the ecumenistic heresy, reunite those who have become separated, and restore the order that existed before 1924. Consequently, the Orthodox resisters struggle and wall themselves off in a manner pleasing to God, while the innovators remain subject to Orthodox ecclesiastical judgment, that is, they have not yet been specifically condemned. The innovators and the resisters are parties to a dispute and stand opposed to one another.

According to the Holy Fathers of Orthodoxy, the Mysteries of both parties—those of the resisters and those of the innovators who have not yet been condemned—are valid. However, the penalties imposed by the adherents of the calendar innovation upon the Orthodox resisters are ecclesiastically invalid, null and void, and without effect. Because of the division, the Synod of the Hierarchy of the united Orthodox Church in Greece cannot presently be constituted. Consequently, the "Holy Synod of the Church of Greece" is not the Synod of the united Orthodox Church in Greece, but a Synod persisting in innovation, subject to the judgment of a future Orthodox Synod of Union that is to be convened, and therefore lacking competence to resolve ecclesiastical matters or impose penalties upon the Orthodox resisters. Neither do the existing Synods of the resisters constitute the Synod of the united Orthodox Church in Greece, since they themselves seek its convocation for the purpose of Orthodox unity. These Synods are understood as associations and groups of Orthodox Bishops cooperating in resistance to the ecumenistic innovation and for the union of the Church in Greece in Orthodoxy.

It is therefore imperative that Orthodoxy and the unity "of the Faith" (Eph. 4:13) be proclaimed and established. To this end, the resisters must intensify their Orthodox struggle against the pan-heresy of Ecumenism and for the Orthodox union of the Church. Those who, whether through ignorance or with full knowledge, adhere to the calendar innovation of Ecumenism must likewise become Orthodox resisters. And, as soon as possible, a common Synod of Union must be convened to condemn the pan-heresy of Ecumenism, to condemn the calendar innovation and its unrepentant adherents, to proclaim the Orthodoxy handed down by the Fathers, to restore the traditional festal order, and to reunite the divided Church in Greece through the unity "of the Faith."

The syncretistic leveling of distinctions in our times is already causing concern even among the leading figures and sympathizers of the Ecumenical Movement, since they are now discovering, especially after the collapse of the atheistic, materialistic, and authoritarian regimes of Eastern Europe, that Orthodoxy is being openly attacked on every front, and that the Orthodox peoples are confronted not only with Uniatism but also with brutal military violence. The relentless objective of the secularized "Churches" and heterodox teachings is the destruction of the freedom of the human person, which springs from and flourishes within Orthodoxy, culminating in the final subjugation of the Orthodox to the counterfeit currency of the prevailing system of exchange, which bears the two faces of Catholicism and Protestantism.

Before those who have been misinformed or who sympathize with Ecumenism become aware of the grave danger it poses to the Church and to man, there have been anguished Orthodox voices raised by the true Shepherds of the People of God, who have exposed the snares and the impending catastrophe.

With prophetic vehemence and stentorian force, the Very Reverend Archimandrite Fr. CHRYSOSTOMOS SPYROU proclaimed urbi et orbi the error and dangers arising from the pan-heresy of Ecumenism, stirring the entire island of Spetses and souls throughout the country who thirsted for the water of life. In 1983, the Very Reverend Fr. CHRYSOSTOMOS proceeded to wall himself off from the official Church, as prescribed by the Sacred Canons, and specifically Canon 15 of the First-Second Council of Constantinople, sending a written CONFESSION OF FAITH to Metropolitan Ierotheos of Hydra, and the entire Sisterhood of the Holy Monastery of ALL SAINTS OF SPETSES followed him.

The departure from the sphere of ecumenistic error within the official Church is attributable to enlightenment from above, as occurred among the peoples who thirsted for the truth in the early Christian centuries. And indeed, Fr. CHRYSOSTOMOS received enlightenment from the Holy Spirit, and his walling-off was the result of this enlightenment. The text constitutes a monument in the unbroken continuity of the great patristic tradition, and the positions set forth therein correspond to the identical positions of the great defenders and Confessors of Orthodoxy. For our times, it constitutes a great testimony to the living Sacred Tradition. This critical resistance to Ecumenism is a combined testimony of unerring wisdom and profound pastoral experience; it is the distillation of knowledge according to Christ and of true spiritual ministry, in which strict adherence to the Faith takes precedence. Nor could it be otherwise, since genuine spiritual work always addresses critical problems, even when these are thoroughly and carefully concealed. The great and critical problem now confronting us Greek Orthodox is the subversion of our very identity through Ecumenism, which is being carried out silently, unceasingly, and comprehensively in every sphere of life, under the insidious and enticing guise of innovation, another name for which is so-called modernization.

Great is the problem, great is the danger, and great also is the responsibility. Naturally, Fr. CHRYSOSTOMOS could not shirk such responsibility, nor could his spiritual lambs any longer refrain from supporting him. Together with his memorandum, Fr. CHRYSOSTOMOS also submitted his resignation, declaring that he was ceasing the commemoration of the Bishop for reasons of Faith.

From that time onward began the ordeal and persecution of the Sisterhood and its Spiritual Father by those in power, who went so far as to resort even to physical violence, violating centuries-old institutions and venerable constitutional human rights on that harsh day of March 3/16, 1984. The struggle of the Sisterhood and Fr. CHRYSOSTOMOS was arduous and waged on every front, since their persecutors employed every means and procedure—criminal, civil, and administrative—even resorting to the odious measure of banishment, in order to destroy the Confessors physically and morally and extinguish their struggle for the Faith. Yet Fr. CHRYSOSTOMOS, as a true Shepherd, had provided his rational flock with the solid food of true Teaching, which alone leads to sound Orthodox discernment. "But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil" (Heb. 5:14). "For truly worthy of the highest blessedness is... to distinguish the counterfeit from the genuine and pure, and to proclaim the Faith of the Fathers without the slightest hesitation" (St. Basil the Great).

By Divine Grace, and with the assistance of Orthodox Christians everywhere, the Sisterhood and Fr. Chrysostomos won a great victory. At the same time, despite overwhelming adversities, on January 4, 1985, they founded the Holy Monastery of PANAGIA GORGOEPIKOOS AND THE MYRRHBEARERS on Spetses, in no way neglecting the fulfillment of their angelic vow. "Keep your angelic profession faithfully, walking in a heavenly manner" (Venerable Theodore the Studite, P.G. 1, 99, 1824).

The crowning glory of the Holy Monastery of PANAGIA GORGOEPIKOOS AND THE MYRRHBEARERS and of Fr. CHRYSOSTOMOS is the example it presents today of a community in which the true Faith is a lived experience, wherein a whole range of explicit and implicit elements, derived from natural laws of a universal character and from ontological, ethical, epistemological, social, psychological, or methodological assumptions, are subordinated and transformed into a single coherent worldview, which perfects and elevates the human person, while also defining his freedom of choice as the royal path of salvation, leading to God in Trinity. "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Heb. 11:1).

 

Greek source: Η ΑΠΟΤΕΙΧΙΣΙΣ ΜΟΥ, Archimandrite Chrysostomos Spyrou, Holy Monastery of Panagia Gorgoepikoos and the Myrrhbearers, Spetses, 2008, pp. 51-62.

Also see: https://orthodoxmiscellany.blogspot.com/2025/05/trial-of-elder-chrysostomos-spyros-of.html

https://orthodoxmiscellany.blogspot.com/2025/04/when-righteous-are-praised-people.html

https://orthodoxmiscellany.blogspot.com/2026/09/st-philaret-new-confessor-recognizes.html

 

GOC History: On the State of the Old Calendar Church in 1980

Greek source: Ὁ Ἁγιορείτης, Issue No. 13, December 1980, pp. 1-5. Published by Fr. Kallinikos (Persides) of Kapsala, Mount Athos, edited by Fr. Theodoretos (Mavros).

 

 

RECOUNTING THESE THINGS BRINGS ONE TO TEARS...

The thoughts that follow have been written with much sorrow and sincerity, with objectivity and genuine concern, and above all with love and selflessness, so that God may bless them and they may share the fate of the seed in the Gospel passage that fell upon “good and honest ground.” It is true that the subject they examine is very great and serious, just as great and serious are all those matters that concern man's proper course upon earth, his virtuous and God-pleasing way of life, in complete accordance with the Gospel and the teachings of the Holy Fathers.

Although we know that every criticism is a difficult and laborious undertaking, because it requires precise knowledge of the matters being examined, sincere love of the truth, and sobriety of judgment—virtues that are neither small nor easily acquired—nevertheless, we have ventured upon this undertaking, mindful of the words of the Fathers, who, in cases such as the present one, consider “failing to condemn (= rebuke) evil to be equivalent to committing it.”

Only those who were removed from the origins and spread of the Old Calendarist movement—because they were not alive in those days—who were likewise removed from its division and the passions that followed, but who, by the grace of God, have nevertheless followed the course of this sacred movement for many years with consistency, love, and sacrifice (though without its excesses and shortcomings), and who bear with serenity and godly pride the reproach of being called “backward and fanatical Old Calendarists,” “schismatics and ignoramuses”—only such people, we say, can speak, moved by a sense of duty and love, a word of truth and sorrow concerning the crisis through which this sacred struggle is passing today, without anyone being able to reproach them as unqualified or as acting out of self-interest or personal favoritism.

The God-Pleasing Beginning

If anyone reads the periodical TA PATRIA, which describes so vividly and beautifully, through historical texts and actual events, the first steps of the sacred struggle of the Old Calendarists, he will certainly be deeply moved, even if he does not follow the Old Calendar, even if he has been indifferent or hostile toward these people, who, amid the apostasy of our century, revived the glorious days of Studite confession and patristic boldness. If, moreover, he has a pure heart and a simple and guileless soul, he will also experience an inner assurance that the struggle of these faithful, most of whom are genuine children of the common people, without pride or titles of honor, had the approval of heaven, the “confirmation from God,” as was strikingly demonstrated at their vigil on the very feast of the Exaltation of the Precious Cross, September 14, 1925, at the well-known little monastery in Cholargos.

More than fifty years have passed since then! Who is capable of describing, or even enumerating, the sorrows, sacrifices, hardships, and family tragedies of the followers of the “Julian Calendar”? The vigils of monks and laymen, their meetings “in secret places,” in order to confront their various and ruthless persecutors? The efforts of the priests—most of whom in the beginning were Athonite monks—as well as those of the committee of laymen who always stood by their side, until they managed to establish a “branch,” that is, a small church, or even a warehouse, as was usually the case, where they could gather and worship God freely, without innovations and modernism, without ulterior aims such as “the union of Christians everywhere” and so many other demonic fruits of the sinful West, which, unfortunately, even our own people so greatly admire and follow?

What enthusiasm there was, O my God, in those early years, and what joy and blessing in 1935, a significant year in the history of the Old Calendarist movement, since for the first time they were acquiring bishops, who would undoubtedly lend greater authority to their struggle, provide priests for the sanctification of the people and the continuation of their sacred resistance, and, above all, establish discipline, a virtue so indispensable to movements of this kind.

They were all so joyful amid their poverty—which, after all, was widespread at that time—so loving and united, drawing strength daily from divine worship, their only consolation amid the countless enemies who surrounded them.

But the glory of those days did not last long! Just as every good thing in this world will eventually face the moment when it is tested “by fire and sword,” so too that struggle was not destined to be an exception to the rule. Not that they had not been tested in the preceding years; whoever says that would be a great liar. They had been imprisoned, had suffered numerous beatings, and their clergy had been subjected to forcible shaving by their “civilized and nonfanatical” New Calendarist colleagues. Nevertheless, the zeal and peace bestowed upon them by the bond of love and their common faith made them seem as though they were made of iron, and they endured everything with patience and equanimity, so that, once the storm had passed, they could carry on, stronger and in better spirits than before.

The First Trial

Then came the rupture from within! It was September 1937 when one of the newly consecrated bishops decided to follow his own path, stricter and more “Orthodox,” as he claimed, than that of his fellow bishops and the faithful, resulting in the emergence of the well-known Matthewite schism, the first great wound inflicted upon the sacred struggle of these people.

Who can describe what followed without shedding tears, without feeling sorrow in his soul over the tragedy of this division? Brothers fighting against brothers and reviling them as traitors; former companions in exile and good confessors no longer wishing even to see one another; love having become almost unknown to them, as had humility—those two great virtues whose absence turns every “good” thing into evil and every “beautiful” thing into something ugly. And all this under the pretext of stricter Orthodoxy and better preservation of the sacred traditions! Meanwhile, the Devil rejoiced and the innovators rubbed their hands together, for at last they saw the “genuine” in a condition that was anything but genuine or in accordance with the Gospel. And indeed! Who could have imagined that those who, united as brothers, had endured the harsh winter of persecution and suffering, those who had preferred every sacrifice and hardship rather than cause their brother to stumble, would now be unable even to pray together! No one could comprehend it: estranged from communion and divided, those who had spent entire nights keeping vigil together in their choir stalls, singing a new song unto the Lord!

Meanwhile, the New Calendarists promptly sent one of their own men into the ranks of the “strict,” pretending to be a genuine Orthodox Christian and an ardent zealot, in order to perpetuate the schism. [This refers to an old rumor regarding the Matthewite Fr. Eugenios Tombros. – Blog Admin.] He accomplished this with consummate skill, for to this day the wound remains open and the scandal of the division cries out...

The Unfortunate Sequel

But the evil did not stop there! Everything that had happened before was merely its first phase, to be followed over the years by other failings, equally serious when one considers the damage they caused and continue to cause to this day to the Church of the Old Calendarists. By the foregoing we mean:

A) The ill-advised acts of economia undertaken by the first leader of the moderate faction, Chrysostomos of blessed memory (through the issuance of unsound encyclicals concerning the Mysteries of the innovators), in his attempt to prevent the disintegration of the movement because of the Matthewite schism;

B) The establishment and operation of dozens of monasteries in which monks and nuns lived together, resulting in the moral downfall of many hieromonks and nuns and the scandalization of the flock;

C) The largely uncanonical consecrations and administration of the successors of Chrysostomos of blessed memory († 1955), accompanied by constant disputes and factionalism, and the complete disregard of the laity in their consecrations and in the resolution of the major issues concerning the struggle. Thus, in our own days, we have reached the point of having a new standing [New Calendarist] Synod of the Seraphim type in operation, continually removing hierarchs, with its first victim being His Grace Petros of Astoria, followed by His Eminence Akakios of Attica and His Eminence Chrysostomos of Thessaloniki, while anyone who might dare to recommend a little prudence and respect for the Sacred Canons to the “holy Synod members” is a potential victim! In any case, Mr. Auxentios should boast that he has proved bolder than his colleague Mr. Seraphim, since he has managed to put 35% of the episcopate of the G.O.C. “out of action,” compared with Mr. Seraphim's 18%;

D) The publication of the most unfortunate and theologically unsound Encyclical No. 1191 of June 5, 1974, through which the errors of the past resurfaced as the official teaching of the G.O.C., and, what is even worse, the proclamation through The Voice of Orthodoxy (issue 709, p. 9) that: “Whoever does not accept this Encyclical is not an Old Calendarist, but deceives and exploits the Old Calendarists”! And when was all this taking place? At a time when those responsible were in communion with, and literally “yearned” to have communion with, the Russian Church Abroad, which to this day has made no declaration that it is not in communion with the other Orthodox Churches!! (For evidence to the contrary, see ORTHODOX WORD, April 1980, p. 62 [Not to be confused with the English publication of the same name – Blog Admin.]).

This practice of turning to the Russians whenever and however it suits us, in order to regularize our unlawful actions, must finally come to an end. The Russians, for their part, respond whenever and however it suits them, thus perpetuating the vicious cycle of uncanonical practices within the Church of the G.O.C. of Greece. Matters must finally be clarified, and the faithful must know whether they are governed by the Russians or by the Greeks. This practice of playing both sides to justify unlawful conduct must end, so that each side may put its own house in order. For, after all, what use are such shepherds to the faithful, when they are incapable of shepherding them but are exceedingly adept at fleecing them?...

Two things could bring some order to this Babylon: first, a declaration by the Russian Church Abroad that it is not in communion with the other Orthodox Churches, so that it might justifiably be called a sister Church of the G.O.C. of Greece; and second, that the bishops of the G.O.C. here finally understand that the Russian Church Abroad has neither the right nor the authority, even if it wished, to act on every occasion as judge of their unlawful actions. And on both these matters, a negative answer has repeatedly been given. That is, neither does [St.] Philaret [of New York] make any declaration that he is not in communion with the other Orthodox Churches, nor does he wish to play the role of judge in the disputes among the Greek bishops, as he clearly stated in his latest letter to Bishops Akakios and Chrysostomos. Why, then, does everyone run after a Church that regards them as poor relations and a rabble of fanatics with unworthy leaders? Is it perhaps because, in 1960, it consecrated the leadership at 32 Kaningos Street? It would have been better had it not done so, as events have demonstrated countless times. But even the fact that it did so does not mean that it will henceforth govern those whom it consecrated, much less that those consecrated are necessarily obliged to remain in communion with it, regardless of the course it follows.

For just as the Russian Church Abroad, after all, has its reasons for maintaining its present position, believing that in this way it better protects itself and its flock from the attacks of Moscow, etc.—and no one can forbid it to do so—so too must the leadership of the G.O.C. of Greece understand that far more compelling and more ecclesiastically grounded reasons oblige it not to remain in communion with the Russian Church Abroad, in order to prove faithful to what it has received and to the very purpose of its existence, provided, of course, that it is concerned with protecting its authority and its flock from the ridicule and mockery of every enemy and critic;

E) The unjustified and inappropriate consecrations of numerous bishops for Greece and abroad, resulting in increased factionalism and the degradation of the episcopal office;

F) The scandalous defense by the leadership at 32 Kaningos Street of discredited clergymen against whom the faithful have protested in vain for years—and not only the faithful, but also some of the bishops, whose written protests are in our possession, so that we are fully aware of the tragic nature of this enormous problem.

And while we were all expecting a reaction from below, an uprising by all those clergymen who had not yet been corrupted by money or glory, so as to stem the tide of corruption that was ruining everything, we instead see the emergence of a new, ill-defined movement, with Mr. Kallistos [of Corinth] as its virtually Matthewite president (for no one has been informed that he himself desired what he ultimately did; he received his orders from elsewhere), and with almost exclusively the newly consecrated bishops as its clerical members, as though they could not have reacted while still priests and abbots! What is most distressing, however, is the diversity of their... beliefs concerning the crucial and vital problems of the Church of the G.O.C. For this reason, they have so far accomplished nothing noteworthy of what was required for the comprehensive, and above all ecclesiological, regeneration of their Church. They too await their... vindication from Philaret alone, the architect of and person responsible for the present tragedy, on account of his recognition of Mr. Kallistos and his fellow bishops of Konstantinoupoleos Street. Of course, we must note here that accomplices, and indeed the principal instigators, of the aforementioned interventions by the Russian Synod are the Greek-American elements operating behind the scenes [the “Panteleimonites” – Blog Admin.], well known to many, about whom we have written extensively in the past. (See Monk Theodoretos Refutation of Uncanonical Actions and Practices, Mount Athos, 1973, 32 pp.) Thus, the coup of 1979 merely added confusion to confusion, since it lacked ecclesiological foundations and self-awareness.

All these things, and many others that are by no means minor details, now clearly demonstrate that the traditional Old Calendarist movement is undergoing in our days precisely the same crisis as the Church of Mr. Seraphim (with Mr. Auxentios and Mr. Gerontios bearing the principal responsibility), at a time when it ought to constitute the sole hope of refuge for souls seeking to live the holy traditions of Orthodoxy in their unadulterated form. Thus, as events have demonstrated, the episcopate of the G.O.C. has failed completely in its mission, a fact that Their Eminences Bishops Akakios and Chrysostomos had the courage and sincerity to acknowledge publicly, and nothing is now capable of setting it on the right course except the intervention of the laity, who themselves bear considerable responsibility for the present state of affairs in their Church. For when, over so many years, the faithful tolerate without protest the operation of monasteries in which monks and nuns live together (although the Sacred Canons forbid the faithful to receive even antidoron from the hands of a bishop or priest who cohabits with women), and not only this, but applaud and admire these nuns during their procession through the streets of Piraeus at Theophany, contrary to tradition—these nuns, approximately 75% of whom, perhaps even more, approve of the cohabitation of hieromonks and bishops in their monasteries, these nuns whom The Voice of Orthodoxy regards and presents as “the pride of the sacred struggle,” instead of writing that they are rather the principal cause of its disintegration (with the exception, of course, of those sisters who do not engage in such cohabitation, who, even more than the others, ought to refuse to parade through the streets)—when the faithful look on as indifferent spectators at the unjust persecution of their priest or bishop and, at the same time, at the scandalous favoritism shown by a clique of bishops toward morally discredited individuals, then how can they themselves not be ACCOMPLICES in the present moral, ecclesiological, and administrative impasse of their Church? For when, in New York and Thessaloniki, the faithful shower with roses the uncanonical bishops of Mr. Auxentios, who ought to be too ashamed even to appear in public, then how can this flock not be worse than an unreasoning herd of beasts, since an ox, as [Carl] Linnaeus writes, eats 276 kinds of grasses but avoids another 218 that are harmful to its health?

Of course, the Zealot Athonite Fathers bear even greater responsibility than the faithful, for they never stood united in order to denounce impartially every uncanonical practice, but preferred to see venerable clergymen persecuted and the parishes established by their elders dissolved rather than take a stand against the favorite of their hearts...

Secondly, however, responsibility also rests with all the clergy “in the world,” who obediently follow their bishops in their various unlawful actions in order to remain undisturbed in their own parishes, failing to realize that the fire consuming their neighbor's house will soon consume their own as well...

And all this has happened, is happening, and will continue to happen because the entire attention of the clergy has been devoted to the outward forms of piety and the purely legal aspect of the Sacred Canons, while it is doubtful whether even a few of them have experienced the essence of religious life and spirituality. Most of them, when they have not remained indifferent, have taken a hostile stance toward every effort at spiritual renewal aimed at correcting what is amiss. The question of [frequent] participation in the most divine Mystery of the Holy Eucharist alone is sufficient to demonstrate the truth of our words. For despite the abundant patristic literature on the subject, the priests of the G.O.C. fiercely oppose such participation, refusing to allow their faithful to approach the Holy Eucharist freely, especially on Sundays and feast days, thus becoming responsible, through their gross ignorance, for the spiritual starvation of their flock. All the foregoing does not remain unknown to the New Calendarists, who themselves find some consolation—and rightly so—when they see how much the two hierarchies have in common, as well as the people who follow the New Calendar and those who adhere to the Old Calendar and the traditions! And not only this, but lately they have provocatively described the Church of the G.O.C. as “a breeding ground for every kind of ecclesiastical lawlessness and anarchism, as well as a refuge for their former clergymen who have been deposed.” Unfortunately, this last accusation has also been confirmed by official documents written by Old Calendarist bishops.

Ways of Remedying the Evil

In view of all this, the enormous question arises: What is to be done? How can this noble struggle, which has yet to find its worthy chronicler, regain its former glory and return to its traditional course, so that it may withstand the trials of our times that threaten the spiritual values of the world and especially the Orthodox Faith? We firmly believe that just as, at the beginning of its difficult and uphill course, its principal strength was the piety and faith of the laity, so now only the pious faithful will be able to revive it, provided, of course, that they are willing to struggle for this.

And for this effort to succeed and proceed in an orderly manner, a handful of people with courage and knowledge must be found to come together and draw up a document in which they will condemn all the aforementioned uncanonical practices, past and present, and then call upon the faithful and the clergy (of whatever faction) to embrace it. Those parishes and clergymen who accept it will constitute the new leaven, pure and unadulterated, which will be able to become bread to nourish all those who seek, and will continue to seek in the future, truth and genuineness in practice, and not in the seals and documents of Synodal offices... THIS IS THE FIRST AND MOST IMPORTANT THING. Those who reject or oppose this document will be branded as the old leaven, bearing all the symptoms and characteristics of the rotten establishment. They will have lost even their last opportunity to repent of their past and become the architects of a better tomorrow. Those who agree will inaugurate a new period in the Old Calendarist movement and a new spiritual baptismal font, in which they themselves will be baptized anew and in which those who come to them in the future, all lovers of the truth and the Sacred Traditions, will also be baptized. Here it will become evident to what extent the faithful desire something better and healthier, through the support and interest they show in the recommendations of the Committee, as well as through the initiative they undertake to ensure the greater success of its great mission. The example of the Coordinating Committee should encourage everyone, for only recently three or four people accomplished so much and exposed so many uncanonical actions of their leadership, regardless of our disagreement with the position they took regarding Encyclical No. 1191 [of 1974].

Any bishops or priests who remain indifferent or oppose this sacred effort must certainly be isolated and branded as enemies of the truth, underminers and destroyers of this sacred struggle. No faithful person should henceforth attend their churches or patronal feasts, thus expressing disapproval and sorrow over the crime these individuals are committing against the pleroma of the Church of the G.O.C., even if they wear mitres or boast of works of charity and love. For when their way of life does not accord with the faith they profess, they become an obstacle to the sacred cause of this sacred struggle, according to the words of Saint John Chrysostom: “Bringing disgrace upon the doctrines through the wickedness of his deeds.”

And what if not a single bishop agrees with the work of this Committee? So much the worse for them! The faithful must then, without any hesitation, follow those priests who will embrace them in this sacred endeavor of theirs. Did the first priests and founders of this sacred struggle have bishops during its first decade (1924–1935)? And if this Committee is not established and the priests remain divided as they are, each following the bishop of his own choosing, what then will happen? This will mean, first of all, that “such a people deserve such shepherds”! It will also mean that, whereas until now the faithful have been the victims of various unscrupulous individuals, this time they have become accomplices and supporters of their unworthy shepherds, immature and indifferent to what is great and true, led about by their spiritual fathers and their own weaknesses... They must realize, however, that by such conduct they will add yet another mortal sin to their sins, for they will allow certain profiteers who exploit what they hold sacred to destroy a struggle in which thousands of their brethren labored for years in order to bequeath to them an altar untouched by innovation.

Personally, however, we believe that there will certainly be some priests with a conscience and fear of God who will break communion with all those who bring disgrace upon their struggle, so that those faithful who yearn for genuineness and truth may find consolation and peace of soul in their company. As for the others, who will continue to spread confusion through their various uncanonical practices and unlawful actions, there is a just God who, however long He may delay, does not forget. History is full of such examples. And we are certain that the same will happen in the case of these gentlemen.