A Serbian Opinion: "The Calendar Question and the Snakes of Kefalonia"

August 24, 2026

 

 

A reader contacted us with a request that we prepare an analysis of the appearance of the snakes of Kefalonia, which are associated with the Feast of the Dormition of the Most Holy Theotokos. More specifically, he asked us to address whether it is true that, following the adoption of the so-called New Calendar in Greece, the snakes began appearing on the Feast of the Dormition according to the New Calendar rather than the Old Calendar.

Below, we first reproduce the letter of the aforementioned reader, after which we present our more detailed analysis of the calendar question and the phenomenon of the snakes of Kefalonia.

* * *

God be with you, esteemed Editorial Board,

I would like to ask you to clarify a question concerning which I have been unable to reach any definite conclusions, at least on the basis of the information available to me. I believe that this subject would also be of interest to a wide circle of your readers.

You are undoubtedly familiar with the phenomenon of the snakes appearing on the island of Kefalonia in connection with the Feast of the Dormition of the Most Holy Theotokos. The information that reaches the average believer is that, following the adoption of the so-called New Calendar by the Greek Church, the snakes likewise began appearing at a different time.

I would ask you to provide your analytical assessment of how we should understand this circumstance concerning the change in the time of the appearance of the snakes of Kefalonia, given that you insist that the adoption of the so-called New Calendar IN THE MANNER in which certain Local Orthodox Churches have implemented it (retaining the Julian Paschalion and observing the movable feasts according to the Julian Calendar) constitutes heresy.

Thank you in advance,

Your regular reader

* * *

THE ESSENCE OF THE CALENDAR QUESTION — IS THE CALENDAR A DOGMATIC ISSUE?

In response to every serious argument demonstrating the ecclesiastical inviolability of the Julian Calendar, the innovators and New Calendarists resort to the sophistical formula, “The calendar is not a dogmatic issue.”

The assertion that the calendar is not a dogmatic issue is true only when it is considered as an astronomical system for measuring time. In that sense, the calendar is not a dogma.

No one maintains that the Julian Calendar is, in itself, a dogma enshrined in the Creed.

But it does not follow from this that the calendar question has no dogmatic or canonical dimension.

These are two different things.

The calendar is not a dogma by its very nature, but the manner in which the Church regulates liturgical time can become a matter of canonical, ecclesiological, and, indirectly, even dogmatic significance.

The calendar question automatically becomes a dogmatic issue when, upon careful examination, we arrive at an important conclusion: the Julian Calendar is directly connected with the Alexandrian Paschalion, which was canonically adopted at the First Ecumenical Council. The Alexandrian Paschalion is based on the Julian sidereal (stellar) year, which is calculated and oriented in a manner entirely different from that of the solar calendar, particularly the Gregorian Calendar.

THE JULIAN CALENDAR AND THE ORTHODOX PASCHALION

The Orthodox Paschalion is not some arbitrary mathematical formula that someone subsequently chose because “the Julian Calendar is more beautiful.”

It is historically connected with the Alexandrian Paschal tradition, which became the basis for the common determination of the date of Pascha throughout the Church.

And it is precisely for this reason that the calendar question cannot be reduced to the assertion:

“The Julian Calendar is 13 days behind, whereas the Gregorian Calendar is more accurate.”

That is far too Papist an approach.

THE KEY QUESTION IS:

• Which system most faithfully preserves the Orthodox liturgical order and Paschal tradition?

And here we return to Nicaea.

What is particularly important is that the First Ecumenical Council did not simply declare:

“Choose the most accurate calendar.”

The question that the Church sought to resolve was, above all:

• That Pascha should be celebrated on the same day by all.

And here we encounter an enormous distinction between:

• Astronomical accuracy (and it is well known that neither the Julian nor the Gregorian Calendar is astronomically precise),

and

• Ecclesiastical uniformity.

In other words:

The Church does not measure time merely to know what the date is. She orders time so that, through it, she may liturgically experience the Mystery of Christ within the Heavenly and Earthly Church.

For this reason, the liturgical calendar forms part of a much broader system.

THE JULIAN CALENDAR WAS ADOPTED BOTH CONCILIARLY AND CANONICALLY

The First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea established the principle of the uniform celebration of Pascha.

Thus arose the Paschal tradition, which was developed particularly in Alexandria and subsequently became the norm of Orthodox liturgical life.

However, the essential point is not merely that the Julian Calendar was dogmatically prescribed at Nicaea, but rather that the Orthodox liturgical order was historically built upon the calendar-Paschal system which the Church received and developed within the framework of the Nicene Paschal tradition.

HOW THE CALENDAR “REFORM” WAS IMPLEMENTED

The adoption of the New Calendar by certain Local Orthodox Churches was an uncanonical and schismatic act.

There is a very serious canonical argument against the manner in which the reform was implemented. A far more serious problem than the 13-day difference itself is the following:

• Who has the authority to alter the centuries-old liturgical order of the entire Orthodox Church?

And:

• Under what conditions?

Here, the question of the so-called “Pan-Orthodox Congress” of Constantinople in 1923 is of exceptional importance.

For:

• It was not an Ecumenical Council.

• Not all the Local Churches were represented.

And therefore, one may rightly ask:

On the basis of what ecclesiological principle can a local council or congress alter the liturgical calendar that has constituted the common Orthodox order for centuries?

And now, a very interesting consequence:

“The calendar is not important; what matters is that we celebrate the same feasts.”

Here we immediately encounter a problem.

If one Church celebrates the Nativity of Christ on December 25 according to the New Calendar, while another celebrates it on December 25 according to the Old Calendar, then they are not united in their liturgical worship and celebration of the feasts.

But if Pascha and the movable feasts continue to be calculated according to the old Paschal tables, then we have:

• One calendar for the fixed feasts, combined with another system for Pascha.

This is not merely a question of a “more accurate calendar.”

• It is the combination of two different systems for reckoning liturgical time.

And therefore, when the innovators say, “The calendar is not a dogma,” the Orthodox response is:

The calendar in itself is not a dogma, but the calendar-Paschal system constitutes an integral part of the Church’s liturgical tradition. Consequently, its unilateral alteration is not merely a matter of astronomical accuracy, but a question of canonical order, conciliarity, and the unity of the Church.

Therefore, the assertion that the calendar question is “merely administrative” or “merely astronomical” is nothing more than innovationist sophistry that fails to account for ecclesiastical reality.

And it is precisely here that the question of why the retention of the Old Paschalion by the New Calendar Churches is so important becomes particularly interesting. For we are no longer speaking merely of “13 days,” but of the relationship between the Nicene Paschal tradition, the vernal equinox, the first full moon of spring, and the liturgical unity of the entire Orthodox Church.

THE SNAKES OF KEFALONIA

And here we come to the snakes of Kefalonia. What is particularly significant, and what we observed while researching this question, is that innovationist websites, when writing about the snakes of Kefalonia, place special emphasis on the following statement:

“Interestingly, the snakes continued to appear on the Feast of the Dormition of the Most Holy Theotokos even after the Greek Church adopted the New Calendar and the Feast of the Dormition was moved 13 days earlier.”

Thus, it is immediately clear what is happening here: the snakes of Kefalonia are being used to promote the Papal Calendar.

Moreover, the phenomenon of the snakes of Kefalonia must be considered on three levels: factual, natural-phenomenological, and theological-canonical. Only when these three levels are distinguished can one avoid the extreme of uncritically accepting the “miracle of the snakes” as proof.

NEW CALENDARIST MANIPULATION OF THE APPEARANCE OF THE SNAKES

The claims that, before 1924, the snakes of Kefalonia appeared from August 6–15 according to the Old Calendar, but that, following the introduction of the New Calendar, they began appearing from August 6–15 according to the New Calendar, are unverifiable and highly questionable.

One of the most frequently cited sources makes precisely this claim: In 1924, at the time of the calendar reform, the inhabitants of Kefalonia wanted to see which calendar the snakes would “follow” in their appearance on the feast. According to this account, the snakes appeared according to the New Calendar, which the local inhabitants took as confirmation that they should accept the calendar change.

BUT WHAT IS THE TRUTH?

However, we must immediately introduce a very serious scientific and historical qualification:

This is not the same as a documented fact establishing that, before 1924, the snakes regularly appeared on a particular date according to the Julian Calendar, and that, after 1924, they subsequently “shifted” their biological cycle by 13 days.

Indeed, ethnographic material reveals that there are differing accounts concerning the precise time of their appearance. Researchers have recorded that the snakes appear during the period of August 6–15, that their numbers gradually increase as the Feast of the Dormition approaches, and that they subsequently disappear. Moreover, one field researcher who visited Kefalonia in 1992 personally observed the snakes as early as August 6, while local inhabitants told him that they appear throughout this entire period.

Therefore, the claim that “the snakes changed calendars” is entirely arbitrary.

It has not been proven.

THE FUNDAMENTAL THEOLOGICAL PROBLEM

However, even if we accept the testimony that a change in the date of the snakes’ appearance occurred in 1924, we cannot directly conclude from this that God thereby confirmed the New Calendar.

And this is the crucial point.

Let us suppose that the facts are as follows:

Before 1924, the snakes appeared during a particular period according to the Old Calendar, while after the reform they appeared during the corresponding period according to the New Calendar.

That would certainly be unusual.

But it does not logically follow from this that:

“Therefore, God, through the snakes, confirmed the correctness of the calendar reform.”

Why?

Because a biological phenomenon is not, in itself, a theological revelation.

And here we must make a very important distinction.

A sign is not the same as the interpretation of that sign.

An unusual event may occur.

There may even be an event that a person experiences as miraculous.

But the question:

“What does this event mean?”

already requires theological discernment.

WE REITERATE: THE CALENDAR IS NOT MERELY AN ASTRONOMICAL MATTER

It is particularly important to emphasize that the calendar is not merely an astronomical matter. If this were exclusively a question of astronomical correction, the matter would be relatively simple. But the ecclesiastical calendar is bound up with the liturgical order.

And here the situation is far more complex.

As we have already stated, the Council of Constantinople in 1923 was not a Council representing the entire Orthodox Church. The official history of the Ecumenical Patriarchate itself acknowledges that not all the Orthodox Churches were represented. Representatives of Constantinople, Russia, Serbia, Cyprus, Greece, and Romania participated, but not all the Local Churches.

And therefore, it is very important to distinguish between:

• Calendar reform

and

• The manner in which calendar reform is implemented.

A distinction must be made between:

• Calendar innovation,

• Canonical irregularity,

• Liturgical disruption,

• Violation of the traditional ecclesiastical order,

• And heresy, in the strict dogmatic sense.

Historically speaking, the Orthodox Churches themselves did not all adopt the calendar reform in the same manner. Some retained the Old Calendar, while others adopted the reformed calendar for the fixed feasts.

Therefore, if we wish to formulate a statement that is strictly precise in theological terms, we would put the matter as follows:

A particular approach to calendar reform constitutes a serious violation of the Church’s traditional and canonical liturgical order.

THE INNOVATORS’ INTRODUCTION OF ANIMALS AS A CRITERION FOR THE CANONICAL ORDER OF THE CHURCH

This is particularly important in connection with the snakes of Kefalonia.

For if we were to accept the assertion that “the snakes confirmed the New Calendar,” an enormous problem would arise.

Consider the following argument:

“The snakes of the Theotokos” appeared according to the New Calendar.

Therefore, the Most Holy Theotokos thereby demonstrated that the New Calendar is correct.

Consequently, opposition to the New Calendar constitutes opposition to the will of God.

This would be a very dangerous form of argumentation.

Why?

Because a local phenomenon would thereby become a criterion for judging the Church’s Tradition.

But Orthodox ecclesiology does not function in this manner.

The calendar is not determined:

• By a miracle,

• By an unusual natural phenomenon,

• By the behavior of animals,

• Or by the private interpretation of a single local event.

Rather, it must be examined in accordance with conciliar, canonical, and liturgical principles.

Otherwise, we would arrive at something very strange: a natural phenomenon would become a higher authority than the Church’s conciliar Tradition.

ANOTHER POSSIBILITY THAT SHOULD NOT BE OVERLOOKED

Even if someone believes that the snakes of Kefalonia are indeed a miraculous sign, it is still not necessary to interpret their appearance as confirmation of the calendar reform.

It is possible, for example, that an unusual event may be permitted by Divine Providence, while the human interpretation of that event may be mistaken.

This is a very important principle of spiritual discernment.

A miracle does not, in itself, automatically confirm every interpretation that man attributes to it.

It is precisely for this reason that Orthodox spirituality exercises such great caution regarding miracles, signs, visions, and extraordinary phenomena.

But what, then, of the snakes themselves?

Here the matter becomes even more interesting.

There is natural scientific evidence showing that a species known as Telescopus fallax, commonly called the “Virgin’s snake,” does indeed inhabit Kefalonia, and that these snakes appear seasonally in the areas of Markopoulo and Arginia.

There are even hypotheses suggesting that their appearance is connected with natural migratory routes, humidity, and habitat conditions. However, this has not yet been fully explained.

Of course, the existence of a natural explanation does not prove the absence of Divine Providence; but neither does the extraordinary nature of the phenomenon prove that a particular interpretation of it constitutes a divine message.

Hypothetically, even if it were established that the snakes had indeed “shifted” their appearance by 13 days following the calendar reform, it would be theologically unjustified to use this either as evidence in favor of the New Calendar or as evidence against it.

We would regard this as an interesting and unexplained circumstance that, in itself, carries no dogmatic evidentiary weight.

For otherwise, we could arrive at an absurdity:

If the snakes were to begin appearing 10 days earlier tomorrow, would that mean that God had changed the Church Calendar?

Of course not.

If they were to appear three days later the following year, would that mean that God had changed the Typikon?

If someone says:

“The snakes began appearing according to the New Calendar, which demonstrates that the New Calendar is correct,”

he is, in fact, attempting to resolve a question that is, by its very nature, ecclesiastical, conciliar, and canonical by appealing to a single unusual local phenomenon.

That is not permissible.

Even if we were to accept the miraculous nature of the phenomenon in its entirety.

For a miracle cannot establish a canon.

And, more importantly:

A divine sign cannot be used as a substitute for the Church’s conciliar discernment.

Certainly not.

Therefore, the date on which an animal appears cannot serve as a criterion for determining the Church Calendar.

UNUSUAL PHENOMENA ARE NO SUBSTITUTE FOR HOLY TRADITION

We believe that the most important thing here is not to allow an unusual phenomenon to assume the role that Holy Tradition occupies in Orthodoxy.

If some New Calendarist says:

“I see in this a sign from the Most Holy Theotokos,”

—that is his personal interpretation.

But if someone says:

“The snakes appeared according to the New Calendar; therefore, God thereby confirmed the calendar reform, and this proves that those who remained on the Old Calendar are in error,”

—such a conclusion is theologically unfounded.

For this involves a logical leap:

• Phenomenon → miracle → interpretation of the miracle → dogmatic conclusion.

And none of these connections follows automatically.

If the calendar reform is objectionable on canonical and liturgical grounds, no local miraculous phenomenon can justify it.

At the same time, if someone considers the reform to be erroneous, the appearance of the snakes according to the Old Calendar would likewise not constitute proof that the snakes are “on the side of the Julian Calendar.” That would be an equally mistaken interpretation. (What the snakes of Kefalonia themselves actually demonstrated in 1923–1924 remains unknown, since no reliable primary source from that period exists, but only later retellings of local tradition.)

LEAVE THE SNAKES ALONE

It is best, therefore, to leave the snakes where they belong—in the realm of an unusual local phenomenon associated with popular religious beliefs. The calendar question, on the other hand, has already been settled entirely independently, through the Sacred Canons, conciliar decisions, liturgical Tradition, and the history of the Church...

 

Serbian source: https://borbazaveru.info/content/view/22225/1/

A Necessary Response to Unfounded “Accusations” (2013)

Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Attica and Boeotia | November 13/26, 2013 | Acharnes

 

 

In recent days, an issue has arisen that has given rise to “scandal” and misinformation, directly concerning our Diocese and affecting our Church more generally. [This refers to scandals arising from defrocked New Calendarist clergy masquerading as members of the G.O.C. – Blog Admin.]

By way of clarification, therefore, our Bishop humbly provides answers to the accusations that certain unscrupulous men of the cloth have leveled against us from time to time.

Of course, much more could be written from a historical, canonical, and theological standpoint.

This clarification affords the ordinary pious faithful an opportunity to acquaint themselves with and learn the truth concerning the actual state of affairs within the Church of the G.O.C. of Greece, whose present Archbishop is Kallinikos of Athens and All Greece.

* * *

Beloved brethren in Christ,

With sorrow of soul, with a sense of bitterness, and with the responsibility incumbent upon me as a Hierarch, I write the following.

“Ye are the light of the world” (Matt. 5:14), says our Lord and God Jesus Christ to those who were filled with the Holy Spirit on the holy day of Pentecost, thereby rendering them worthy successors to Himself in shepherding and guiding toward deification all those who desire to become members of the Body of the Holy Church through Holy Baptism.

The commandment of our Lord to His beloved Disciples and Apostles is: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you...” (Matt. 28:19–20).

The work, ministry, service, and episcopal office of the Holy Apostles consisted in bringing the whole of humanity to Christ. Wherever they went and wherever they preached, they succeeded, as God-bearing men, in imparting the Light of truth and the salvation of souls to all who desired to know Christ.

Of course, they encountered countless difficulties from those of other faiths, from those who rejected Christ, and even from false brethren, as the Apostle Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles, relates.

Undaunted, faithful, and steadfast, with courage, boldness, and strength, they succeeded, by the Grace of the Lord, in bringing to completion the work that Divine Grace had entrusted to them.

Their great endeavor was to transmit the word of our Lord, unadulterated, to the new Bishops and Presbyters whom they ordained through the Holy Spirit, with the injunction that those newly ordained should likewise do the same, so that the word of truth might suffer no alteration.

Throughout the course of these twenty centuries, countless individuals have sought to imitate Judas Iscariot, whether out of self-interest or through outright betrayal. (A common characteristic of those who seek to undermine the Church.)

The Church of Christ, the Orthodox Church, as the treasury of Divine Grace, confronted all these problems by assuming a healing role, striving to heal all the ailing members of Her Body.

At times, the treatment was painless, while at other times it was painful, particularly when the Church was obliged to identify and heal “ailing” individuals who harmed Her through their spiritual maladies, self-interest, delusion, heresy, beliefs alien to Orthodoxy, elder-worship, personality cults, and many other such things. Every attempt by the Orthodox Church to administer healing has encountered, and continues to encounter, opposition from individuals motivated by self-interest, ulterior motives, and a lack of discernment.

Enormous, therefore, is the responsibility of the attending physicians, who, as regards the governance of the Church, are exclusively the Bishops and, by extension and at their behest, the Presbyters.

I write these few things, which I have briefly set forth before you, because in recent days there has been considerable uproar over a certain matter presented on television, thereby “discrediting” the Orthodox Church of Christ.

The irony, however, is that the Metropolitans of the State-Supported Church have appeared on television channels, in newspapers, and at gatherings of the clergy of their respective Metropolises. Taking advantage of the reports and publicity afforded by the mass media, they seized the opportunity to criticize the Church of the G.O.C. yet again, declaring loudly that those exposed by the television channels do not belong to the “Church” of the State, but rather to the Old Calendarists, even going so far as to call us “impostors” possessing neither Priesthood nor Mysteries.

Of course, we have been hearing these things for many years now!

I therefore feel obliged, as an Orthodox Hierarch, to address myself first and foremost to the Orthodox flock entrusted to my pastoral care, but also to every Christian who desires to know the truth, and to cry out:

Enough! Enough is enough!

How much longer will this slander, this assault upon the Church, continue? How much longer?

Have they not grown weary, after ninety whole years, of continuing to wage war against the very Church they claim to serve? Do they not fear God?

Why are we treated in this manner? Why such distortion of the truth?

Do the Bishops of the legally recognized Church not know that all those who appear wearing cassocks, engolpia, and mitres have no connection whatsoever with the Church of the G.O.C. of Greece?

Do they not know that our Church does not enjoy the legal protection of the State (as does the New Calendar Church), by which the ecclesiastical sphere in which we minister might be safeguarded?

Do they not know that all these “clergymen,” all these spurious organizations that have proliferated throughout Greece, originate from the New Calendarist Church, and that these are the very individuals whom the New Calendarists themselves have deemed fit for removal and deposition?

What a pity! What irony! What a mockery of God!

On the one hand, they changed the calendar in order to correct it, as they declared in writing in 1924; on the other hand, by way of economy, they now have churches that follow the Julian Calendar while commemorating a New Calendarist Bishop. Why, then, was the change made in the first place, thereby dividing our Orthodox Greece?

Indeed, at that time, the Bishops and Archbishops, with the consent of the ministers of successive governments, issued orders to the police authorities to persecute all those who followed the Old Calendar. Some were imprisoned; canonically ordained clergymen were forcibly stripped of their clerical attire; and the offices of the Archdiocese of Athens had become veritable barbershops for Old Calendarist priests. Elderly Bishops were sent into exile, as was the former Metropolitan of Florina, Chrysostomos Kavouridis. They even went so far as to kill a young mother of two children, only twenty-seven years of age, Catherine Routis, in Mandra, Attica.

Those employed in the public sector were dismissed if they followed the Old Calendar; those attending schools or academies were expelled unless they adopted the New Calendar.

They demolished churches with bulldozers. They dispersed, with fire hoses, the faithful who had gathered outside the Metropolitan Cathedral of Athens to celebrate the Annunciation of the Theotokos.

And why was all this done? Because conscientious Orthodox Greeks refused to become Latinized, both religiously and politically.

These persecutions were not carried out by atheists, but by Orthodox Greeks!!! By Hierarchs and priests, by those who had betrayed the Faith.

It was Bishops of the New Calendar who attended the enthronement of the Pope of Rome, the Antichrist, as St. Kosmas of Aetolia calls him, last March, in 2013.

Instead of striving to unite all Orthodox Greeks into one spiritual family, as indeed the Sacred Canons prescribe, free from the innovation of the calendar condemned by three Pan-Orthodox Synods and free from the pan-heresy of Ecumenism, they seek to reach an understanding with the unbaptized Latins and all the other heretics.

It is imperative that we first put our own house in order!

The responsibility for all these spurious organizations of impious “cassock-wearers” lies with the ecclesiastical body from which they “sprang”—the Official Church, not the Church of the G.O.C.

(Let them count the so-called pseudo-synods of the Old Calendarists, and they will discover that 95% of their members were formerly clergymen of the New Calendar Church.)

And as regards the question of Apostolic Succession, let them finally cease propagating the falsehood that Apostolic Succession does not exist among those who follow the “Old Calendar.”

At least the respectable New Calendarists, as opposed to those motivated by animosity, know very well from whom we derive our ordinations and our Apostolic Succession.

In 1921, the Patriarch of Jerusalem was Damianos, who was experiencing difficulties with the Synodal Bishops of the Patriarchate. Before they could remove him from the throne, Patriarch Damianos, together with another Bishop of Jerusalem and Bishop Anastasy (later Metropolitan of the Russian Church Abroad), who was visiting the Russian Holy Monastery of St. Mary Magdalene, proceeded to perform new episcopal consecrations for the Patriarchate.

No one questioned the canonical validity of these consecrations, despite the participation of a Bishop from a Church beyond its territorial boundaries (Anastasy). No one from within the Official Church ever protested!

Indeed, one of the newly consecrated Bishops was Timotheos, the future Patriarch of Jerusalem, who was succeeded by Benedictos, Diodoros, Eirinaios, and Theophilos.

It should be clarified here that Anastasy was the future Metropolitan of the Russian Church Abroad, under whose omophorion the Russian Bishops were placed. Anastasy was succeeded by St. Philaret, during whose presidency his Synod recognized the Church of the G.O.C. of Greece as a Sister Church, the latter having received episcopal consecrations from their Hierarchs, Seraphim of Chicago, Theophil [of Sevres], and Leonty of Chile, in 1960 and 1962.

It is also worth noting that in 2007, Metropolitan Laurus, the successor of these Russian Metropolitans, together with the majority of the hierarchs of their Synod, were united with their Mother Church in Moscow, under Patriarch Alexy [II], on the Feast of the Ascension.

The Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad were united and concelebrated the Divine Liturgy without any ceremony or prayer for the restoration of the Russian Bishops abroad, because they had always been canonical, having received their episcopal consecrations from the Holy Patriarch Tikhon of All Russia (1917), and successively through Anthony, Anastasy, Philaret, Vitaly, Laurus, and, today, Hilarion.

How, then, is it possible for all the New Calendarists today to concelebrate with the Russian Bishops of the Church Abroad—the very Bishops who bestowed Apostolic Succession upon us—and yet claim that we are “unordained”? I simply remind them that they are blaspheming against the Holy Spirit.

And as for the claims they make from time to time to their faithful, alleging that the Mysteries of the Old Calendarists—Marriage, Baptism, and all the others—are “invalid,” supposedly because they lack Apostolic Succession, they would do well to cease making such claims once and for all!

They recognize the anathematized Latins and the Anglicans, who join persons of the same sex in “marital communion,” while reviling those who possess canonical ordination! And why do they do these things? Because they do not wish to lose, not faithful, but rather, I dare say, customers!

We inform you that we ourselves are the first to exhort our flock to have no association with, nor participate in, the “ceremonies of impious cassock-wearers,” because such ceremonies do not sanctify. These “cassock-wearers” possess neither Mysteries nor the Grace of God, but exploit the piety of the simple faithful for financial gain.

I believe I have said enough.

I am saddened, deeply saddened!

Now, when it is imperative that we should be one body within Orthodox Greece, unfortunately, we remain divided.

The responsibility lies with those who had a problem with the calendar dates, regardless of the fact that they lay the blame upon us.

A simple example: If someone were to ask me on the street what today’s date is, I would answer that it is November 14, but according to the ecclesiastical calendar, it is November 1, the Feast of the Holy Unmercenaries. It is as simple as that!

Our New Calendarist brethren—and by this I mean the clergy—have committed grave and irreparable errors in the modern history of Orthodox Greece.

If they are scandalized by what the television channels have been reporting in recent days, let them seek to overcome their scandal by considering the conduct of their own “shepherds”—Patriarchs, Archbishops, and Bishops—who, without shame, on the one hand anathematize Orthodox monks who resist their treacherous concelebrations (the Monastery of Esphigmenou), while, on the other hand, they proclaim, write, and sign: “May Almighty God grant rest to Atatürk”—that is, to an unbaptized man, the very one responsible for the slaughter of 353,000 Greeks of Pontus and the near-total depopulation of Asia Minor. But which God is supposed to grant him rest? Certainly not our Lord Jesus Christ!

In closing, for my part, I wish to say the following, with love and sorrow, to our New Calendarist brethren who wear the cassock:

Brethren, you can clearly see how the situation has developed in our Orthodox Greece.

Are you at peace with yourselves?

Are you at ease with all these developments, which are unfolding so rapidly?

This alone I have to say, in all simplicity, but from the depths of my heart:

Return to Christ! Return to our roots!

History has not ceased to be written; it continues to unfold.

The question is:

What will history record about those who changed the calendar, who engaged in interreligious dialogues with the unrepentant, and who persecuted their own brethren for resisting all these betrayals?

History will certainly record these things.

It will certainly record that a Greek Metropolitan of the Church of Greece (who knows well how to condemn the Old Calendarists) attended the enthronement of the Pope.

Where are you, St. Kosmas of Aetolia, to witness the betrayal of the Faith by today’s Janissary Hierarchs?

History will certainly record all the concelebrations between “Orthodox” Christians and heretics.

And it will certainly record that our New Calendarist brethren speak of the “Sacred Canons” only when the subject concerns the “Old Calendarists” and the “Old Calendar.”

They have never otherwise concerned themselves with the Sacred Canons, to the point of forfeiting their very Apostolic Succession. For, as our Church chants, “Having become a partaker of the ways and a successor to the thrones of the Apostles, O God-inspired one, thou didst find in practice the means of ascent to contemplation. Wherefore, rightly dividing the word of truth, thou didst contend for the Faith even unto blood...” A successor of the Apostles, therefore, is not merely a canonical Orthodox Bishop who canonically ordains a Presbyter or another Bishop, as our New Calendarist brethren would have us understand Apostolic Succession in a purely juridical sense. Rather, both the ordaining Bishop and the one being ordained must also lead lives in accordance with the example of the Holy Apostles...

“Are the guardians aware?”

“He who knew and did not act shall be beaten with many stripes.”

Perhaps some will say that, by what I have written, we are stirring up fanaticism among the people rather than doing good.

Before they begin criticizing us, however, they would do well to examine, with discernment and love, this enormous problem that has divided Orthodox Greece for ninety years, so that a truly Orthodox solution may be found.

One thing alone is certain: all these problems and scandals have been caused by men who have been forsaken by the Grace of God.

We neither changed the calendar, nor prayed together with heretics, nor persecuted anyone who did not remain faithful to the “Old Calendar,” nor demolished churches, nor killed anyone.

To know Christ, it is not enough merely to say that you love Him; you must also see Him in your fellow man. This, after all, is the meaning of the commandment of love. One cannot love God while at the same time failing to love one’s fellow man; whoever does so is a hypocrite. This is also the principal reason why I have written the foregoing.

My personal love, however imperfect it may be, is my only weapon against those who systematically distort the truth.

“Love one another!” said Christ. This exhortation is both the criterion and the prerequisite for salvation. Let each of us put it into practice according to his spiritual maturity, for it is the only thing we have left, but also the only thing that gives us hope, especially today, given the state of society as it has developed.

When we truly experience the love of Christ, we shall come to realize something very simple: on the one hand, that the eyes of a true Christian behold the love of Christ in the eyes of his fellow man; and, on the other, that they discern truth from falsehood, Christ from the false Christ.

My prayer and heartfelt wish is that all may come to know the Light of our Lord Jesus Christ!

 

Greek source: https://imab.gr/eguklios/ofeilomeni%20apantisi.pdf

Saint John Chrysostom on Homosexuality

(A Contribution to the Contemporary Relevance of the Subject)

By Metropolitan Chrysostomos III of Mani

 

 

It is worthwhile, concerning the subject of homosexuality, to hear what the wise and God-bearing Holy Fathers of the Church say and to read what they write. This is because the Fathers do not constitute a dead legacy, nor are they outside reality. They are, above all, interpreters of the spirit of the divine Scriptures, but also important students of the human being. Indeed, as those knowledgeable in secular learning and Christian literature, they concerned themselves with man, virtue, and vice; they literally felt pain over human affairs, labored for them, and struggled for the perfection of human life, with eternity as their ultimate aim.

Thus, among the great Greek Fathers, the wise and God-bearing Father of the Church, John Chrysostom, could not remain silent on the question of homosexuality, since he was both an excellent interpreter of Holy Scripture and a model of virtue and moral character, as he demonstrated in his time. He was a great man, remarkable, “most wondrous in his manner of life and formidable in speech.” But we must also point out that although he lived in the fourth century, nevertheless, his speech and his writings are distinguished by their timelessness, precisely because they concern the human being in his entirety and his life, his relationship with God and with himself. Specifically, John Chrysostom devoted thirty-three homilies to the Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Romans, the most theological of the Epistles, which were delivered in Antioch. In particular, in his Third, Fourth, and Fifth Homilies, he refers to the wrath of God against the impious idolaters.

More specifically, in his Third Homily, he interprets verses 8–17 from Chapter 1 of the Apostle’s Epistle to the Romans and emphasizes that we ought to accept the things of God with faith and not demand an explanation for the divine commandments.

The commandment of God is a commandment. That is how it is. The created thing will not say to the Creator, “Why did You create me this way?” As the Apostle Paul says: “O man, who are you to argue and contradict God? ‘Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why have you made me this way?’ Or has not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?” (Rom. 9:20–21). Saint Chrysostom says that we must not examine the command of the Lord, “the commandment of the Master” (Homilies on Romans, Homily III, EPE 16B, p. 360), but that we ought “to yield to the incomprehensibility of His providence and never to demand accountability from God for the things that happen, even if these things appear to trouble many” (ibid., pp. 361–363). The Holy Father again emphasizes this position, saying: “Never demand an explanation for the commandments of God, but only yield and obey” (ibid., p. 378).

In his Fourth and Fifth Homilies, in which he interprets verses 18–27 of Chapter 1 of the Epistle to the Romans, he turns against the idolaters and speaks about forbearance, urging restraint from the passions. More specifically, in interpreting verses 26–27, he refers to the unnatural bodily relations of men and women, that is, to homosexuality.

Specifically, in his Fifth Homily, he interprets the Apostle’s verses: “For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions. For even their females exchanged the natural use for that which is against nature: and likewise also the males, leaving the natural use of the female, burned in their desire toward one another, males with males working that which is shameful, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due for their error” (Rom. 1:26–27).

The Apostle Paul says, therefore, concerning the idolaters, that precisely because they worshipped false and worthless gods, God permitted them to be given over and enslaved to degrading passions. For their women, too, without feeling shame or respecting even themselves, exchanged the natural use of their sex for that which is against nature and turned to unspeakable acts. In a similar manner, the males abandoned the natural relationship and use of the woman and were inflamed by passionate desires for one another, so that men performed shameless and degrading acts with men and received from themselves the recompense that was due to them for their error.

Interpreting these verses (26 and 27), Saint Chrysostom emphasizes that the exchange of the natural use of the sex for that which is against nature is a “passion of dishonor,” as the Apostle Paul writes. Those who commit these “dishonorable passions,” the Holy Father continues, have reached a strange frenzy: “they have gone astray into this strange frenzy,” since they abandoned natural enjoyment and turned to that which is against nature, thereby also offending nature itself. The Apostle Paul goes even further and uses particular words for this passion, as Saint Chrysostom points out. He says: “They burned in their desire toward one another” (v. 27). Chrysostom comments: “But observe how emphatically he also uses the words. For he did not say that they loved and desired one another, but, ‘They burned with desire for one another.’ Do you see that the whole of desire proceeds from greed, because it does not tolerate remaining within its own boundaries? For everything that goes beyond the laws established by God desires strange things and not what is lawful. Just as many people, when they are exceedingly thirsty, often desire even muddy water, so they too fell into this unlawful eros. But if you ask where this power of desire comes from, the answer is: From the abandonment of God. And from where does the abandonment of God come? From the lawlessness of those who abandoned Him, ‘working shamefulness, men with men.’”

Therefore, he says, do not think, because you heard that they burned with desire, that the disease is due only to desire, for, in reality, the greater part of it is due to their indifference, which also kindled the desire. For this reason, he did not say “being led astray” or “being overcome,” which he says elsewhere, but what? “Working” (that is, doing). They regarded sin as a deed, and not merely a deed, but one that was deliberately carried out (Homily V, p. 413). He also comments on the word “shamefulness,” saying: “And he (Paul) did not say ‘desire,’ but ‘shamefulness’ in its literal meaning. For they truly brought shame upon nature and transgressed the laws. He says emphatically: ‘And they brought shame upon nature and trampled upon the laws.’” That is, he speaks of shame and transgression. According to the divine Paul, homosexuality constitutes a disgrace to nature and a transgression of the law of God. Saint Chrysostom says that it also constitutes the most extreme and most abominable form of fornication. He emphasizes: “Worse than so many forms of fornication” (Homily V, p. 416). For, he says, in fornication, “although the union is unlawful, it is nevertheless according to nature,” whereas in homosexuality it is “both unlawful and against nature” (ibid., p. 414).

Saint Chrysostom also becomes more severe. He characterizes homosexuality as “murder of soul and body,” “outrage,” “madness,” and “betrayal.” More specifically, he writes: “Alas, what madness! Alas, what insanity! From where did this desire come, which brought upon human nature the evils of its enemies, or rather, evils even worse than theirs, to the same extent that the soul is superior to the body? How much more senseless you are than irrational animals, and more shameless than dogs! For nowhere is there such a relationship among them, but nature knows well its own laws. But you, by behaving outrageously, have made your own sex more dishonorable even than the animals” (ibid., p. 421).

Indeed, Saint Chrysostom, interpreting the passage of the Apostle Paul, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness” (Rom. 1:18), admirably urges us to pay attention to the Apostle’s prudence. He says that, after speaking about the more beneficial blessings, the Apostle then turns his discourse to the more fearful things. He spoke about the salvation of men, but continues also with punishment. He writes specifically that “because most people are often drawn toward virtue not so much by the promise of good things as by the fear of unpleasant things, he draws them by both. For this reason, God not only promised the Kingdom, but also threatened Gehenna” (Homilies on Romans, Homily IV, p. 383). Continuing, he says that the impiety of the idolaters also became the cause of the perversion of the laws of nature. “For they devised a strange manner of lawlessness and strange and unlawful laws for their unions.” That is, they devised a strange manner of lawlessness and invented strange and impermissible laws for their bodily relations. He continues, saying: “And such was the course of wickedness that all became molded by every form of corruption and could no longer receive any correction, but required complete destruction” (ibid., p. 20). Here is the just punishment.

But Saint Chrysostom, in order to help his fellow human beings refrain from committing homosexuality, also comes forward and reminds them of the punishment. He writes about the destruction of Sodom and the moral debauchery of its inhabitants, noting that their sin was so great that God allowed Gehenna of fire to appear before its time (ibid., pp. 417–418). “These lawless men who dwell in the land of Sodom shall all be destroyed. For just as virtue becomes the basis of salvation—that is, becomes the occasion for salvation—for those who pursue it, so wickedness becomes the cause of destruction” (On Genesis, Homily XLII, 18).

Saint Chrysostom also considers the loss of the fear of God and the abandonment of the divine commandments to be causes of homosexuality. Specifically, he writes: “Therefore, so that this may not happen—that is, so that we do not become shameless—let us properly keep the fear of God before us. For nothing, truly nothing, destroys man in such a way as losing this anchor, just as nothing saves him so much as continually looking there. If, when we have another human being before us, we become more hesitant to commit sins, and many times have blushed with shame even before servants who are more lenient in their judgment, and do nothing unreasonable, consider how much security we shall enjoy when we have God before us. For the devil will attack us nowhere when we behave in this way, because he will labor in vain. But if he sees us wandering outside and roaming about without restraint, taking authority away from us, he will then be able to lead us astray everywhere. And what happens in the marketplace to careless servants who abandon the necessary duties for which their masters sent them, and devote themselves aimlessly and without reason to passersby, wasting their free time there, happens to us as well when we distance ourselves from the commandments of God” (Homilies on Romans, Homily V, pp. 421–423).

Indeed, Saint Chrysostom points out that this passion is the work of the devil, who opens a war against man and woman and the perpetuation of the human race. He writes: “And observe how great confusion arises on both sides. For not only did the head go downward, but the feet also went upward, and they became enemies of themselves and of one another, waging a terrible battle, more unlawful than any civil war, and manifold and varied... The two ought to have been one, I mean the woman and the man. ‘For the two,’ He says, ‘shall be one flesh.’ The desire for intercourse brought this about and united the sexes with one another. But the devil, destroying this desire and transferring it to another manner, thus separated the sexes from one another and caused the one to become two parts, contrary to the law of God. For He (that is, God) says, ‘The two shall be one flesh,’ whereas the devil divided the one into two” (ibid., p. 411 ff.).

Furthermore, Saint Chrysostom is not unaware that this phenomenon of homosexuality existed in ancient Greece, and he writes the following specifically about this situation: “Nevertheless, they did not consider this matter to be shameful, but because they admired it as something respectable and superior to the status of slaves, they permitted it among free citizens. And one could find many books of the philosophers filled with this disease. Yet we do not say that the matter is lawful for this reason, but rather that those who accepted this law are also wretched and worthy of many tears” (ibid., p. 415 ff.). Saint Chrysostom speaks not only of disease and lawlessness, but also of the misery of those people who engage in this passion, saying that they are “worthy of many tears” (ibid., p. 417).

Nevertheless, Saint Chrysostom does not show malice toward those who sin through this passion. He says that they are spiritually weak, wounded by the devil, captives of the evil one, and in need of salvation. He cites the example of Lot, who behaved with gentleness and prudence toward the Sodomites who wished to commit the sin. He said to them: “By no means, brothers, do not act wickedly” (Gen. 19:7). In this regard, Saint Chrysostom comments: “O, the patience of the righteous man! O, the excess of humility! This is truly virtue: to approach such people with gentleness. For no one who wishes to heal a sick person and bring a madman to his senses does so with anger and severity” (On Genesis, Homily XLIII, p. 66). Saint Chrysostom continues his commentary, saying: “For observe how he calls brothers those who wish to commit transgressions of this kind, wishing to make them feel shame, to approach their conscience, and to turn them away from their impious undertaking” (ibid., p. 67).

Clearly, therefore, Saint John Chrysostom speaks of sin, of a passion of dishonor, and of the overturning of the laws of nature, but also of a “reminder,” a kind of testament, as a reminder to subsequent generations of the destruction, so that they too might not suffer the punishment. He writes very characteristically: “For because they overturned the laws of nature and devised strange and unlawful unions, for this reason He brought upon them an unusual form of punishment (God imposed a new form of punishment, different from that of the Flood), because of their lawlessness, and having rendered the womb of the earth barren, He left behind an everlasting reminder for the generations that followed, so that they might not undertake the same things, lest they also fall into the same things” (ibid., pp. 30–32).

For this reason, Saint Chrysostom then exhorts and advises: “Therefore, I beseech you, let us be corrected by the things for which others have suffered punishment” (ibid., p. 32).

Thus does the Holy Father interpret this sin, he who was called the “Ecumenical Teacher” by Emperor Theodosius II and the “thrice-blessed man” by Photios the Great; and certainly, “let him who has understanding understand.”

 

Original Greek source: https://www.im-manis.gr/index.php/el/o-mitropolitis/arthra/ho-hieros-xrysostomos-peri-tes-homofylofilias-symvoli-stin-epikairotita-tou-thematos

English source: https://www.gnothiseauton.org/2026/11/saint-john-chrysostom-on-homosexuality.html

Concert Held Inside One of Our (New Calendarist) Orthodox Churches in Honor of an Unrecognized Papist “Saint”!!

November 13, 2026

 

 

Unfortunately, new outrages are about to take place inside one of our churches at the hands of the post-patristic ecumenists...

A concert is being organized inside the Holy Church of St. Demetrios in Psyrri, which for years has been under the control of an ecumenist parish priest who, regrettably, promotes post-patristic theology and the pan-heresy of Ecumenism. During the coronavirus pandemic, he had already “distinguished himself” by imposing intimidating, police-style measures inside the church against the so-called COVID deniers...

Now he intends to bring musicians and singers into our holy church to hold a concert in honor of the heretical Papist “saint” Francis of Assisi...

We have repeatedly stated that our holy churches are not concert venues, not even for performances of Byzantine ecclesiastical hymns. There are many excellent halls available for musical and even theatrical performances. Our holy churches are intended SOLELY and exclusively for the celebration of the Sacred Services and the Holy Mysteries. At most, if no suitable hall is available, Sunday school children may gather in some corner of the church or in the women's gallery, provided that the reverence due to the sacred space is maintained. Priests may likewise deliver talks for the catechetical instruction of their flock... But that is as far as it should go.

Everything else is disrespectful and profane, and has no place in an Orthodox holy church... The fact that such things are commonplace in Papist and Protestant “churches” is of no concern to us. After all, they regard their “churches” as nothing more than ordinary venues for events.

Our holy churches are consecrated, and our faithful, as we all know, always enter them with reverence, taking care not to turn their backs toward the Holy Altar or the iconostasis, upon which are depicted the most holy persons of our faith and our Lord Jesus Christ...

And these people drag musical groups and their instruments into the church, imagining that it is a place of amusement, a venue for concerts and theatrical performances, and a place for entertainment and other events...

Indeed, they even make a point of emphasizing that admission is free!! So perhaps they intend to start charging admission in the future...

What a disgrace!

And are they not afraid that the church might collapse on top of them and crush them...

Such disrespect toward St. Demetrios is truly appalling.

As for the heretical Papist “saint” Francis of Assisi, you can read more HERE.

Read the following announcement from the church itself:

“The Power of the Name”

A Musical Narrative by Fenia Papadodima and the Ensemble Uccelli del Mare.

Musical improvisations, Mediterranean songs from the 13th century to the present day, original compositions, and lyrics by F. Papadodima.

A musical event featuring actress, singer, and director Fenia Papadodima and the musical ensemble “Uccelli del Mare.”

The occasion is this year’s 800th anniversary of the repose of St. Francis of Assisi, one of the most beloved saints throughout the Christian world.

The event will begin with a brief introductory presentation on St. Francis by Mr. Stavros Zoumboulakis, author and President of the Supervisory Council of the National Library of Greece.

 

Greek source: https://koukfamily.blogspot.com/2026/11/blog-post_656.html

On Forgiveness of Wrongs

 

A certain Christian went to seek counsel from Abba Silouan.

“Father, I have a mortal enemy,” he confessed. “The wrongs this man has done me are innumerable. Some time ago, he fraudulently obtained a large portion of my land. Wherever he goes, he slanders me and speaks ill of both me and my family. He has made my life unbearable. Lately, he has even been plotting against my life. Just a few days ago, I learned that he had attempted to poison me. I can endure it no longer. I am determined to bring him to justice.”

“Do as you wish,” Abba Silouan replied indifferently.

“Do you not think, Father, that if he is punished—and severely, as he deserves—his soul will be saved?” asked the man, who had now begun to show concern for the spiritual welfare of his enemy.

“Do whatever brings you peace,” the Venerable Father continued to say in the same tone.

“Then I shall go straight to the judge,” said the Christian, rising to leave.

“Do not be in such haste,” the Venerable Father said calmly. “Let us first pray that God may grant success to your undertaking.” He began to recite the “Our Father.”

“And forgive us our debts, as we also do not forgive our debtors,” the Venerable Father was heard saying aloud when he reached this verse.

“That is not right, Abba. That is not how the Lord’s Prayer goes,” the Christian hastened to correct him.

“But that is indeed how it stands,” the Elder replied with perfect composure. “Since you have resolved to bring your brother before the judge, Silouan can offer no other prayer for you.”

 

Greek source: Ἔπαλξις Ὀρθοδοξίας, published by the Holy Metropolis of the G.O.C. of Larissa and Platamon, Issue 19, July-September 2026, p. 30.

The Difficulty of Reaching an Understanding

Protopresbyter Dionysios Tatsis | November 13, 2026 | Orthodoxos Typos

 

 

In our conversations with others, we often find ourselves unable to reach an understanding because some of those with whom we speak express opinions without offering convincing arguments. They possess neither the necessary knowledge nor the corresponding experience. Usually, they have heard something related to the subject at some point, it made an impression on them, and they have retained it in their minds. They repeat it at every opportunity, without, however, substantiating it through their own lives. Their assertions are merely repetitions of what they have heard, without their being in a position to exercise discernment or, naturally, to persuade those with whom they converse. This situation is aggravated by the daily misinformation disseminated by the mass media. Thus, almost everyone today considers himself an “expert on everything.” Clear thinking, purity of intention, a genuine understanding of the facts, and objectivity are lacking. Consequently, their conclusions have no enduring value but serve transient purposes and personal interests.

Among conscientious Christians, of course, this should not be the case. Their conversations should be characterized by seriousness, have spiritual content, and illuminate the path of life in Christ. Yet not everyone possesses the same degree of interest. Nevertheless, they share a common desire to be properly informed by people who have known individuals and witnessed events firsthand—that is, people who possess a wealth of experience. This is especially true when such people have associated with virtuous individuals and have been influenced by their sacred experiences and soul-profiting teachings.

The Apostles enjoyed the special privilege of living close to their Teacher, Jesus. They had sacred experiences, and their words to the faithful were steadfast and trustworthy. They had heard the Lord, had seen Him with their own eyes, and had touched Him with their own hands. It was this firsthand experience that made their testimony so effective.

Spiritual experiences make a person steadfast in his convictions. What he maintains is not a collection of facile theories, which are frequently revised, modernized, and sometimes rejected altogether. Rather, it is a steadfast light that does not flicker or fade, nor is it replaced by the dazzling lights of human vanity. Neither can it be compared with the experiences of those who present themselves as wise and accomplished scholars but lack virtue and the hope of eternal life.

Preachers of the word of God, in particular, must possess spiritual experience if their words are to be trustworthy. This truth is easily expressed but very difficult to put into practice. Virtue is difficult to find in our times. Certain innovationist clergymen diminish its value, maintaining that it is outdated and that the Church must look to the times and modernize in order to influence people. But this raises several questions: For what purpose should the Church seek to influence the world? Have spiritual blessings somehow lost their value? Have they been replaced by something new? What is the path of salvation for people today?

The answer to the foregoing questions is found in the words of the Apostle Paul to the Hebrews: “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever. Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace” (Hebrews 13:8–9). In other words, Christ remains the same. His teaching is not subject to revision. The grace of Christ is the spiritual and saving foundation of our hearts.

 

Greek source:

https://orthodoxostypos.gr/%e1%bc%80%ce%b4%cf%85%ce%bd%ce%b1%ce%bc%ce%af%ce%b1-%cf%83%cf%85%ce%bd%ce%b5%ce%bd%ce%bd%ce%bf%ce%ae%cf%83%ce%b5%cf%89%cf%82/

On Charity and Compassion Toward the Heterodox

St. Seraphim (Rose) of Platina

A few years before he died, Fr. Seraphim received a letter from an African-American woman who, as a catechumen learning about Orthodoxy, was struggling to understand the uncharitable attitude that some Orthodox Christians showed to those outside the Church, an attitude which reminded her of how her own people had been treated. “I am deeply troubled,” this woman wrote, “as to how Orthodoxy views what the world would call Western Christians, i.e., Protestants and Roman Catholics. I have read many articles by many Orthodox writers, and a few use words like ‘Papists,’ etc., which I find deeply disturbing and quite offensive. I find them offensive because as a person of a race which has been subjected to much name-calling I despise and do not wish to adopt the habit of name-calling myself. Even ‘heretic’ disturbs me….

“Where do I stand with my friends and relatives? They do not know about Orthodoxy or they do not understand it. Yet they believe in and worship Christ.… Am I to treat my friends and relatives as if they have no God, no Christ?... Or can I call them Christians, but just ones who do not know the true Church?

“When I ask this question, I cannot help but think of St. Innocent of Alaska as he visited the Franciscan monasteries in California. He remained thoroughly Orthodox yet he treated the priests he met there with kindness and charity and not name-calling. This, I hope, is what Orthodoxy says about how one should treat other Christians.”

This woman’s quandary was actually fairly common to people coming into the Orthodox Faith. Now nearing the end of his short life and having thrown off his youthful bitterness, Fr. Seraphim answered as follows:

I was happy to receive your letter—happy not because you are confused about the question that troubles you, but because your attitude reveals that in the truth of Orthodoxy to which you are drawn you wish to find room also for a loving, compassionate attitude to those outside the Orthodox Faith.

I firmly believe that this is indeed what Orthodoxy teaches….

I will set forth briefly what I believe to be the Orthodox attitude towards non-Orthodox Christians.

1. Orthodoxy is the Church founded by Christ for the salvation of mankind, and therefore we should guard with our life the purity of its teaching and our own faithfulness to it. In the Orthodox Church alone is grace given through the sacraments (most other churches don’t even claim to have sacraments in any serious sense). The Orthodox Church alone is the Body of Christ, and if salvation is difficult enough within the Orthodox Church, how much more difficult must it be outside the Church!

2. However, it is not for us to define the state of those who are outside the Orthodox Church. If God wishes to grant salvation to some who are Christians in the best way they know, but without ever knowing the Orthodox Church—that is up to Him, not us. But when He does this, it is outside the normal way that He established for salvation—which is in the Church, as a part of the Body of Christ. I myself can accept the experience of Protestants being ‘born-again’ in Christ; I have met people who have changed their lives entirely through meeting Christ, and I cannot deny their experience just because they are not Orthodox. I call these people “subjective” or “beginning” Christians. But until they are united to the Orthodox Church they cannot have the fullness of Christianity, they cannot be objectively Christian as belonging to the Body of Christ and receiving the grace of the sacraments. I think this is why there are so many sects among them—they begin the Christian life with a genuine conversion to Christ, but they cannot continue the Christian life in the right way until they are united to the Orthodox Church, and they therefore substitute their own opinions and subjective experiences for the Church’s teaching and sacraments.

About those Christians who are outside the Orthodox Church, therefore, I would say: they do not yet have the full truth—perhaps it just hasn’t been revealed to them yet, or perhaps it is our fault for not living and teaching the Orthodox Faith in a way they can understand. With such people we cannot be one in the Faith, but there is no reason why we should regard them as totally estranged or as equal to pagans (although we should not be hostile to pagans either—they also haven’t yet seen the truth!). It is true that many of the non-Orthodox hymns contain a teaching or at least an emphasis that is wrong—especially the idea that when one is “saved” he does not need to do anything more because Christ has done it all. This idea prevents people from seeing the truth of Orthodoxy which emphasizes the idea of struggling for one’s salvation even after Christ has given it to us, as St. Paul says: Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling [Phil. 2:12]. But almost all of the religious Christmas carols are all right, and they are sung by Orthodox Christians in America (some of them in even the strictest monasteries!).

The word “heretic” (as we say in our article on Fr. Dimitry Dudko) is indeed used too frequently nowadays. It has a definite meaning and function, to distinguish new teachings from the Orthodox teaching; but few of the non-Orthodox Christians today are consciously “heretics,” and it really does no good to call them that.

In the end, I think, Fr. Dimitry Dudko’s attitude is the correct one: We should view the non-Orthodox as people to whom Orthodoxy has not yet been revealed, as people who are potentially Orthodox (if only we ourselves would give them a better example!). There is no reason why we cannot call them Christians and be on good terms with them, recognize that we have at least our faith in Christ in common, and live in peace especially with our own families. St. Innocent’s attitude to the Roman Catholics in California is a good example for us. A harsh, polemical attitude is called for only when the non-Orthodox are trying to take away our flocks or change our teaching.…

As for prejudices—these belong to people, not the Church. Orthodoxy does not require you to accept any prejudices or opinions about other races, nations, etc.

- Father Seraphim Rose: His Life and Works, Hieromonk Damascene (Christensen), St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 2010, Chapter 84.

 

St. Silouan the Athonite

Father Silouan’s attitude towards those who differed from him was characterised by a sincere desire to see what was good in them, and not to offend them in anything they held sacred. He always remained himself, he was utterly Convinced that ‘salvation lies in Christ-like humility’, and by virtue of this humility he strove with his whole soul to interpret every man at his best. He found his way to the heart of everyone to his capacity for loving Christ.

I remember a conversation he had with a certain Archimandrite who was engaged in missionary work. This Archimandrite thought highly of the Staretz and many a time went to see him during his visits to the Holy Mountain. The Staretz asked him what sort of sermons he preached to people. The Archimandrite, who was still young and inexperienced gesticulated with his hands and swayed his whole body, and replied excitedly, ‘I tell them, Your faith is all wrong, perverted. There is nothing right, and if you don’t repent, there will be no salvation for you.’

The Staretz heard him out, then asked, ‘Tell me, Father Archimandrite, do they believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, that He is the true God?’

‘Yes, that they do believe.’

‘And do they revere the Mother of God?’

‘Yes, but they are not taught properly about her.’

‘And what of the Saints?’

‘Yes, they honour them but since they have fallen away from the Church, what saints can they have?’

‘Do they celebrate the Divine Office in their churches? Do they read the Gospels?’

‘Yes, they do have churches and services but if you were to compare their services with ours—how cold and lifeless theirs are!’

‘Father Archimandrite, people feel in their souls when they are doing the proper thing, believing in Jesus Christ, revering the Mother of God and the Saints, whom they call upon in prayer, so if you condemn their faith they will not listen to you ... But if you were to confirm that they were doing well to believe in God and honour the Mother of God and the Saints; that they are right to go to church, and say their prayers at home, read the Divine word, and so on; and then gently point out their mistakes and show them what they ought to amend, then they would listen to you, and the Lord would rejoice over them. And this way by God’s mercy we shall all find salvation ... God is love, and therefore the preaching of His word must always proceed from love. Then both preacher and listener will profit. But if you do nothing but condemn, the soul of the people will not heed you, and no good will come of it.’

- Saint Silouan the Athonite, by Archimandrite Sophrony (Sakharov) (Essex, England: Stavropegic Monastery of St. John the Baptist, 1991), pp. 63-65.

 

Elder Porphyrios of Kafsokalyvia

“I was told that your Elder [St. Justin Popović] was a zealous man, a fighter, with a fiery nature. He gave his all for Christ. He was fearless towards everyone and towards the Communists also. Some of his spiritual children and admirers strive to emulate him in confrontations there [in Serbia]. They voice their opinions with very caustic words. But I would like to say the following.  He was a holy man, and as such, could act that way. But not the others, who albeit zealous, are inclined to confront their opposition and say ‘Let them cut off my head – I will remain steadfast and will not budge.’  It is easy to say ‘let them cut off my head’ – it is a good thing – but that is not how Christ’s labours should be undertaken.  Fr. Justin was something else. He had that Outspokenness; he could say things like that, but I don’t think that you should. I would advise you, Fr. Irinej [Bulović], to follow a somewhat different course. For Christ’s work to be achieved, so that even atheists, communists and others may be saved, you should not be confrontational with them. Do not stand up to them and do not provoke them.”

Well, you can imagine at my age at the time, and with my youthful euphoria, how those words sounded to me!  You see, we had that simple, black-and-white image of the prevailing situation: there are persecutors here – persecutors of the Church – and we are here to defend Her is what we believed. And now, all of a sudden, the Elder was reminding us that Christ also wants the salvation of those persecutors and enemies, as much as He wants ours and the others.

“Don’t say too many things”, he continued to advise me. “Don’t infuriate them, don’t make them your enemies, because that way, they will isolate you and you will not be able to do anything thereafter. Many will come there; they will create various problems for you, and they will say all sorts of things to you.  Do not reciprocate, do not try to defend yourself and give explanations about our faith. For as long as they are attacking you, you should remain silent and pray.  Pray secretly. Even if someone spits on the icon of Christ in front of you, you should remain silent.  Do not defend Christ. Christ does not need you to defend Him.  What do you think about all this?  Does Christ want atheists and communists to be saved also, or not?”

“Of course He does, Elder” I replied.

“Well, that is what Christ wants: for those who also deny Him to become acquainted with Him, so that they too might be saved.”

(…)

That atheist who spat on Christ’s image, may very well think to himself on his way home: “Imagine, I said all those things to that priest; I even spat on something so sacred to him, and yet, he never said a word; he never retaliated, even though he could have.” And it is not improbable that he might come and find you, and say: “I need you, for my soul”.  That way, it is quite possible that you might win him for Christ, and that is far more important than displaying heroism and outspokenness.  You should work secretly, noiselessly, and not become involved in politics.  Preach Christ. Speak only about Him.  That is the only way you will be of benefit to others – by saving people; even when you find yourself in the company of Christians who might be talking about different matters and expressing their own opinions, which you may not agree with or have another position, another opinion – and it may well be a better one. You should not seek to voice your opinion however. You can give your opinion, humbly, without imposing it on others, but only when asked for it. That is how people are best benefited. They will then say: “Did you notice how well he spoke? And if we hadn’t asked him, he would have kept silent.”

(…)

“Over there”, he said, “you also have heterodox and other religions. You must behave to everyone with subtlety, with love. Do not offend anyone. You must perceive and address all of them as brethren – even those who belong to other religions.  We are all children of the same Father.  Do not comment on the beliefs of those who belong to other religions.”

- Elder Porphyrios of Kafsokalyvia, How Should We Behave Towards Atheists or the Heterodox?, Sacred Monastery of Chrysopigi, Chania, Crete, 2008, pages 286-287, 297.