Apostasy of the Shepherds — Proselytization of the Faithful into the Pan-Heresy of Ecumenism (2017)

The Misunderstandings That Divide Orthodox Anti-Ecumenists

A Scandalized [Non-Commemorating] Athonite Monk

 

 

There is a great misunderstanding that the devil exploits in order to sow discord among us, divide us, and accomplish his work—that is, to reign supreme.

Elder Joseph the Hesychast withdrew from the Zealot factions and returned to the [commemorating] monasteries. Why did he do this?

Because, in 1950, the Zealot factions issued an encyclical condemning the Official Church, which followed the New Calendar, as heretical and its Mysteries as invalid.

This caused him to become troubled, to pray, and to see a vision in which he had strayed from Mount Athos and found himself on a rock, surrounded by waves and in danger of drowning. Consequently, he left the Zealots and returned to the Patriarchate. However, he did not commemorate the Patriarch, for the Patriarchate is one thing, and the Patriarch is another.

When the Patriarch openly preaches heretical views, “with bared head,” you separate yourself from him, but not from the Church. This is precisely what Elder Joseph did when he saw that the Zealots were separating themselves not only from the heretical Patriarch, but also from the Church itself, which they declared heretical, and were establishing other churches—factions—each of which rejected the others. The holy Elder Paisios acted likewise: he ceased commemorating the Patriarch, but did not join the factions to quarrel over their leaders.

Thus, even now, we separate ourselves from the heretical Patriarch Bartholomew and do not commemorate him, but we do not establish a Church of our own. We remain within the Church and beseech God to send an Orthodox Patriarch who will condemn the heresy of Ecumenism and all the innovators within the Church, both clergy and theologians.

Elder Joseph did not commemorate the Patriarch until the end of his life, and all the monasteries associated with his brotherhood (his disciples) likewise refrained from commemorating the Patriarch until 1973. However, in that year, a delegation from the Patriarchate declared on Mount Athos that whoever did not commemorate the Patriarch would be deposed, and thus they began commemorating him. Other Abbots who refused to commemorate him were deposed, such as Andrew of St. Paul’s Monastery, Athanasios of Gregoriou Monastery, Evdokimos of Xenophontos Monastery, and Athanasios of Esphigmenou Monastery. Only Esphigmenou Monastery continued to refrain from commemorating the Patriarch.

Whether they did right or wrong in preferring commemoration to deposition, and the growth of monasticism to the confession of Faith, let God be the judge.

What matters now is that we have the Ecumenists, who are all united, while we Anti-Ecumenists are all divided.

Let us all unite in our Orthodox Faith and pray that God will remove from His flock all the tares that are choking the ears of wheat He has sown.

Let us expose to the people of God the great apostasy of the Shepherds from God, the proselytization of the faithful into the pan-heresy of Ecumenism, and the deceitfulness of the Council of Crete, which introduced the heresy of Ecumenism into the Orthodox Church on a pan-Orthodox and conciliar basis.

 

Greek source: https://paterikiparadosi.blogspot.com/2017/06/blog-post_72.html

 

 

Keeping the Faith in the Midst of a Crisis (2020)

An Informative Gathering of Clergy and Monastics

May 1, 2020 (Old Style)

 

On Thursday, May 1, 2020 (Old Style), His Eminence, Metro­politan Cyprian invited the clergy of the Holy Metropolis of Oropos and Phyle, representatives from the Metropolis' three convents, and members of the Board of Directors of the St. Phil­aret the Merciful Guild for an Informative Gathering, following the partial lifting of the [COVID-19] restrictive measures in Greece.

His Eminence also invited his fellow monastics, Their Graces, Bishop Ambrose of Methone and Bishop Klemes of Gardikion, who had remained at the Monastery throughout the duration of the lockdown, supporting those near and far in a variety of ways.

The gathering took place in the reception hall of the Monastery of Sts. Cyprian and Justina and lasted three hours (7-10 p.m.).

* * *

Metropolitan Cyprian greeted those in attendance, express­ing his joy at this “familial” gathering, the first of its kind follow­ing the recognition of the Legal Entity of our Holy Metropolis and the social isolation necessitated by the restrictive measures.

His Eminence then asked Bishop Klemes to give a brief sum­mary of events: the emergence of the tribulation caused by the pan­demic, the measures taken by the State, the meetings and encyclicals of our Holy Synod, and the pasto­ral, liturgical, and mysteriological care of the faithful during the lockdown.

His Grace spoke about the consistent efforts of our Hierarchs to help the clergy and faithful to cultivate a spiritual under­standing of the crisis, exhorting them to constant prayer, re­pentance, and the cultivation of an ecclesiastical mindset, such that they might ultimately experience the tribulation as a blessing.

The spiritual Fathers in attendance confirmed that many of the faithful who had followed the exhortations of our Hierarchs acknowledged that, on a personal level, they had experienced “the best Great Lent,” and even “the best Pascha” of their lives.

This observation did not, of course, negate the necessity on behalf of the synodal body to defend the legal liberties and rights of our Church, as well as to express its protest regarding certain extreme decisions made by the State. To this end, our Holy Synod sent letters to the Prime Minister and competent government ministers, which were also published on the official website of our Holy Synod.

Agitation and psychological distress, on the other hand, were experienced by those of the faithful who allowed the barrage of conflicting information from the media to overwhelm their lives, which sometimes led them to take extreme actions and to express criticism of the Hierarchs, suspicions, baseless rumors, and so on.

* * *

After thanking Bishop Klemes, Metropolitan Cyprian turned the attention of those present to the spiritual messages of the cur­rent tribulation, which he characterized as a “test,” and perhaps even a “dress rehearsal” for a future persecution of the Church; this trial was permitted by God's Providence in order to ascertain how we act personally in times of crisis. Let us ask ourselves, how did each of us behave during this time?

His Eminence made reference to numerous instances from the history of the Church, which demonstrate that at every great crisis—persecution, emergence of heresies, and so on—there is a danger of divisions and schisms when the clergy and laypeople do not cultivate an ecclesiastical mindset, and subsequently lose their trust in their Shepherds and Synods, and take matters into their own hands. In particular, Metropolitan Cyprian related the following two examples:

• During the great crisis that rocked the lo­cal Church of Carthage during the years of the Holy Hieromartyr Cyprian († September 14, 258) with regard to how to deal with the lapsi (those who had denied Christ out of fear of torture dur­ing the Decian persecution, and who wished to be accepted again into the Church), opinions were divided between those who advocated extreme severity and those who called for great leniency.

St. Cyprian did not reach a decision by himself, but rather convoked a Synod at Carthage in the year 251, which validated his moderate approach: readmission of the lapsed after a period of active repentance.

The extremists, disagreeing with the decision of the Synod, did not trust their Shepherd and the other members of the Synod, and caused schisms that greatly afflicted the local Church.

• Likewise, during the persecution under Diocletian, the Holy Hieromartyr Peter of Alexandria (†November 24, 311) en­countered the fierce opposition of the Meletians, who accused him of cowardice (since he had gone into hiding) and of show­ing excessive lenience towards the lapsed. Moreover, the Me­letians urged the faithful to seek martyrdom by handing them­selves over of their own volition to the idolatrous rulers.

From prison, the Holy Hierarch sent an Epistle on Repentance, in which he set forth guidelines and prohibitions regarding these matters based on examples from the Holy Scriptures. This epistle subsequently received synodal ratification (divided into fourteen canons).

The Saint entrusted the resolution of the issue to the Syn­odal system: a Synod in 305 condemned Bishop Meletius, but he and his followers did not accept the synodal decision.

Yet again, self-assurance and contempt of the Synodal sys­tem brought about the creation of the Meletian schism, which plagued the local Church for many years.

* * *

Metropolitan Cyprian urged us to understand the messages of these examples for the confrontation of the current trial:

• Let us keep prayerful vigilance, with the utmost trust in the will of God.

• Let us not drive away the spirit of repentance and of in­ner peace derived from the Grace of the Holy Spirit.

• Let us take care to act collectively, with an ecclesiastical mindset, with trust in, and unity with, our Bishop and Holy Synod.

• Yes, we may have our opinions, but let us avoid explosive proclamations and actions, as well as unprofitably “playing the hero.”

• Let us be careful that our zeal remain within the bounds of humility and our speech impart faith, peace, and consolation, not turmoil and bitterness.

• Let us preserve a compassionate attitude towards everyone.

In conclusion, His Eminence reminded us of the Thirty-Ninth Apostolic Canon: “Let Presbyters and Deacons not carry out any­thing without the knowledge of the Bishop; for he it is who is entrusted with the people of the Lord, and of whom will be required the account of their souls,” as well as the pertinent exhortations of St. Ignatios the God-bearer.

* * *

Metropolitan Cyprian then asked the clergy to describe how they ministered to the pastoral and mysteriological needs of the faithful during the lockdown.

The clergy noted that the deprivation of liturgical life in the Church brought many of our faithful to self-reproach, a deeper understanding of the gift of Church attendance, and repentance for their previous negligence or carelessness in that regard.

The clergy also pointed out the dangers of unwise use of the media. In particular, we have seen yet again that the Internet, which is in some ways a very useful tool in the present tribu­lation—e.g., for broadcasting services and the pastoral care of those near and far—at times became a means of transmitting among the faithful those things that are generated by a non-ec­clesiastical mindset: fears, confusion, disrespect, agitation, etc.

Finally, in view of the partial lifting of the restrictive mea­sures beginning on the Sunday of the Samaritan Woman, His Eminence gave general instructions of a practical nature.

All present expressed their joy and gratitude for this gather­ing, and also their wish that such meetings may take place again in the future, though, to be sure, under happier circumstances.

 

Source: https://www.imoph.org/pdfs/2020/05/19/E20200519aSynaxis2020-05.pdf

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