In Old Calendarist History: A Zealot Walling-Off from the G.O.C. (1975)

A Declaration of Athonite Monks

Concerning: a) the contemporary canonical irregularities and inconsistencies in the sacred struggle of the Genuine Orthodox Christians (G.O.C.) of Greece; b) the measures required for the restoration of its prestige; and c) the impending division of its Ecclesiastical Leadership.

March 25, 1975 | Mount Athos

 

 

“And if a man also strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned,
except he strive lawfully.”

With great and lively interest, we have been following the division within the leadership of the G.O.C. of Greece, which began already a year ago, and whose dramatic scenes and phases are presented to its readership by the militant periodical Orthodoxos Logos. The feelings aroused in us by the above dispute are mixed: sorrow, on the one hand, at the banishment of the blessing of peace and unity from among the Hierarchs of the sacred struggle; and, on the other, the beginnings of satisfaction, in the hope that a leadership more capable in every respect may emerge, worthy of its past and of its flock, as well as of the critical nature of the historic times through which we are passing. The contents in particular of the January–February issue of this year of Orthodoxos Logos constitute a vivid and most accurate picture of the feelings set forth above. Among its brighter aspects are not only the presence of a select body of laity at the side of the four Bishops [i.e., Metropolitans Chrysostomos (Kiousis) of Thessaloniki, Akakios of Diavleia, and Gabriel of the Cyclades, with Bishop Petros of Astoria], who, as they maintain, desire the restoration of the prestige of the Church of the Genuine Orthodox, but also the decisions of the Thessaloniki conference of January 20, 1975, which simply and sincerely point out to all the ulcer and the hemorrhaging of the great patient...

All the paragraphs of the resolution of the conference in question find us in complete agreement, and we rejoice particularly because, after nearly three decades, self-criticism is being undertaken vigorously and sincerely, with sufficient grounds for a return to the path of canonical order and good order. Unfortunately, however, there are also unfortunate aspects in the picture and situation described above which—and we say this with great sorrow—unless they are duly eliminated through correction, will not only render the above efforts fruitless, but positively harmful, adding evil upon evil and confusion upon confusion. We shall explain.

The Scriptural sayings are very well known: “Physician, heal thyself,” and “if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.” In other words, an indispensable prerequisite for anyone undertaking moral purification and the restoration of canonical good order in the Church is that he himself be pure and above reproach; that is, not only that he refrain from participating in the sins and canonical irregularities which he proposes to correct—at least during the period of this sacred undertaking—but also from every other kind of transgression, even a single one, since, according to Scripture, “he that offendeth in one point is guilty of all.” Only under such prerequisites and conditions can the purification being undertaken readily provide the faithful with the necessary guarantees that it is a sincere effort, whose results will certainly be beneficial and in the interests of the Church. On this crucial point, with great sorrow and sincerity, we wish to set forth the following three basic and fundamental conditions.

1. Communion with the Russian Church Abroad

The sacred struggle of the G.O.C. of Greece was formed and continues to exist because its purpose is to preserve itself aloof from every uncanonical and anti-traditional theory and practice—that is, aloof from the fall of the “Orthodox” Churches of today—in order precisely to safeguard the uninnovated character and genuineness of the sacred deposit handed down to us. We ask, however: Is it possible to achieve this so long as the communion of the G.O.C. with the Russian Church Abroad continues, which, as has now been conclusively demonstrated—although itself having no part in the calendar innovation—nevertheless continues to maintain communion with Churches which indiscriminately commune with or accept both the calendar innovation and the most grievous ecumenist heresy of our age? When the Primate of the above Church RECEIVES COMMUNION from the Chalice of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, while its sacred establishments there COMMEMORATE Patriarch Benedict in their divine services to this very day, how is it possible, we repeat, for us to regard Philaret as being in communion with us and virtually first among the Hierarchy of the Genuine Orthodox Bishops, while regarding Benedict as one with whom we have no communion and as an ecumenist!... What could be more inconsistent than this, and more capable of rendering the entire sacred cause of the struggle reprehensible—not to say an exploitation—in the eyes of our elders? When will it finally be understood that, so long as the above communion is maintained, the present leaders of the struggle can in no way claim that they are continuing the line of their ever-memorable leader and predecessor, the holy Chrysostomos [of Florina], and that they therefore worthily represent the sacred struggle, since the ever-memorable hierarch maintained no communion of this kind whatsoever with any of the Orthodox Churches? The use of double standards should be, and indeed is, a characteristic of the ecumenists alone, but never of those who desire to pride themselves on being Genuine Orthodox Christians...

2. The Recent Transmission of the Matthewite Error

From 1937 until today, the unsound proclamation that Grace was lost on account of the calendar innovation has caused innumerable evils within the ranks of the G.O.C. The most distressing thing in this connection, however, is that the present leadership of the struggle, having completely disregarded and scorned the abundant experience furnished by the sorrowful past in this matter, as well as the recent canonical recommendations made in order to prevent its repetition, has lately proceeded to issue the well-known Encyclical No. 1191 of June 5, 1974, in which the erroneous mindset of Matthew, which from the outset had doomed the sacred struggle, is repeated—this time with Archbishop Auxentios as its chief exponent!

Consequently, the present leadership of the G.O.C. of Greece under the aforementioned hierarch, Archbishop Auxentios, HAS NOW CEASED TO REPRESENT OUR SACRED STRUGGLE, since it has completely abandoned the original genuine spirit and purpose which, for so many consecutive years (1937–1947), the hierarchs gathered around the former Metropolitan of Florina—the leading founders of the struggle—steadfastly followed and by which they shepherded the people of God. IT HAS CEASED, we say, and can no longer lay claim to its SUCCESSION and LEADERSHIP, since it has become in every respect assimilated to Matthew, the originator of the schism among the G.O.C., while remaining, entirely without justification, separated from his successors. For through the above Encyclical it has done nothing other than embrace in its entirety his erroneous mindset, which was also the original and sole cause of the division of the pleroma of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece.

And Matthew—irrespective of his erroneous conception—was sincere in his beliefs, since from 1937 onward he was in communion with no Orthodox Church whatsoever. Thus, standing alone in the midst of the “graceless” New Calendarists and the Old Calendarists who, because of their communion with them, were gravely culpable and condemnable, he had the right, on the basis of his convictions, to proclaim as correct that which he believed and consistently put into practice, regardless of the fact that, following the “laying-on of hands” of his successors, his faction continues to this day, through the Russian Church Abroad, to be in communion even with New Calendarists! The Synod around Archbishop Auxentios, however, by means of its latest Encyclical, while accepting the Matthewite mindset and at the same time remaining in communion with the Russian Church Abroad, displays neither consistency nor sincerity, since it believes one thing, acts differently, and finally preaches the opposite! This contradictory policy inevitably places it within the following tragic dilemma: either it accepts the Encyclical of 1950, in which case it automatically renders itself liable to deposition, since the consecration it received was performed—according to the Encyclical of 1950—by uncanonical hierarchs who were themselves liable to deposition because of their communion with the impious New Calendarists; or it rejects that Encyclical, together with the similar recent Encyclical of 1974, as well as its communion with the Russian Church Abroad, in which case, and only then, is it entitled to shepherd the Orthodox flock of the G.O.C. of Greece, which desires to have a leadership that is above reproach and canonical.

Consequently, if those undertaking the work of purification and reorganization of the affairs of the Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians do not properly perceive and assess the immense damage inflicted upon the prestige of the sacred struggle by their recent Encyclical and by the matters mentioned above, we regret to say—but are obliged to declare—that they are building upon sand, concerning themselves only with the embellishment of their future edifice while disregarding its foundations! We insist upon this point because the Encyclical published in the aforementioned issue of Orthodoxos Logos equivocates in the clearest possible manner, by referring simultaneously both to the relevant decision of the Russian Church Abroad concerning the Mysteries and to “the principles and convictions” of Chrysostomos of blessed memory! For who is unaware that the departed leader, despite his firm and unwavering opposition for a full decade (1937–1947) to the erroneous Matthewite mindset, ultimately, under various moral pressures from his associates and from certain “ignorant super-Orthodox” members of his flock, accepted—at least in writing only, in the Encyclicals of 1948 and 1950—the aforementioned erroneous mindset? (For details, see Monk Theodoretos, The Calendar Schism, p. 15 ff.)

How, then, is it possible for it to interpret the Creed of the struggle in this manner, when even the Keratea faction can very easily shelter behind what it has written?... Is it possible for nectar and vinegar, milk and water, to flow from the same spring? For this reason, we firmly believe, as we have emphasized on other occasions as well, that those among the Chrysostomites—clergy and laity—who accept the beliefs of the Matthewites and unite with them will render a very great service to the sacred struggle. What service? Quite simply, they will help to bring together at last, in one faction, all those who hold and proclaim the condemnable mindset of Matthew, so that those who disagree may form the other faction, possessing a healthy mindset and confession of faith. Thus, through the above realignment, the division of the Old Calendarists will at last be justified not only canonically but also logically, and there will cease to exist not only the present grotesque situation of divided factions which nevertheless hold the same mindset and beliefs, but also the inexcusable exploitation and inconsistency being perpetrated to the detriment of the sacred struggle!

Consequently, unless this FALL of the otherwise noble and great blessed Chrysostomos is clearly REPUDIATED, the above four Most Reverend Hierarchs accomplish nothing! We write “fall,” and indeed a grave one, because, whereas according to his own declarations he undertook the sacred struggle with the purpose of curbing the extremes into which the calendar struggle was lapsing after being left without pastoral guidance, in the end he himself, yielding to the pressures and opinions of others, invested the above canonical irregularities with prestige and authority through his Encyclicals of 1948 and 1950, thereby demolishing the beautiful edifice which, with innumerable labors, he had built up over the course of an entire decade! Consequently, the declaration of the four Hierarchs that they follow the “principles and convictions” of the ever-memorable Chrysostomos is something akin to the policy pursued by Kaningos 32, which from 1960 until today has vacillated according to expediency and circumstances! Proof of what we are saying is furnished by its consecrations, its communion with the Russian Church Abroad, and the introductory remarks to the recently circulated Encyclical No. 1191, signed by Archbishop Auxentios, which state at one point as follows: “In the first part of the present booklet we publish, on the one hand, the Encyclical of the former Holy Synod of our Church, whose President was our ever-memorable Archbishop and Confessor, the former Metropolitan of Florina, Chrysostomos, and, on the other hand, the pastoral Encyclical recently issued by us, through which the Orthodox confession of faith is proclaimed with boldness and clarity, a confession which must be one and the same, identical and common to every clergyman and layman struggling within our Church.” In other words, it is as though they were saying—to recall for a moment the folk wisdom of our people, suitably adapting one of its sayings—“Do you want Grace? Take it; do you want the loss of Grace? Take that too”...

Consequently, the four Hierarchs, as well as all their collaborators, must clearly understand that half-measures no longer have any place in this matter, nor are they even permissible! It is therefore imperative that they make the clearest possible repudiation not only of the latest Encyclical, which unfortunately also bears their signatures—with the exception of that of the Bishop of Astoria [Petros]—but also of its precursor, the Encyclical of 1950, if they wish in this respect to differ from their remaining colleagues at Kaningos 32, who have now become Matthewites... No timidity or fear should possess them lest those who oppose them call them traitors and babblers on account of this stance, as they have lately been doing so profusely, precisely for lack of any other canonical and theological arguments. This has been and will remain the method employed by the sons of error and falsehood against truth and light when confronted with sound criticism. If the Synod around Archbishop Auxentios persists in its positions and in its Ieronymos-style systems of administration, and especially in its teaching concerning the loss of Grace, this gives the aforementioned Bishops and their collaborators, clergy and laity alike, every right henceforth to repudiate the Matthewite situation represented at Kaningos 32, in order to preserve the sacred baton handed down to them, even at the last moment.

The division of the faithful which will necessarily arise will, moreover, constitute the beginning of the final purification of the pleroma of the G.O.C. of Greece, with the only way open to the Auxentian Synod being the road leading to... Keratea, as we have already indicated since 1973... Certainly, some of the faithful, not being properly acquainted with the facts, will follow this course as well; no one should be distressed on this account. It will be a salutary realignment, since immediately thereafter a considerable number of New Calendarist faithful will join the ranks of the sacred struggle—people who until today had refrained from doing so precisely because of the erroneous teaching concerning the Mysteries. Furthermore, we personally believe that beneficial cooperation will soon be achieved with leading figures and members of the New Calendar, who, desiring to free themselves from responsibility for the condemnable course of their Church, will with great joy behold the canonical restoration of the sacred struggle of the Church of the G.O.C. of Greece.

* * *

Here, with sorrow, we consider it our duty to add that a considerable number of today’s Zealot Athonite Fathers, instead of continuing the work of their predecessors, those pioneers of the sacred struggle, on the contrary imitate them wholly indiscriminately—not their virtues and the rich experience gained through their struggles, but whatever was spurious and uncanonical that, together with the baton of the struggle, they left to them as an unfortunate legacy owing to their limited education. For this reason, no prophetic gift is required to foresee that the aforementioned monks will oppose this regenerative and salutary movement, should God ever be pleased that it come into being under the conditions and with the aims set forth above. To confirm our suspicions, it is enough to note the fact that, although several months have passed since the circulation of the condemnable Encyclical, they have taken no courageous action against it. On the contrary, some of them, through culpable silence, and others through scandalous activity in support of the mindset of the Auxentian Synod, are seeking once again to become responsible for, and advocates of, the propagation of the erroneous Matthewite mindset, which they are now attempting to revive and establish as the Creed and Statutory Charter of the struggle!!

And while Archbishop Auxentios writes to them in a personal letter dated February 2, 1975, which was also recently published in The Voice of Orthodoxy (Issue 709, p. 9), that “whoever does not accept this Encyclical is not an Old Calendarist, but deceives and exploits the Old Calendarists,” not one of those who disagreed dared to say to him: “We are Old Calendarists, and we reject your Encyclical; and we fraternally urge you to go to Keratea, where you belong”!

The most distressing thing, however, is that the same may also be observed in their attitude toward the continuing culpable communion—on the basis of what has been said above—of the leadership of the G.O.C. with the Russian Church Abroad. For although the Zealot Athonite Fathers here have been struggling heroically since 1924 against every form of innovation and false teaching, and for this reason have even severed ecclesiastical communion with their superior ecclesiastical authorities, nevertheless they have shown no corresponding concern or zeal regarding the aforementioned canonical irregularities, thereby rendering, as it were, their own struggle and confession vain and fruitless. Thus, these otherwise praiseworthy Fathers appear timid and speechless before those who undermine the struggle and exploit its healthy mindset, forgetting, surely, that such conduct inevitably places them, on the one hand, on the same footing as the schismatic conventicle of the Matthewites and, on the other, brings them into communion with those very persons whom they repudiated whole decades ago...

As for the conduct of the Zealots described above—fortunately, not of all of them—we were not greatly surprised, since we know well that in 1937 they too were the principal supporters of the Matthewite schism. We are perplexed, however, by the stance of the Holy Monastery of Esphigmenou, which, despite the fact that nearly a year has elapsed since the issuance of the Encyclical by the leadership at Kaningos 32, and despite its continuing communion with the Russian Church Abroad—as we also emphasized above—continues, wholly without justification, to aggravate its position through an impermissible silence and indifference, thereby compromising the prestige of its praiseworthy anti-unionist confession.

3. The Scandalous Uncanonical Practice of Unmarried Clergy Residing in Convents

As we observed at the outset, notwithstanding our agreement with all the articles of the resolution of the conference held in Thessaloniki, let us be permitted to point out here one most serious omission: namely, its failure to condemn the residence (including overnight stays) of unmarried clergy in convents—the practice of the syneisaktoi. Moral purification can never be achieved so long as this unlawful practice continues, which, according to the testimony of competent persons, keeps the sacred clergy in a state of continual corruption and decline.

A clergyman who is constantly moving about among nuns can accomplish nothing good! The words of the sacred Canons and the Holy Fathers on this matter are perfectly clear, and every justification offered by those who think and live otherwise testifies to nothing other than the existing malady, which, the more it is concealed and justified under countless and varied pretexts, the more clearly reveals both its seriousness and the grievous condition of its victims. A bishop, and indeed every clergyman in general, must devote all his diligence, care, and dedication wholeheartedly and equally to his entire flock, and not restrict and expend them upon a monastery which, to the scandal of the faithful, in violation of the sacred Canons, and—more tragically still—to the neglect of the general duties of his Diocese and Church, he has made his base and residence!

Consequently, the continuation of the above canonical irregularity can bring about not purification, but moral decline and the complete collapse of the prestige of the sacred struggle, as is clearly demonstrated by an assessment of its fruitless and corrupting results.

Concluding Remarks — Conclusions

These are the observations we wished to make briefly and in all sincerity, as spokesmen for God, concerning the existing inconsistencies and canonical irregularities and the painful crisis in the leadership of the struggle. We would add, finally, that if those who, as they maintain, desire the purification and regeneration of the Church of the G.O.C. succeed in implementing, together with what was proclaimed by the Thessaloniki conference, the above three fundamental requirements as well, then they may rest assured that, even if their fellow hierarchs ultimately reject the hand of cooperation so fraternally extended to them, they have every right and obligation to proceed with the completion of the reorganization of the struggle, BUT ALWAYS UNDER THE ABOVE THREE BASIC CONDITIONS, which alone are capable of demonstrating the degree of sincerity in their declarations. Any reaction or movement on their  part lacking the healthy and indispensable elements described above will contribute nothing to the sacred cause of the Old Calendarist movement except the creation of a harmful and culpable schism—a situation new in name only, while in reality it will be the same malady...

Nor should the pious pleroma (clergy and laity, and especially the holy monasteries) fail to realize that, if it shows partiality or remains silent in the face of such a critical situation, or fails to take care to inform itself and, to the best of its ability, to defend the truth in this matter without any ulterior motive or personality cult, it will not remain free from responsibility and guilt! For it is precisely the indifference of the flock that, as always happens, emboldens bad leaders and thus makes the flock itself an accomplice, allowing error and lawlessness to persist—just as is happening to a great extent with the New Calendarist people, who today, after the uncanonical calendar innovation, are reaping the fruits of the ecumenist tempest...

FOR THESE REASONS

Just as, years ago, we duly acted toward our local superior ecclesiastical authority, to which we canonically belong, on account both of the calendar innovation and of the contemporary false teaching of Ecumenism, so now also we consider it incumbent upon us to declare by the present statement that:

We sever all ecclesiastical communion with the Hierarchy of the Church of the G.O.C. of Greece under Archbishop Auxentios—which until today we regarded as being in communion with us—on account of its deviation and fall from canonical order and from the purpose of the sacred struggle, as has been sufficiently set forth in sections 1 and 2 above. Henceforth we shall commune only with those among its clergy and laity who, not accepting the above canonical irregularities, will cooperate in accordance with the positions set forth in the present Declaration.

We believe that the Builder of the Church, Who at the outset blessed the sacred struggle through various signs, both manifest and hidden, will not ultimately permit it today—when heresy is brazenly raising its head—to be ingloriously destroyed on account of its unworthy leaders, but will soon raise up men of aspiration and prudence, capable and worthy of shepherding the elect remnant of the new Israel of Grace. These may come from the ranks of the New Calendar or the Old Calendar respectively, but with one desire and one longing: to preserve the uninnovated character and genuineness of the Orthodox proclamation, far removed from every adulteration or exploitation of sacred and holy things...

Finally, greeting in the Lord everyone who embraces this Declaration of ours, we pray that the Lord our God may soon raise up our sacred struggle from its fall, once again to the glory of His Name and of the Church, “which He hath purchased with His own blood” (Acts 20:28).

On the Holy Mountain, March 25, 1975

Hieromonk Maximos
Monk Kallinikos
Monk Theodoretos
Monk Basil

 

Greek source: Ὀρθόδοξος Λόγος, Athens, No. 14, May 1975.

Who Are “Within the Church”? An Exchange Between Fr. Theodoretos (Mavros) and theologian Nikolaos Sotiropoulos

(From the Greek periodical, The Hagiorite, written and published by the ever-memorable Hieromonk Theodoretos [Mavros], Issue 8, September–October 1994 edition.)

 

 

 

A few months ago, the well-known spiritual father of the Sinai desert, Fr Adrian, repudiated the ecumenism of the New Calendar and joined the Church of the Old Calendar, after having ascertained in practice as well the erroneous teachings of today’s bishops of “Orthodoxy.” This, as was natural, did not please many New Calendarists, both clergy and lay theologians, since it calls their course into question and leaves them exposed before their spiritual children, who will rightly wonder what is happening.

For this reason, the periodical The Cross published an extensive comment (Aug. 1994, p. 134), observing with regard to Fr Adrian that “he did not exhaust all the means available.” In the writer’s opinion, before breaking communion with the Church of the New Calendar, he ought “to have sent circular letters to Christians throughout the world, in which he would have denounced the drift toward ecumenism of those persons who ought to have been guardians of the Orthodox faith.” The writer’s proposal concerning written protest had been employed extensively by those who, for many years, had struggled against erroneous teaching, and it produced no result; only the breaking of communion troubles them and exposes them. Thus, Fr Adrian preferred the path of action. To this end, he visited Australia and Canada, where the Greek diaspora flourishes, in order to denounce the heresy. The result? He was immediately expelled by the “Orthodox” archbishops and bishops of those regions!

For this reason, having perceived that they had by now become hardened, in the words of the divine Paul, he decided to safeguard himself by walling himself off and joining the ranks of the Old Calendarists.

Saint Theodore the Studite, whom The Cross cites as a struggler “within the Church,” applied an economy that was sufficiently strict even in the matter of the emperor’s unlawful marriage alone, breaking communion with all those chiefly responsible for the adulterous union and with those in communion with them. During the period of the Iconoclast heresy, however, the break in communion was universal: no Iconophile communed with the Iconoclasts, since the opposing sides were clearly divided, and everyone who confessed faith in and reverence for the holy icons was relentlessly persecuted. This was the situation in the Church of Byzantium. There were, however, other Local Churches and Patriarchates that did not participate in the heresy and that remained in communion with the Iconophiles.

Today, however, matters are far worse than during the Iconoclast period. The Pentarchy of the Patriarchates and all the Autocephalous Churches are in communion and cooperate with one another, persecuting those who resist the heresy of Ecumenism. Consequently, the only path remaining for anyone who wishes to remain uninvolved in the heresy and in condemned communion is the path of walling-off and communion with the Churches of the Old Calendar. The venerable tradition of Orthodoxy and the sacred Canons approve the above stance, regarding those who act in this manner as “worthy of honor”!

Unfortunately, the editors of The Cross, despite all that has been written over the course of thirty years, persist in maintaining that they can be Orthodox, like the confessors of the past, while at the same time remaining in communion with all the Churches that teach error or are in communion with such error! They call this a struggle “within the walls of the Church,” whereas it means precisely the opposite: they are within error and outside the truth! There were also certain abbots in the time of Saint Theodore who, possessing their monasteries and commemorating the heretics, thought that they were doing something pleasing to God and exercising discernment, just as the editors of The Cross do. To them the Venerable Father wrote:

“And now permit me, most honored Father, to speak more freely. You are not without responsibility simply because you were arrested by the emperor’s men and nevertheless remained free... If, after your arrest, your reverence suffered none of the things mentioned above [that is, the torments to which the faithful were subjected], forgive me, but you were deceived, brother. And do not justify yourself to me by saying that you are preserving the churches and the sacred images in the temples unharmed, as well as the commemoration of the Patriarch. Others who have fallen babble the same things. These things cannot be preserved unless there has been a betrayal of the Orthodox confession. For, I ask you, what benefit is there if we, who are called and are the temple of God, have been destroyed [through failure to confess the faith], while we take care of lifeless temples?… Alas! Others are dying, others are being exiled, others are being scourged, others are being imprisoned; others are being given refuge by the mountains, the deserts, the rocks, and the caves; and we, remaining in our homes, imagine that we shall remain unharmed. By no means…”

“I have said these things out of love for you and as a reminder that those who act in this way are deserving of punishment…” (P.G. 99, 1365 A–C).

And to Abbot Theophilos:

“...And you, most wretched man, having been ensnared by soul-destroying communion and remaining in that place of destruction—for so it should be called, and not a monastery—say that all is well... And what brethren have you preserved, when you have corrupted them through your destructive communion, even if you have kept them supplied with food? A scandal to the world, an example of denial, an incitement to perdition, flesh and not spirit, darkness and not light...” (Ibid., 1337 C).

Behold how the true Fathers of the past thought and acted, and above all the great Theodore, whom Fr Justin Popović regards as the “fearless confessor of the theanthropic truths.” Blessed are those who humbly imitate his course; truly wretched, however, are those who distort his words in order to justify their remaining in the heresy...

* * *

“Who Are ‘Within the Church’?”

(From the periodical, The Cross, Issue no. 391, November–December 1994)

 

The Old Calendarist hieromonk Fr Theodoretos Mavros criticized our comment entitled “He Did Not Exhaust the Means Available” (August 1994 issue, p. 134). That comment concerned the well-known spiritual father of the Sinai desert, Fr Adrian, who abandoned that spiritual outpost and joined the respected Old Calendarist group of Fr Cyprian of Phyle and Oropos. His criticism was published in the periodical The Hagiorite (Issue 8), which he himself publishes, under the title “Who Are ‘Within the Church’?”

In this text, Fr Theodoretos, using excerpts from letters of Saint Theodore the Studite, attempts to demonstrate “who are within erroneous teaching and outside the truth.” And, in his opinion, these are those of us who follow the New Calendar.

At first, we thought of replying on the theoretical level. Since, however, every argument admits of a counterargument, we avoided that temptation. Besides, toward the end of the above-mentioned text, Fr Theodoretos himself refutes what he has written, since, in support of his assertions, he cites the opinion of the great Serbian theologian of our century, the blessed Fr Justin Popović, writing as follows: “Behold how the true Fathers of the past thought and acted, and above all the great Theodore, whom Fr Justin Popović regards as the ‘fearless confessor of the theanthropic truths.’”

An Answer to Himself

It would perhaps be sufficient to stop here and not continue developing our thoughts, since the passage just quoted constitutes, for those who know the persons and circumstances involved, an answer by Fr Theodoretos to himself. For those, however, who are unfamiliar with Fr Justin Popović, we note the following. Fr Justin Popović had studied the Fathers of the Orthodox Eastern Church as deeply as very few others had, and Saint Theodore the Studite in particular. And since the ever-memorable Father united theory and practice in his life, we would have expected him to have walled himself off and to have had no communion either with the Patriarchate of the Serbian Church or, consequently, with the other Patriarchates. Nevertheless, he did not wall himself off, but fought his battle within the bosom of the Church, being among the first to combat the heresy of Ecumenism and to characterize it as a “pan-heresy.” Are we to suppose that Fr Justin failed to understand the deeper meaning of the words and deeds of Saint Theodore the Studite, that “fearless confessor of the theanthropic truths”? We dare not even whisper such blasphemy.

Then the Lord also granted our Church men endowed with spiritual sight, among whom were the ever-memorable Elders Porphyrios and Paisios. These grace-filled Elders never advised those who followed the New Calendar to wall themselves off, “safeguarding themselves through walling-off and joining the ranks of the Old Calendarists.” The reason is self-evident.

But let us also turn to those Elders who possess the gift of spiritual fatherhood. There are Old Calendarist spiritual fathers who hear the confessions of New Calendarist faithful without regarding them as heretics or compelling them to wall themselves off. And, so as not to create friction within the most sympathetic ranks of the Old Calendarists, we shall refer to two departed spiritual fathers, Fr Neophytos Kalofountis and Fr Niphon Astyfides, beneath whose epitrachelia many New Calendarist souls found spiritual rest. Indeed, during the first years of the schism, Fr Neophytos followed a strict policy toward New Calendarists and would not receive them for confession, until the Lord Himself rebuked him, saying: “Why are you driving away My children?”

Bringing our reflections to a close, we have this, in conclusion, to say to our beloved Fr Theodoretos, who, admittedly, has struggled for thirty years, including with his pen, in defense of the sacred things of our faith:

Reverend Father, Fr Justin and the other Fathers did not regard the safeguarding of the salvation of New Calendarists as consisting in their walling themselves off from the Church and joining one of the Old Calendarist groups, as Fr Adrian did. We do not know whether this has ever occupied your thoughts. You, of course, defend what you write on each occasion, armed with the learning you have acquired through studying the thought of the Fathers of our Church. But perhaps, in addition to this, you also need something else—something that will bring into harmony within you the thought of the Fathers with the God-pleasing way of life of the aforementioned holy men. Examine this.

* * *

Contemporary “Seers”

By Hieromonk Theodoretos Mavros the Hagiorite

 

My dear Mr Sotiropoulos, I would not have returned to the subject had you not noted in your commentary (The Cross, Dec. 1994, p. 198) certain things foreign to the Tradition of our Orthodoxy. In the above commentary, you express admiration for the “seers,” as you call them—that is, those endowed with foresight, as they are commonly described—such as Fr Paisios, Fr Porphyrios, and others. You then emphasize that the aforementioned Elders never advised the faithful of the New Calendar to follow the Old Calendar. But did they ever advise them to do anything that would protect them from the anti-Orthodox actions of the Ecumenical Patriarch and his satellites? Never! On matters of faith, they maintained silence—a silence culpable and condemnable according to the Holy Fathers. Yet they spoke at great length about prayer and almsgiving, traveling kilometers to locate good-quality water underground and hidden treasures (!), while remaining indifferent to the treasure of Orthodoxy being plundered by its supposed guardians! Nor did they miss an opportunity to exhort the faithful to obey the Church—that is, the Ecumenical Patriarch, Iakovos of America, Parthenios of Alexandria, Sotirios of Canada, Stylianos of Australia, and all those in communion with them. According to this line of conduct, neither should you have criticized Stylianos of Australia or Sotirios of Canada, just as your “seers” did not!

You forget that when Fr Paisios was asked by a journalist “how he viewed the presence of Bartholomew on the Ecumenical Throne”—Bartholomew, I repeat, who excommunicated you—he replied in all seriousness: “God, in His providence, has given us the best Patriarch for these difficult years”!! (Kathimerini, 27 November 1993). Surely you too, dear Nikolaos [Sotiropoulos], must feel ashamed on behalf of the… “seer”! I also remind you that the Athonite Fathers who supported Stylianos of Australia in his erroneous teachings received their blessing from these very “seers”!

Do not the bishops and clergy of the New Calendar continue to follow this same policy to this day, calling the Old Calendarists heretics while at the same time embracing the actual heretical Papists (and only them?), considering it a great honor to concelebrate with the arch-ecumenist and Latin-minded Bartholomew, or with Methodios Fouyas, who even prayed together with fire-worshippers at Assisi?

Is it ever possible for these “seers,” who remain indifferent to the above erroneous teachings, to constitute a criterion of Orthodoxy? Do you not see that they had become playthings of the Evil One, since nothing they said is in harmony with the patristic, anti-heretical teaching, thereby becoming a cause for so many souls to remain in communion with the heresy? Do you not remember that in the past as well, certain men who were truly saints, in their simplicity, followed a heresy, without the confessing Fathers who were then the luminaries of the Church imitating them in their slippery course?

Consider the “courtesy” and “kindness” of contemporary heretics—Jehovah’s Witnesses and Protestants, Evangelicals, Pentecostals, and so forth—especially of their teachers. Why are we not moved in the least by this “courtesy” of theirs? Because we know that their doctrines and teachings are unsound. We ought to do something similar with the words of the “seers.” Since they stand in glaring contradiction to the venerable Tradition of Orthodoxy, we should pay no attention whatsoever to their words. We should regard them as snares leading simple souls to perdition—souls for whom Christ died!

Consequently, in matters of faith and confession, we should not examine which path Fr Justin or Fr Porphyrios follows or followed, but which path ought to be followed in accordance with the Sacred Canons. This is precisely why they are called canons: so that we may regulate ourselves according to what they enjoin.

With regard to the Old Calendarist Fr Neophytos, concerning whom you write that “he followed a strict policy toward New Calendarists and would not receive them for confession until the Lord Himself rebuked him, saying, ‘Why are you driving away My children?’,” I have the following to observe. By the above, you yourself acknowledge that Fr Neophytos was within the Church, since the Lord Himself urges him to receive His children—and not only Fr Neophytos, but also all those who imitate the ecclesiastical course of this good spiritual father!

To the above you will surely reply: “And where are we to go, Fr Theodoretos? Do you not see how many factions there are among the Old Calendarists?” I agree that their divisions constitute their “Achilles’ heel,” but I by no means accept this objection of yours as a logical or theological argument, and here is why: Let us suppose that there were no Old Calendarists; what, then, should the New Calendarists do? Should they continue indefinitely and indifferently in communion with erroneous teaching, tolerating everything, as they do today? And something else: in your opinion, WHEN should New Calendarist clergy and laity break communion with those who teach error? WHAT ELSE, in your judgment, must the Ecumenists do before the bishops and clergy who are called “conservatives” repudiate them?

You urge me to search for and find something “that will bring into harmony within me the thought of the Fathers with the God-pleasing way of life of the ‘seers.’” I am unable to find it! And this is because the words and deeds of the Holy Fathers were on the same wavelength: they taught by doing and acted by teaching. But the words of the “seers” whom you admire stand in complete opposition to the teaching of the Holy Fathers! And this is because the Saints emphasized that “we cannot be saved if we live an upright life but neglect the right doctrines” (Chrysostom, Homily 13 on Genesis).

What we need, therefore, is another kind of harmony: the harmonizing of our life with the truth-bearing teaching of the Holy Fathers of the Church, if we wish to belong to Her, since, according to the great Palamas, “those who are of the truth are of the Church.”

Those who are of the truth, then, are of the Church—not those who are in communion with the Greek Patriarchates, as is continually emphasized. We must all learn that the Church has mystical and sacramental, not administrative, foundations, lest we suffer what the Westerners suffered, who followed the Pope into error so as not to find themselves outside the Church!

I remind you, on this occasion, that the Patriarchate of Antioch has already entered into communion with the heretical Monophysites, and the event passed unnoticed! Moreover, in the Church of the Life-Giving Spring in Athens (Akadimias Street), a Monophysite priest serves the Liturgy! These things do not trouble the bishops of the New Calendar; they only hasten to seal the private church of Fr Adrian in Zakynthos because he adopted the traditional calendar!

Reflect on all these things, dear Nikolaos, and pray that God may strengthen you to follow the path of our Holy Fathers, for it is deeply sorrowful to struggle throughout one’s life against various heretics and, in the end, to find oneself in communion with the “pan-heresy” of our age—Ecumenism!

 

Greek source online: https://orthodox-voice.blogspot.com/2015/03/blog-post_973.html

 

 

 

Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Attica and Boeotia of the G.O.C. Visits America and Speaks to The National Herald

Theodore Kalmoukos | October 2, 2026

 

 

BOSTON. Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Attica and Boeotia of the G.O.C., of the Archdiocese of the G.O.C. of Greece under Archbishop Kallinikos, speaks for the first time in an interview with The National Herald (“TNH”) about the remarkable work being carried out in his Metropolis, which is supported exclusively by the faith and love of the faithful. It should be emphasized that the Church of the G.O.C. receives no financial or other support whatsoever from the state, unlike the Church of Greece, whose hierarchs and priests are salaried as civil servants.

He is visiting the G.O.C. Metropolis of New York because Gerontissa Synkletiki is to be honored at the Cathedral of Saint Markella in Astoria. She taught the Greek language and the Orthodox Faith to hundreds of children of the Greek-American community.

The interview is as follows:

TNH: Your Eminence, thank you for your willingness to speak with The National Herald. What is the purpose of your visit to New York?

Metropolitan Chrysostomos: I, too, thank you for giving me this opportunity, and I pray that you may have the strength to continue the work you carry out among the Greek-American community through The National Herald—a work of preserving our Romiosyne identity under difficult circumstances. The principal purpose of my coming to America is the Hierarchical Concelebration of the Divine Liturgy that will take place at the Holy Cathedral of Saint Markella in Astoria, New York, on Sunday, October 4. There, following a decision of the Holy Synod, a special tribute will be paid to the ever-memorable Gerontissa Synkletiki Strati, that emblematic figure of the Greek-American community who devoted her life to the education of thousands of children and to nourishing them with the life-giving streams of Orthodoxy and Hellenism, while making a significant contribution to the broader society of New York.

TNH: When was your Metropolis founded?

Metropolitan Chrysostomos: It was initially founded as the “Diocese of Attica and Diavleia” in 1971, with the ever-memorable Akakios Pappas [the Younger] as its first hierarch, while the following year it was designated a “Metropolis.” It received its present name in 1999, when I was elected its ruling hierarch. It comprises twenty-five parish churches, sixteen chapels, and thirty holy monasteries. Within our metropolitan district are, among others, monasteries well known in ecclesiastical life, such as the Monastery of Venerable Irene Chrysovalantou in Lykovrysi, the Dormition of the Theotokos Monastery in Thrakomakedones, the Panachrantos Monastery in Megara, and the Monastery of Saint Sophronios in Kouvaras. Twenty-one priests, two deacons, and one hundred and fifteen monks and nuns serve within the Metropolis.

TNH: How is the Metropolis supported financially? From where are the salaries of the Metropolitan and the priests paid, and, more generally, how are the churches and monasteries maintained, since, as far as I know, you receive no financial support from the state?

Metropolitan Chrysostomos: Indeed, we receive no financial support from the state. We are sustained through the sacrifices and love of our flock. One thing that moves me in connection with our livelihood is that quite a few of our priests have large families. When we carry out our duty with love and the fear of God, the Lord does not abandon us.

TNH: Approximately how many thousands of faithful comprise your flock?

Metropolitan Chrysostomos: About thirty-six thousand. This is due to the fact that, with God’s help, we succeeded in incorporating into our fold the large influx of repatriated Greeks from Pontus, who followed the traditional calendar.

TNH: How was this made possible?

Metropolitan Chrysostomos: When I was consecrated a bishop, a devout man came and asked me to visit Aspropyrgos, where there was the Church of the Holy Trinity, saying that the people there were in need of spiritual guidance and, moreover, were outside any Synod. I visited the small church and immediately came to love both the people and the place. The church was received into our Synod, and every week I would give a talk. For a long time, the audience did not exceed five faithful. I persevered. In time, the five became ten, the ten became twenty, until it became necessary to enlarge the church and, initially, to build three more churches to meet the needs of the growing flock. For several years, every week I gave a talk in all four churches, with large numbers of the faithful attending. Also, for eight years, every week I visited four homes where families would gather, and I would convey two spiritual messages, while giving them copies of Holy Scripture, icons, and the Greek flag.

It should be noted that the first time I visited Aspropyrgos, knowing that many Pontians lived there, I thought, “A Soumela must be established here.” I did not confide this thought to anyone until 2013. In the end, this dream was truly fulfilled as if by a miracle in 2022, when the opening of the doors of the Holy Pilgrimage Church of Panagia Soumela in Aspropyrgos took place. There God deemed us worthy to enshrine the holy relics of the Holy New Martyr Kassandra of Trebizond (1677), an ancestor of the great heroes of the Greek Revolution, Alexandros and Dimitrios Ypsilantis.

TNH: What does your pastoral ministry include?

Metropolitan Chrysostomos: With the invaluable cooperation of dedicated volunteers, we care for the formation of our young people through the Catechetical Schools. Every week, material prepared according to academic standards is distributed to the catechists for three different age groups. Alongside ecclesiastical subjects, we have also incorporated topics from Greek history into the curriculum. Furthermore, since 2017 we have organized the “Garden of Soumela” Camps in Vilia, Attica. This year they were dedicated to the 200th anniversary of the Exodus of Mesolongi, as part of the Metropolis’s commemorative activities under the title “Έξοδος στην αιω‘ΝΙΟΤΗ’τα” [“Exodus into Eter‘YOUTH’nity”, a Greek wordplay combining eternity and youth].

A noteworthy cultural initiative consists of the large-scale productions we stage on religious, national, and literary themes, several of which have been posted online, as well as the free provision of Byzantine chant lessons. Our social outreach also includes the distribution of goods and blood drives, which are held three times a year with significant results.

TNH: Your Eminence, to which Archiepiscopal “faction” of the Genuine Orthodox Christians do you belong? If I am not mistaken, there are more than five.

Metropolitan Chrysostomos: I would prefer not to use the term “faction,” but rather to say that I belong to the Church of the G.O.C. of Greece under Our Beatitude, Archbishop Kallinikos. Unfortunately, the “factions” are far more than five, a situation due to the absence of legal protection. The struggle of the Old Calendarists began with great purity of intention, but this most unfortunate fragmentation has undermined that just struggle. Nowadays, anyone can put on a mitre and pose as the “Archbishop of the G.O.C.”

TNH: How many Metropolises make up your Synod? Where is it headquartered?

Metropolitan Chrysostomos: It is headquartered in Athens and consists of the Archdiocese and thirteen Metropolises within Greece, as well as sixteen Metropolises and Dioceses abroad. Of these, in America there are the Holy Metropolises of America and Toronto, and the Dioceses of Boston, and Etna and Portland.

TNH: Why do you think this “schism” between the Old and New Calendars has continued to exist for more than a century, given that the New Calendar is essentially the Old Calendar “corrected”?

Metropolitan Chrysostomos: The calendar was changed not out of concern for correction or astronomical accuracy, but for the sake of the “simultaneous celebration of the great feasts by all the Churches” (meaning also the heterodox communities), according to the 1920 encyclical of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Yet, as we have seen, this simultaneous celebration was disrupted within Orthodoxy itself. What, then, was the benefit? If astronomical accuracy had been the objective, the calendrical practice of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem could very easily have been maintained. The truth is that, if the Church of Greece had treated the first Old Calendarists with the appropriate love and understanding, the situation might have been different. Unfortunately, mistakes were made on both sides. As for why the schism continues to exist, this is directly connected, on the one hand, with Ecumenism and, on the other, with the self-interest of many who make a source of gain out of the piety of unsuspecting faithful.

TNH: Has a century not been enough to heal the wounds?

Metropolitan Chrysostomos: Unfortunately, the wounds of the first five decades after 1924 widened the divide. Even today, there are elderly people scattered throughout Greece who still speak of the harsh persecutions.

TNH: What do you think should be done today, in an age of dialogue with every kind of Christian confession, and even with non-Christian sects and factions? Can the power and dynamic of love, goodwill, and unity still be brought to bear?

Metropolitan Chrysostomos: “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and for ever.” He continually exhorts us to let our inner light shine before men, so that they may see our good works and glorify our heavenly Father. This must be our direction. The world needs to see the light with which the human soul can be flooded only through Orthodox Theology. We see this in countless examples from the lives of the Saints.

 

Greek source: https://www.ekirikas.com/o-mitropolitis-attikis-kai-voiotias-g/

Miracles That Corroborate the Traditional Orthodox Faith

by Professor John Kallianiotis, University of Scranton

 

 

“Greeks regard foreign sights with greater wonder than sights at home.”

(Pausanias [2nd-century Greek geographer])

 

Prologue. Traditional Orthodoxy was established in the year 33 A.D. at Pentecost and subsequently reaffirmed by the Apostolic Synod of 49 A.D. The process of consolidation continued with the Edict of Milan, issued by St. Constantine the Great in 313 A.D., and the Orthodox Faith was reinforced by the First (Ecumenical Synod of 325 A.D., in Nicaea, Bithynia. This Synod of the 318 God-bearing Fathers also regulated the Orthodox Christian Festal Calendar in accordance with the Julian Calendar, which had been in effect since 46 B.C. [1] At the ensuing (Ecumenical and local Synods the Orthodox Church was further upheld and safeguarded by way of correct dogmas. Having given a Christian orientation to classical Greek culture through Holy Tradition and the theology of the Church Fathers, Orthodoxy spread to the peoples of Northern and Eastern Europe, making them our brethren in the Lord. With the passage of time, through the subjugation of Western Europe by the Franks—through the agency of the eternal enemy of mankind and adversary of the Lord, the soul-destroying Devil—the West came to espouse various innovations and human philosophies (heresies), the result being the Schism of 1054. One ensuing innovation was the change of the calendar (the Church’s Festal Calendar) by order of Pope Gregory XIII, in 1582. [2] We Orthodox, however, did not accept this novelty, since the Festal Calendar was fixed by the God-bearing Fathers (through the Holy Spirit) and became thereafter a sacred ecclesiastical Tradition of our Orthodox Faith. The Orthodox Church condemned this change in the calendar, and a great many miracles confirmed the incorrectness of this decision by the Roman Catholic (Western) Church to celebrate the Saints on different days than those of their actual celebrations.

Unfortunately for Orthodoxy, at the beginning of the 1920s certain Hierarchs who were ignorant of the magnitude of their responsibilities, of the truth of Orthodoxy, and of Holy Tradition, along with its dogmas and Canons, succeeded in insinuating themselves into the Patriarchate of Constantinople [3] and the Church of Greece. [4] This apostasy of theirs led them into error and innovation, for they accepted and imposed on our Orthodox people the anti-Orthodox Papal (Gregorian) Festal Calendar. They imposed it by force and through persecution, with the aid of the anti-Christian government, [5] on those who desired to remain loyal to traditional Orthodoxy. There have been, however, a multitude of visions and miracles that have demonstrated the erroneous nature of the New Calendar.

Appearances and Miracles Prove the Correctness of the Old Calendar. In 1924, when Patriarch Meletios IV (Metaxakes) and Archbishop Chrysostomos I (Papadopoulos) of Athens and All Greece decided to change the Festal Calendar (which is based on the Julian Calendar) handed down by the Fathers and to adopt the Papal Calendar (the Gregorian Calendar), the latter sent out an Encyclical [6] to be read in all of the Churches in the country, so that the faithful might be informed of the change.

In the village of Myloi, Karystos, in Evboia, the then parish Priest, Father Ioannes (papa [Father]-Giannes [John]) read this Encyclical on Sunday, March 10,1924, which date was altered to March 23. Two days later the faithful were supposed to celebrate the Annunciation of the Theotokos. The simple, yet faithful villagers who were present that Sunday in the Church of St. John the Forerunner in Myloi crossed themselves and whispered to one another: “See, the time has come when Papoulakos said that they would make Latins of us.” [7]

At the end of the reading of the Encyclical, papa-Giannes, acting on the orders of his Bishop, sternly adjured the faithful not to be absent from Church on the following Tuesday, when they would celebrate the Annunciation of the Theotokos according to the New Calendar. The faithful left after the conclusion of the Divine Liturgy, deeply distressed over this imposition of the Papal Calendar upon Greece.

On Monday afternoon, the eve of the putative Annunciation according to the New Calendar, the wife of the mayor of the village, Olga Rongas, sent her eight-year-old son to let out their goat, so that it could graze. On the way, the boy passed in front of the Church of St. Paraskeve, [8] seeing there an unknown Priest with a white beard, who called the boy to him. [9] The devout boy drew near and kissed the hand of the Priest, who asked him: “Whose son are you, young man?” And the young boy replied: “I’m the son of Nikos Rongas, Pappoule [an endearing term for a Priest, derived from the Greek for ‘grandfather’].” “Tell your father not to go to Church tomorrow, since it is not the Annunciation. If, however, he does go, your brother, the soldier, will be in grave danger.” “Alright, Pappoule. I will go and tell him.”

The young boy went to his house and told his mother what the unknown Priest had said to him. Mother and son together returned to St. Paraskeve’s so that the mother could meet the Priest, but the Priest was no longer to be found there. In the evening, the mother recounted all of these things to her husband. They were frightened by this warning of the unknown Priest and so did not go to Church the following day, the day of the “Annunciation.”

Papa-Giannes was incensed that the mayor had not accepted the New Calendar. That evening, in the village coffeehouse, in front of everyone, papa-Giannes said: “The mayor did not obey the decision of the Church, but believed in his son’s fairy tales.” This Orthodox stand of the family of Nikos Rongas was followed by other villagers, who threw away the fish that they had cooked for the “Feast of the Annunciation” and kept the Fast.

A few days later, the Rongas family received a letter from their son, Georgios, who was a soldier, in which he wrote as follows: “My venerable parents, you should know that yesterday, when we were celebrating our national holiday according to the New Calendar, a stray bullet grazed my hand without breaking any of the bones. Everyone here assured me that it was a miracle that I was saved, and that I had a Saint looking out for me! I am fine now.”

On hearing all of this, papa-Giannes tried to excuse himself by saying that these people were right, but that he could not violate the orders of his superiors, since otherwise he would lose his livelihood. This Priest continued to celebrate services according to the New Calendar and to intimidate those Christians who followed the Old Calendar. Within the year, however, at the end of the Feast Day of the Church according to the New Calendar, while crossing the small bridge over the river in his village, papa-Giannes slipped and fell into the river, where, unfortunately, he drowned. [10]

Another event occurred on the Feast of the Prophet Elias according to the Old Calendar (July 20,1925). [11] Evangelos Makres, from the village of Aetos, Karystos (Evboia), did not go to the Church (of the Holy Martyrs Timothy and Maura) to which his wife, who followed the Old Calendar, went by herself, but took his son and his mules and they went to bring wood from the hillside in Kastanies, Oche. His wife had told him that they should not go for wood that day, since it was the Feast of the Prophet Elias, but he did not listen to her.

They chopped the wood and made ready at midday to load up the mules, so that they could return to their village. At that moment, they saw before them an Elder with a white beard and a most radiant and sweet countenance, who said to them: “What are you doing there, my lads?” “We’ve been chopping wood, Elder, and we’re preparing to load up so that we can leave,” answered the elder Makres. “But do people work on a day like this?” asked the Elder. “And what day is it today, Elder?” “Today, my lads, is the Feast of the Prophet Elias,” the Elder replied, and he immediately vanished from their sight, just as he had appeared.

They then realized, both father and son, that this Elder was the Prophet Elias and, trembling with fear, they put aside the wood, knelt, crossed themselves, and returned to their village. There, they related to everyone what they had seen and heard that day at Oche. Thenceforth, die elder Makres and his son followed the Old Calendar, as did the majority of their fellow villagers.

The next event is noteworthy, because it involves an appearance of the Lord Himself. On Sunday, June 27, 1935, our Lord Jesus Christ appeared to a virtuous fifteen-year-old goatherd, Evangelos Anastasiou Tzitzoudes, in the village of Amorion, Didymoteichon, on the River Hebros. [12] During this appearance, the Lord expressed distress over our behavior: people’s denial of Him, our doing away with the Wednesday and Friday fasts and the lenten periods, our failure to keep Sundays and Feast Days as days of rest, and our non-attendance at Church.

He spoke also about the language of the Divine services and that of the Holy Gospel, saying that it should be katharevousa [puristic Greek] and should not be translated into the very impoverished Modem Greek language. The Lord especially stressed the issue of the calendar and said that the faithful should return to the Old Calendar, which He, the Lord, had Himself appointed, since it was by this calendar alone that the Feasts of the Saints, the Apostles, and the Prophets were to be celebrated. “On the days on which you should be celebrating, you work,” He complained. As He said these things about the calendar, the Lord was deeply distressed and wept. He stated repeatedly that it was necessary for us to repent and to take His way and forsake the way of the Devil.

Yet another noteworthy event occurred to the holy Elder Father Ioannes (1899-1966), Abbot of the Holy Monastery of St. Demetrios in Amphiale, Piraeus. [13] During a period of bitter persecutions against true Orthodoxy there was a shortage of Churches for the traditionalist Orthodox, owing to the occupation of the existing Churches by the innovating New Calendarists. For this reason, Father Ioannes [the more formal Greek for “Giannes,” or “John”] restored and refurbished the ruins of an ancient monastery, that of the aforementioned St. Demetrios in Amphiale, Piraeus, and later founded a new monastery, dedicated to the Holy Trinity, in Nea Pentele, north of Athens.

On one occasion, while he was at prayer in the Church, Father Ioannes had a unique vision: Christ showed him an immense plain, where black and white sheep were grazing. Father Ioannes asked the Lord in astonishment: “Why are half of the sheep white and half of them black, and not goats?” He then heard a most harmonious voice saying: “The white ones are all those who uphold the holy dogmas and the holy traditions, and the black ones are those who have violated both dogmas and traditions.” In addition, in another vision of Christ, the Lord told Father Ioannes to receive New Calendarists for Confession. In fact, when New Calendarists approached him for this purpose, they realized their error and returned to the Old Calendar. These revelations of Father Ioannes confirmed that the Old Calendarists (the white sheep) are those who are absolutely correct in their Orthodox Faith.

Epilogue. At various times, on days when Feasts were celebrated according to the Old Calendar, very many miracles and appearances of Saints, the Honorable Cross, Holy Light, a Holy Cloud, and of our Lord Jesus Christ Himself have been noted and recorded, and these all confirm the necessity of returning to the Julian Calendar ordained by the First (Ecumenical Synod, which determines the Feasts of our Holy Orthodox Faith and preserves our Holy Tradition. Nonetheless, numerous innovators, schismatics, ecumenists, and individuals with other purposes, but primarily people who are ignorant of the truth and of the commandments and Canons of the Orthodox Church, follow the New, Gregorian (Papal) Calendar. In essence, these poor folk celebrate on their own, there being no Feasts on those days on which they celebrate, and they sin in working on the days of the actual Feasts and in not honoring them.

The aforementioned miracles in Myloi and in Aetos, the miracle in Amorion involving the appearance of our Lord God Himself, and also the two visions of Elder Ioannes in Amphiale confirm the error of our apostate “spiritual” leaders and of the division that they have created within Orthodoxy, which division the Lord permits by reason of our sins. We need great repentance, unceasing prayer, and humility, and we need to return to the House of the Father (the Old Calendar), so that the Most Compassionate Lord might have mercy on us and forgive our innumerable sins, which have turned Greece, Orthodox countries in general, and the entire planet into a Golgotha. [14] Our individual and collective sin has led us to the loss of Divine Grace, and there is a danger of our being abandoned by the Lord, Who abides with us only on account of the constant entreaties of His and our Mother, the Most Holy Theotokos. I pray and hope for our repentance and for the return of those in error to traditional Orthodoxy, to the end that the abiding Grace of our Lord might be with all of us to the end of our days.

[Translated from the original Greek text by Archimandrite Patapios.]

 

NOTES

1. The Julian Calendar is ascribed to Julius Caesar and was devised by the Greek astronomer Sosigenes (46 B.C.).

2. The New Calendar was proposed by Aloysius Lilius and decreed by Pope Gregory ΧΠΙ on February 24,1582. In a letter, the Pope called on Patriarch Jeremias II (Tranos) to introduce the New Calendar into Orthodoxy, but he refused. A great many supernatural events took place in Italy during this period, demonstrating the erroneous decision of the Pope to impose the New Calendar.

3. The Patriarchs during this period were: Meletios IV (Metaxakes) (1922- 1923), Gregory VII (1923), and Constantine VI (1924-1925). See Archimandrite Basileios Stephanides, Εκκλησιαστική Ιστορία [Church history], 5th ed. (Athens: Ekdotikos Oikos “Aster,” 1990), p. 799.

4. Chrysostomos I (Papadopoulos) (1923-1938).

5. The anti-Christian Liberal Party of Eleutherios Venizelos and the pro-Venizelos officials under the leadership of Plasteras and Gonatas contributed to the imposition of the New Calendar. The governments in this dramatic period were those of Stylianos Gonatas (November 27,1922-January 11, 1924), Eleutherios Venizelos (January 11,1924-February 6,1924), Georgios Kaphantares (February 6,1924-March 12,1924), and Alexandras Papanastasiou (March 12, 1924-July 25, 1924).

6. This Encyclical, numbered 430, of March 1,1924, was published in Εκκλησία [the official publication of the Church of Greece—trans.] on March 8,1924.

7. See Βοανεργές, Vol. XII, No. 69 (September-October 2013), pp. 33-35. Papoulakos passed through the villages of Kavontoro, Evboia, and there are many accounts by grandfathers and grandmothers to this day concerning his admonitions and prophecies. He “embarked” by sea at the village of Evangelismos on an overcoat that he had, and sailed thereon to Andros. A villager who wanted to follow him as his disciple was afraid of getting onto this “boat” (the overcoat) and remained in Evangelismos (according to accounts by the sainted Maria N. Kallianiotou).

[“Papoulakos” was the monk Christophoros (Christos Panagiotopoulos, in the world). In the mid-1800s, Father Christophoros was active in the formation of modem Greece and the reestablishment of the Orthodox cultural heritage of the country after centuries of enslavement under the Turkish Yoke. He became a monk late in life, but his exploits, when combined with those attributed to him in what are in some cases feats exaggerated by myths taken from his nonetheless extraordinary and miraculous deeds, are numberless, rich in moral lessons, and greatly inspiring—trans.]

8. This small Church of St. Paraskeve is located on the property of its owners, the family of the sainted Antonios Kallianiotis.

9. One of my brothers went to Athens some years ago, and one Sunday morning he attended services at the New Calendar Church near the house in which he was staying. At the end of the Six Psalms, a Hieromonk of majestic appearance, wearing an epanokalymmavcho [the veil covering a monastic kalymmavchion] and with a long black beard, emerged from the Altar, approached him, and said to him: “I am leaving and going to another Church, since I am not at peace here.” The man was so baffled that he said not a word to that unexpected Hieromonk.

10. Similar evil incidents befell the civil persecutors of die Old Calendarists and the persecutors from the gendarmerie of Kavontoro, as I was told by a certain elder, Panagiotes Boubalos.

11. See Βοανεργές, Vol. XII, No. 69 (September-October 2013), pp. 35-37.

12. See “Θεία Έμφάνισις σ’ ένα Τσοπανόπαιδο τοΰ Άμορίου” [A Divine appearance to a shepherd boy from Amorion], Holy Hesychasterion of the Transfiguration of the Savior, Avlonarion, Evboia (undated).

13. See Hieromonk Akakios,'Άγιος Ιωάννης Αμφυάλης Πειραιώς: Ό Γέρων τής Αγάπης καϊ Πατήρ των Πτωχών [St. John of Amphiale, Piraeus: The Elder of love and father of the poor] (Avlonarion, Evboia: Hieron Hesychasterion Metamorphoseos tou Soteros, 2012). See also John N. Kallianiotis, ‘“Άγιοι Γέροντες τής Παραδοσιακής ’Ορθοδοξίας: 'Άγιος ’Ιωάννης τής ’Αμφιάλης” [Holy Elders of Traditional Orthodoxy: St. John of Amphiale], http://antioikoumenistes.blogspot.com/2013/12/blogposthtml; idem, ‘Ό Γέροντας Πατήρ ’Ιωάννης ’Αμφιάλης Πειραιώς” [The Elder Father John of Amphiale, Piraeus], Άγιος Αγαθάγγελος Έσφιγμενίτης, Vol. XLIII, No. 255 (January-February 2013), pp. 24-28; idem, “Ό 'Άγιος Γέρων ’Ιωάννης τής ’Αμφιάλης” [The Holy Elder Ioannes of Amphiale], http://christianvivliografia.wordpress.com/2012/ ΙΟ/31/όάγ-γέρων-ίωάννης-τής-άμφιάλης.

14. The catastrophe of Asia Minor and the current crisis in all sectors in Greece are the result of our abandonment by the Lord, on account of our apostasy of nearly a century. Consequently, the repentance of three or more generations will be needed.

 

Source: Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XXXI (2014), No. 3, pp. 19-25.

2002: Old Calendarist Archbishop of Athens Chysostomos: “The Restoration of True Orthodoxy Must Take Place at a Pan-Orthodox Council”

[Blog Admin. note: Translated to emphasize differences of understanding, which unfortunately continue to exist in the Church of the G.O.C. of Greece.]

 

Archbishop Chrysostomos (Kiousis) of Athens is the head of the largest Synod of the True Orthodox (Old Calendarist) Church of Greece, which did not recognize the official Orthodox Church of Greece’s adoption of the new calendar in 1924. In an interview with our portal, the head of this branch of the True Orthodox Church of Greece speaks about the present situation and the positions of the Church under his leadership. Interview posted on July 8, 2002.

 

 

Please tell us about the present situation of your Church: how many dioceses, monasteries, and metochia do you have, and in which countries?

You can find the statistical information you are asking about in the annual calendar published by our Holy Synod. Speaking in general terms, I can tell you that our Holy Synod comprises 10 hierarchs in Greece and two in America. Our Synod includes approximately 180 parishes and 85 monasteries, served by about 145 clergy in Greece and abroad. Outside Greece, we have a presence in North America and in several European countries. We do not have enough clergy to meet the needs of our flock, and many of them serve several parishes.

Do you have contacts with other True Orthodox Churches?

We conducted a dialogue with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia. After the schism that occurred within it, there has been no progress, and we remain in a state of waiting until the situation becomes clearer. The dialogue with the Matthewites was interrupted because of their internal problems.

What distinguishes you from the other True Orthodox Churches of Greece? Could you explain the reasons for your recent separation from the Synod of Metropolitan Kallinikos [of Lamia]?

Two Local Churches cannot exist within the same canonical territory [χώρο]. We represent the Church of the True Orthodox Christians of Greece, from which the Matthewites, the Auxentites, the Cyprianites, and those who are with Kallinikos Chaniotis broke away.

With the Matthewites, we have no substantial difference in our understanding of matters of faith. [Emphasis added.] There is—in my opinion—only a difference in mentality. We regard them with sympathy, but the problem is that they do not do the same, and there is a great deal of fanaticism among them. After the divisions that have occurred among them, I think that they have grown weaker and that they have no future.

With the Cyprianites, we have a different understanding of ecclesiology. We reject the concept of a “Mother Church,” which Cyprian and his associates see in the New Calendarist Church [as did St. Chrysostomos the New Confessor – Blog Admin. note]. The Cyprianites have not experienced any significant growth in Greece. For the most part, they are New Calendarists. It is true, however, that they have good “PR,” an area in which we lag behind them.

The Auxentites in Greece have split among themselves, and what remains of them is disappearing.

As for those with Kallinikos Chaniotis of Lamia, that is a different case. They broke away from our Church in 1995 without any dogmatic dispute. In their statement, the six hierarchs of that time pointed to two issues: the procedure by which the former Euthymios of Thessaloniki was condemned for canonical offenses, and the reconsideration of the case of Paisios and Vikentios, who had renounced our Church by going over to the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, but later returned under pressure. This was the cause of the division in 1995, and the Synod deposed them. God, however, condemned the apostates through their eventual disintegration. Two of them, Metropolitan Stephanos of Chios and Ioustinos of Euripos, repented, returned, and were received back into the Church; they were subsequently restored and are now members of our Holy Synod. The other two, Paisios and Vikentios, betrayed their confession and went over to the Patriarch of Constantinople; after going there, they were even reordained. And this is a sign of condemnation and abandonment by God.

The two aforementioned men—Kallinikos Chaniotis and Euthymios Orphanos—proceeded with ordinations and formed an anti-synod and an anti-church. They gathered around themselves all the disreputable clergy in order to give the appearance of some supposed strength. In reality, they have only small groups of supporters, and for that reason, in their calendar they list our own parishes and monasteries in order to conceal their weakness.

As for what you call “reunion,” we see the matter differently. Our Church is not divided, and anyone who has fled from under her shelter may return with repentance. The door of repentance always remains open.

What is your opinion of the present condition of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR) and the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church (ROAC)? Do you believe that there are True Orthodox Christians in Russia?

We proceed from the understanding that, after the establishment of Communism in Russia, True Orthodoxy in that country was represented by the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia abroad and by the Catacomb Church within Russia. Over the past fifteen years, however, the situation has become very confused, and there is a great deal of disorder. Here in Greece, we have so many problems awaiting resolution that we have not devoted sufficient attention to studying the state of affairs on Russian territory. Therefore, we cannot give a categorical answer to your question. What we are certain of is that, in Greece, True Orthodoxy is represented by our Church. Beyond that, we cannot say anything further.

The Churches of “World Orthodoxy” are now withdrawing from the ecumenical movement [sic]. Some Churches have already withdrawn from the World Council of Churches (WCC). The Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate is also preparing to take such a step. Does this allow us to say that “World Orthodoxy” is gradually breaking with its ecumenical errors and slowly purifying itself?

Your question is hypothetical. We have no grounds for such optimism. If they were all to return to True Orthodoxy, it would be a great joy for us. As for the process of self-purification of which you speak, our view is as follows: if the official Orthodox Churches were to return to True Orthodoxy, their canonical restoration could take place at a Pan-Orthodox Council [emphasis added], which would vindicate the confessors of the Faith and in which, as far as possible, the entire pleroma of Orthodox bishops steadfast in the Traditions would participate, together with the repentant hierarchs, who, in the presence of the Orthodox bishops, would offer repentance in the same manner as the Iconoclasts at the Seventh Ecumenical Council.

In your opinion, how possible is a rupture between the Moscow and Ecumenical Patriarchates? Would this be beneficial for Orthodoxy?

This question too is hypothetical. If the schism were to occur for reasons of faith—that is, because of a return to True Orthodoxy and a renunciation of ecumenism—then, of course, it would be beneficial for Orthodoxy. However, we see nothing of the kind on the horizon.

The present head of the Greek New Calendarists, Archbishop Christodoulos [+2008], is known as a “conservative.” Does this not increase the popularity of the New Calendarists in Greece and lead to a decline in the number of Old Calendarists?

Your information is likely inaccurate. Christodoulos is not regarded as a “conservative” even among the New Calendarists. On the contrary, he is considered a “modernist,” because he wishes to introduce liturgical innovations and recognized the Pope as the Bishop of Rome by receiving him in Athens. Conservative New Calendarists subject him to considerable criticism, especially two university professors who are also clergymen—Fr. George Metallinos and Fr. Theodore Zisis.

We do not know of a single Old Calendarist who has become a New Calendarist under the influence of Mr. Christodoulos. If anything, the opposite is true.

What do you think about the process of Greece’s integration into the European Union? What spiritual dangers does this process pose for True Orthodox Christians?

The danger of secularization always threatens us, both outside and within the European Union. Our efforts are directed toward strengthening a sound Orthodox mindset among the faithful. When believers have been inoculated with the spiritual antibodies of True Orthodoxy, then they are living members of the Church, and they are able to withstand any spiritually harmful environment. No one can harm our soul unless we ourselves betray it. Therefore, spiritual vigilance is necessary.

 

Russian source:

 https://web.archive.org/web/20120614121018/http://portal-credo.ru/site/print.php?act=rating&id=7