Are the Terms "Christian" and "Orthodox" Accurate in Our Times?

by Archbishop Averky of Syracuse & Holy Trinity Monastery (+1976)

 

 

Until recently, the concepts and terms "Christian" and "Orthodox" were unambiguous and meaningful. Now, however, we are living through times so terrible, so filled with falsehood and deception, that such concepts and terms no longer convey what is significant when used without further clarification. They do not reflect the essence of things, but have become little more than deceptive labels.

Many societies and organizations now call themselves "Christian," although there is nothing Christian in them, insofar as they reject the principal dogma of Christianity -- the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, as do several of the newest sects, to which the very spirit of true Christianity, which follows so naturally and logically from the teaching of the Gospels, is generally quite foreign.

Of late, the term "Orthodox" also has ceased in large measure to express what it should, for even those who in fact have apostatized from true Orthodoxy and become traitors to the Orthodox Faith and Church continue to call themselves "Orthodox."

Such are all the innovators, who reject the true spirit of Orthodoxy, all those who have started down the path of mutual relations with the enemies of Orthodoxy, who propagandize for common prayer and even liturgical communion with those who do not belong to the Holy Orthodox Church. Such are the "renovationists" and contemporary "neo-renovationists", the "neo-Orthodox" (as some of them openly style themselves!), who are clamoring about how essential it is to "renew the Orthodox Church", about some sort of "reforms in Orthodoxy", which allegedly has become "set in its ways" and "moribund." They harp on such things instead of focusing their prayerful attention on the truly essential renewal of their own souls and the fundamental reform of their own sinful nature with its passions and desires.

They insistently proclaim union with heretics, with non-Orthodox, and even with non-Christians. They proclaim "the union of all," but without the unity of spirit and truth which alone makes such union possible.

Such, for example, in our days are the Ecumenical Patriarchs of Constantinople, who in the past recognized the "Living Church" in Soviet Russia as legal and now recognize the Pope of Rome as the "head of the whole Christian Church," and even admit the Papist Latins to Holy Communion without their first being united to the Holy Orthodox Church.

Such are all those who actively participate in the so-called Ecumenical Movement, which is striving so blatantly to create some sort of new pseudo-church out of all the denominations now existing.

Such, too, are those many others who are not completely faithful to our Lord and Savior and His Holy Church, but serve His vicious enemies or please them in one way or another by helping them to realize their anti-Christian goals in a world which has turned away from God.

Who will dare to deny us our lawful right not to recognize such people as Orthodox, even though they may persist in using that name and in bearing various high ranks and titles?

From church history we know that there have been not a few heretics and even heresiarchs of high rank who were solemnly condemned by the Universal Church and removed from their offices.

But what do we see today?

This, sadly, is an age of unlimited concessions and sly collaboration, when even the most scandalous heretical actions or statements disturb hardly anyone. Very few react to this manifest apostasy from Orthodoxy as they should, and as for condemning these new heretics and apostates -- there is no point in even thinking about it. Today everything is permitted for everyone and nothing is prohibited for anyone, except in cases where someone is personally hurt, offended and insulted when their own folly is pointed out. Oh, in such cases, this is unforgivable! Then threats make their appearance, based on those forgotten canons, which otherwise are "obsolete, outdated and unacceptable" in our advanced, progressive age!

That is the kind of moral disintegration, of real spiritual monstrosity, that faces us.

The truth is readily ignored and brazenly flouted, while evil, just as readily, celebrates its triumphant victory and gloatingly mocks the truth which it has overthrown and trampled upon.

Is it possible to reconcile one's conscience to this contemporary situation?

Can one close one's eyes to all these lies and falsehoods and calmly act as if one saw nothing wrong?

Only individuals whose consciences are burned out or completely lost can do so! That is why it is more than strange to hear some, imagining themselves to be Orthodox, call the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, "Old Believer," "schismatic,"  "retrograde," "obscurantist," and so on, simply because we will not walk in step with these times and dare not to apostatize in anything from Christ's Gospel and the original teaching of the Holy Church, and therefore consider it an obligation of conscience to condemn this clear and obvious evil of contemporary life which has already penetrated into the Church.

In fact, it is not we who are schismatics, but all those who follow the spirit of these times and by that act cut themselves off from the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, apostatizing from the apostolic faith, from the faith of the Fathers, from the Orthodox faith, which established the whole world. These people are obviously hurtling over the precipice of apostasy -- into the abyss of perdition, together with the whole contemporary world, burying themselves in their apostasy from the life-creating God.

Do you hear the Apostle's divinely inspired words, modernists, attempting to distort Christ's Gospel and become so readily and zealously "conformed to this world," evil and alluring as it is?

We readily accept your indictment that we are "old believers," considering it an honor to our traditionalism; but how does your Christian conscience get on with your innovating, which overthrows essentially the ancient, true faith and Christ's unchanging Church?

Was it not the Apostle who warned all Christians:

"Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is the good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God" (Rom. 12:2).

We are "old believers", but not schismatics, for we have never cut ourselves off from the true Church of Christ.

We are in union with our Head, Christ the Savior, with His holy Disciples and Apostles, with the Apostolic Fathers, with the great Fathers and Teachers of the Church, and with the great luminaries and pillars of the faith and piety of our Fatherland, Holy Russia. But you are in union with some sort of innovating, self-appointed teachers, whom you advertise everywhere so unlawfully and obstinately, disparaging and at times even daring to criticize the genuine luminaries of our Holy Church, who have pleased God and been glorified in many ascetic struggles of piety and miracles throughout the course of Her two-thousand-year history.

This being the case, which of us is really the schismatic?

Of course it is not those in the spirit of traditional Orthodoxy, but those who have apostatized from the true faith of Christ and rejected the genuine spirit of Christian piety; even though all the contemporary patriarchs, who have altered our age-old, patristic Orthodoxy, may be on the latter's side, as well as the majority of contemporary, so-called Christians.

Indeed, Christ the Savior did not promise eternal salvation to the majority, but, quite to the contrary, He promised it to His "little flock," which will remain faithful to Him to the end, in the day of His Glorious and Terrible Second Coming, when He will come "to judge the living and the dead."

"Fear not, little flock," He said, painting the frightening picture of the last times of apostasy from God and persecution of the Faith before our mind's eye, "For it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the Kingdom" (Luke 12:32).

This is why all we have said above prompts us to re-examine the terminology that has been accepted up to the present. It is insufficient in our time to say only "Christian" -- now it is necessary to qualify this by saying "true-Christian." Similarly, it is insufficient to say "Orthodox" -- it is essential to emphasize that one is not referring to an innovating modernist "Orthodox", but to a true Orthodox.

All genuine zealots of the true faith, serving Christ the Savior alone, have already begun to do this, both those in our Fatherland, enslaved by ferocious enemies of God, where zealots depart into the catacombs like the ancient Christians, as well as in Greece, our brother nation, where the "Old Calendarists" not only refuse to accept the new papal calendar, but also reject all innovations of any kind. They have a special veneration for that champion of Holy Orthodoxy, St. Mark, Metropolitan of Ephesus, thanks to whose steadfastness the impious Union of Florence with papal Rome in 1439 failed.

In our firm stand for the true Faith and Church, it is essential only to avoid everything personal -- pride and self-exaltation, which inevitably lead to new errors, and eventually even to a fall; we have already witnessed this in several cases. It is not ourselves we should praise, but the pure and immaculate Faith of Christ. No fanaticism is admissible here because it is capable of blinding the spiritual eyes of such who are "zealous not according to knowledge." Rather than confirming one in the Faith, this blind fanaticism can sometimes lead one away from it.

It is important to know and to remember that a true Orthodox Christian is not someone who just accepts the dogmas of Orthodoxy formally, but a person who, as our great Russian hierarch St. Tikhon of Zadonsk taught so beautifully, thinks in an Orthodox way, feels in an Orthodox way, and lives in an Orthodox way, incarnating the spirit of Orthodoxy in his life. This spirit -- ascetic and world-renouncing, as is clearly set forth in the Word of God and the teachings of the Holy Fathers -- is most sharply and boldly denied by the modernists, the "neo-Orthodox," who want in everything to keep step with the spirit of this world lying in evil, whose prince, in the words of the Lord Himself, is none other than the devil (Jn. 12:31). Thus, it is not God Whom they desire to please, but the "prince of this world", the devil; and thereby they cease to be true Orthodox Christians, even if they call themselves such.

If we consider this more seriously and deeply, then we will see that this is precisely the case and that modernism with its innovations is leading us away from Christ and His true Church.

Let us be horrified at how rapidly apostasy has proceeded, although the modernists do not see it or feel it, inasmuch as they themselves are taking an active part in it.

And so let us not fear to remain in the minority -- far from all their high-sounding titles and ranks. Let us always remember that even Caiaphas was a high priest of the true God, and to what depths he sank -- to the horrible sin of deicide!

While living in this world which has apostatized from God, let us strive not for specious human glory and cheap popularity, which will not save us, but only to be within Christ's "little flock."

Let us be True Orthodox Christians, not modernists!

 

Source: Orthodox Life, Vol. 25, No. 3 (May-June 1975), pp. 4-8.

When the Patristic Teaching is Distorted…

Hieromonk Theodoretos (Mavros) the Hagiorite

 

 

It is a self-evident truth in the political sphere that no dictator could remain in power without collaborators.

Exactly the same applies in the ecclesiastical sphere. No heretic could thrive if he did not have those who would applaud—or at least silently tolerate—his heresy, commune with him, and follow him.

And to become more specific: Ecumenism has been characterized as a pan-heresy by theologians and clergymen of all fronts. Though it began timidly under the slogan of love, it has ended up today proclaiming “with head held high” that Orthodoxy is not the Church, but that together with the other heresies—Papism and Protestantism—it jointly constitutes “the Church”! And the ecumenist patriarchs achieved this because they had as assistants and co-conspirators in their unholy endeavor hundreds of bishops and thousands of priests and monks, who either applauded or remained silent regarding the betrayal!

Thus, the heresy of Ecumenism has two characteristics which the old heresies did not possess:
first, a universal assault against the Orthodox Church—not merely against one dogma; and second, the almost universal acceptance of the heresy by the leading clergy and theologians of Orthodoxy, with very few exceptions among the ranks of priests and monks.

It should be noted that these exceptions refer only to the theoretical level—that is, to words and the pen—without any practical expression of resistance, such as the breaking of communion with the heresy, etc.

The most sorrowful aspect in this matter, however, is the justification put forth by these robed men of every rank in order to support their position. They characteristically say that they act this way because they wish to remain within the Church, since—as they claim—if they were to break communion with their heretical superiors or with those who commune with them, they would immediately find themselves outside the Church. What a distortion of Orthodox teaching!

While the Holy Canons and the entire chorus of confessing Fathers characterize the breaking of communion with those who preach heresy as a salvific reaction and a protection of the Church, these men claim the exact opposite!

Thus, not only do they ally themselves with heresy and strengthen it by keeping their flock unsuspecting at the side of the heterodox, but they also insult all the confessing Fathers of the past, labeling them as having struggled outside the Church—since, as is known, they did precisely the opposite of what these men are doing today.

A most evident proof of their subjective and utterly unorthodox position is that they offer not a single testimony to support their claims. And in the absence of Patristic arguments, they continuously invent new ones on the spot, for the consolation of their followers—since every so often the heretical ecumenists whom they follow, through word and deed, render their former arguments useless!..

We write the above because an article was recently published in the Orthodoxos Typos (issue of 12.3) by the abbot of the Holy Monastery of Gregoriou on Mount Athos, in which—while the "ecumenist delusion" of our days is condemned—it is simultaneously emphasized that “we remain in our Holy Church, because we believe that it is within the Church, and not outside of it, that we are able to struggle.”

The truth, however, in this case is that their stance places them outside the Church that is struggling against heresy and, consequently, in the company of the heretics with whom they commune. And if one takes into account that the Athonites commemorate Bartholomew—the chief of the ecumenists—then one can grasp the tragic nature of the abbot’s above statement, who unfortunately expresses the common belief of the Athonites (except, of course, for the zealot fathers).

Even the words alone of St. Athanasios the Great, who urges the faithful to pray in the open countryside in order not to commune with the Arians (ΒΕΠΕΣ, 33, 199), and of Saints Chrysostom and Theodore the Studite, who emphasize that the enemies of God are not only the heretics, but also those who commune with them—even if they theoretically reject the heresy (P.G. 99. 1164 A)—completely overturn the aforementioned article of the abbot from its very foundations.

The tragic thing is that the Athonite abbot, at the end of his article, invokes the prayers of the confessors who "struggled unto death" against heresy. Yet it is historically proven that resistance "unto death" against heresy was undertaken only by those who broke communion with it—and for this reason they were exiled or put to death.

On the contrary, the ministry of those who are supposedly “struggling within the Church” is perfectly expressed by the following statement of St. Basil the Great: "But for us, in addition to the open war from the heretics, there has also arisen an attack from those who appear to be Orthodox, which has brought the Church to the utmost weakness.” (Epistle 92)

 

Greek source: Ο Αγιορείτης, March 1999.

Online: https://neataksi.blogspot.com/2014/11/blog-post_14.html

The Elder Ephraim of Arizona They Dare Not Quote: When Your Saint Condemns Ecumenism and the WCC

Subdeacon Nektarios [Harrison], M.A. | November 16, 2025

 

In 2023, while researching, writing, and compiling the Orthodox Patristic Witness Concerning Catholicism for Uncut Mountain Press, I came across an obscure and long-forgotten book published in 1991 by New Sarov Press with the blessing of then Bishop Hilarion (Kapral), the future Metropolitan of ROCOR. The book, titled A Call from the Holy Mountain, had been written and published by the Monastery of Philotheou on Mount Athos and authored by the now well-known “resist from within” elder, Ephraim of Philotheou and Arizona.

[https://orthodoxmiscellany.blogspot.com/2024/10/a-call-from-holy-mountain-by-elder.html]

At that point in my research, I was examining elders who had not been formally canonized but were still regarded as holy and who had written forcefully against Ecumenism. The discovery therefore struck me as entirely providential, arriving precisely when I needed firsthand anti-ecumenist testimony. It seemed to fit seamlessly into the thematic structure I was developing.

 

Within A Call from the Holy Mountain there are two brief but striking chapters that confront the pan-heresy of ecumenism, the World Council of Churches, and the broader array of non-Orthodox religions. The chapters, titled “The Church Has No Place Among the Conglomeration of Errors and Heresies: Ecumenism” and “Let Us Not Deceive Ourselves; Between Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy There Exists an Enormous Gap,” aligned directly with the anti-papist material I was assembling for Uncut Mountain Press. Recognizing their relevance, I approached Father Peter Heers about including them in the Orthodox Patristic Witness. To my surprise, he immediately told me that we could not incorporate the material. This was unexpected, especially given how revered “Elder Ephraim” and Saint Anthony’s Monastery are within the Orthodox Ethos circle.

Father Peter then explained that although the text was genuinely written by Father Ephraim of Arizona, the Monastery of Saint Anthony’s would deny that he was the author. This was difficult to understand, given that the book had been originally published by the Monastery of Philotheou in Greek and later in English with the blessing of Bishop Hilarion (Kapral) of ROCOR. Father Peter further clarified that Father Ephraim had written the text while serving as abbot of Philotheou Monastery on Mount Athos, and that its authenticity was well known to those familiar with the situation. He himself had reliable confirmation through a close family friend in Greece, the owner of the famous Orthodox publishing house Orthodox Kypseli, who had personally seen the original Greek manuscript and affirmed that it was unquestionably authored by Father Ephraim.

Naturally, I asked why the monastery would deny authorship of a text that offered such a powerful witness against the papist and against ecumenism. Father Peter responded that Saint Anthony’s would continue to deny Elder Ephraim’s authorship because the text was unapologetically anti-ecumenist, and the monastery did not want to jeopardize the possibility of his future canonization. Publishing material that stood in direct contradiction to the ecumenical positions of the Ecumenical Patriarchate would create serious conflict. For this reason, even though both Uncut Mountain Press and Father Peter personally wished to include the text in the Orthodox Patristic Witness, they refrained for fear of provoking the Arch-Heresiarchs in Constantinople and in New York at GOARCH headquarters. Consequently, I was not permitted to include the text in the final volume.

Today, in the published volume of the Orthodox Patristic Witness Concerning Catholicism, the section devoted to the “contemporary elders” of World Orthodoxy includes figures such as Philotheos Zervakos, Cleopa of Romania, Athanasios Mitilinaios, Arsenie Papacioc of Romania, Justin Parvu of Romania, and Gabriel of Koutloumousiou Monastery on Mount Athos. What is notably absent, however, is any anti-ecumenist or anti-papal writing from Ephraim of Philotheou and Arizona. Anyone familiar with Father Peter Heers, Uncut Mountain Press, or the Orthodox Ethos circle will immediately recognize how striking this omission is, given the near-worship they express toward Father Ephraim. During my stay at Father Peter’s home in Florence, Arizona, he even remarked to me that “the words of Elder Ephraim here in Florence are Gospel.” With such devotion to this New Calendarist elder, his exclusion from the volume is difficult to overlook.

As I have already explained, the reason for this omission lies in the fact that the bishops who oversee Father Ephraim’s monastery are themselves committed to ecumenism, the very thing he denounced in his writings. Because of this, the monastery could not risk allowing such material to circulate publicly. In essence, the Monastery of Saint Anthony’s desires the canonization of their elder by the Arch-Heresiarch in Constantinople to such an extent that they are willing to conceal the truth. They choose to hide the writings of their elder in order to secure approval from the same bishops they have privately described as ecumenist heretics. This creates a stark contradiction between their outward reverence and their quiet caution, revealing how far they are prepared to go in pursuit of the outcome they seek.

In this text from Father Ephraim, he writes from a clearly anti-ecumenist standpoint and openly rejects the ecclesiastical positions currently held by the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, and now Saint Anthony’s Monastery itself. His words leave no room for doubt concerning his views on the pan-heresy of ecumenism or the institutions that advance it, reflecting the convictions he held at the time of writing. The consistency of his language in this earlier period demonstrates a direct and unmistakable opposition to the modern ecumenical stance embraced by these jurisdictions. It is important to note, however, that after returning to the Ecumenical Patriarchate later in life, Father Ephraim never again publicly voiced such criticisms, which marks a notable contrast with the boldness of his earlier writings. For this reason, the chapters stand as a powerful witness to his earlier theological perspective. The two chapters by Father Ephraim read in full:

The Church Has No Place Among The Conglomeration Of Errors and Heresies: Ecumenism

The rule is that where much is being said about a virtue, that virtue is not to be found there. The voice raised in favor of that virtue is the cry of its absence. This is the case with the "love" of all those who believe that they should contribute towards the realization of the Lord's wish "that they all may be one."

Let us be more specific. They say that we Orthodox should unite with the Roman Catholics and then with the Protestants and with all the known and unknown heresies conceived by the Devil in the name of Christianity. After all Christians without exception unite, they should then unite with the Mohammedans, the Jews and in extension with the Buddhists, Brahmins, Shintoists and with all the religions of the universe in general.

This pan-heretical alchemy is being inspired through the so-called World Council of Churches. We think that the term is not true to the fact, for it does not concern a World Council of Churches but a World Council of Will Worship. The only god to demand a tribute of worship there will be the fallen Beelzebub who through his representative amongst men, the Antichrist, will try to substitute his own will for the faith and worship of the true God. For in Ecumenism there is no personal God; for consistent ecumenists the doctrine of the Trinitarian God is utterly rejectable.

It is well known that the devil-instigated Zionism is coordinating two insidious operations both within and without the Church aspiring to one and the same end; to destroy the fortress known as Orthodoxy.

Papists, Protestants, Jehovah Witnesses, Freemasons, Unionists, Ecumenists and any other "root of bitterness" —all these have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast. These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for He is Lord of Lords, and King of Kings: and they that are with Him are called, and chosen, and faithful."

We believe that Orthodoxy has no place among this conglomeration of errors and heresies. This insidious "ecumenical fabrication does not wish to seek out the truth but", according to Father Haralambos Vasilopoulos, "is a mixture aimed at exterminating the Truth. It is an effort not for those that have been deceived to find the truth but for those that do have it to lose it; that is, those who believe in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church."

Let Us Not Deceive Ourselves; Between Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy There Exists an Enormous Gap

When even the champion of the World Council of Churches, Metropolitan Meliton of Chalcedon, is forced to admit: "It is an undoubted fact that the W.C.C. is 99% under the control of Protestantism and strongly carries its mark," what more evidence do we Orthodox need to sever relations with them before we crush any hope left in them that the truth really exists unique, intact and lucid to be found in the One, Holy, Orthodox Church of Christ?

The strong position taken up by Father George Florovsky that "Orthodoxy's mission is to be a martyr and 'bear witness unto the truth'", may be fulfilled only with an Orthodox Ecumenism described by Father Spyridon Bilialis in his book, Orthodoxy and Papism. "We believe that it is high time that the Orthodox Church came forth united before the world and promoted its own Orthodox Ecumenism by setting up purely orthodox ecumenical rostrums where from in loud voices it would proclaim urbi et orbi that Orthodoxy alone is today the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ."

Otherwise, with this frequentation of such Church Representatives with today's heterodox and tomorrow's atheists, Orthodoxy will run the risk of suffering what Saint Gregory the Theologian said happened in similar cases: "It is easier for one to be infected by iniquity than for him to transmit a virtue; just as it is easier for you to contract a sickness than to have health bestowed on you."

"Let us not deceive ourselves. Between Orthodoxy and heterodoxy there stands an enormous gap," says Professor Andreas Theodorou.

"But can’t Christian love bridge this gap?" many ask. Love, my dear brethren, is omnipotent, as mighty as death, but its strength always goes hand in hand with truth. God transmits the power of His love when He is worshipped "in Spirit and in Truth." The disciple of love, the Apostle of Orthodoxy, setting down the words of His Epistle, says: "The elder unto the elect lady (i.e., the Church) and her children whom I love in the truth..." "Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love." All those who truly believe, love in truth; those who do not truly believe, love in hypocrisy. We, being Orthodox Christians, love everyone and desire that they come to realize the truth. Thus, were we taught by "the God of Love"; thus is our conscience set at rest. We feel no animosity against any men because of their heresy or their faithlessness, but we shall never come to love faithlessness or heresy for the sake of men, because if we do we shall be alienated from God.

One Sunday, a preacher delivered a sermon on "love your enemies." On the Sunday after, he spoke against alcohol addiction — about the havoc it wrought among the Christian peoples. Incidentally, the infamous Zionists greatly boast about this in their notorious 'Protocols.' When the preacher, then, referred to drinking and described its effects as mortal foes, one of the "smart" listeners who, by the way, are never missing, stopped him short and said: "Father, didn’t you say last Sunday to love your enemies?" The preacher calmly answered, "I told you to love them. I didn’t say you should swallow them."

Something similar is happening with us Orthodox in relation to all non-Orthodox. We love them in all sincerity and pray for them, remembering the admonition of Saint Ignatios the God-bearer: "also pray without ceasing for other men; for there is hope for repentance in them, that they may come to realize God." We love them so that they may renounce heresy, error, faithlessness, and wickedness. But we cannot assimilate them as they are, piecemeal with their heresy, their error and their atheism [1].

As we can see here, these words could almost be mistaken for something written by a present-day “Old Calendarist,” given their staunch confession of Orthodoxy against the pan-heresy of Ecumenism and specifically the World Council of Churches. From Father Ephraim’s writing in 1991, it is evident that the World Council of Churches was not something he dismissed or treated lightly, unlike many modern World Orthodox public figures today. He recognized clearly that the WCC was not only a heretical Protestant organization, but that those who participated in it were not worshiping Christ; rather, he stated that they were worshiping Beelzebub and the Antichrist. His words leave no ambiguity about the seriousness with which he regarded this ecumenical movement.

We all know now that after 1991 Father Ephraim returned to the heretical Ecumenical Patriarchate following his brief period within the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, and it is understood that this return was influenced by threats and pressure from individuals within the Ecumenical Patriarchate and from others throughout World Orthodoxy. In the forthcoming volume by Saint Anthony’s Monastery, Sent by God, the monastery details Father Ephraim’s short stay in ROCOR and his subsequent return to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which they themselves acknowledge as part of his historical journey. In a publicly posted preview of this book that addresses this specific episode in Father Ephraim’s time in ROCOR, they write:

With the Russian Church Abroad

When Geronda Ephraim arrived in New York, he was welcomed as an honored guest among friends by Archbishop Vitaly and the other bishops and clergy of the Russian Church Abroad. On May 19, 1991, Geronda Ephraim was invited to concelebrate the liturgical services of the Feast of Pentecost at the Holy Trinity Monastery in Jordanville, New York. About two dozen of his Greek Orthodox spiritual children accompanied him.

Holy Trinity Monastery in Jordanville, New York, 1991.

The Liturgy was an historic event within the Orthodox Church. Moreover, Athanasios Lykos relates that during Holy Communion, a wondrous miracle occurred:

After the Divine Liturgy, the bishops and monks came out of the church, and as soon as Geronda came out of the church, there were several monks standing outside waiting for him. When they saw Geronda, they started shouting in Greek: “Agios, Agios!” that is, “Saint, Saint!” I didn’t know why they were saying that, but I assumed something had happened inside the altar during the Liturgy.

Persecution from within

Later, the abbot of the monastery told us that during the Liturgy, first Archbishop Vitaly received Holy Communion. When it was Geronda Ephraim’s turn to receive the Body and Blood of Christ, everyone in the altar saw him surrounded by the Uncreated Light. He was entirely illuminated—his whole body was radiating and emitting light. That is why when Geronda came out they were shouting, “Agios!” It was an unforgettable sign of them of Geronda Ephraim’s sanctity.

Scandalous public persecution

When word got out that Geronda Ephraim was now a member of the Russian Church Abroad, an outrageous uproar ensued. The devil stirred up the situation with an eye to permanently dismantle Geronda’s work in America. Greek Orthodox newspapers under sway of the influential people who diametrically opposed Geronda Ephraim’s presence in North America, began slinging mountains of mud, labeling Geronda, among other things, “a heretic for uncanonically joining a schismatic group”—a dual falsehood since he had obtained his release documents from Philotheou, and the Russian Church Abroad was always in communion with, for example, the Jerusalem and Serbian Patriarchates. The accusations were both unfair and brutal, and spread quickly around the Orthodox world: Geronda Ephraim, the former abbot of Philotheou Monastery, is now a schismatic who has fallen into delusion and heresy. It became a catchphrase in the Orthodox press: “Father Ephraim, the schismatic heretic.”

The editor of the popular Greek tabloid newspaper The National Herald published a series of yellow journalism articles harshly condemning Geronda Ephraim in the most inappropriate manner, even demanding that Geronda not only be defrocked but also prohibited from even wearing the garb of a monk, and to be placed under house arrest in his monastery—outlandish and ludicrous things, to say the least. “They were fantasizing about what they would do to me,” Geronda relates. “The blessed editor of the Greek newspaper The National Herald, whose soul is going to be sanctified and will bear myrrh, wrote that the Patriarchate would lock me up for seven years, and that they would give me such a drastic penance that I would not even be allowed to wear a raso. ‘Father Ephraim will be wearing pants!’” [2].

First, I need to address this page excerpt’s claim that the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia was in communion with the Jerusalem and Serbian Patriarchates. This assertion is repeatedly circulated by various New Calendarist jurisdictions in an effort to dismiss ROCOR’s actual historical record, which clearly shows that during this period, especially under Saint Vitaly (Ustinov), ROCOR did not maintain communion with World Orthodoxy. The historical reality is that the Russian Church Abroad was in fact in and out of communion with the Greek, Bulgarian, and Romanian Old Calendarists throughout the presidencies of Saints Philaret and Vitaly. This is precisely why Father Ephraim was accused of becoming a schismatic when he joined ROCOR, since it was well known at the time that ROCOR was not in communion with World Orthodoxy. This is thoroughly demonstrated in my twenty-page research article entitled “The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad & The Local Churches: Were They in Communion with Serbia and Jerusalem?” which documents these relationships in detail.

(https://www.orthodoxtraditionalist.com/post/the-russian-orthodox-church-abroad-the-local-churches-were-they-in-communion-with-serbia-and-jeru)

The real question is this: if Father Ephraim was so adamantly against any participation in the pan-heresy of ecumenism and the heretical Protestant organization of the World Council of Churches, which he himself said worships Beelzebub and the Antichrist, why does this same monastery remain in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America (GOARCH), whose two primates are among the most heretical and ecumenist in the Orthodox world? Why do those in World Orthodox jurisdictions, both priests and laity, scoff at the World Orthodox patriarchates’ participation in the WCC, when it was clearly taught by their own beloved elder, before his capitulation before the Ecumenical Patriarchate, that to remain in spiritual and prayerful communion with this heretical Protestant organization is nothing less than worshipping the devil himself?

 

Maybe it is time that you conduct your own research and thoroughly examine what exactly the World Council of Churches is and why Father Ephraim had such a severe reaction toward it before he was ultimately beaten into submission to the very same heretical Patriarchate in Constantinople that is a member of the World Council of Churches.

 

 References

[1]. Father Ephraim of Arizona, A Call to the Holy Mountain (Blanco: New Sarov Press, 1991), 42-46.

[2]. Saint Anthony’s Greek Orthodox Monastery, Sent by God (Florence: Saint Anthony’s Monastery, TBD), 444-45.

 

Source:  https://www.orthodoxtraditionalist.com/post/the-elder-ephraim-of-arizona-they-dare-not-quote-when-your-saint-condemns-ecumenism-and-the-wcc

 

 

A New Calendarist Reply to Uncharitable and Inaccurate Statements by the Official Church Metropolitan of Piraeus

Opinions and comments on an article by Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus titled: “Who is Responsible for the Degradation of the Priestly Schema”

Protopresbyter Dimitrios Athanasiou | November 15, 2025

 

An article by Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus recently circulated online, titled “Who is Responsible for the Degradation of the Priestly Schema”, prompted by the matters concerning [pseudo-Old Calendarist and pseudo-bishop “Parthenios”] Vezyreas.

(https://www.romfea.gr/epikairotita-xronika/73074-peiraios-serafeim-poios-efthynetai-gia-ton-eftelismo-tou-ieratikoy-sximatos)

In a manner that is unfortunately misleading, concealing historical facts, the Metropolitan attempts to draw his own final conclusion, namely that “...in the case of Mr. Vezyreas and those ‘of similar character,’ there is one guilty party: the Greek State.”

In commenting on the Metropolitan’s views, we note the following:

1. His Eminence Metropolitan Seraphim forgets something very fundamental: namely, that the “Old Calendarist issue” was created by the indiscriminate ecclesiastical practices of Patriarch Meletios Metaxakis (1923), of [Archbishop] Chrysostomos Papadopoulos and their Synods, and of the Greek State in 1924 through the so-called “calendar reform.” Thus, the first to be blamed for such phenomena of ecclesiastical charlatanism are the above. So then, Your Eminence, was the Greek State—when it persecuted the Old Calendarists together with the state church—good back then and now it is bad? That is to say, should it apply the same policy in the 21st century and officially establish a peculiar form of ecclesiastical racism, like Germany, which you so admire??

2. We follow the New Calendar, and just as we consider the correction of the ecclesiastical calendar to be something necessary due to the accumulated astronomical errors, we equally respect the freedom of those Greek citizens who wish (for their own reasons) to follow the Old Calendar. There are many disagreements, but it would be best for the “Old Calendarist issue,” in all its aspects, to be examined by a Pan-Orthodox Council of Orthodox bishops—which to this day has not taken place. This is what you should be calling for, Your Eminence, and not implicitly, yet clearly, proposing the policing by law of the religious conscience of Greek citizens—that is, the institutionalization of the Sergianist Church in another form.

3. Are you bothered by the recognition of the legality of the ecclesiastical community of the Old Calendarists, but not by the legality of the Muftiate of Thrace and the legality of all Christian but heretical confessions and other heterodox communities? Do not forget, your Eminence, that the so-called anti-ecumenist movement began within the Old Calendar community. We also honor saints who were associated with the Old Calendarist realm.

I mention briefly Saint Sophia of Kleisoura (who had as her spiritual father the Old Calendarist Bishop Kyprianos, who also tonsured her a nun with the name Myrtidiotissa), Saint Ephraim of Katounakia, who was ordained by the Old Calendarist bishop Germanos Varykopoulos (who had been deposed by the official Church of Greece along with the “hierarchs” who ordained him), and WAS NOT RE-ORDAINED. However, some Fathers doubted the canonicity of his ordination, which is why he turned to the superior of the ruling Monastery of Great Lavra, to which the Skete of Saint Anna belonged, Elder Platon, to find out what he should do.

He turned to the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and Patriarch Athenagoras (!!!!) responded to him: “We receive the brother as he is.” These things were recounted by Saint Ephraim of Katounakia himself.

Saint Joseph the Hesychast also had, for the greater part of his life, ecclesiastical communion with zealot circles of the Old Calendarists.

The mother of Saint Joseph, as well as his two sisters, were tonsured as nuns by an Old Calendarist priest and reposed while living the monastic life at home according to the Old Calendar.

His niece, Barbara, daughter of his sister Ergina, was tonsured a nun with the name Vryaini at the Old Calendarist Monastery of the Dormition of the Theotokos in Thrakomakedones. Her elder, Parthenios Skourlis (later “Bishop of the Cyclades” of the Old Calendar), and the Abbess Euthymia were held in utmost reverence by the Saint until the end of his life. Vryaini later built her own monastery dedicated to the Theotokos Myrtidiotissa in Stamata-Drosia of Attica, where she reposed, and which exists to this day and belongs to an Old Calendarist faction.

Therefore, within the Old Calendarist community, there still exist today notable individuals and highly moral clergy.

4. Who performs ordinations, Your Eminence? The politicians of the time or the Hierarchs? You, as bishops, are unable to safeguard the priestly office and ask the State for assistance? The phenomenon of various forms of immorality in the ecclesiastical sphere—which, unfortunately, has made newspaper headlines and been covered by the media—proves that the holy canons concerning the priesthood are being shamelessly violated. And those who violate these canons, whether they belong to the Old Calendarists or the New Calendarists, they are the ones who degrade the priestly office.

5. Ecclesiastical charlatanism does not thrive only within the Old Calendarist sphere, but also within the New. The news reports are still fresh, showing clergy entangled in antiquities smuggling rings. You conceal, Your Eminence, that the phenomena of Vezyreas and Tsakos were born and grew up within the state Church, violating a multitude of holy canons related to the priesthood. Vasilis Vezyreas studied at the Middle Ecclesiastical Preparatory School of Kalamata and later at the Rizareios Ecclesiastical School of Athens. He was subsequently ordained hierodeacon and made a great-schema monk by Chrysostomos Papadopoulos of Carthage. Can you tell us, Your Eminence, at what age was he ordained? Who gave the co-testimony for his ordination, and in which monastery did he live as a celibate clergyman? Were all things done as prescribed by the holy canons? Our information indicates that nothing of what is stipulated was observed—and the results are what we now see. When the holy canons are SHAMELESSLY VIOLATED, they punish in various ways. Not even the age requirement was upheld, as established by ecclesiastical canons—twenty-five for ordination to the diaconate, and thirty for the presbyterate—so that the decision for ordination may be, as far as possible, mature, firm, and tested. Are these canons being applied today??

Also, Dorotheos Tsakos was a New Calendarist Archimandrite (of the Metropolis of Sidirokastro), who, after being convicted and deposed for sodomy in 1968, was “ordained bishop” by Nikolaos Katsounakis of the Patriarchate of Alexandria, who had been “ordained” as a pseudo-bishop of Venezuela by self-ordained Ukrainians!!! Why don’t you write about these things??

Seraphim Michas was a Hieromonk (of the Metropolis of Kythera), who was deposed in 1981 because he defrocked himself.

6. The blatant violation of the holy canons, the establishment of Archimandritism, and the rise of the phenomenon of Elderism—these are pathological conditions that plague the body of the Church, Your Eminence. Do you not see them?

On February 27, 2005, truths about the phenomenon of Archimandritism were published in a related article in the newspaper Kathimerini.

“What are archimandrites? They are celibate priests in the world, without, however, being monks — they are merely registered, for formal reasons, in the monastic registry of a monastery. This third category, beyond the married priests and the monks, consists of career clergymen. They donned the cassock, usually at a very young age, desiring ecclesiastical ranks and primarily, of course, the episcopate. They become archimandrites in order to become bishops. Celibate priests in the world have always existed in the Church, but only today—and especially within the boundaries of the Church of Greece—have they formed a separate body and acquired such power. The Greek Orthodox Church is governed—read: dominated—by the archimandrites, by this body of ambitious, untheological, uneducated, authoritarian, and psychologically troubled—so as not to say something worse—individuals. When a young Christian, seventeen or eighteen years old, wants to wear the cassock not to become a priest or a monk, but an archimandrite, something is wrong from the outset with his psychological balance. Archimandrites know one thing well, exactly what every careerist knows—the art of alliances: whom to attach themselves to, with whom and when to form alliances, with whom to establish transactional relationships, which, as the current crisis has shown, can go very far.”

Also, the noteworthy book by Stavroula Ziazopoulou–Zachou, My Own Sophia (Estia Publications, 2010), which addresses the phenomenon of Elderism through real events, concludes as follows:

“I understood through my contact with men in cassocks — that is why they often wear it — because the cassock gives them power, asylum, alibi, favor. Ah, wretched Church, what relation do you have with all those who represent you… Far from them, far away — I feel that only far from them can I breathe the air of my God, the source of truth… I do not want to kiss the hand of a priest that on one side smells of incense, and on the other has ‘grabbed’ money, feelings, consciences… I hate those spotless, plump hands of clergymen, and together with them, the smell of their cassock, when it mocks the most sacred thing that every human soul has by nature since the foundation of the world: reverence for the divine. Woe unto you, and again woe, hypocrites.”

7. From the official publications of the Church of Greece, we are informed that even today there are depositions of clergymen for “canonical offenses.” Among these offenses are also moral deviations. However, we have not seen, Your Eminence, the BISHOPS who performed the ordinations of such clergymen being PUNISHED. Do not tell us that those who were deposed suddenly became IMMORAL, while they were exceedingly MORAL before being ordained!!!

8. The Synodal courts, however, also consider as a canonical offense the act of walling-off, and all clergymen who were referred to a Synodal court for breaking ecclesiastical communion FOR REASONS OF FAITH were triumphantly deposed. Is this or is this not a violation of ecclesiastical canons?? Or is the State also to blame for this?? We remind you of the following:

The disciple of Saint Gregory Palamas, the monk Joseph Kalothetos, following the ecclesiological teaching of Saint Gregory Palamas and the earlier Holy Fathers:

a) Distinguishes the Church of Christ, of the Apostles, and of the Martyrs from the so-called new church which is founded, due to their apostasy, by bishops who embrace heresy and who erroneously believe that theirs is the Church. This so-called new church of heresy is deluded and severs those who commune with it from God. That is, the institutional church (or autocephalous church), when governed by heretical bishops, is heretically severed from the Church of Christ, of the Apostles, and of the Martyrs.

b) He notes that the distinguishing marks of the Church are: (1) the absence of any heretical teaching, and (2) the purity of the dogmas of the God-bearing Saints.

c) He clarifies that the breaking of communion with heretical bishops (or pseudo-bishops) aims: (1) at preventing communion with the so-called new church founded by them due to their apostasy, and (2) at preserving the faithful within the Church of Christ, of the Apostles, and of the Martyrs.

d) He emphasizes that the obligation of obedience in the Lord by Orthodox faithful to bishops who have adopted heresy—and to clergy who commune with them—is lifted.

e) He states that whoever among the Orthodox forgives a heretic before he repents and returns from heresy to the right faith is not forgiven by God and sins doubly: first, because he forgives him before he repents and returns to God; and second, because he pretends to be more merciful than God.

9. In his article, His Eminence of Piraeus also raises the issue of the canonicity of the priesthood of the G.O.C. On this matter, the competent bodies to respond are the Synods of the G.O.C. However, since His Eminence believes that the state Church is spotless and undefiled with regard to canonicity, we remind him of the document sent to the Synod of the Church of Greece (on January 12, 1974) by the ever-memorable Metropolitan Ambrosios of Eleftheroupolis, in which he wrote the following:

“…I ask you, holy brethren: Are we truly and absolutely canonical? Do we possess spotless canonicity? I respond with a stentorian voice: NO! NO! NO!

We too are uncanonical, first, because—as I have emphasized in my recent telegrams—we all bear within ourselves the original sin of uncanonicity, directly or indirectly, from the hierarchy created by the uncanonical five-member ‘aristindin’ synod of 1922, which elevated Chrysostomos Papadopoulos to Archbishop, and indeed with only three votes. From this Synod were also elected the Metropolitans Gregory of Chalkis, Damaskinos of Corinth and later of Athens, Constantine of Acarnania, Antonios of Ilia, Dorotheos of Kythera and then of Larisa and then of Athens, Athenagoras of Corfu and then of America and Constantinople, and finally Panteleimon of Karystia and then of Chios, who ordained others, who in turn ordained others, and so on. Therefore, we all, by origin, bear within ourselves the original sin of uncanonicity. ‘Let him who is without sin cast the first stone’ against the others.

We too are uncanonical, second, because in the present Synod there sit Hierarchs elected by the ‘aristindin’ Synod of Archbishop Damaskinos.

We too are uncanonical, third, because about half of the members of this current Synod are co-responsible for what took place after 1967.

We too are uncanonical, fourth, because the entirety of the members of this current Synod—or at least the overwhelming majority—received ordination as Deacon or Presbyter, or both, at an age lower than that set by the Holy Canons. And if the absolute canonical exactitude were to be applied—which, nonetheless, we demand with rabid insistence when it comes to the election of Hierarchs after 1967—they would be at risk not only of being excluded from the current Synod, not only of losing their episcopal throne, but of being entirely deposed from every priestly authority, since the Holy Canons impose the penalty of deposition for such a transgression.

I repeat the words of my telegrams: ‘In the Church of Greece no Hierarch will be found clean from the stain of uncanonicity.’ And: ‘If You, O Lord, should mark iniquities, O Lord, who could stand?’... It was most aptly written the other day in a daily Athenian newspaper that if the State wishes to find Bishops of irreproachable canonicity so that they alone may elect the new Archbishop, it has but one solution: To ask of God to once again send the 12 Apostles to earth!” (Sp. Karatzaféris, File: Church, pp. 137, 139).

Also, our research showed that Dorotheos Tsakos was “reordained,” allegedly as “Metropolitan of Patras,” by the Old Calendarist Bishops (with succession from the ROCOR) Maximos Vallianatos of Kefallinia and Gerasimos Vrakas of Thebes (and NOT Damaskinos Vrakas).

10. His Eminence writes:

On Acharnon Street, there is a stone-built Byzantine Church of the Holy Trinity, which, however, is not an Orthodox church but Roman Catholic, and inside it serves—wearing full Orthodox Hierarchical vestments—a Spanish Benedictine priest, Mr. Manuel Nin, a member of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy of Greece, who, in a single night, took off the Roman Catholic vestments of the Spanish Benedictine priest and put on the Orthodox Hierarchical vestments of the “Bishop of Carcabia” and celebrates using the liturgical rite of the Orthodox Catholic Church.

Is this or is this not usurpation of authority and deception of our people?

Mr. Nin is not an Orthodox Hierarch, nor is he Greek, supposedly having converted to Roman Catholicism as a so-called Greek-Rite Catholic.

COMMENTARY: Let us also ask His Eminence the following. Does the so-called “Greek-Rite Catholic Church” (Uniates) perhaps belong to the Christian confessions that were characterized as Churches by the Council of Crete? Manuel Nin is a Roman Catholic Benedictine priest—meaning he comes from the SISTER PAPAL CHURCH, which, according to the Council of Kolymbari, possesses Priesthood and Mysteries. Why, then, is His Eminence protesting about usurpation of authority?

In conclusion, we will repeat once again: for the degradation of the Priestly Schema, the responsibility lies exclusively with THOSE WHO MANAGE THE OFFICE OF PRIESTHOOD, and these are primarily the bishops and those who deceitfully usurp it. Let us not deceive the Christ-loving flock by shifting the blame. If bishops were also held accountable for failed ordinations, then phenomena of imposture and charlatanism would not exist.

 

Greek source: https://apotixisi.blogspot.com/2025/11/blog-post_99.html

Why I Am an Old Calendarist

Fr. Demetrios Sithuraj-Ponraj, JCD

 

 

‘They who audaciously changed the church calendar in our days, assuredly did not take into account the gravity (of the anathemas), and for the sake of astronomy they paid no heed at all to the venerable tradition and spirit of the Church; and though occupying themselves with ecclesiastical matters, they used science only as a pretense to conceal the innovating inclinations that possessed them’. - Patriarch Christopher of Alexandria, 1939 –1966

The question why anybody should write an article defending his following of the Old (Julian) Calendar appears especially moot. Articles, books and volumes, if not tomes, have been written defending and explaining the Old Calendarist position in the Orthodox Church today. However, insofar as it is the responsibility of every Christian to appropriate his faith and his belief, this article serves as my personal theological appropriation and internalisation of a question that has painfully split, and continues to split, the worldwide Orthodox community.

In order to better understand the issues involved in this discussion, it does us well to re-consider carefully the origins of the Old Calendarist problem (as it were) with particular reference to the motives of the principal actors who initiated decisions regarding the ecclesiastical calendar. Despite popular belief, our discussion does not begin in the year 1924 (although this date will have important bearing in subsequent discussion), but rather 1590 years earlier, in the year 325 A.D. when the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea was held under the auspices of the Emperor Constantine. In a Synodal Letter issued to all Churches at the end of its sessions, the Council ‘forever’ fixed the date of the Christian Easter (Pascha) as being ‘the first Sunday after the full moon after spring equinox’. This, undoubtedly, seems to be a rather quaint and obscure method of fixing a liturgical feast and may be relegated to a queer penchant on the part of the Fathers for number-counting. However, the decision was motivated by concerns more theological, than the merely banal. Firstly, as is explained in the Synodal Letter itself, the decision to celebrate Pascha on this date was made so as to coordinate the celebration of the Feast (the Brightest of all, commemorating as it does Christ’s resurrection from the grave) among all the various churches of Christendom (some of whom, understandably, were celebrating Easter on the same day as the Jewish Passover). The Council intended the fixing of this Feast to be a manifestation of the unity of Faith in Christ Jesus possessed by the Church. It was therefore meant to be a demonstration of love and unity that would, in turn, serve as an evangelical tool, manifesting the oneness of faith, oneness of baptism and eucharistic assembly that bound Christians, wheresoever they might be, from East to West, together.

Also, theologically, the date of reckoning Easter was deliberately chosen as a theological exposition of the Church’s faith that the in Jesus Christ, the hope of the Old Israel had been realised. Jesus the Christ was the True Passover promised by God to Israel, the True Lamb of the feast by whose blood all humanity, both Jews and Gentiles, like the Israelites in Egypt, may be saved from spiritual death. The Council believed that the conflation of the Christian feast of Pascha, expressing as it does the fulfillment of salvation for God’s people, through the death and saving resurrection of Christ, with the Jewish feast of Passover, which is only its type and prefiguring (and which, until today is impregnated with prayers for the coming of the Messiah) would serve as a contra-witness to the Gospel. The Council, therefore, decreed absolutely that the Church was not to celebrate Easter together with or before, the Jewish people, but rather, at least a week after, in order to prevent any confusion on so central a doctrine of the Faith. The other parts of the liturgical year, together with the reckoning of moveable feasts, were to be ordered from this calculation of the date of Pascha.

This decree has been, by and large, ignored and overturned by the Churches of the West (most particularly, by the Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches, which still profess to follow a liturgical calendar). In all fairness, all Orthodox Churches, even the New Calendarist (with the glaring exception of the Finnish Church), have kept intact this ordering of Pascha (otherwise known as the Paschalion).

Sadly, before we can take much comfort from this fact, one needs to understand that the liturgical year works as a cohesive whole. For 1,600 or so years from the Council of Nicea, the Church had ordered its feasts in accordance to the decree of the First Council, arranging both moveable and non-moveable feasts (Saint’s Days etc), into an undivided whole that made logical and temporal sense insofar as the liturgical calendar was to re-present year after year the chief events pertaining to our salvation. In other words, the re-ordering of the nonmoveable feasts was bound to have an impact on the rest of the liturgical year, even if it is kept unchanged. Fasts are often turned to feasts and vice-versa, in an almost perverse manner. (The prime example is the Apostle’s Fast – the Feast of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul is fixed on June 29th but the fast depends on the date of the ‘moveable’ Pentecost. This has lead to an extremely silly situation where in some years, the fast is non-existent. Or for that matter, Orthodox of the New Calendar are often celebrating the feast of the Nativity when the majority of Orthodox are fasting for the same event!). However, let us first consider how this re-ordering of the non-moveable feasts, or in other words, the introduction of the New Calendar, was effected historically. Before we do this, it is important to remind ourselves throughout this discussion that the liturgical calendar as a whole is a possession of the whole Church. As pointed out earlier, its change may not be affected in an arbitrary fashion, to satisfy theological and/or political fads and fashions.

The New (Gregorian) Calendar was first introduced by Pope Gregory XIII of Rome in the year 1582 on the advice of his astronomers who (quite rightly) pointed out that the Old (Julian) Calendar was out of sync with the natural year by about 11 days (now it is 13 days). The Pope of Rome, secular ruler of the Papal States as well as Bishop of Rome, used his supreme power (plenitude potestatis) as Pontiff to simply declare that a new ‘updated’ calendar would come into effect on a certain day. This, of course, threw the entire liturgical order of the Western ecclesiastical calendar out of order with the rest of the Christian world, contravening at the same time the decree of the First Ecumenical Council. This explains why the Papal Easter celebration (as well as that of the rest of the Western heterodox Churches, which have all adopted the papal calendar) often falls on or even, before the Jewish Passover. But by this time, the Roman Church had fallen into schism and heresy and no longer considered herself bound by the decisions of the God-bearing Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils. Her sole rule of faith was the word of the Sovereign Pope who could order and re-order matters of doctrine and discipline by his simple fiat. Pope Gregory thus accomplished his proposed calendar change with no too much trouble within the Papal Church. (However, not all countries in the West accepted this innovation eagerly. England did not change to the new calendar until late in the 18th Century.) Before we proceed further, it is also important to ask ourselves just why the Pope was so keen to change the calendar. Was it purely a love for science that inspired this change? Hardly. In the Papal Rome of the time, astronomer was just another name for astrologer. The ‘astronomers’ who proposed the change in calendar were studying the stars in order to predict the future. (There was a great fashion for astrologers in Renaissance Italy, including Papal Rome. Anyone who tells you that the Popes were keen astronomy enthusiasts are obviously lying. Ask Galileo Galilei.) There you have it, the calendar that the Pope proposed and imposed on his church by a simple decree, overturning the decision of the councils and Sacred Tradition, was the work of astrologers. It had never been discussed by Bishops, nor priests, nor men learned in Sacred Theology.

Pope Gregory XIII, in keeping with his universal ambitions, next tried to interest and persuade the Patriarch of Constantinople, Jeremias II (called the ‘Illustrious’) to accept and promulgate the Papal Calendar in the Orthodox Churches. In 1583, the Patriarch convened a local Council in Constantinople which was attended by Sylvester, Patriarch of Alexandria and Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem. This Council issued a Sigillion, in which Papal pretensions as well as the newly invented Papal paschalion and calendar (emphasis mine) were anathemised.

This anathema was repeated by a Pan-Orthodox Council in Constantinople is 1593, by Patriarch Dositheos of Jerusalem and his Synod in 1670, Ecumenical Patriarch (of Constantinople) Agathangelos and his Synod in 1827, Ecumenical Patriarch Anthimos VII and his Synod in 1895, and Ecumenical Patriarch Joachim III and His Synod in 1902, Patriarch Damianos of Jerusalem in 1903 and the Holy Synods of the Churches of Russia, Romania and Greece in 1903.

This was the calendar that was imposed (with the exception of the papal paschalion) on the Orthodox Church by an encyclical bearing the sole signature of Archbishop Chrysostom Papadopoulos of Athens on March 10/23, 1924. The question begs to be asked: why? Why was the Church of Greece so eager to overturn centuries of anathemas to introduce a liturgical calendar constructed by the Pope’s astrologers and imposed by him on the Roman Church into the Orthodox religion?

The answer is simple: an overwhelming zeal for ecumenism. This is borne out by an encyclical issued by the Church of Constantinople in January 1920, addressed ‘To the Churches of Christ Wheresoever They Might Be’. In this encyclical, issued by the Synod under the presidency of Patriarchal locum tenens Metropolitan Dorotheos of Prusa, the Church of Constantinople expressed hopes that “love should be re-kindled and strengthened among the Churches, so that they may no longer consider one another as strangers and foreigners, but as kinsmen, and as being part of the household of Christ and ‘fellow heirs, and formed of the same body and partakers of the same promise of God in Jesus Christ (Eph 3:6)’”. Among the practical actions that was to achieve this, the encyclical proposed a 11-point action, the first of which was a common calendar ‘so that great Christian feasts may be everywhere celebrated simultaneously’. This, in brief, was the programme that led to the introduction of the new calendar into Orthodoxy in 1924. But by the time of introduction, the hierarchs of the Church of Constantinople had already undertaken even more radical actions to realise their vision of ecumenism. In February 1921, the Patriarch of Constantinople, Meletios Metaxakis visited Washington, where he ‘vested, took part in an Anglican service, knelt in prayer with the Anglicans, venerated their Holy Table, gave a sermon and later blessed those present.’ Moreover, under pressure from the same Patriarch, the Patriarchate of Constantinople accepted the validity of Anglican orders in 1922. No one can accuse the Church of Constantinople of not being true to its word as far as ecumenism was concerned!

Thus, it was ecumenism in its most indifferent variety that motivated the change in calendar. The encyclical and the subsequent actions of Constantinople and Athens bear out that that they were willing to go far, very far indeed, to foster ecumenism. As pointed out in the encyclical, the re-ordering of the calendar (in other words, the acceptance of the papal calendar) was done with the specific aim of fostering a dubious kind of unity among the various churches, most of whom were positively heretical. (As St Mark of Ephesus said, ‘We have cut the Latins off from us for no other reason that they are not only schismatics, but also heretics. For this reason, it is wholly [emphasis mine] improper to unite with them.’ This is the sort of Church the 1920 encyclical called ‘kinsmen’ to and ‘of the same body’ as, the Orthodox.) Let there be no mistake, this encyclical was not motivated by a wish for the heterodox to come to the true Orthodox faith through which there is salvation. It was merely an attempt to reach a ‘lowest-common denominator’ Christianity, where ‘you compromise a little, I’ll compromise a little – and we’ll sweep the rest under the carpet, and lo and behold! we have union in sacraments – no matter how much we disagree on the essentials of faith.

It is the precisely the same sort of Christianity that the Church of Rome has traditionally offered to the Uniate Churches in Orthodox lands – the choice to keep their Orthodox traditions, even permission not to include the Filioque in their Creed – all as long as they commemorate the Pope and submit to Rome! Lowest-common denominator satisfies all. (And one would have thought that if they broke from the Orthodox Church over the filioque, they would at least insist the Uniates say it!). This is exactly the sort of Christianity the 1920 encyclical envisions. The calendar was the first compromise offered by the Orthodox, and they expect us to accept it!

Let us now consider the major objections to the New Calendar:

1. Theological – The calendar in the minds of the Fathers was the expression of unity in faith and sacraments. This was the basic reason for the Synodal Letter of the Council of Nicea quoted above. By introducing the new calendar, the New Calendarists have ruptured unity, forcing vast sections of the Orthodox people to pray separately in a purely temporal sense. As stated earlier, some sections of Orthodoxy keep a feast when the rest, fast. This is lamentable, especially when one considers that the new calendar was introduced so that the Orthodox may instead keep feast with heretics and schismatics.

2. Also, by tampering with the calendar, the New Calendarists have destroyed the internal rationale of the Church year, built up over 16 centuries, making an absurdity of the order of liturgical celebrations (consider the example of the Apostles’ Fast as quoted above). The Orthodox Church has, in its wisdom, decreed a period of time to prepare for the celebration of certain feasts. Similarly, there is also a period of time where we ‘take leave’ of the Feast. Both these periods are there to enable us to reflect more deeply on the mystery of the salvific events wrought by our God and Saviour, and thus, not merely to ‘plunge in and out’ of a Feast for a day, and then to promptly forget about it. This, the new calendar destroys, destroying at the same time, the usefulness of the liturgical year as a tool for instruction in, and preparation for, the spiritual life.

3. Ecclesiological – The very form of the introduction of the New Calendar has been anti-Orthodox in spirit. The hierarchy of Greece employed largely papistical tactics and arguments (and brutal state power) to ‘impose from on high’ the new calendar reform. This method may have worked well for Gregory XIII with his false and heretical notions of Papal supremacy, but for a Church that has ever defended the concept of ‘conciliarity’ (or as the Russians call it ‘sobornost’ – ‘togetherness’), this action cannot be called anything but unconscionable. In the introduction of the new calendar, the bishops were not consulted. The priests and theologians were hardly asked for their opinion. No other local Churches were asked for their assent. As noted earlier, almost all Patriarchates and local Churches had anathemized the new calendar. But to overturn all this, only the signature of the Greek Archbishop was necessary. How is this compatible with what Orthodoxy teaches about authority in the Church?

4. Moreover, even if all Bishops were to agree, doesn’t Orthodoxy teach that is has to be received by the lay faithful before it can be ratified as a true teaching of the Church? One needs only to call to mind the many Arian and Iconoclastic Councils of the past, and Patriarch John Beccus’ ill-fated union with the Latins to realise that no matter how many Bishops may agree to heresy, the Orthodox Church as a whole, in its priests, monastics and laity has always been vigilant to guard the truth of the Faith. However, none of these, the true Orthodox ‘kinsmen’ and ‘fellow-heirs in the promise of God in Jesus Christ were consulted.’ What force in Canon Law can the arbitrary act of one small segment of Pan-Orthodoxy have on the Orthodox faithful as a whole? Can one local synod overturn the decisions of Fathers, Councils and the teachings of theologians and the faith of the laity in one stroke of the pen? All in the name of ecumenism?

5. Lastly, one cannot accept the new calendar because it was motivated by the banal desire for compromise with the heterodox. In other words, there was, and is, no reason for introducing the new calendar. if the new calendar advanced the worldwide cause of Orthodoxy, if by its adoption, the Pope of Rome were to recant his errors, then one can claim (within limits) that it is an expression of charity that reconciles sinners to the Church (economia) – as enunciated by St Basil the Great. However, the introduction of the new calendar has done nothing like that. It has merely alienated Orthodox people among themselves. Other than that, it has been largely ignored by the other churches, which have no desire to learn about, or embrace Orthodoxy. In short, it was a bad decision, made criminal by intransigence after the fact. It approaches liturgical fratricide because it has set brother against brother, and all for nothing.

There are some who will claim that in the final analysis, one must not spend too much time on ‘thirteen days’. True, and we agree with that. However, as stated above, it is the motivations and circumstances that surround these thirteen days that worry us. One realises that the circumstances and motivations behind the introduction of the new calendar are inimical to the very fabric of Orthodoxy that has preserved through the efforts of countless hierarchs, martyrs, ascetics and faithful. If one has to lose the very conciliarity of the Church, its sobornost, a reflection (as the Fathers say), of the internal relations between the Persons of the Holy Trinity, in order to preserve external unity, then what use is this unity?

There are also some who would counsel obedience, stating that we must not oppose hierarchs who have made the decision to adopt the new calendar. To these, one must point out that the ideal of ‘Obedience above truth’ is the motto of Papism. As pointed out earlier with regards to the Uniate Churches, Papal Rome has always elevated external unity to a supreme virtue, subjecting even truth to it. Anyone who counsels obedience to those who in conscience oppose the new calendar are in fact, suggesting a ‘Roman obedience’ that is blind and opposed to the freedom guaranteed by Holy Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy, by its very definition, is concerned with truth, rather than preserving an external, totalitarian unity. We are not Romans, nor Jesuits! If Maximos the Confessor, John of Damascus and Mark Eugenicus had thought like the supporters of the ‘Roman obedience’, Orthodoxy would have long ago been subsumed and deformed beyond recognition, by heresy.

Lastly, it is worth highlighting that the new calendar was imposed brutally on Orthodox faithful through the use of state power. Countless Old Calendarist priests and monks were forcibly shaved, nuns insulted and faithful attending services battered by police working for the state. Holy Gifts were trampled upon and altars overturned, all in the name of installing the new calendar. The persecution reached its high points in 1927 and 1951. One remembers especially New Martyr Catherine Roustis, who was killed by a blow from a rifle butt while defending an old calendar priest in 1927. She reposed on 15/28 November 1927.

This persecution of Orthodox Christians was unleashed by the very same people who had introduced the new calendar innovation to Orthodoxy, in order to ‘re-kindle and strengthen love among the Churches’.

So, the reason I am an Old Calendarist is very simple: I choose to be so because it is logical to be so. It enables me to be faithful to the traditions of the Church as taught by the Fathers and the subsequent local Councils. Old Calendarism (for all its misadventures) possesses the grace of forming saints and martyrs. Most importantly, the new calendarists have failed to give one good reason why I shouldn’t be so.