10. Refutation of Frequent Objections [to the Church of the G.O.C. of Greece]

During the examination of issues in our present work, we had the opportunity to provide at certain specific points the necessary clarifications and explanations to address misunderstandings and objections commonly raised on these matters by the Innovators and their followers.

In this final chapter of ours, we wish to summarize our responses to such objections, which are raised against the Anti-Ecumenist followers of the Patristic Calendar, whether out of malice, ignorance, or confusion.

The careful study of all the material in our work is, of course, a necessary prerequisite if what we present here is to be understood in its proper context. Without this, it is not possible for what is addressed here to be understood with objectivity and impartiality.

With what we write here, we believe that we are not offering a defense but rather engaging in good-faith information to dispel prejudices. Thus, the Little Flock of the Genuine Orthodox, as well as anyone generally resisting today’s process of apostasy, may receive strength and consolation.

As a general observation, we state that our accusers, when they are not among those corrupted by ecumenism or completely biased against us, usually do not delve into the essence of the existing issues and problems that we present here. Instead, they prefer something else: the shifting of problems and evasion, so as to avoid the unpleasant confrontation with the dreadful reality and the particularly pressing and compelling voice of conscience that arises afterward concerning what ought to be done. To fulfill this requires inner strength, heroism, and a willingness to step out of one's comfort zone!

Since there is no sincere willingness to accept the Truth and to understand the confessional path of the "remnant of piety," that is, the disregarded Genuine Orthodox Christians, the easy route is chosen: to attribute accusations that they too are burdened with errors and irregularities and are therefore in deviation and constitute a fall! But is this truly the case?

Those who participate directly or indirectly in the above-described path of apostasy, can they, as the accused, become accusers? And, primarily due to their numerical superiority and other advantages, can they feel superior and easily attack those who consciously and sacrificially uphold the Treasure of the Faith intact and undefiled?

● We wish to emphasize, first of all, that the separation of our Forefathers from the Innovators due to the Calendar Innovation of 1924 did not constitute a schism, as we have already mentioned, and in no way implied the provocation of division for personal or self-serving reasons, as various accusers unfortunately attribute to them entirely uncritically and erroneously (see Vlasios Feidas, Ecclesiastical History, op. cit., p. 216).

Those who reacted to the Calendar Innovation with divine inspiration and prompting, and were supported in this even by wondrous manifestations and blessings, despite the initial persecutory frenzy against them, fought nobly not for the establishment and perpetuation of division but for the restoration of ecclesiastical matters to their former state.

The Canonical Walling-Off in which they engaged (15th Canon of the First-Second Council), and which was formalized more than two whole years after the implementation of the Innovation, constitutes a separation from those in error for reasons of "Faith and Justice" (31st Apostolic Canon). "Justice" here, according to Zonaras, means "contrary to duty and righteousness" (see Rallis-Potlis, The Constitution of the Divine and Sacred Canons, vol. II, p. 40). A violation of "righteousness" also includes the public disregard, contempt, and breach of written or unwritten Tradition. Any violation of the forms of piety and worship, the ecclesiastical order, and its institutions constitutes grounds for a justified cessation of communion (see "Canonical Consideration of the Calendar Schism," in Monk Theodoretos, Orthodoxy and Heresy, ed. by the journal The Hagiorite, Athens 1982, pp. 86–90).

The timeless practice of the Church demonstrates that its faithful children have fought not only for the dogmas, for matters of faith when necessity arose, but also for the Ecclesiastical Traditions when these were disregarded by various impious individuals throughout the ages.

For this reason, Saint Nicodemus the Hagiorite writes with certainty: "Time will not suffice for me to enumerate countless examples of so many Saints who suffered and died for the ecclesiastical institutions and canons" (see On Frequent Communion, ed. S. Schoinas, Volos 1962, p. 108).

We have sufficiently explained that the Calendar Innovation was not a minor or insignificant act but one integrated into a much broader level of Ecumenist perspective, being linked with a change to the Paschalion, serving the purpose of rapprochement and union with the heterodox, though not in agreement with the Faith and Tradition of the Orthodox Church.

We emphasize that obedience is not owed to commands and arbitrary decisions that go against ancient and traditional institutions, such as the Ecclesiastical Calendar. The penalties, condemnations, censures, depositions, etc., imposed by Innovators and transgressors against those who justly and piously remain steadfast in the Patristic traditions have no validity but, on the contrary, constitute a crown of glory and honor. They indeed represent a persecution of faith, as Saint Maximus the Confessor said concerning the deposition of Saint Martin of Rome, the Confessor, by impious men: "He was not deposed, but persecuted" (see PG, vol. 90, col. 128).

● Related to the above is the claim that the ordinations of our Clergy, especially our Bishops, are allegedly uncanonical and invalid because they stem either from deposed Bishops who joined the Patristic Calendar in 1935 (Germanos of Demetrias and Chrysostomos, formerly of Florina) or from "beyond borders" from Bishops of dubious status and condition in America.

Saint Theodore the Studite, first of all, affirms that in times of trial for the faith, so-called ordinations "beyond borders" are acceptable (see PG, vol. 99, cols. 1645, 1648). The fact that we possess valid, canonical, and legitimate ordinations has been thoroughly and comprehensively demonstrated in our detailed studies, especially in recent years. The evidence is entirely convincing and available to anyone interested (see our work, Bishop Chrysostomos Naslimes of Magnesia – An Invincible Struggler in Faith and Fortitude, vol. II, Athens 2020, pp. 218–235, 258, 500–501, 519–523).

Some reproach us, claiming that we should not have Bishops because there is no historical precedent for this, as the Innovators have not been definitively and finally judged by a Great Synod to be removed from the Thrones they occupy.

Historical precedents exist during times of dominance by Latin-minded individuals or Uniate imposition, as occurred with the actions of Patriarch Theophanes III of Jerusalem in present-day Ukraine in 1620, following the false union of Brest-Litovsk in 1596, when he restored an Orthodox Hierarchy in the region (see Vlasios Feidas, Ecclesiastical History of Russia, Apostolic Ministry Publications, Athens 2005, p. 290).

In our time, it is purely a matter of spiritual survival, existence, and continuity. If we did not have Bishops, we simply would not have ensured our continuity. This was more than proven during our five-year orphanhood (1955–1960), between the repose of Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina and the ordination of our Bishop by the universally recognized Russian Church Abroad (see our work, Bishop Chrysostomos Naslimes of Magnesia…, op. cit., pp. 74–177). Unless one becomes aware of what exactly happened during that critical five-year period, what efforts we made to resolve our issue, and what challenges we faced, it is impossible to understand our post-1960 continuity, structure, and mission.

Meanwhile, never before in history have we had a similar precedent of a universal fall—directly or indirectly—into ecclesiological heresy and novel error, such as that of Ecumenism, since by the year 1965, all the local Churches had become "organic members" of the WCC. That same year also witnessed the so-called lifting of the anathemas with the Papists, with no local Church dissociating itself from this unacceptable act of decisive significance. What kind of condemnatory Synod should we have waited for to organize our Church? And from whom? And for how long?

Those rationalists who pose such utopian questions and essentially false dilemmas demonstrate that they are literally out of touch with reality. We impose our existence on no one. Each individual is free to accept or reject us. However, this does not at all affect or influence the reality of our existence, which bears the divine seal of blessing and approval, despite human errors and shortcomings within our ranks.

● The New Calendarists claim that the Flock of the Genuine Orthodox Christians are merely "parasynagogues," not officially judged as schismatics. Condemnatory penalties, according to them, were imposed only on the leading figures of what they consider separatist tendencies.

As for our Clergy, we have just explained above what applies. Regarding our Flock, the verdict of the Innovators does not concern us, as they wish to appear as if they still have some connection with it in defining its identity. However, this Flock has renounced them and does not recognize them. Furthermore, the relentless persecutions unleashed at various times against the faithful of the Patristic Calendar as a means of coercing them to "return" to them clearly demonstrate the entirely erroneous nature of their tactics.

However, there is another significant reason why they did not proceed to a condemnatory designation of the Genuine Orthodox Christians: namely, to exclude any other characterization of their ecclesiastical identity by the institutional bodies of the State. This is because such an action, according to them, would unconstitutionally introduce two parallel and opposing hierarchies within the same Orthodox Church (see Vlasios Feidas, Ecclesiastical History, op. cit., p. 216).

This observation is extremely significant regarding WHO perpetuates the "ambiguity" in our sphere legally, unwilling to resolve this issue in order to safely accuse us of "factions" and "groups," as well as of arbitrariness and disorder. This is highly convenient for the Innovators in every respect—ecclesiastical, spiritual, and institutional.

● Directly related to the present are the accusations that the fragmentation within the sphere of the Patristic Calendar is a sign of a lack of divine blessing and favor.

Those who make such claims usually exaggerate the number of supposed "factions" to dozens, including every kind of marginal group of a few improbable individuals or even isolated clergy who, in various forms and variations, present themselves as alleged followers of the Patristic Calendar. These groups typically change appearances and compositions, have a disrupted history with unclear gaps and voids, and at times fade into obscurity or even cease to exist and disappear, yet they remain in the memory of those particularly diligent in such matters.

A characteristic example of such recent preoccupation is a booklet by a Clergyman of the prevailing Church, who bypasses all the serious concerns surrounding the Calendar issue and devotes himself to research aimed at compiling tables concerning groups and sub-groups of the supposedly fragmented Patristic Calendar (see Archimandrite Nikodimos Athanasiou, The Development of the Old Calendar Issue and the Genesis of the "Factions", ed. "Lichnos," Athens 2023).

We remind, however, that it has been proven with evidence that a clergyman of the New Calendar, Eugenios Tombros from Corfu, was pre-war planted as an agent within the extreme circle of Bishop Matthew of Bresthena in Keratea, Attica, and emerged as a leading figure in the division of this formation from the canonical Holy Synod of the Church of the G.O.C. of Greece. He maintained and solidified the initial schism within the Patristic Calendar (from 1937 onward) by promoting the performance of uncanonical and illegal episcopal consecrations by Bishop Matthew of Bresthena alone in 1948 (see our work, Bishop Chrysostomos Naslimes of Magnesia, op. cit., vol. I, Athens 2019, pp. 392–393, note 1).

Since the origin of the evil in our sphere occurred with the involvement of the Innovators—who, due to their Reform, were the moral authors of everything that subsequently unfolded in our domain—and because their unleashed persecutions led certain individuals to extreme reactions, it is excessive to reproach those who remained Uninnovated for the infiltration of problematic elements among them. This happens in every type of such disorder. There have always been, and still are, "tares" in the good field of the Lord, which exploit circumstances and infiltrate everywhere. However, from the "fruits" and the development and outcome of each, one can discern and evaluate the work of everyone involved.

The issue of the observed divisions, even among confessors and defenders of the faith, is not new. There is evidence that this also occurred in other times during periods of anti-heretical struggle, a fact that caused sorrow but in no way lowered the banner of Orthodoxy.

Saint Theodore the Studite, for example, while giving glory to God "who has called us to the confession of His truth" (see Letter 34), does not remain silent about divisions within the Orthodox faithful: "For even in these struggles for piety, the love of preeminence and contentiousness has the tendency to infiltrate" (see Letter 11), and "quarrels sown by the devil have been known to divide even the healthy part of Orthodoxy" (see Letter 65).

Therefore, it is not at all surprising if divisions are observed even among the right-believing, despite the sorrow and disappointment they cause and the effort that must be made to heal them.

However, do those who criticize the followers of the Patristic Calendar on this matter not have divisions within their own ranks? Is the terrible schism over the Ukrainian issue, which has recently shaken them, a minor separation?

● There are also others who argue that it does not matter which Calendar one follows, which is correct and acceptable, etc.; rather, the most important issue is that of ecclesiastical communion. Since the other local Churches that retained the Patristic Calendar continued to commune with those that accepted the New Calendar, everything is therefore in order, and there is no reason for division and disagreement.

However, this view is evasive, aiming to avoid the essence of the problem. The Calendar issue was, from the beginning, a "disputed matter," and its resolution was expected to come from a Great Synod, either before or after the war. Proposals were made, and hopes were nurtured concerning this. Subsequently, the heresy of Ecumenism clearly emerged behind it, incorporating into its main instrument, the WCC, all the local Orthodox Churches, as we have previously stated, up until the year 1965, whether they followed the New or the Old Calendar.

Therefore, considering ecclesiastical communion as the most important matter regardless of the Calendar is an oversimplification and certainly not the Traditional and Patristic Orthodox model. Truth does not depend on ecclesiastical communion; rather, the exact opposite is true: it is Truth that determines ecclesiastical communion.

The truly Orthodox commune only with those who align in faith and in the tangible and outward preservation and expression of the faith and tradition of the Church, and not with those who falter in these due to the adoption of impermissible Innovations for the sake of Ecumenist expediency. This is not a trivial or easily dismissible matter but a great and absolutely decisive one regarding the choice of ecclesiastical communion.

If the primary issue of Faith is not resolved, ecclesiastical communion with those in error is impossible for the true Orthodox of today, even if they are "granted" the "favor" of retaining the Patristic Calendar and generally maintaining an anti-ecumenist stance and direction. It is now a matter of consistency and precision in faith, not of seeking "legitimization" or "regularization" from those who maintain the outward form but have lost the essence. Canonical is not the one enjoying worldly and institutional recognition, but the one remaining in the timeless Canonical and Traditional Truth of the Church of Christ.

● Related to this is the issue that the followers of the Patristic Calendar, through their Canonical Walling-Off from the Innovators, allegedly severed themselves from the entirety of the Orthodox Church and found themselves uncovered and suspended "outside the Church"!

This is erroneous from every perspective because it bases Canonical legitimacy and participation in the Mystery of the Church on the recognition of some ecclesiastical institutional body rather than on the very preservation, in the fear of God, of the Canon of faith and piety.

Nevertheless, even from a historical perspective, there were leading figures from the so-called official Orthodox Churches who, until very recently, supported in various ways the just Struggle of the followers of the Patristic Calendar in Greece, both clergy and laity. On this subject, indicative studies of ours have been published concerning the relationship, for example, of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece with both the Patriarchate of Alexandria and the Patriarchate of Jerusalem (see the journal Archive of the Holy Struggle, vol. 5/A, First Semester 2017, pp. 5–31, and vol. 7/A, First Semester 2018, pp. 7–36).

● As for the accusation of the alleged non-recognition of contemporary holiness by the Genuine Orthodox, it is something that causes us perplexity and astonishment.

Both because we have recognized Saints within our ranks and among Churches in communion with us, and because some of the greatest saintly Hierarchs of the latter half of the 20th century were fervent supporters and benefactors of ours. These include Archbishop Saint John Maximovitch (†1966), the Wonderworker, and Metropolitan Philaret Voznesensky (†1985) of the Russian Church Abroad, both of whom left behind incorrupt holy relics!

If this, again, pertains to well-known Elders in Greece and elsewhere during the same period, we simply remind that, since we are not bound by the acts and decisions of the Ecumenical Patriarchate—whose leadership we canonically separated from a century ago—we are not obligated to accept the glorifications it has proceeded with in large numbers, especially in recent years. Moreover, it is subject to criticism in certain cases even by clergy and laity otherwise in communion with it, as it canonizes individuals who are controversial and disputed.

However, if as Genuine Orthodox we do not officially recognize certain figures as Saints because they were proclaimed as such by the Ecumenical Patriarchate, does this necessarily mean we are against them? Moreover, who knows with precision—and not superficially or selectively—what their actual stance was toward individuals, both clergy and laity, within our ecclesiastical sphere? Are those who reproach us on this matter certain that they truly and objectively know all the relevant testimonies and evidence simply because they have heard or read some one-sided excerpts in works that often serve the specific agendas of their respective authors?

Here we will present evidence regarding Saint Elder Justin Popović, who is our guide in this study. Whenever he referred, in his official writings published in Greek, to the key issues of Orthodoxy in the modern era, he also mentioned the "Old Calendar" issue, but never as a schism. It is noteworthy that after the publication of the well-known Second Sorrowful Epistle by Saint Metropolitan Philaret of the Russian Diaspora (see it in our work, Saint Philaret of the Russian Church Abroad – A Modern Ascetic and Confessing Hierarch [1903–1985], Fyli, Attica, 2015, pp. 163–197), Saint Elder Justin sent a monk, a student of his, to New York in 1972 to personally convey his enthusiasm and congratulations for that monumental text of Orthodox Confession against Ecumenism. Furthermore, he maintained excellent fraternal relations with members of the Patristic Calendar, such as the late Monk Victor Matthaios (†1973), publisher of the Great Synaxarion (see The Great Synaxarion of the Orthodox Church, vol. XIV, Pentecostarion, 5th ed., by Bishop Matthew Langis of Oinoi, Athens 1999, pp. 451–452, note). He also gave a written blessing to a monk, his student, during the latter’s further studies in Greece in the mid-1970s, to serve liturgically at a women's monastic hermitage in Attica, where the then Archbishop of our Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece was commemorated. Can one imagine that a Patristic figure of the stature of Justin Popović, with the most intact and pure Orthodox dogmatic sensitivity and conscience, would have guided his student into entering a schism and an extra-ecclesiastical state? Such a notion is a glaring absurdity, as well as an impermissible blasphemy!…

It is therefore not correct for our accusers to hasten to generalizations and conclusions on this matter, as they do not know all the relevant facts. We can provide more detailed explanations on this subject if and when necessary. For the time being, we recall the Gospel saying of our Lord, which applies to this matter: "For he that is not against us is for us" (Luke 9:50).

Even the criticism of such contemporary figures regarding certain problems within the sphere of the Patristic Calendar, if and when it was expressed, in no way undermines the essence of our sacred Struggle. This is simply because we, too, in the Patristic Calendar, are not at peace with matters that constitute deviations, as we maintain the spirit of discernment that must prevail and characterize those who conduct a struggle for the Faith, ensuring it is lawful and pleasing to God. This is dictated by our God-centered conscience and has been handed down to us through the teaching and example of the holy figures within our ranks.

In conclusion, we present an extensive excerpt from a relatively recent text of ours, which aids in the better understanding of this matter, as well as the issues addressed in this chapter and, more generally, in our current study:

As long as the widely promoted Ecumenist ceremonies increase, and as long as the unacceptable by the Holy Canons joint prayers and blessings/‘mis-blessings’ are spread here and there, the world will not recover. The path toward the great trials of the last times is simply being accelerated, as Apostasy intensifies and expands.

Those "traditional" brethren who reproach us, the Orthodox Christians of the Patristic Calendar, as supposedly uncanonical, schismatic, troublemakers, and problematic, must understand well that not only do they fail to concern or "inform" us that all these unfounded, erroneous, and unacceptable claims are allegedly valid, but they simply sadden us for the extent of their misunderstanding. This causes them to miss the essence and remain attached even now to mere formalities!

Those of us who, by the grace of God, do not participate directly or indirectly in a Pan-Heresy like the heretical Ecumenism are not to be pitied for this but rather to be commended, despite our personal shortcomings in other respects. On the contrary, those who partake in this tragic condition—which is unparalleled in the history of the Church from its beginning to the present—are the ones who are truly to be pitied! Here lies the very essence of the problem: whether it is acceptable and justified, or entirely forbidden, to still consider as being in communion those who engage in the dreadful Ecumenist deviations, and not to focus instead on the islands of Orthodox resistance within the ocean of confusion. This raises the question of whether and to what extent these islands meet the Canonical prerequisites for what they are doing—namely, "breathing freely the genuine oxygen of Orthodoxy," to paraphrase the legendary Augoustinos Kantiotes (an audio recording exists of his greeting at the celebration of the Sunday of Orthodoxy by the Genuine Orthodox Christians in Athens in 1967)—and whether their stance aligns with the established practice of the Church!

But is a special "permit" needed for this? Is it not a matter of spiritual survival? Is spiritual growth and perfection safer within the foul stench of heretical Ecumenism? Do these brethren feel spiritually secure when their shepherds make statements and engage in actions of the worst Ecumenist excesses? What worse thing must happen to alarm them and compel them to leave this condemnable association? In any case, the "Common Paschalion" is rapidly approaching within a short time, to "seal" the Ecumenist recipe with its poisonous flavor even more effectively.

May our accusers be freed from their mental bonds, for at present, they resemble those who "strain out a gnat but swallow a camel" (Matt. 23:24), so that they may not be condemned as "blind guides" and "hypocrites"!

Our forebears in the Faith, moved by genuine Orthodox zeal, sacrificially preserved the "least" (Matt. 16:10) by rejecting the Calendar Reform and thus were rightfully delivered from the "much," meaning the great evil of the Ecumenist heresy. What if some of them, in their excessive zeal, were even led to extremes? Does this tarnish or nullify their good confession, which was also strengthened by divine signs? We, too, ask, as the Holy Apostle does: "For who has resisted His will? But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God?" (Rom. 9:19-20).

By the divine mercy, we were not, are not, and will not be part of the Apostasy of Faith, and we infinitely thank our Lord and God for His Providence and care for us, the unworthy. We only pray for those of our brethren who, it seems, are unaware of the magnitude of the "beam" (Matt. 7:3) that darkens their spiritual vision and reproach us, citing the "mote" in our own eyes, which we do not deny truly exists.

We wish to explain, however, that if certain Clergy or well-known Elders, who lived several decades before us, serve as an example to others due to their supposedly "discerning" stance of maintaining communion with the Innovators and Ecumenists, then such individuals are indeed in a precarious and vulnerable position. The message of those earlier figures is clearly anti-Ecumenist. Yet, the contemporary Ecumenist ecclesiastical leaders not only failed to heed the message and stance of those Elders—despite, for various reasons, rushing even to "canonize" them—but are also the primary contemptors and violators of their message regarding matters of Faith! If this paradoxical and irrational situation constitutes a "measure of discernment" even for today, then we are in severe error concerning the understanding of even the most evident truths. Those who find spiritual justification in this tragic absurdity and regard this severely flawed situation as exemplary, we regret to say, can only be the subjects of our prayers for their timely recovery.

We remind you that we also know of other holy Elders, endowed with manifest gifts of the Holy Spirit, who were discerning defenders of our position and stance. Nevertheless, what is most important for us is that the timeless Scriptural and Patristic teaching of our Church is unshakable, absolutely binding, and far superior to any Elder or spiritual father. This teaching proclaims that we are safely in communion only with those who uphold, in deed and word, the confession of Faith in its pure and unwavering form.

This principle and assurance cannot be changed for us by anyone, even if it is an angel from heaven! (cf. Gal. 1:8).

We preserve and uphold everything that the holy Orthodox Church has always preserved and upheld, and accordingly, we reject and condemn everything that it has always rejected and condemned, including the newly emergent Ecumenist pan-heresy!

This is our humble, yet decisive and non-negotiable stance and position until death, so that we may attain the mercy of God and eternal life!

(See "Sorrowful Ecumenist Events and the Imperative Duty of Orthodox Persistence," in the journal The Voice of Orthodoxy, issue no. 1036/September-October 2023, pp. 9–10).

* * *

In conclusion, regarding the question of the appropriate stance after all that has been mentioned, we dare to suggest that, in the face of emboldened Ecumenists, attention, prayer, and a call to their repentance are required. Socially, we may be courteous and peace-loving people, desiring peace, good relations, and understanding to avoid extremes and tensions, but this does not negate the essence.

The Lord urges us to heightened vigilance: "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves" (Matt. 7:15). The Apostle Paul exhorts us to separate from those who are not right-believing: "Come out from among them and excommunicate [be separate]" (2 Cor. 6:17). The Canonical Tradition of the Orthodox honors those who separate themselves from false bishops and false teachers (15th Canon of the First-Second Council), even if externally they have not been removed from their thrones, as they are spiritually and ecclesiastically "self-condemned."

The holy Struggle for the Faith demonstrates love for Christ and His Church, as well as for oneself and one’s neighbor. In the face of the pan-heresy of Ecumenism and the many evils that have arisen, continue to arise, and will arise from it, unwavering and uncompromising opposition "unto death" (Rev. 2:10) is required. Inaction is unjustifiable; rather, there must be support for those who struggle and are persecuted for the Faith. Our Lord will grant the crown of victory to those who remain steadfast and endure to the end.

He also assured us: "Fear not, little flock" (Luke 12:32). We may be few, we may become even fewer, and we may be even more despised. Yet, we must remain steadfast in what we are assured of in our souls, regardless of numbers or visible results, demonstrating humble faithfulness to the divine Commandment. We oppose the heresy of Ecumenism and Secularization, without triumphalism or arrogance, and without looking down on anyone.

We do not aim for self-serving purposes, nor do we engage in personal battles. We love unity, but in truth. We are convinced that few are saved from the flood of apostasy, few resist the delusions, impositions, pressures, threats, persecutions, and oppressions. It has always been the few who served as the leaven for awakening the responsible authorities to uphold the Truth and to bring about the desired resolution and condemnation of any deviation, Synodically and definitively.

May we remain steadfast and unyielding, with holy zeal guided by knowledge, on the path of Truth, within Christ's Little Flock, in His True Church, with boundless patience and love even for our enemies, so that we may obtain divine Mercy. Amen!

 

- Metropolitan Klemes of Larissa and Platamon, 100 χρόνια Ἡμερολογιακῆς Μεταρρύθμισης (1924–2024) Ἡμερολογιακὸ – Οἰκουμενισμὸς Κοινὸ Πασχάλιο – «Πρωτεῖο» Κωνσταντινούπολης [100 Years of the Calendar Reform (1924 – 2024): Calendar – Ecumenism – Common Paschalion – "Primacy" of Constantinople], Larissa, 2024, pp. 105-120.