Excerpt from the newly-translated "One Hundred Years Since the Calendar Reform," by Metropolitan Clement of Larissa and Platamon.

[As translated by Hieromonk Savvas (Anastasiou)]

Chapter 10. Rebuttal of Frequent Accusations

When examining issues in this book, we have had the opportunity to provide some necessary clarifications and explanations on some specific points, to address misunderstandings and controversies about them, usually on the part of Innovators and their followers.

In this last chapter, we wish to summarize our responses to such objections which are raised against the anti-ecumenical followers of the Patristic Calendar, whether maliciously, ignorantly, or out of confusion.

A careful study of all the material in our work is of course a necessary condition if what we have herein set forth is to be understood in its proper context. Without this, it is not possible to understand these facts objectively and impartially.

With what we write here we think that we are not apologizing but rather providing good faith information to dispel prejudices. So that the Small Flock of Genuine Orthodox, as well as every general opponent of today's ongoing apostasy, may receive support and consolation.

As a general observation, we say that usually our accusers when they do not belong to those who are not among those corrupted by Ecumenism, or those who are completely prejudiced against us, instead of getting to the essence of the issues presented here, they prefer to postpone and evade the problems in order to avoid the unpleasant confrontation with the terrible reality, and the particularly pressing and compelling voice of conscience that then arises about what must be done. This requires fortitude of soul, heroism and bravery.

Therefore, since there is no sincere willingness to present the Truth and to understand the confessional path of the remnant of piety, it is easy to accuse the despised Genuine Orthodox Christians of being burdened with errors and un-canonicities. But is this so? 

Those who participate directly or indirectly in the above-described path of apostasy, can they therefore go from being accused to becoming accusers and, mainly because of quantitative superiority and other advantages, to feeling superior and easily attack those who consciously and sacrificially hold the Treasure of Faith intact and immaculate? 

We want to emphasize first that the separation of our Forefathers from the Modernists because of the Calendar Innovation of 1924 did not constitute a schism, as we have already mentioned, and it did not at all provoke a division for personal and selfish reasons, as unfortunately various accusers wrongly accuse them of doing. 

Those who reacted to the Calendar Innovation with divine inspiration and impulse and were strengthened in it even by miraculous blessings, despite the initial persecutory fury against them, fought well, not for the establishment and perpetuation of the division but for the restoration of ecclesiastical order. 

The canonical walling-off which they made (according to Canon 15 of the First-Second Council), and which was formalized about two years after the beginning of the Innovation, was a permissible separation from wrongdoers for reasons of "Faith and Justice" (31st Apostolic Canon). "Justice" here means, according to John Zonaras (1074-1145 AD), "according to duty and the law." Violation of "Justice" is public contempt and disregard of written or unwritten Tradition. Every violation of the model of piety and worship, of ecclesiastical order and its institutions, constitutes a reason for a justified rupture of ecclesiastical communion. 

The timeless action of the Church proves that her faithful children fought not only for the doctrines; for matters of Faith when the need arose, but also for the Church Traditions when they were despised by various wicked men throughout the ages. 

This is why St. Nikodimos of Mount Athos writes with certainty: "Time will not allow me to recount the myriad examples of so many saints who have been cut down and died for the sake of ecclesiastical institutions and canons" (see "Concerning Frequent Holy Communion of the Immaculate Mysteries"). 

We have sufficiently explained that the Calendar Innovation was not a small and indifferent act, but one embedded in a much broader level of Ecumenism, as connected with a change of the Paschalion, in the service of an approach towards unification with the heterodox, but not in agreement with the Faith and Tradition of the Orthodox Church. 

We emphasize that obedience is not due to commands and arbitrary decisions against ancient institutions such as the Church Calendar. But the sentences, convictions, penalties, depositions, etc. on the part of the Innovators and violators against those who rightly and piously adhere to the Patristic things, have no validity but, on the contrary, are a crown of glory and honour. They even constitute a persecution of the Faith, according to the words of St. Maximus the Confessor concerning the excommunication of St. Martin of Rome the Confessor by the impious: "He was not excommunicated, but persecuted" (see PG v. 90, column 128). 

Related to the above is the allegation that the ordinations of our Clergy, and especially our Hierarchs, are uncanonical and inefficacious, because they come either from Hierarchs deposed after they joined Patristic Calendar in 1935 (Germanos of Demetrias, and Chrysostomos of Florina, emeritus), or because they were performed "beyond the borders" by Hierarchs of dubious status in America. 

St. Theodore the Studite affirms that in times when the Faith is under trial, ordinations performed "beyond the borders" are acceptable (see PG vol. 99, pp. 1645, 1648). The fact that we have hypostatic, efficacious and real ordinations has been understood in detail, and thoroughly proved through special studies especially in recent years. The evidence is convincing and available to all interested parties. 

Some reproach us that we should not have Hierarchs because there is no such historical precedent since the Innovators were not judged by a Great Council definitively and finally, so that they could be expelled from the Thrones they hold. 

Historical precedents exist at time of the Uniate domination, as was the case with the action of Patriarch Theophanes III of Jerusalem in present-day Ukraine in 1620 after the 1596 false-union of Brest Litovsk, when he restored the Orthodox hierarchy in that region. 

In our time it is purely a matter of spiritual survival, existence and continuity. If we did not have leaders, we simply would not ensure our continuity. This was exemplified during our five-year orphanage (1955-1960), between the repose of St. Chrysostomos of Florina, and the ordination of our Hierarchs by the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad which Church is recognized by all. If it is not known what exactly happened during that crucial five-year period, what and how many efforts we made to resolve our issue and what we faced, it is impossible to understand our continuity, form, and mission after 1960. Meanwhile, never before in history have we had a similar precedent of falling — directly or indirectly — into ecclesiological cacodoxy and newfangled heresy such as that of Ecumenism. Since the 1960's all Local Churches have been organic members of the WCC. The year 1965 also saw the so-called lifting of the anathemas with the Papists, no local Church having differentiated itself from this unauthorised act of decisive importance. What condemnatory Council should we expect? All things up to a certain point. 

Those rationalists who pose such utopian questions and essentially false dilemmas prove that they are outside of place and time. We do not impose our existence on anyone. Everyone is free to accept or reject us. But this does not in any way affect the reality of our existence, which bears a divine seal of blessing and approval, despite the human errors and imperfections among us. 

The New Calendarists claim that the flock of Genuine Orthodox Christians are simply a conventicle not officially judged as schismatics. Condemnatory sentences were imposed only on leading members of what they considered to be separatists. 

As far as our Clergy is concerned, we have just explained above what is true. As for our Flock, we are certainly not concerned with the verdict of the Innovators who wish to appear to be still related to it as far as its definition is concerned, but which Flock has disowned them and does not recognize them. After all, the persecution of the Lord's believers occasionally unleashed as a means of forcing them to "return," clearly proves their errant tactics. 

Another important reason they did not condemn the Genuine Orthodox Christians, namely, to exclude any other characterization of their ecclesiastical identity by the institutional bodies of the state, because according to them, this would unconstitutionally introduce two parallel and rival hierarchies of the Orthodox Church. 

This observation is very important as to who is perpetuating the ambiguity among us, not wishing to settle the issue, to accuse us of "divisions" and "factions," as well as of arbitrariness and disorder. This suits the Innovators very well from every point of view: ecclesiastical, spiritual and institutional. 

Directly related to the above are the accusations that the multiple divisions among the "Old Calendarists" signify a lack of divine blessing and goodwill. 

Those who say this usually multiply the number of so-called factions by dozens, counting every kind of fringe group of a few unaffiliated people or individuals who wear the rasson, who in various forms and variations appear as supposed followers of the Patristic Calendar. They usually change their views and compositions, have a disturbed history with unclear gaps, sometimes pass into obscurity or disappear, but remain in the memory of some who are diligent in these pursuits. 

A typical example of such a recent preoccupation is a booklet by a Cleric of the State Church, who bypasses all the serious problematics of the Calendar Issue and engages in research to compile tables on groups and sub-groups of the supposedly multi-divided "Old Calendarists." 

However, we must remember that it has been proven with evidence that a clergyman of the New Calendar, one Evgenios Tombros (1905-1982) from Corfu, before WWII was enlisted as an initiate in the extreme environment of Bishop Matthew (Karpathakis) of Bresthena (1861-1950) in Keratea, Attica, and became a leading figure in the formation of this group, separate from the canonical Holy Synod of the Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians (G.O.C.) of Greece. He maintained and strengthened the original separation among those who observe the Patristic Calendar (1937) by pushing for the execution of uncanonical and illicit ordinations of bishops by Matthew of Bresthena alone in 1948.

Since the beginning of the evil among us was done with the involvement of the Innovators, who, because of their Reform, were the moral authors of what followed among us, and their persecution led to extreme counter-actions by some, it is too much to blame those who have remained Un-innovative because of the infiltration of problematic elements. That is what happens in any such instance. There were and still are weeds in the Lord's field, which take advantage of circumstances and creep in everywhere, but by the fruits and the development and outcome of each, the work of each can be evaluated and understood. 

However, difficulties even in the relationships between confessors and strugglers for the Faith is not new. There are testimonies that this happened elsewhere, in times of anti-heretical struggle, a fact that caused regret but did not at all undermine the flag of Orthodoxy. St Theodore the Studite, for example, while giving glory to God "who has called us to the confession of his truth" (see Epistle 34) did not, however, remain silent about divisions among the Orthodox of that time: "For it has happens that even among those who contest for piety, the love of being first and the love of rivalry creep in." (see Epistle 11), and "Those who are secretly induced by the devil tend to divide even the healthy part of Orthodoxy." (see Epistle 65). 

So, it is not at all surprising that there are also differences between these Orthodox people, despite the regret and disappointment they cause and the effort to heal them that must be sought. 

But do not those who falsely accuse the followers of the Patristic Traditions have such divisions among themselves? Is the dreadful division over the Ukrainian issue that has recently shaken them a minor separation? 

There are others, who argue that it doesn't matter which Calendar one follows; which is the correct and acceptable one, etc., but the most important thing is the issue of ecclesiastical Communion. Since the other Local Churches that kept the Old Calendar continue to commune with those that accepted the New, therefore all is well and there is no reason for division and discord. 

But this view is a delaying tactic to avoid the essence of the problem. The Calendar Issue was from the outset contentious and was expected to be resolved by a Grand Synod either before or after WWII. Proposals were made and hopes were raised. Then the heresy of Ecumenism increased, and by 1965 included all the Local Orthodox Churches in its main body: the WCC, whether they followed the New or the Old Calendar. 

So, to consider ecclesiastical communion the most important thing regardless of the Calendar is simplistic and certainly not the Traditional and Patristic Orthodox model. Truth is not dependent on ecclesiastical communion, but the exact opposite is true: It is ecclesiastical communion that is dependent on Truth. 

The truly Orthodox commune only with those who agree in the Faith and in the visible and external preservation and expression of the Faith and Tradition of the Church, and not with those who fall short of these because of the adoption of unacceptable innovations for the sake of Ecumenism. This is not a small and easily forgivable matter, but a major and decisive one in terms of the choice of the ecclesial community. 

Unless the main issues of Faith are resolved, it is impossible for the True Orthodox of today to have an ecclesiastical communion with those in error, even if the latter do maintain the Patristic Calendar and some sort of criticism of Ecumenism in general. It is ultimately a matter of consistency and precision of Faith, and not an aspiration to "legitimization" or "normalization" by those who retain the outward form but have lost the essence. The one who is canonical is not the one who enjoys secular and institutional recognition, but the one who remains in the timeless, canonical, and Traditional Truth of the Church of Christ. 

Related to this is the charge that the followers of the Patristic Traditions, through their canonical walling-off from the Innovators, have severed themselves from the entire Orthodox Church, and find themselves in limbo, and are outside the Church. 

This is wrong from every point of view because it makes Canonicity and participation in the Mystery of the Church dependent on the recognition of some ecclesiastical organizations and not on the observance of the Rule of Faith and Piety in Fear of God. 

Even from a historical point of view there were leaders of the so-called official Orthodox Churches, who until very recently, in various ways supported the righteous struggle of the followers of the Patristic Calendar in Greece, both clergy and laity. In this regard, we have published indicative works on the relationship, for example, of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece with both the Patriarchate of Alexandria and the Patriarchate of Jerusalem.

The accusation that the Genuine Orthodox Christians do not recognize modern saints is something that causes us wonder and surprise.

Both because we have established Saints in our country (Greece tr.) and in the Churches in communion with us, and also, because our warm supporters and benefactors were some of the greatest Holy Hierarchs in the second half of the last century: Archbishop St. John Maximovich († 1966) the Wonderworker, and Metropolitan St. Philaret Voznesensky († 1985) of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, who possess incorrupt holy relics. 

If this also refers to Elders of that period who are well known in Greece and elsewhere, we simply remind you that since we are not bound by the actions and decisions of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, from whose leadership we have been separated for a century, we are not obliged to accept the canonizations which it has been making in the last few years in particular, and on occasion we even receive criticism for this from clergy and laity who are otherwise in communion with the Innovators because the Ecumenical Patriarchate canonizes even questionable and controversial persons. 

If we, as Genuine Orthodox, do not officially recognize some figures as Saints because the Ecumenical Patriarchate has declared it, does that mean that we are against them in every way? Who knows exactly, and not prematurely and selectively, what was their actual attitude towards persons, clergy and laity of our Church? Are those who reproach us for this certain that they know all the relevant testimonies and all the facts truthfully and objectively, or have they read some unilateral passages in some works which often serve a specific purpose of the author? 

Here we will quote information about St. Justin Popović who is our guide in this study. Whenever he reported in his official writings that have come to light in the Greek language on the main issues of Orthodoxy in modern times, he also spoke about the "Old Calendar" issue, and not, of course, just about it. It is characteristic that after the publication of the well-known "Second Sorrowful Epistle" of Metropolitan St. Philaret of the ROCOR, St. Justin sent a student of his to New York in 1972 to convey to him in person his enthusiasm and congratulations for this monumental Text of Orthodox Confession against Ecumenism. He also maintained excellent fraternal relations with adherents of the Patristic Calendar such as the distinguished Monk Victor Matthew († 1973), editor of the Great Synaxaristes. He also gave a written blessing to one of his students, a Hieromonk, during his postgraduate studies in Greece in the mid-1970's, to serve as a chaplain in a Convent in Attica, in which the then Archbishop of our Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece was commemorated. Is it possible to conceive that someone of the Patristic stature Justin Popović, with the most intact and pure Orthodox doctrinal sensitivity and conscience, could have induced his disciple to enter a schism and extra-ecclesiastical state? This is patently absurd and an unacceptable blasphemy. 

It is therefore not right for our accusers to rush to conclusions and judgments on this matter, because they are ignorant of all the relevant facts. We can make a more detailed explanation of this if necessary. Currently, we recall our Lord's saying, which applies to this matter: "Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us." (Luke 9:50). 

Even the criticism of such relatively modern figures on certain problems among the adherents of the Patristic Traditions in no way affects the essence of our Holy Struggle. For we, the adherents of the Patristic Traditions, are simply not concerned with things that constitute aberrations, if we maintain the spirit of discernment that must prevail and characterize those who wage the struggle of the Faith for it to be legitimate and God-pleasing. This is what our God-given conscience dictates and what holy figures have handed down to us by their teaching and example. 

In conclusion, we quote extensively from a relatively recent paper of ours, which helps to better understand it, as well as the issues discussed in this chapter and in our present study in general: 

If the much-promoted Ecumenical rites are increasing, and if the concelebrations; co-blessings; and "apologies" not in accordance with the Holy Canons continue, the world will not get back on its feet. It will only accelerate the path toward the great trials of the last days, as apostasy intensifies and expands. 

Those "traditional" brethren who reproach us, the Orthodox Christians of the Patristic Traditions, as supposedly uncanonical, schismatic, agitators and problematic, should understand well that not only do they not trouble us, and inform us that all these unfounded, wrong, and unacceptable things are supposedly in force, but they are simply saddening us by the magnitude of their misunderstanding, so that they miss the point and remain attached even now to the outward appearance. 

Those of us who, by God's grace, do not participate directly or indirectly in a Pan-heresy, such as that of malignant Ecumenism, are not worthy of pity in this respect, but worthy praise, despite our otherwise personal inadequacy. On the contrary, those involved in this tragic situation, the likes of which have not been seen in Church history from the beginning until now, are the ones who are worthy of pity. This is exactly where the essence of the problem is focused, whether it is acceptable and justified, or totally forbidden to consider as co-communicants either those who carry out horrible Ecumenical aberrations, or the little islands of Orthodox resistance in the ocean of confusion, whether and to what extent they meet the Canonical conditions to "breathe freely the genuine oxygen of Orthodoxy," to paraphrase the legendary Avgoustinos Kantiotis (1907-2010) (there is an audio recording of his greeting at the Genuine Orthodox Christians' celebration of the Sunday of Orthodoxy in Athens, 1967), and whether and to what extent their position corresponds to the established practice of the Church. 

Do we need special permission for this? Isn't it a matter of spiritual survival? Is it safer to grow and perfect our spiritual growth and perfection within the horrible fumes of evil Ecumenism? Do these brethren feel spiritually safe when their Shepherds make statements and actions of manipulative Ecumenical plurality? What worse things must be accomplished to alarm them and bring them out of this reprehensible synergy? In any case, the "Common Paschalion" is coming soon, so that the Ecumenist recipe will bind together even better in its poisonous taste. 

May our accusers be freed from their imaginary bonds, because at present they are like those which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel (Matt. 23:24) so that they will not be condemned as blind guides and hypocrites. 

Our forefathers in the Faith, moved by genuine Orthodox zeal, sacrificially preserved the "lesser" (Matt. 16:10) by rejecting the Calendar Reform, and thus were redeemed from the "greater," that is, of the greatest evil of the Ecumenical heresy. What if some of them, in their excessive zeal, were even driven to extremes? Does this tarnish or abolish their good confession and their good faith confirmed by divine signs? We also ask, as the Holy Apostle does, who are you to contradict God? (see Rom. 9:10). We, by divine mercy, have not been, are not, and will not be part of the Apostasy of Faith, and we thank our Lord and God infinitely for the providence of His care for us the unworthy. Only, we pray for those of our brethren, who seem to be ignorant of the size of the "beam" (Matt. 7:3) which darkens their spiritual vision and blasphemes us by appealing to the beam in our own eyes, which we do not deny that it does exist. 

But we want to explain that if some Clerics or well-known Elders who lived some decades before us, are setting an example with their supposedly discerning attitude towards the Innovators and Ecumenists, then they are indeed in a difficult and precarious position. The message of those earlier figures is clearly anti-Ecumenical. But the modern Ecumenical Church leaders have not only not been enlightened by the message and stance of those Elders, even though for many and varied reasons they have even rushed to canonize them, but they are also the first despisers and tramplers of their message on matters of the Faith. If this paradoxical and absurd thing constitutes a "measure of discernment" even for today, then we are in a cowardly state of mind in understanding even these most obvious things. For those who are spiritually covered by this tragedy and who consider this seriously afflicted situation as exemplary, we regret but can only wish for their speedy awakening. 

We know other holy Elders, enriched with evident gifts of the Holy Spirit, who were distinguished champions of our position and attitude. However, what is most important for us is that the timeless hagiographical and Patristic word of our Church is unshakable, absolutely binding and far superior to any elder or spiritual father. It proclaims that we communicate safely only with those who keep the confession of Faith unadulterated and inviolable. 

No one can change this principle and assurance for us, even if he is an angel from heaven. (see Gal. 1:8). We guard and preserve what the Holy Orthodox Church has always guarded and preserved, and consequently we reject and condemn what She has always rejected and condemned, as well as the neo-pagan Ecumenical pan-heresy. This is our humble, but firm and unquestioning stance and position until our last breath, so that we may have the mercy of God and eternal life. 

*** 

Finally, on the question of the appropriate attitude to take following all that has been said above, we dare to suggest that caution, prayer, and a call to repentance are required against the demoralized Ecumenists. We may be socially polite and peaceful people, desiring peace, good relations and understanding, to avoid extremes and tensions, but this does not negate the point. 

The Lord exhorts us to increased caution: "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." (Matt. 7:15). The Apostle Paul urges us to separate ourselves from those who are not of sound mind: "Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate." (2 Cor. 6:17). The canonical tradition of the Orthodox honours those who are separated from false teachers and false doctrines (Canon 15 First-Second Council) even if they have not been externally expelled from their thrones, because they are spiritually and ecclesiastically self-condemned. 

The holy Struggle of the Faith shows love for Christ and His Church, as well as for oneself and one's neighbour. An unswerving and uncompromising opposition "unto death" (Rev. 2:10) is required against the Pan-Heresy of Ecumenism and all the evils that have come, are coming and will come from it. There is no justification for inaction, but support for those struggling and persecuted for the faith. Our Lord will give the crown of victory to those who persevere and endure to the end. He also assured us: "Fear not, little flock" (Luke 12:32). We may be few, remain even fewer, and be despised even more. We need to remain in what we are informed in our souls, regardless of the quantity and visible results, demonstrating humble fidelity to the divine command. We oppose the heresy of Ecumenism and Secularism, without any triumphalism and arrogance, without dishonoring anyone.

We do not seek selfish ends, we do not fight on behalf of any man, we love unity, but in truth. Few are they who are saved from the cataclysm of apostasy; few react to deceptions, impositions, pressures, threats, persecutions and oppressions. Few have always been the yeast for the awakening of those in authority to strengthen the Truth as well as the desirable expulsion and condemnation of any aberration, both Synodally and definitively.

May we remain immovable and un-innovating, with holy zeal according to knowledge, in the Little Flock of Christ, in His True Church, with infinite patience and love even for our enemies, that we may obtain divine mercy. Amen.

Source: One Hundred Years Since the Calendar Reform, Metropolitan Clement of Larissa and Platamon, Larissa: Holy Metropolis of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Larissa, 2024, pp. 166-195. Posted online:

https://goctoronto.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/One-Hundred-Years-Since-the-Calendar-Reform.pdf

Greek original: https://imlp.gr/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/100%CE%A7%CF%81%CE%BF%CE%BD%CE%B9%CE%B1-%CE%A3.pdf

Non-Commemorating Athonites Respond to Ecclesiological Issues Regarding Walling Off

[Written after New Calendarist critics claimed they were leading the faithful into the Old Calendar Church. Translated for informational purposes and to encourage dialogue.]

October 12, 2017

 

The Holy Mountain remains silent, and it remains silent prudently and with discernment, speaking when and insofar as it is necessary. Athonite monasticism does not wander about whenever and however certain people wish, as a spectacle and idle display of knowledge, on the internet or anywhere else…

Already from the very first moment of our blessed and by no means easy walling off, in the midst of extreme voices, accusations, and slanders from the ecumenists and their naive or not so naive fellow travelers, we steadfastly and consistently upheld those things which we set forth, from the very beginning, in the Confession of Faith, that is, in the very text of this our walling off. At first, we were universally praised—though this was not the aim of our actions—by all those who were associated with the walling off; but this was at the beginning…

The continuation was as expected: slanders, insults (things were heard unfitting for the monastic habit from many...), while we faced, and continuously face, a campaign of mudslinging and false information from both known and unknown persons. All this, it should be noted, took place in the midst of persecution by the monastic administrations, which led many elders as well as younger monks "to take their little cassock and depart from the monasteries of their repentance."

Yet nothing seems to dismay certain "keyboard warriors," who, without cost and in complete safety in their homes, hurl thunderbolts, attacking anyone who has the misfortune to disagree with them on something. Their — to say the least — mediocre theological formation is betrayed by the level and tone of their writings, while they boast, considering themselves as "theologians." The Fathers teach what the prerequisites of theologizing are; let these so-called "warriors," as well as their followers, make the effort to learn them…

A recent example is the curiously coordinated — in terms of timing — attack of Messrs. Ioannis Rizos and Panagiotis Televantos against us, in which even this counsel of the Gospel (Matt. 18:15-17) was brutally left unused... The positions of our accusers coincide on some issues, while on others they are literally at opposite poles, rendering them... the two extremes. Both have demonstrated that a discussion conducted in the appropriate manner does NOT interest them; they simply want to "tell it to the Church," confusing the public space of the internet with the Church itself... Any dispute with them clearly does not have a personal character (we know them very little or not at all), and constitutes an opportunity to highlight broader theological problems within the anti-ecumenist sphere.

On the substance of the matter, we must first observe that all those good brethren who today accuse us had praised our Confession of Faith when it was published (August 2016), without even having made, as it is proven, the effort to read it. Today we are being slandered with the gravest accusations, those of schism and heresy (!), because we made the "mistake" of laboriously requesting, both publicly and privately, the concentration of the efforts of the anti-ecumenist forces exclusively and solely on the theological confrontation of the accursed Ecumenism, and not on the stirring up of secondary issues, and indeed exceedingly prematurely and in an erroneous manner (that is, public positioning without careful deliberation). There are things which it is good for everyone to know, but there are also matters which, without the appropriate and careful deliberation, it is even dangerous to make public. We refer, of course, to theological matters.

The figures who were seeking, as is now clearly evident from the events, the promotion and prevalence of their personal opinions, appear afterwards as champions of the patristic traditions, in complete contradiction to the holy Fathers, whose writings abound in personal letters concerning the essential (or not) matters which occupied the ecclesiastical body. What a contrast with today's online "storm" of the keyboard theologians and their public statements...

Even through the adverse conditions that have arisen, we shall attempt to present our original theological position concerning the issues that have been stirred up, in the form of a statement.

A. The "Within–Outside" the Church Struggle

From the beginning, there were differences on the thorny issue of the struggle "within" or "outside" the Church.

Essentially setting aside the principal task of this critical post-Kolymbarian period—that is, the theological exposure of the pseudo-council and the new heretical theology that was produced there—certain circles (Televantos and others) immediately began the polemic concerning the obligatory or optional character of the 15th canon of the First-Second Council under Photios the Great (861), and this in the public space of the internet, as if theology were a light life-style topic...

This sensitive point, directly connected with the blessed and canonically defined ecclesiastical (and certainly not "personal") act of walling off (that is, the cessation of commemoration of the bishop preaching heresy), without substantial study, much less discussion, took in an exceptionally short time a central place in public internet "discussions" and commentary, usually of a coffeehouse type. Some do not understand that discussion on theological matters requires not only "knowledge" but also purification with the fear of God, for it is easy for someone to derail unto the loss of his salvation, as well as that of those who may possibly follow him. The result was the ever-increasing scandalization and confusion of many of the faithful who, unfortunately, allow themselves to be "informed" exclusively by what this or that internet commentator writes… In any case, it seems that the purpose of these (interconnected) circles is the dissemination of confusion among the Orthodox. We stress that it is one thing to be informed about the actions of the ecumenists and their theological errors, which we commend, and quite another to leap upon critical, strategic matters, which are not for everyone to "play" with, unto the destruction of the souls of the flock. We must draw attention to these matters of a pastoral nature, since the Holy Mountain—let them refute us if they can—PASTORS (in a consultative manner) not merely on a parish level, but GLOBALLY.

After these necessary clarifications, we respond that already from our Confession of Faith we made clear that:

"The ecclesiastical struggle which we undertake is carried out primarily for reasons of a soteriological nature, remaining faithful to the ecclesiology of the Orthodox patristic tradition, and, because of this, within the Body of the Orthodox Church. We do not proceed to the establishment of another 'church'—perish the blasphemy—nor do we join any Old Calendarist episcopal faction. Remaining faithful to the Symbol of the Orthodox Faith, we remain simply ORTHODOX CHRISTIANS and confess the timeless, patristic, salvific truth which we have received, that the Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. We condemn and anathematize the Pan-heresy of Inter-Christian, Inter-Religious, Syncretistic Ecumenism, as well as the decisions of the so-called Holy and Great Council of Kolymbari. Whatever else may circulate against us will constitute vile slander."

Therefore, the Televantian ill-will that we supposedly have gone outside the boundaries of the Church like other Novatians (!), thus becoming schismatics, receives an answer from the above passage. The holy Canons, whether it pleases some or not, are obligatory—something that was known from the very first moment to those who are knowledgeable, at that time when they were praising us; we repeated it also at the successful conference in Oraiokastro. It is not we, Mr. Televantos, who changed our views on the matter; it is others—search and you will find them…
Now, regarding the Televantian diagnosis about whether there are three or eight heresy-professing bishops in the Church of Greece (indeed, how many are there in the Church of Cyprus, we ask the Cypriot Mr. Televantos…), we leave it to the judgment of the faithful who have knowledge of the events after Kolymbari. Let us remind, incidentally, in the recent vote to fill two episcopal thrones, the 34 votes (of the "Orthodox," according to Televantos) received by the archbishop's chosen candidate, the chancellor of the Holy Metropolis of Demetrias, known for its "confessional" struggles… How shall we understand these votes (not that the other 42 are any better…), as Orthodox or ecumenist?

If we except one monk and one cleric (both of whom have reposed), who, without recourse to the canonical ecclesiastical tradition, making use of seemingly logical arguments (identifying, contrary to proper methodology, concepts according to the pattern of homonymy), and drawing conclusions invalid from a logical standpoint, the Church has always understood the holy Canons, established in the Holy Spirit, as obligatory. As for the argument concerning the difference of canons based on the existence or absence of a penance, it is refuted by none other than St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite himself, already in his introductory comments in the Pedalion (Pedalion, Astir Publications, 1957, p. 19). Lastly, let us note the reference of St. Nikodemos to the relevant agreement of the other holy Canons with the 15th canon of the First-Second Council, where he mentions the second canon of the Council of Antioch (to which the Athonite holy martyrs and confessors during the time of the Latin-minded patriarch John Bekkos also refer), which, in brief, defines that whoever communes with those who are excommunicated likewise becomes excommunicated. It is, therefore, clearer than the sun who follows the Fathers and the timeless teaching of the Church, and who introduces new, unverified teachings.

Finally, we must observe the introduction of relativism in the understanding of Holy Tradition, following the patterns of ecumenist theology, something which testifies to the captivity of academic theology to principles foreign to Orthodoxy (as well as of those who theologize having "borrowed" axiomatic principles from it), with the consequent result that heresy is fought by means of (also) heretical weapons. Naturally, we are not saying that all who follow (any) Televantos, unknowingly with regard to the theological consequences, are of heretical mindset; however, it would be good for them to carefully study the entirety of Holy Tradition and then decide

B. Concerning the "Old" Calendar

As a multitude of ecumenist sources testify, the calendar change was a strategic decision of the early ecumenists, in service of their vision for a pan-religion. On this point, no one who wishes to be called Orthodox disagrees. The testimonies from the sources have been exhaustively presented by many; it is not necessary to repeat them here. It is sufficient for one to refer, among other things, to the presentation of Fr. Theodoros Zisis at the conference of the Holy Metropolis of Piraeus before Kolymbari.

The calendar issue de facto divided the Church (here meaning the division of the Orthodox among themselves), for this reason, after the events of the Masonically inspired "conference" of Metaxakis, as well as those of 1924, it was decided that the issue would be definitively resolved at the then-planned Ecumenical Council (as, for example, was agreed upon and recorded in the — recently published — minutes of the Pan-Orthodox Conference of 1930 on the Holy Mountain).

The schism has not yet been addressed synodally at a pan-Orthodox level (since it now exists in all the local Churches that adopted the "New"), and after the developments of Kolymbari, we are rather heading also towards a change of the Paschalion... It was never asserted, at least by the serious ones, that the innovation is the 13 days, but the liturgical unity of the Church. We will not enter into the labyrinth of recriminations on the matter, not only because it is not the proper time, but because our deep conviction is that the issue of the calendar is connected with the overall problem of the pan-heresy of Ecumenism, therefore it must be addressed at a future Orthodox Ecumenical Council.

Were the faithful who walled themselves off in 1924 from the innovating hierarchy (and not, of course, from the Church, as various episcopocentric Zizioulianists claim) right or not? To the extent that they walled themselves off on account of innovation concerning Tradition (that is, the liturgical character of ecclesiastical unity, which naturally is also connected with the calendar), they acted rightly, insofar as they remained within the "limits" defined by the 15th canon of the First-Second Council.

The problems begin from the gradual predominance of the "strict" faction within the Old Calendarists (as they were mockingly called), due of course also to the fierce and truly Diocletian-like persecution that was unleashed against them by the then Archbishop Chrysostomos Papadopoulos, who was also the architect of the, in a deceitful manner, change, as certain pious synodal hierarchs at the time denounced.

The very trampling (!) of the holy gifts by the persecuting authorities, the shaving of the priests, the exiles (e.g., of Athonites), the murder (Catherine Routis), etc., led — along with other things — to the adoption (by the minority) of the — erroneous — view concerning the invalidity of the mysteries of the "New." Passion and polarization drowned the sober voices on both sides, new and old, with destructive consequences for the peace and unity of the Church. The decision to create a hierarchy by the G.O.C. and the ordinations of bishops constituted the final blow of the entire affair. Since then, the schisms and fragmentation of the G.O.C. constitute the sorrowful legacy of an initially honorable struggle...

Our position is that until 1935 (the year of the creation of the first synod of the G.O.C.), the walling off of the Orthodox faithful was canonically correct and proper, and within the framework defined by the 15th of the First-Second Council. The same, however, does not apply after 1935. The claims of the G.O.C. regarding the necessity of the existence of a "hierarchy" are not convincing, unless indeed the mysteries of the New are invalid (oh, what blasphemy). The well-intentioned G.O.C. do not understand that the existence of "synods" signifies precisely this: invalid mysteries of him with whom you do not commune. Walling off henceforth — may the brethren of the Old forgive us — no longer exists for them, since they have not walled themselves off from their innovating bishop, but now have one of their own.

What is the ecclesiological status of the G.O.C.? Some fanatic New Calendarist "G.O.C." (for there are now such as well!) consider the mysteries of the Old Calendarist G.O.C. invalid (and some among them even those of the New Calendarists), since they were cut off from the "Church." Whether the "Church" (identifying — in a Zizioulianist manner — the entirety of the Church with its hierarchy) is innovating does not concern them (just as it does not concern the ecumenists, for example, with the "most holy pope," etc.). Yet the innovators cannot judge those who have not innovated! This is the reason that makes an Orthodox Ecumenical Council necessary, that is, the resolution of all problems related to Ecumenism. It is, in any case, a fact that all the G.O.C. "bishops" are also now accountable before an Orthodox Ecumenical Council. The bishops who will convene it will be those who will "return," due to the escalation of the anti-ecumenist struggle, from the official hierarchies of the local Orthodox Churches, just as happened in the case of the Seventh Ecumenical Council. Only then will the heresy be definitively condemned and the matters concerning the mysteries be discussed. Until then, it is not permitted to us (if we have the elementary fear of God and do not wish to blaspheme) to proclaim, prior to a synodal ruling, invalid mysteries either in the New or in the Old.

Here we must clarify that the view concerning invalid mysteries (whether from Old Calendarists, or from New Calendarists, or from "walled-off" persons) is connected with the notion of the automatic loss of grace, which does not belong to the Orthodox canonical Tradition but to the papal one, where already from the 13th century it is recorded within the framework of the new papal ecclesiology, having as its foundation the Frankish conception (in contrast to that of the Byzantine papacy) concerning papal primacy. This notion (in Latin Latae sententiae), which remains also in the new revised code of (papal) canons of 1983, is developed in canons 1321–1330. According to it, there is NO need for an episcopal synod for a certain category of sins, to which heresy also belongs, but grace is automatically removed, which in the case of a cleric means his automatic deposition. St. Nikodemos, opposing such a notion, commented that only an episcopal synod can depose, since the canons do not operate "by themselves" (cf. Pedalion, footnote 2 on the 3rd Apostolic Canon, pp. 4–5).

The one who ministered to the persecuted Old Calendarists, secretly and in remote little chapels, Saint Nicholas Planas, or the two who returned, though ordained in the "Old," bishops in the "New" (without any re-ordination or even laying on of hands, contrary to the practice of the blasphemous heresiarch Bartholomew), Polycarpos Liosis and Christophoros Chatzis, who reposed while serving as active metropolitans of the Church of Greece, let them bring to their senses and restrain certain ones who are "more royalist than the King"...

Epilogue

Taking occasion from the commotion caused by Televantos–Rizos, we have clearly set forth our positions to the anxious faithful. The escalation of the struggle is always the essential aim, as well as the theological confrontation of heresy, and not the issues of valid–invalid, etc. Let us leave it to the bishops of an Orthodox Ecumenical Council to decide — that is, to those who alone are competent. The commotion being attempted naturally serves Ecumenism and distances the joyous day of the convocation of the Council. Let us not grant the enemies of the faith the favor of rejoicing over untheological positions or divisive actions of the sacred struggle.

 

Editorial Committee of Athonite Fathers

Elder Savvas Lavriotis
Hieromonk Chariton the Athonite
Monk Epiphanios Kapsaliotis

 

P.S. The views of Monk Makarios of Koutloumousiou exclusively express him; therefore, let them not associate us at all with what he says (invalid mysteries, etc.) or does.

 

Greek source: https://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2017/10/blog-post_12.html

The Unity of the Orthodox Church and the Significance of Resistance Movements in the Preservation of that Unity

by Archbishop [Metropolitan] Chrysostomos of Etna

Your Eminence, most esteemed Bishop Photii, Your Grace, Bishop Auxentios, gathered clergy and monastics, beloved Faithful of the True Orthodox Church of Bulgaria, and pilgrims:

I am always reticent about speaking in public, even if, as many of you can no doubt attest, I have no shortage of words, since lecturing, before I became a monk, was my art, as it were. The professorial curse still persists in me. My reticence comes not from a paucity of words, then, but from a sure knowledge that I have nothing of any real consequence to say, except for what I have learned and gleaned from my spiritual Superiors—Bishop Photii, an eloquent Patristic scholar, our revered and learned Father Sergius, my spiritual Father, Metropolitan Cyprian, and your elect and venerable clergy, among others. Putting aside caution and perhaps wisdom, however, I would like to make a few short observations today, hoping that they will help you better to conceptualize and to understand, at least at a psychological and historical level, the nature of resistance movements within the Orthodox Church. And hence, the title of my short talk, “The Unity of the Orthodox Church and the Significance of Resistance Movements in the Preservation of that Unity."

At the outset, I must firmly emphasize that what I have to say is not dogmatic in nature, but is simply speculative and reflective of my personal thoughts on the subject at hand. As the Latins say, a fonte puro pura clefluit aqua; that is, pure water flows from a pure spring. What I have drawn from the Fathers and from those with spiritual wisdom, in my following words, I therefore firmly commend to you. However, anything that I might say which is contrary to the spiritual traditions of the Church or the dogmatic witness of the Ecumenical Synods, dipping into the sometimes impure waters of my personal opinion, you should discard. If, in the end, given these guidelines, my observations provide an opportunity for growth in the Faith and for a better understanding of the burden of resistance to which we, the “small flock," are called, then I would ask that you draw on this strength for the edification and good estate of the Church.

The idea of resistance is found throughout Christian literature. In Scripture, it is used variously to describe both vengeful opposition to evil and righteous opposition to that which impedes spiritual health. On the one hand, our Lord tells us not to resist evil, but to turn the other cheek to those who offend us. This is a message reflected throughout the Savior’s teaching on love and one which we see put into action by the many Martyrs and Saints who not only did not resist those who harmed them, but even considered them their benefactors and embraced them. On the other hand, however, St. Paul, in his Epistle to the Hebrews, speaks of righteous resistance, in referring to the sacrifice of our Lord “unto blood,’’ and characterizes the ideal of our Christian life as resistance against sin. In the Philokalia and throughout the writings of the great Hesychastic Fathers, we constantly see the spiritual life presented as one of resistance in this positive sense: as a positive struggle of resistance against the evil thoughts which pollute our minds, against the evil actions through which such thoughts are made manifest, and against the clouds of human despair and disbelief that have obfuscated the light of Christ which shines in our hearts.

In the history of the Church, too, resistance manifests itself to us in two forms. We see, in one instance, the resistance of the heretics to the revelation of Christian truth, those “stiffnecked and uncircumcised’’ of every age who, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles, “always resist the Holy Spirit.’’ Such negative resistance has been the constant enemy of Church unity and has caused divisions, schisms, and disputes in the Church militant here on earth. But in other circumstances, we find in Church history very positive forms of resistance: opposition to the very resistance of the heretics to the Holy Spirit, a positive opposition empowered by the Holy Spirit, “resistance pleasing to God,’’ as St. Theodore the Studite calls it, the aim of which is Church unity and the preservation of the Holy Traditions revealed within the Church by the Holy Spirit.

It is this positive, salutary resistance in the spiritual life and within the Church that is the subject of my talk; this resistance sealed with the fervor and blood of the Cappadocian Fathers, the Iconodules, the Hesychasts and anti-unionists of medieval Byzantine times and, in our contemporary world, by the zealous opposition of pious believers to the religious syncretism of political ecumenism (and its by-product, the reform of the Church’s Festal Calendar) and to the political manifestations of anti-Christian hatred, such as Communism, which rose up against Orthodoxy in the bloody century which just ended.

There is a tendency—dangers which Bishop Auxentios clearly identifies in his presentation, today, on the ethos of love and toleration in the Orthodox Church—to speak of positive ecclesiastical resistance in terms that are at times superficial and directed, not at the loftier levels of ontology and cosmology, but towards worldly and political concerns. For example, there is a notion, often applied to the Byzantine Empire and the Russian imperial realm, that the force which “withholds” evil in the Church rests in the Orthodox monarchy. Indeed, St. John Chrysostomos, while clearly identifying the One Who “withholdeth” as the Holy Spirit, nonetheless affirmed that the fall of the Roman Empire would lead to Antichrist. If read carefully, of course, the Divine Chrysostomos wisely and correctly tells us that when Christian society collapses and the external, worldly laws which uphold Christian morality and the ethos of Christian spiritual life cease to be, mankind will slide into disbelief and all that accompanies this decline; mankind will succumb to Antichrist. He simply uses the image of the fall of the Christian Empire in making this point. Nonetheless, these words of St. John are often interpreted—albeit in personal statements about matters that do not touch on dogma—by holy men of tremendous stature to support the idea that the collapse of Byzantium or, as the spiritually eminent St. John of Kronstadt firmly believed and stated, of the Russian Empire would signal the end of time. This thinking with regard to the Russian Empire is further supported by an historiographical tradition that attributes to Moscow the title of a “Third Rome.”

I would not dare, of course, proffer as anything but speculation my own opinion of the eschatological significance of historical phenomena or the monarchical system which prevailed for over a millennium in the Orthodox Church. I would simply say that what has disappeared into history has disappeared, and that we must now face the realities of a new age with the age-old doctrines of the Church, which doctrines focus us, not on disaster (even if that is what awaits us), but on the hope that rises, in Christianity, above mere human disaster and suffering. Nor should we overstate historiographical facts and theological opinions in such a way that, taken beyond what they are meant to be, they become the servants of phyletism and national triumphalism or make us, who have but one homeland, that of Heaven, too fixed on the earthly life, however perfectly it may reflect the Divine realm in ideal. I wish to speak of resistance in a higher and noumenal way.

There is also a danger with regard to the acquisition of a higher understanding of resistance that lurks in our personal psychology, in the recesses of that fallen mind that all too often renders even our most sincere and well-intentioned spiritual motivations corrupt. Our resistance in the name of the Church can frequently lead us to think that the activity in which we are engaged is not, as we should indeed see it, an imperfect imitation of the sacrifices of the great Confessors of the Faith (who were indeed, resisters, in the positive sense of that word, par excellence), but somehow special and gifted. It is not uncommon, in the mental realm, for one to associate the attributes of a desirable goal or object with himself. This is why advertising is so effective: one comes to believe that by owning an object which supposedly brings upon its owner some desirable trait (an association that the advertiser carefully establishes), he in fact acquires this trait upon acquisition of the object. In the spiritual realm, we all-too-often come to believe that because our actions and our fidelity are God-pleasing, we too are God-pleasing, forgetting that the worst sinner can serve good aims, not because of some quality of his own, but because God, Who is not a respecter of persons, elevates him, by His Grace, above the sewer of his own motivations and fallen desires, so that he can serve Him. Moreover, it is not we who are elevated by God’s condescending kindness to us, in this process, but God Himself Who is magnified. Through our sin, God often shows the victory of His Grace, demonstrating that our “wickedness,” a wickedness that is ever before us, cannot prevail, as we aver each day in our evening prayers, over His “unutterable goodness and mercy.”

Resistance, then, is not something that arises out of our personal good, our personal worth, or our special spiritual status. It emerges from an acute knowledge of our sinfulness, which becomes ever more apparent to us as we become closer to God and His purity. Resistance is a response drawn out of us by God, Who, endowing us with His love, creates in us the desire, despite our sinfulness, to uphold what is true and good and to resist all of those things which act against us; and this we do, not in order to exalt or save ourselves, but to the end of saving our fellow man, knowing, as Scripture tells us, that there is no greater love than that which we have for our brother, even to the point of sacrificing for his sake at the cost of our own welfare. Here, too, resistance takes on a cosmological and transpersonal significance, elevating our efforts above what can be the sterile, arrogant, and self-serving illusion of righteous resistance.

Beyond the superficial aspects of positive resistance and the political and personal dangers that they can pose in Christian life, then, there is a notion of resistance that touches on Christian life at a universal level. This higher concept of positive resistance encompasses and transcends resistance as we normally think about and experience it. It is this concept and its crucial role in the maintenance of Church unity which I intend to describe, to the extent possible. In so doing, I will turn away from Scripture, the Patristic witness, and theology for a moment, casting an eye towards natural science and existential philosophy, which, though destructive if wrongly used and naively studied, can be very helpful in explicating the more sublime elements of Orthodox ecclesiology, to the extent that we apply them, to paraphrase St. Basil the Great, in service to the Church.

Positive resistance, that God-pleasing effort to preserve the immutable truths of Orthodoxy, is, in fact, the very existential glue that holds the Church together. It is the substance of Church unity. If this idea seems strange or vague, let us remember that it is the “small flock,’’ the leaven, and the beloved of the Lord who form the core of Orthodoxy. Just as the whole of the Church’s action in the world ultimately rests on Christ and His small band of Apostles, so the survival and the continuation of the Christian kerygma have always centered on a core of true believers who, however unworthily, give strength and power to the pleroma of the Christian people. The great historical resisters whom I mentioned earlier—the Cappadocians and Iconodules, for example—were not dissenters and protesters; they were nothing more than the core of the Church, always silently present in the properly functioning Church, but made to appear distinct, separate, and vociferous only when the integrated structure of the Church suffered from the assault of forces that introduced division, separation, disintegration, and alienation into the Body of Christ. They are nothing more or less than that inner core of fervent believers who, whether in the catholicity of the local Church or in the local focus of the Church catholic, serve to provide Orthodoxy with its inner identity and internal characteristics.

Let us now turn to the biological and physical world for examples that can help us to understand this matter more fully. In the world of biology, while a living cell is a unique unit, each part essential to the other, every structure in some sense symbiotically related, there is, nonetheless, a core at the living center of that cell, that is, its nucleus. And while that nucleus is dependent on the nutrients which reach it through the various structures and membranes of the cell, without it, the cell ceases to be. Without a nucleus, a cell becomes an ineffectual structure and loses its unique character. This is an observation that can also be made about physical particles and the nucleus of an atom. It is in the nucleus of the atom that its energy and its characteristic identity are determined. Even in the more contemporary models employed by theoretical physics, such as the complex and enigmatic model of physical structure proposed by “string theory,’’ one comes to understand that the integrity and identity of matter itself is somehow closely connected to a unifying principle which, while not separate or independent from that which it brings into cohesion, nonetheless contains within itself a cohesive influence and tendency, without which structural integrity simply vanishes.

The struggle to maintain the internal integrity of Orthodoxy, its characteristic wholeness—this resistance against the unnatural forces of division and separation, or spiritual entropy, as it were—, is at the center of every resistance movement of the Church and is essentially linked to the maintenance of the Church’s internal and external unity. As a consequence of this fact, while resistance movements may momentarily provoke separations and divisions (often even a century or more in duration), they are in fact not isomorphic or functionally similar to schism, since these temporary divisions, unlike schism, serve to focus the Church back on its core: drawing it back to what the “small flock’’ has preserved from the nucleus of the Faith, that is, from the very definitive character and nature of the Church. Resistance movements not only serve to protect the Church against that which compromises its internal identity, but they constantly renew the structures of the Church, placing them again and again in proper relationship to the internal core of the Christian message. Resistance movements redefine who we are in an old and constant way, giving us newness in our relationships and links to one another. They strengthen the links which unify us.

To use an existential model, it is in the interplay, in that tension, between mere existence and Being that resistance manifests itself as a unitive force. It is in the “groaning’’ of the universe, potentially renewed by Christ in Eternity, yet struggling with sin and the limitations of temporal life, that the unifying power of resistance takes full shape. Having our very being in God, in Whom we live and move, we are nonetheless captivated, captured by, and drawn to sin and the limitations of human existence, of the fallen human condition. Yet, each time that even one of us resists sin—each time that a single human rises up to the potential of the Divine within him, to theosis—, he unites, in some way, all of human existence to the vivifying, transforming power of Christ and our true being and life in God. Every struggle for the preservation of Godliness, every positive act of resistance to preserve the revealed path of human restoration, brings the whole of mankind into communion with God, unifying men and women in the salvific witness of the Church. Our resistance movements, to the extent that they reflect this communion between Christ and man, between Being and existence, are images, not, again, of division, separation, contention, and argumentation, but of the unifying force of the Faith rendered anew each time it is brought back to its core, back to the criterion of Truth which brings all dogma and doctrine into oneness and links them together in a common affirmation, a true kerygma and vision of Christ.

In conclusion, let me say something about that factor which separates negative resistance—what I characterized, above, as vengeful opposition—from positive resistance, that is, a righteous resistance to anything which assaults or defiles the saving Truth of Christianity. That factor is love. When we undertake to condemn evil in defense of ourselves, we act from arrogance and pride. When we undertake to defend the Truth, so as to preserve inviolate the path of salvation for ourselves and our fellow man, we act from love. Of course, as I also pointed out earlier, this love can become distorted and self-serving; however, in its ideal, a defense of the Faith through resistance to that which threatens it is, above all, an essential act of love. Now this love, let me note, also acts in a unitive way. For love never separates, but always joins that which is separate. For example, our opposition as Orthodox to the Filioque clause introduced into the early medieval Church some centuries before the separation of Rome from the Universal Church, if understood deeply, is not merely opposition at a procedural level. Our opposition derives from an understanding that any attempt to portray the love between the Father and the Son as the source of the Holy Spirit—a Scholastic assertion than can be traced to the presuppositions of the theology of the Filioque—does violence to the very nature of the Holy Trinity, in which Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one and are united in Love, which is the nature of God. Wherever love operates, then, unity in essence is the ultimate effect and end of its operation. Hence, positive resistance, resistance that is motivated by love and which comes forth from love, however polemical in apparent form, however divisive in its temporary and superficial effects, is destined to foster unity—not that unity which is of mere human origin and which comes from diplomacy and compromise, but that unity which flows forth from God and which is expressed in essential integration, in interdependent interaction, and in the image of the Body of Christ put before us by St. Paul, in which each member suffers for the other and in which the very blood of each member is that sacred Blood of our Lord and God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

I have not, again, tried to address the petite histoire of each of the various resistance movements that have surfaced in the course of the manifestation, in time and space, of God’s Grace through the Orthodox Church. Rather, I have tried to draw your attention to resistance at the ideational level. In so doing, I hope that I have accomplished the task of conveying to you the true nature of resistance, which is formed in love; the dangers that face us if we vulgarize our understanding of positive resistance and vitiate it by personal and political concerns and aims; and the absolute necessity of love in preserving our higher vision, experience, and realization of resistance, whatever its kind, to that which compromises and limits the boundless expanses of Orthodoxy, thereby assaulting the unity of the Church at its most essential level—namely, at the point where it unites the transcendent with the ephemeral and otherwise evanescent and makes what is transient eternal.

I thank you for your patience and your kindness in enduring my perhaps incoherent words on a subject which often defies coherence, on account of its immense subtlety.

Source: Orthodox Tradition, Vol. 18 (2001), No. 3, pp. 11-17.