Revised 2025 Edition: Concerning “Parallel Bishops”

Dimitris Chatzinikolaou, former Associate Professor of Economics at the University of Ioannina

 

1. Introduction

As is well known, the various slanders against the Orthodox of the Patristic Calendar, which are launched from all sides—primarily by the Ecumenists—have never ceased since 1924 and thereafter. “The Old Calendarists have elevated the Julian Calendar to a dogma of faith, and therefore they are worshipers of time, schismatics, and heretics!” falsely cry the Ecumenists and their apologists, such as the late Fr. Epiphanios Theodoropoulos.

The newly-walled-off, such as Fathers Euthymios Trikaminas (see The Timeless Agreement of the Holy Fathers on the Obligatory Nature of the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council concerning the Cessation of Commemoration of a Bishop Preaching Heresy in the Church, DeGiorgio Publ., Trikala, 2012, pp. 227–258 and 302–303), Theodoros Zisis, Eugenios [the Hagiorite], Savvas Lavriotis, and others, adopt and disseminate an unorthodox interpretation of Holy Tradition and of the spirit of the Holy Canons—namely, that with the consecration of new bishops in 1935, the Orthodox of the Patristic Calendar supposedly created a schism in the Church of Greece.

(See e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vn-0OZU7DW4).

This interpretation also appears to be shared by the Professor of Canon Law at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Mr. Kyriakos Kyriazopoulos.

(See https://apotixisi.blogspot.com/2025/06/blog-post_85.html)

To “support” it, they appeal to Holy Canons that forbid the consecration of a bishop in a diocese where another bishop already exists, such as Canon 8 of the First Ecumenical Council and Canon 16 of the First-Second Council. Of course, these Holy Canons must be observed unwaveringly when there is peace in the Church and the existing bishops are Orthodox. When, however, in a time of heresy and persecution of the Church, the bishop of a region is a heretic—namely, a grievous wolf who devours his flock (Acts 20:29–30)—then it is self-evident that it is not only permitted, but also required, that an Orthodox bishop be placed in his stead! All the more so when the entire ruling hierarchy is heretical or schismatic, in which case the need for intervention and the consecration of Orthodox bishops is obvious. As we shall see below, this is the spirit of the Holy Canons, and this is what the Orthodox have always practiced. The aforementioned unorthodox interpretation has already been refuted by Mr. Nikolaos Mannis

(see http://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2018/12/blog-post_52.html),

and therefore, what follows constitutes a supplement to previous articles and letters. Let it be noted from the outset that the present article focuses on the matter of the consecrations of 1935. For the doctrinal dimension of the calendar issue, the reader is referred to our specialized study entitled The Doctrinal Dimension of the New Calendar.

[https://orthodoxmiscellany.blogspot.com/2024/10/the-doctrinal-dimension-of-new-calendar.html]

2. Historical Background

Since 1924 and thereafter, the ruling "hierarchy" of the Church of Greece has been potentially schismatic and heretical, and thus subject to trial before a Pan-Orthodox Council for deposition and anathematization. For, first, by introducing the New Calendar, which had been condemned by three Pan-Orthodox Councils (1583, 1587, and 1593), it disrupted the unity of the Church, and second, it did so for the purpose of promoting Ecumenism. This, in brief, is the doctrinal dimension of the New Calendar. As time went on, the "hierarchy" fell into many more heresies, such as:

1) Sergianism (cf. the complete alignment of the “hierarchy” with the antichristian “governments”);

2) Uniatism (since December 7, 1965, when the “lifting of excommunication” with the “pope” was officially enacted);

3) Neo-Iconoclasm (cf. the prohibitive ribbons on holy icons during the “coronavirus pandemic,” the banning of Holy Communion, etc.);

4) Neo-Arianism (cf. the new heresy that the Father is “first without equals” in the Holy Trinity);

5) The heresy of “your death, my life” (cf. the “vaccines against the coronavirus,” which were prepared using cell lines from purposefully murdered embryos, concerning which certain pseudo-bishops shouted: “Here the vaccine, there the grave,” and that those who reject them are “Nazis,” “enemies of Christ,” “outside the Church,” etc.);

6) The legalization of homosexuality by the “politicians,” whom the “hierarchy” accepts in communion, and thus is subject to the anathema of the Ecumenical Councils, according to the well-known “let him who does not say anathema to heretics, be anathema” (Fifth Ecumenical Council); and so on.

Moreover, the ruling “hierarchy” is also entangled in many schisms—namely, the Calendar schism, the Ukrainian schism, the “vaccination” schism, and others—dragging the uncatechized people into destruction. In full cooperation with the antichristian Caesar, it has persecuted and continues to persecute the Orthodox of the Patristic Calendar through exiles, convictions “for usurpation of authority,” defrockings, sealing of their churches, confiscations of their property, etc., even reaching the extreme point of murdering them, as with the new-martyr Saint Catherine Routis (+1927). The remainder of (Freemason-dominated) “Orthodoxy” silently aligns with the heretical persecutors of the Orthodox, who impose the aforementioned heresies and schisms, because this is demanded by their great “boss,” Freemasonry (cf. Monk Averkios, Freemasonry from Authentic Sources: World Government – World Religion, “Palimpseston” Publ., Thessaloniki, 2024).

At the first stage, their goal is the complete subjugation of Orthodoxy to Papism. This goal became evident with the Patriarchal Encyclicals of the years 1902 and 1920, which speak of rapprochement and union with the two great “branches of Christianity,” Papism and Protestantism, and thus the “need” for the joint celebration of feasts with them. It also became evident through the statements, conferences, articles, books, and actions of the Ecumenists. For example, here is what Anthimos of Vizye wrote in 1922, two years before the introduction of the New Calendar: “that through the calendar issue, with its unification achieved, the first important step will undoubtedly be accomplished toward the realization of the contemplated and, by circumstances, imperatively imposed Communion of the Churches” (The Calendar Issue, 1922, p. 141; emphasis added). These Masonic plans of the Ecumenists were known in 1935 to the three bishops who separated themselves—Chrysostomos of Florina, Germanos of Demetrias, and Chrysostomos of Zakynthos—as we learn from the writings of the first among them. For instance:
“But She [i.e., the Orthodox Church] always rejected the Gregorian calendar as an innovation of Old Rome, incompatible with the traditions of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, and as an attempt by her to subject even the Orthodox Church to the autocratic domination of the Pope” (see former Metropolitan of Florina Chrysostomos Kavourides, Collected Works, Vol. 1, p. 98; emphasis in the original). The above proves that the introduction of the New Calendar was [motivated by] heresy and, as such, had to be dealt with accordingly.

Obviously, the onslaught of heresy and the persecution of the Church are not confronted with sermons, rallies, and article writing, but require an organized, dynamic response by the Orthodox under the light of Holy Tradition. The Church could not possibly find peace after the coup-like imposition of the New Calendar (1924), since global “Orthodoxy” was silently cooperating with the persecutors, primarily through its thunderous omission to convene a Pan-Orthodox Council for the resolution of the matter. Therefore, it was imperative that the three bishops who had separated themselves proceed to the consecration of new bishops, both for the needs of their flock—which at the time consisted of about 800 branches throughout Greece, with more than one million faithful (Collected Works, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 135)—and for the continuation of the Orthodox Resistance (their succession). This action of theirs in no way meant that the Orthodox of the Patristic Calendar “founded their own Church in Greece,” as the aforementioned critics erroneously claim, even putting forth the absurd sophism that the consecration of new bishops in 1935 by the Orthodox of the Patristic Calendar. supposedly resembles the abandonment of Greece after the invasion of the conquerors! [1] The Confessor and Saint, Chrysostomos of Florina (+1955), emphasizes in his writings that the Orthodox of the Patristic Calendar do not constitute a separate Church in Greece, but are rather a sentinel tasked to struggle for the restoration of the Church of Greece to the pinnacle of the Holy Canons, from which it has deviated (Collected Works, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 383, and Vol. 2, p. 24).

Certainly, this position of Saint Chrysostomos of Florina is entirely in agreement with the patristic teaching concerning the “healthy” part of the Church in a time of heresy being preached—that is, those who wall themselves off from the heresy—and the “diseased” part, namely, those who are in communion with the heresy. St. Basil the Great makes this distinction in many of his works (see the book by Fr. Eugenios titled The Meaning of Defilement, 2023, pp. 553–554, 582–585). The same is done by St. Theodore the Studite (Patrologia Graeca [hereafter P.G.], 99, 1285D and 1288A). Likewise, Dositheos (op. cit., Vol. 5, p. 630, Book X, Part V, Ch. XI, § 4) writes that when the Patriarchs teach and act contrary to what has been ordained, then “they are judged, deposed, and cast out by the healthy part of the Church” (emphasis added). Similarly, the venerable Ieronymos of Aegina said that “the Church of Greece, by changing the calendar, ‘became sick,’ and that this change became the beginning and cause of many evils” (https://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2025/02/blog-post_25.html). Finally, the late theologian Aristotelis Delimbasis writes the following, substantiating his words with references to the Gospel, the Seventh Ecumenical Council, St. John Chrysostom, etc.: “The local Churches can be overcome in the faith. That is, they can become spiritually diseased, and one may behold ‘a sickness planted in the body of the Church’… As is known, the Church is likened in Scripture to a field containing both ‘wheat’ and ‘tares’… Diseased members of the Church are understood to be those who are in error concerning the Orthodox faith and who sin, yet have not yet been ecclesiastically judged.” (The Pascha of the Lord, 1985, p. 809) The question for those who say that the “healthy” part creates a schism if it consecrates its own bishops is: How is the “healthy” part to be spiritually served, and how will it survive without bishops? Let it also be noted that until his repose, the Saint never signed as “Archbishop of the G.O.C.” but as “formerly of Florina, Chrysostomos.” Therefore, the accusation that this Confessor-Saint of the 20th century was supposedly the creator of a schism constitutes a grave slander!

3. The Holy Canons Interpreted in the Light of Holy Tradition

Having in view the above-described (albeit very briefly) situation of heresy and persecution that prevailed in the Church of Greece during the period 1924–1935, let us examine whether or not the aforementioned consecrations of 1935 were in accordance with Holy Tradition. First of all, we emphasize two points:

1) As the late Fr. Georgios Metallinos (+2019) used to say, in order to correctly interpret a historical event, one must mentally transfer oneself into the time and the circumstances that prevailed when that event took place; and

2) As Dositheos of Jerusalem (1641–1707) writes in the Dodekabiblos (ed. V. Rigopoulos, Thessaloniki, 1982), those actions “contrary to the Canons” and “outside the boundaries” [par’ enorian] within the Church are indeed condemnable when done out of ambition, love of money, pride, vainglory, etc., but are praiseworthy when done with oikonomia for the benefit of the Church, such as, for example, in times of necessity and persecution.

Under such conditions, the relevant canons certainly do not obstruct those actions which they explicitly prohibit under normal circumstances. In support of this assertion, Dositheos cites many examples of great saints who acted “contrary to the Canons” and “outside the boundaries” for the benefit of the Church.

By way of example, he writes: “Note that Meletios of Antioch and the bishops of that time who transferred Saint Gregory to Constantinople knew that the Canon prohibiting transfer [i.e., Canon 15 of the First Ecumenical Council] was established by the Fathers for the proud—those who, out of vainglory, leap from throne to throne… However, the Canon does not obstruct actions carried out with oikonomia and for the benefit of the Church; therefore, some have more eloquently said that the Canon prohibited transfers that are for self-advancement, not transfers that are necessitated by need… And the divine Athanasios, Eusebios, and Basil ordained outside their dioceses, and indeed Epiphanios did so in Constantinople, and in Jerusalem the brother of Jerome.” (Dodekabiblos, op. cit., Vol. 2, pp. 16–19, Book III, Chapter 2, Section 3; emphasis added.) He also writes: “Note first that to act outside one’s jurisdiction [par’ enorian] is unlawful, which is why the great Basil, although being exceedingly wise and holy, nevertheless seeks the opinion of the holy Eusebios on whether it is blameless to ordain in another Eparchy in a time of necessity; second, that it is just in a time of need to help the Churches that are under attack or in distress, and to ordain bishops and presbyters in them, and almost to act within them as if one were their own bishop, as the saints Eusebios and Athanasios did.” (Dodekabiblos, op. cit., Vol. 1, pp. 500–502, Book II, Chapter 19, Sections 1–6; emphasis added.) Moreover, Saint John Chrysostom himself proceeded with many extra-jurisdictional depositions and consecrations of bishops and, although he was accused for this, nonetheless, later on, the Fourth Ecumenical Council did not censure him (Dodekabiblos, op. cit., Vol. 2, pp. 53–54, Book III, Chapter 4, Section 7; and Pedalion, 11th ed., Astir Publ., Athens, 1993, footnote 1 in the interpretation of Canon 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, p. 207).

Dositheos, then, emphasizes in many places that in times of persecution of the Church—but also generally, when it concerned Her benefit—many extra-jurisdictional consecrations and other intrusions into foreign dioceses took place. As Socrates notes, “this was formerly done indiscriminately on account of the persecutions” (Ecclesiastical History, Book V, Chapter 8, P.G. 67, pp. 576–580; emphasis added). However, when peace returned, the Second Ecumenical Council, through its Second Canon, forbade such actions (Dodekabiblos, op. cit., Vol. 2, pp. 44–46, Book III, Chapter 4). But when there is a “reasonable cause,” actions “contrary to the Canons” are in agreement with the spirit of Apostolic Canon 14, the subject of which is the transfer of bishops. At times, as we shall see below, such actions are even praiseworthy!

4. On the Matter of “Parallel Bishops”

Regarding the issue of “parallel bishops,” the aforementioned critics of the 1935 consecrations begin from the erroneous claim that such a phenomenon had never occurred in the period prior to 1935 (see also Fr. E. Trikaminas, op. cit., p. 248). On the much-discussed case of Evagrios and Saint Gregory the Theologian as “parallel bishops” to the Arian Demophilos on the throne of Constantinople, Fr. Eugenios asserts that since Demophilos had been deposed by the Synod of Ariminum (359 A.D.), the throne of Constantinople in the year 370—when Meletios of Antioch ordained Evagrios—must, from an Orthodox point of view, be considered vacant, despite the fact that Demophilos had been reinstated by the “ill-disposed” Synod of Nicaea in Thrace, and despite the fact that in 370 A.D., before the consecration of Evagrios, the Arians had already consecrated him as Patriarch of Constantinople. The facts are indeed as described by Fr. Eugenios (Dodekabiblos, op. cit., Vol. 1, pp. 419–420, Book II, Ch. 10, §1; pp. 454–455, Book II, Ch. 14, §5; and pp. 477–478, Book II, Ch. 17, §7); however, his conclusion is erroneous for the following two reasons.

First, the consecration of Demophilos in 370 cannot be considered invalid, and consequently the throne of Constantinople cannot be regarded as vacant during the period 370–380, because “it was ancient practice to accept those ordained by heretics” (Dodekabiblos, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 317, Book II, Ch. 4, §6). Moreover, despite the condemnation of Arianism by the First Ecumenical Council (325 A.D.), the Trinitarian dogma had not yet been fully clarified before the Second Ecumenical Council (381), due to the many variations of Arianism that had appeared (“Homoian,” “Anomoean,” “Homoiousian,” “of one Hypostasis,” “Macedonians,” etc.).

Second, if in 380 Demophilos were truly considered deposed, as Fr. Eugenios maintains, then Emperor Saint Theodosius—who expelled Demophilos because he was a heretic—would not have invoked his heresy as the reason for removing him from the throne. Rather, as the political authority and guarantor of legal order in the Empire, he would have invoked the deposition of 359 and would have said to him: “Since you are deposed, vacate the throne.” Instead, however, he said to him: “Either join with those who confess the homoousion, or depart from the city—which he chose rather to do” (Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, Book V, Chapter 7, P.G. 67, p. 573; and Dodekabiblos, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 15, Book III, Chapter 2, §2).

The following two facts must be emphasized here. First, while Saint Theodosius did not regard Demophilos as deposed, nevertheless he not only allowed Gregory the Theologian to take the throne as a “parallel bishop” to Demophilos, but also expelled Demophilos from the city on the grounds that he did not adhere to the definitions of the First Ecumenical Council! And he took this action in the year 380, without waiting for the decision of the Second Ecumenical Council—which was about to be convened and whose foremost task would have been the deposition of Demophilos. That is to say, the political authority substituted for the ecclesiastical and acted in an Orthodox manner based on dogmatic criteria, correctly evaluating the spiritual harm caused when heretics occupy the thrones. And evidently, this was not the first time something of the sort had occurred. On this, Dositheos writes: “In all the great calamities which the righteous judgment of God permits to happen to His people, His infinite compassion afterward grants sufficient consolation, and we have countless examples of this… Light came to those in darkness through the reign of the equal-to-the-apostles Constantine… The springtime of the great Theodosius arrived… The blessed reign of Justin [i.e., of Thrace] dawned, during which the four Ecumenical Councils were confirmed, being honored as the four Gospels… The exiled bishops were liberated, the heretics were driven out, the Church was unified.” (Dodekabiblos, op. cit., Vol. 3, p. 9, Book V, Chapter 1, §1; emphasis added). Do you hear this, Fr. Euthymios, Fr. Theodoros, Fr. Eugenios, Fr. Savvas, and Mr. Kyriazopoulos—you who otherwise struggle well, but nevertheless proclaim heretically that heretics should be left to prevail and destroy the Church instead of being cast out? Do you hear this, Fr. Euthymios, who wrote concerning Gregory the Theologian that supposedly “the saint did not come to act as bishop in the capital” (op. cit., p. 250)?

Second, while the Egyptian and Macedonian bishops were “whispering against Gregory, citing a Canon that forbids transfer” (just as the aforementioned do today concerning the Orthodox of the Patristic Calendar), Saint Theodosius not only did not expel Gregory the Theologian, but even rewarded him, granting “all the Churches of Constantinople to Gregory the Theologian, whom God had sent from Cappadocia to Constantinople at the time of the domination of heretics; and because the Orthodox did not have even one Church, he converted a certain house into a place of prayer… and there he had his arena of struggles against the heretics” (Dodekabiblos, op. cit., Vol. 2, pp. 15–16, Book III, Ch. 2, §2; emphasis added). Dositheos also writes: “God sent Gregory the Theologian at the suggestion of Basil the Great and Meletios of Antioch… Meletios of Antioch confirmed for Gregory the presidency of Constantinople, and behold how in a time of necessity Meletios of Antioch confirmed Gregory to the throne of Constantinople” (Dodekabiblos, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 455, Book II, Ch. 14, §5; emphasis added). We see again, then, that in a time of persecution and heresy, the “violations” of the Holy Canons that are done for the benefit of the Church—and indeed by great Saints—are praiseworthy acts, not condemnable ones.

Dositheos mentions many other examples of “parallel bishops,” beyond those cited by previous article and letter writers—not all of them praiseworthy, of course. Let us mention only a few of those that appear to have been done for the benefit of the Church, simply to demonstrate that this phenomenon did not occur for the first time in 1935. We do so for the sake of the article’s completeness, though such a demonstration is not strictly necessary, since the aforementioned example of Gregory the Theologian leaves no room for doubt for any objective observer.

First, for the sake of peace within the Church of Antioch, “Meletios, being a saint, said to Paulinos: ‘Come then, let us place the Gospel in the midst and shepherd the flock together, and when one of us dies, let the other be the sole Bishop of Antioch.’ But Paulinos, infected with the heresy which breeds stubbornness, did not consent” (Dodekabiblos, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 77, Book III, Ch. 7, §1). This example was also mentioned by Mr. Mannis in his article, but it is so characteristic for the subject under examination that I believe it would be a serious omission not to include it here as well. For it shows a Saint “violating” the Holy Canons for the sake of peace in the Church. [2] Second, during the reign of Constantine the Great, Makarios of Jerusalem consecrated as Bishop of Lydda the Orthodox Confessor Maximos, but the people consecrated another as Bishop of Lydda (Dodekabiblos, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 427, Book II, Ch. 11, §1). Third, Heraclas of Alexandria deposed Ammonios of Thmuis because he had communicated with the blasphemous Origen and appointed Philip in his place. “However, being petitioned by the people of the city, Pope Heraclas forgave Ammonios for the offense and appointed that both of them be bishops there… and other such things occurred, which may be seen scattered throughout this present book” (Dodekabiblos, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 92, Book III, Ch. 8, §2; emphasis added).

Finally, let it also be added that Professor Fr. V. Stefanides, referring to the Bulgarian Schism (1872), after first stating that the convening of a local synod by the Patriarchate of Constantinople was necessary for the declaration of the schism, adds: “The Patriarchate and the Exarchate were justified, after the declaration of the schism, in sending hierarchs wherever they wished” (Ecclesiastical History: From the Beginning Until Today, Papadimitriou Publ., 2nd Edition, Athens, 1959, pp. 738–739; emphasis added). What is astonishing, however, is that the same is said by Fr. Epiphanios Theodoropoulos: “If Philaret [of ROCA] believed that the Church of Greece had fallen into heresy, then he could intervene within it … to ordain from the beginning Priests (or even Bishops) for the faithful of the Church of Greece” (The Two Extremes, p. 86; emphasis added). Of course, due to his well-known hostility toward the Orthodox of the Patristic Calendar, Fr. Epiphanios insists that Philaret ought not to have recognized them, since they supposedly preach “a different kind of heresy,” because they allegedly elevated the calendar to a dogma of salvation! (Emphasis in the original.) However, since this accusation of Fr. Epiphanios is false, it follows that ROCA rightly recognized and supported the struggle of the Orthodox of the Patristic Calendar through the consecration of Bishops. And if ROCA had such a right, why should not hierarchs of the Church of Greece have the same right? We conclude, therefore, that since in 1935 the Orthodox of the Patristic Calendar synodally declared the “official church” to be schismatic, it follows that they had the right to ordain their own Bishops. Consequently, the aforementioned theory concerning a “parallel Church” does not apply in the case where a local hierarchy falls into heresy or schism.

5. Conclusions

We see, then, that according to Holy Tradition, in times of peace in the Church, the Holy Canons must be observed strictly and unwaveringly; whereas in times of heresy and persecution of the Church, their “violations,” when aimed at Her benefit, should not be condemned, according to the well-known saying: “for the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law” (Heb. 7:12; emphasis added), but rather should be praised! The Holy Fathers, though strict in upholding Holy Tradition, nevertheless, when circumstances required it, did not remain bound to the barren application of the letter of the Holy Canons, but applied their spirit, with the aim of helping the Church. This is the Holy Tradition of the Church, whereas the aforementioned unorthodox interpretation of it is anti-evangelical, anti-traditional, legalistic, ritualistic, and ultimately heretical. It recalls the accusation of the Jews against the Lord, because He healed the sick on the Sabbath!

The present article presents several incidents from Church history in order to demonstrate the truth of the matter and to show that the consecrations of 1935 were necessary for the survival of the walling-off movement of the Orthodox of the Patristic Calendar (1924)—which they undertook not because of the “13 days,” as the falsifiers of the Truth falsely claim, but because they knew that the innovation of the New Calendar was part of a greater plan, namely the “union of the churches,” for which reason they cried out: “They betrayed us!” In other words, the consecrations of 1935 took place so that there might be a substantial and long-term resistance and overturning of the Ecumenists’ plans. Had they received the proper support from the Orthodox, the subsequent betrayals of the Faith (see Section 2), committed by the pseudo-bishops of the New Calendar, as puppets of Freemasonry, would not have followed.

Let those, then, who “whisper,” or rather proclaim, that in 1924 there was supposedly no reason for walling off, reflect upon their responsibilities—since, according to them, the introduction of the New Calendar was supposedly... an astronomical issue, whereas in truth it was the fruit of the “Masonic tree” (see Monk Averkios, op. cit., pp. 388–389, 441, 454, 514)! Obviously, even today [with the newly walled-off] a dynamic and organized intervention is required, like that of 1935; but unfortunately, there are no figures of the stature of Saint Chrysostomos of Florina. The intense propaganda of the Ecumenists and of the aforementioned “anti-Ecumenists”—who, through their heretical views, serve as “butter on the bread” of the Ecumenists—divides the movement of walling off and renders the undertaking nearly impossible. This propaganda, along with the serious errors of the Orthodox of the Patristic Calendar., such as the establishment of Religious Legal Entities (R.L.E., law 4301/2014), has created confusion and trapped the people in various spiritual dead ends.

 

Notes

[1] It has been written that the recently “canonized” Elder Paisios said something similar in a conversation among monks, in order to mock the Orthodox of the Patristic Calendar., because, according to him and the Ecumenists more broadly, they supposedly fled from the Church simply because they did not like the patriarch (see H. Christodoulos the Hagiorite, Elder Paisios, Mount Athos, 1994, p. 219):

— “Ah, fathers, I’m thinking of leaving Greece!”

— “Why, elder?”

— “Because I don’t like Papandreou!”

[2] The word “violate” is placed in quotation marks because, although the letter of the Holy Canons is indeed being violated, their spirit is preserved—since they were established precisely for that purpose: to safeguard the peace and unity of the Church.

 

Greek source: https://orthodox-voice.blogspot.com/2025/06/2025.html