Late coming “zealots” (2012)

[Almost 14 years old, but still very accurate! – trans.]

 

During the celebration of the Sunday of Orthodoxy, late-coming New Calendarist zealots proclaimed, among other things, anathemas against the current Pope of Rome, Benedict, against Luther, Calvin, the Mohammedans, the Jews, and also against Ecumenism!

[See: https://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2012/03/anathemas-of-metropolitan-seraphim-of.html]

It is striking that these individuals anathematized (most likely out of ingrained haste) even those of other religions! They cast out of the Church those who were never members of it to begin with! Apparently, the Holy Fathers did not act correctly in neglecting to anathematize the Jews, the idolaters, and the fire-worshippers of their time! Fortunately, God enlightened these newly-emerged zealots to accomplish this after twenty centuries of waiting!

They also anathematized the current Pope Benedict, as if he and his predecessors, the Popes of the past thousand years, had not already been anathematized and cast out of the Church. But the valiant cassocked knights opened the spiritual tomb of the Vatican, cast out the dry bones of the Pope—dead to Orthodoxy for a millennium—and drew their swords against the papal skeleton, striking off its skull with the sharp blade of their anathema! Likewise, the spiritual skeletons of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and Henry, King of England—who never were members of the Church—were beheaded retrospectively by the cassocked imitators of Don Quixote. What bravery!

They also anathematized Ecumenism. Truly impressive—for New Calendarists. But whereas the anathemas against the Papists, Protestants, and Anglicans were by name, in the case of Ecumenism, no worthy representative was found to be anathematized. You see, all their bravery was exhausted upon the dry bones, and none remained to be directed against the newly-appeared, flesh-and-blood heretical Ecumenists. After all, it is they who elected and ordained these men to the episcopal rank...

These late-coming zealots are known to us for their past incendiary (polemical) declarations against the G.O.C. They are the ones who threaten excommunication against journalists who dare to cover the events of the G.O.C. For the above, they have received the fitting responses.

Subsequently, they became famous for their occasional anti-Masonic, anti-Zionist, anti-Papal, anti-Ecumenist, and generally … anti-everything (against all) outbursts. They may be considered the most characteristic (and certainly the loudest) representatives of the type “New Calendarist anti-Ecumenists” (or “conservative Orthodox,” since the type also includes “old calendarists,” such as a certain Serbian bishop). Or, otherwise stated, followers of the … illustrious (from Epiphanios Theodoropoulos) theory of avoiding the two extremes: Ecumenism and Zealotry.

So then, the valiant imitators of Epiphanios strike simultaneously in two opposing directions.
But, my beloved, as Saint Mark of Ephesus proclaimed to the Epiphanians of his time, there is no middle path between light and darkness, between truth and falsehood, between Christ and the devil. The followers of moderation applied the rule of avoiding extremes to matters of faith, whereas the Holy Fathers prescribed it for matters of praxis. For example, we ought to avoid extremes in fasting—neither abolishing the commandment to fast nor fasting excessively. The same applies to prostrations and other practical virtues. To apply the principle of moderation to matters of faith is a denial of the faith. For the space between truth and falsehood belongs to falsehood. Truth, in order to be truth, must be 100% truth. Falsehood, whether it be 100% false or mixed with some percentage of truth, remains falsehood. And the “cocktail” of the late-coming zealots is precisely such a mixture of falsehood and truth. They condemn Ecumenism and at the same time praise the Ecumenists. In their interviews, some of them launch thunderous attacks against Ecumenism, but at the same time boast that they were elected bishops by the Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and consider it an honor that they were ordained by the very protagonists of Ecumenism! One day they anathematize Ecumenism, and the next they award medals to Ecumenist hierarchs, or send flattering letters to Ecumenist patriarchs, incensing them to the point of fainting! Ecumenism is bad, but the Ecumenists are good! It resembles the case of someone who denounces theft but honors the thieves; who denounces evil, yet praises the evildoer! We wonder—do these constitute signs of rational behavior, or perhaps of schizophrenic behavior?

We are not specialists to make a definitive judgment, but we suppose (attempting to trace logic within the illogical) that since some strike out against Ecumenism, they believe they must—in counterbalance—praise the Ecumenists and simultaneously attack the zealots. Perhaps they think that in this way they maintain a kind of balance. We, however, believe that this could more rightly be described as a sign of imbalance—like someone trying to stand on two boats at once. The result will be a loss of balance and a fall into the water.

How could one characterize the rebel who "bunkers down" between two warring sides and fires simultaneously at both the invader and the defender? From whom does he expect a medal? He will more likely, and rightly, receive fire from both sides (which, indeed, is what happened). And what is the reward for that dog who chases after the thief but also bites the homeowner? At best, an anti-rabies treatment! How would one characterize that judge who rebukes the criminal but simultaneously blasts the victim? Certainly not as a just judge.

If, therefore, one attempts to objectively evaluate the entire public conduct of the “New Calendarist anti-Ecumenists,” the most accurate and decorous term would be: “incoherent and contradictory to the point of mockery.” For when a certain clergyman, at one moment, turns to the people from the Holy Doors and thunders against Ecumenism as a heresy, yet immediately afterward turns eastward and addresses God, commemorating the Ecumenists as “rightly dividing the word of truth,” how can he escape the label of mocker? For either he mocks God, or he mocks the people. But to such late-coming zealots who remain within the official church apply the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: “No one can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will hold to the one and despise the other.” (Matt. 6:24)

Greek source:

https://web.archive.org/web/20210228191021/https://ecclesiagoc.gr/index.php/93-aristera/eideiseis-sholia/931-opsimoi-zilwtai