By Dimitris Chatzinikolaou,
former Associate
Professor of Economics of the University of Ioannina
Introduction
The present article supplements
three previous articles of mine, in which it was demonstrated that some
“anti-ecumenists,” such as Fathers Epiphanios Theodoropoulos (†1989), Euthymios
Trikaminas, Theodoros Zisis, Eugenios, Savvas Lavriotis, etc., preach three
heresies in order to fight the Orthodox of the Patristic Calendar (P.C.), a
fact which tarnishes their struggle on behalf of Orthodoxy. It should be noted,
first, that there is significant overlap between the present and the
aforementioned three articles. Second, with regard to the movement of the P.C.,
the article is limited to the time period 1924–1935, focusing on the walling
off of 1924 and on the ordinations of 1935. Third, the author does not belong
to any “faction” of the P.C. During the period 1999–2017 he belonged to the
Synod of [Archbishop] Chrysostomos (now [Archbishop] Kallinikos), from which he
walled himself off on account of its subjection to Law 4301/2014 and the
establishment of Religious Legal Entities (RLE).
1. The heresy of
“Potentialism”
Some of the opponents of the
Patristic Calendar (P.C.) preach the heresy of “Potentialism,” namely that
walling off from non-deposed heretics is supposedly optional, whereas,
according to Holy Scripture and the Holy Fathers, it is a dogma, that is,
obligatory.
(See https://orthodox-voice.blogspot.com/2025/07/blog-post_66.html)
The principal exponent of this
heresy was Fr. Epiphanios Theodoropoulos (see The Two Extremes: Ecumenism
and Zealotry, Holy Hesychasterion of the All-Merciful Theotokos of
Troezen, Athens 1997, pp. 75–76). “Potentialism” is a “crutch” of Ecumenism and
is responsible for its rapid spread, as well as for the fall of many
“fortresses of Orthodoxy,” such as Mount Athos, and also for the remaining in
heresy of many select souls, even “great pillars of Orthodoxy,” such as Fr.
Georgios Metallinos (†2019), the exceptional theologian-philologist Nikolaos
Sotiropoulos (†2014), etc.
It should be noted that certain
“anti-ecumenists” such as Fr. Savvas,
(see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogrgW5a97NU,
minute 24:30–24:35)
although they verbally reject
“Potentialism,” nevertheless accept the “canonizations” of persons who
knowingly communicated with the Ecumenists and praised them
(see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogrgW5a97NU,
minute 24:15–24:20)
and thus were “canonized,”
according to the principle “receiving glory from one another” (John 5:44).
According to the opinion of the author, this is the most extreme form of
“Potentialism,” because it prevents the faithful from walling off: if someone can
“become holy” while remaining in communion with heresy, and indeed knowingly,
then what need is there for walling off?
2. The heresy of the new
calendar (N.C.)
Some of the opponents of the
Patristic Calendar (P.C.) also preach the heresy of the new calendar (N.C.),
which: (1) was introduced into the Orthodox Church with the aim of subjecting
it to the “pope”; (2) was introduced without pan-Orthodox agreement, without
there being a pastoral necessity, and despite its condemnation by pan-Orthodox
Synods; (3) in practice abolished sacred Canons of Ecumenical Councils, such as
the 37th of the Council of Laodicea (ratified by the 2nd of the Sixth
Ecumenical), which forbids the Orthodox to seek the joint celebration of
Christian feasts with heretics, as well as the 56th of the Sixth Ecumenical
Council, which requires that one festal order prevail worldwide; and (4) it was
certainly expected that it would cause a schism, as indeed it did, a fact which
harmed the dogma of the unity of the Church, which has three characteristics:
common faith, common worship, and common administration (Dogmatics of
Ch. Androutsos, 4th ed., “Aster,” Athens, p. 274). These four facts, taken together,
define the “calendar issue.”
Instead of the term “calendar
issue,” however, the opponents of the P.C. use the words “calendar [per se],”
“13 days,” etc., in order to downgrade the issue, removing from it its dogmatic
dimension, disconnecting it from the heresy of Ecumenism, and presenting it as
a matter of choosing a supposedly more accurate calendar! They also speak of
the “impossibility” of restoring the P.C. (The Two Extremes, op. cit.,
p. 88) and criticize the pseudo-synod of Kolymbari (2016) because it did not
address the issue in order to “resolve” it (Fr. Th. Zisis), evidently by
accepting the Gregorian calendar (see Section 4).
But the cry of the Orthodox of
1924, “they have made us Franks,” testifies that the pious people correctly
perceived at that time that the matter is dogmatic, as being inseparably
connected with Ecumenism and the fragmentation of Orthodoxy. Correctly did the
Patriarchate of Jerusalem, Patriarch Photios of Alexandria, and many
theologians (such as Prof. Gregorios Papamichael) declare that the N.C.—not
only the Gregorian, but also the “revised Julian”—is problematic also from a
dogmatic point of view (Works of former Metropolitan of Florina
Chrysostomos, Holy Monastery of St. Nikodemos, Gortynia, 1997, vol. A, p. 377,
and journal Pantainos, 1910, no. 39, pp. 624–628, http://digital.lib.auth.gr/record/146308/files/5471_1.pdf).
Nevertheless, the opponents of
the P.C., distorting the truth, claim that those of the P.C. supposedly
elevated the Julian calendar—“in itself”—to a dogma of faith (!), attributed to
it a certain “sacred character,” and thus were led into a “peculiar idolatry”
(!) (The Two Extremes, op. cit., pp. 83–86, and Fr. E. Trikaminas, 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, Trikala, 2012, pp.
230–235, 243). A favored tactic of all these distorters of the truth is to
generalize the foolish views of isolated individuals to the entire population
of the P.C. (For a characteristic example, see Fr. E. Trikaminas, op. cit., p.
231.) As the science of Statistics teaches, however, biased sample selection
inevitably leads to erroneous conclusions; and in the present case, to false
accusations against the Orthodox of the P.C.
3. The ecclesiological heresy
that heretical “bishops” are “canonical”
Finally, the opponents of the P.C.
also preach the ecclesiological heresy that non-deposed schismatic/heretical
“bishops” who occupy the historical thrones are “canonical,” whereas the sacred
Canons consider them “false bishops” (see the 15th of the First-Second
Council). Fr. Savvas Lavriotis, for example, emphasizes on every occasion that
the “canonical bishop” of Mount Athos is “Patriarch” Bartholomew! According to
Dositheos of Jerusalem (Dodekavivlos, book VII, ch. 8, vol. 4, p. 116),
however, Bartholomew, as a heretic, “is neither Patriarch, nor Bishop, nor even
a member of the Church,” which accords with the ecclesiology of St. Gregory
Palamas: “Those of the Church of Christ are of the truth, and those who are not
of the truth are not of the Church of Christ” (Refutation of the Letter of
Ignatius of Antioch, E.P.E. 3). Moreover, Bartholomew, as a heretic, does
not even have apostolic succession (Dogmatics of Ch. Androutsos, op.
cit., pp. 281–282).
The adherents of the above heresy
claim that if Orthodox Bishops hasten to shepherd the people in provinces where
heretical/schismatic “bishops” are already established—as is the case today
throughout the whole world—they will create a schism!
(See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogrgW5a97NU,
minutes 5:50–6:10)
If, for example, a movement of
Orthodox Bishops attempted to install an Orthodox Patriarch in Constantinople,
Fr. Savvas would consider this movement schismatic, because he regards
Bartholomew as the “canonical patriarch”! This anti-patristic view shows how
small an idea Fr. Savvas has of Orthodoxy and how great an idea he has of the
thrones, which he defends, although he knows that since the beginning of the
20th century they have been occupied worldwide through the indications of
Masonry and of international Zionism.
Fr. Savvas and those of like
mind, in order to support this heresy, invoke the sacred Canons which forbid
the intrusion of Bishops into foreign jurisdictions (14th Apostolic, 15th of
the First Ecumenical Council, etc.), as well as the coexistence of two Bishops
in the same Diocese (8th of the First Ecumenical Council, 16th of the
First-Second, etc.). Certainly, these sacred Canons must be observed inviolably
when there is peace in the Church and the thrones are occupied by Orthodox
Bishops. When, however, in a time of heresy or persecution of the Church, the
entire ruling hierarchy is heretical or schismatic, that is, a “pack of wolves”
not sparing the flock (Acts 20:29–30), then the “violations” of the said Canons
which aim at the benefit of the Church—in this case at the replacement of the
heretical “hierarchy” by an Orthodox one—must be praised and not condemned,
since “of necessity there is also a change of the law” (Heb. 7:12,
emphasis added)! Dositheos writes:
Note that
Meletios of Antioch, and the Bishops of that time who transferred Saint Gregory
to Constantinople [i.e., an exceptional example which refutes the adherents of
the said heresy], knew that the Canon forbidding transfer was made by the
Fathers for the proud, those who out of vainglory leap from throne to throne,
as formerly there were many such heretics, who feigned piety, and, being
received as Orthodox, deceived the people of God. However, the Canon does
not also hinder those things done by way of economy and for the benefit of the
Church; for this reason some have stated more clearly that the Canon
forbade the transfer which is ambitious, that is, a passing over for
advancement, and not the transfer which is for a necessary need … and the
divine Athanasios, Eusebios, and Basil ordained outside their jurisdiction, and
indeed Epiphanios also in Constantinople, and in Jerusalem the brother of
Jerome (Dodekavivlos, vol. 2, pp. 16–19, Book III, ch. 2, pars. C and D,
emphasis added).
He also writes:
Note first, that
to act outside one’s jurisdiction is unlawful; wherefore the great Basil,
although most wise and most holy, nevertheless seeks the opinion of the holy
Eusebios as to whether it is blameless to ordain in another province in a time
of necessity; second, that it is just in a time of necessity to assist
Churches that are being warred against or afflicted, and to ordain in them
Bishops and Presbyters, and almost to act in them as their own Bishops, as the
saints Eusebios and Athanasios did (Dodekavivlos, vol. 1, pp.
500–502, Book II, ch. 19, pars. A–6, emphasis added).
But Saint John Chrysostom also
proceeded to many trans-jurisdictional depositions and ordinations of Bishops
and, although he was accused for this, nevertheless later the Fourth Ecumenical
Council did not condemn him (Dodekavivlos, vol. 2, pp. 53–54, Book III,
ch. 4, par. Z, and Pedalion, “Aster” ed., Athens, 1993, footnote 1 on
the interpretation of the 28th Canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, p. 207).
Therefore, in a time of
persecution of the Church, and generally whenever there existed a “reasonable
cause,” many trans-jurisdictional ordinations and other acts “contrary to the
Canons” took place, in accordance with the spirit of the 14th Apostolic Canon,
the subject of which is the transfers of Bishops. As Socrates notes, “for
this formerly took place indiscriminately because of persecutions” (Ecclesiastical
History, Book V, ch. 8, P.G. 67, pp. 576–580, emphasis added). Dositheos
emphasizes that actions “contrary to the Canons” and “outside one’s
jurisdiction” done in the Church are indeed condemnable when they are done out
of lust for power, love of money, pride, vainglory, etc., but are praiseworthy
when they are done for the benefit of the Church, as for example in a time of
necessity and of Her persecution.
Dositheos also writes the
following: “Always in the great misfortunes, which the just judgment of God
permits to befall His people, His infinite compassion afterwards grants
sufficient consolation, and we have for this countless examples … the
rule of Constantine, equal to the Apostles, came as light to those in darkness
… the springtime of the great Theodosios arrived … the prosperity of Justin
[i.e., the Thracian] came, under whom the four Ecumenical Councils were
confirmed, being honored as the four Gospels … the exiled Bishops were set
free, the heretics were driven away, the Church was united” (Dodekavivlos,
op. cit., vol. 3, p. 9, Book V, ch. 1, par. A, emphasis added). Do you hear,
Fr. Savvas, that there are countless examples where the heretics were driven
from their positions and were not left to dissolve the Church? Do you now
perceive that the spirit of the sacred Canons, which the saints always applied,
is that the right faith and unity in the Church be preserved, and not that the
sacred Canons be used in favor of heretics/schismatics? Do you see that you
support exactly the opposite of those things for which the Holy Fathers
struggled and preached?
The sacred Canons have been
established for the good order of the Church and for Her protection from
disturbers, schismatics, and heretics, whereas the aforementioned opponents of
the P.C. invoke them for the protection of the heretics/schismatics from the
Orthodox, considering the Ecumenists, who are false bishops, as “canonical,”
and the Orthodox as “schismatics”! According to the opinion of the author,
this insane inversion of justice through the distortion of the spirit of the
sacred Canons constitutes an ecclesiological heresy and incurs the anathema of
misinterpretation/distortion of the teaching and practice of the Saints: “To
those who do not rightly receive the divine utterances of the holy teachers of
the Church of God, and who attempt to misinterpret and to distort those things
clearly spoken in them by the grace of the Holy Spirit, Anathema, thrice” (Synodikon
of Orthodoxy, Triodion, “Phos” ed., Athens, p. 160).
Let Fr. Angelos Angelakopoulos
and his followers also hear this, who on the Sunday of Orthodoxy proclaim the
following anathema: “to the factions of the ‘schismatic-heretical zealots not
according to knowledge Old Calendarism,’ of the so-called genuine Orthodox
Christians, to their pseudo-synods, their pseudo-bishops, pseudo-metropolitans,
and their pseudo-clergy, anathema.”
(See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4Aas58cEYY&list=RDk4Aas58cEYY&start_radio=1,
minute 8:00)
These insane ravings are fruits
of the aforementioned ecclesiological heresy. It should be noted that Fr.
Angelos, until his walling off (2020), on the one hand anathematized Ecumenism,
but at the same time was in communion with it,
(see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwO9A5Z2aI0&list=RDkwO9A5Z2aI0&start_radio=1,
1:05:41, 1:09:28)
like another Nasreddin Hodja who
was sawing off the branch on which he was sitting!
A fruit of the same
ecclesiological heresy of the neo-wallers-off “anti-ecumenists,” who wish to
appear in history as the first to have walled themselves off from Ecumenism, is
also the “de-churching” of the Orthodox of the P.C. Here are two examples.
First, at a gathering that took place years ago at the Holy Monastery of Saint
Paraskevi of Milochori, Ptolemaida, in the presence also of Fr. E. Trikaminas,
the then abbot Fr. Maximos Karavas (†2025) said that Fr. Euthymios is the
“first who walled himself off,” and he bowed his head, accepting the falsehood,
instead of correcting it, that the first who walled themselves off were the
Orthodox of the P.C. one hundred years ago. Second, at another gathering at the
same Monastery, Fr. Th. Zisis, who on every occasion declares that “the Old
Calendarists are schismatics,” addressing Fr. Maximos, said that the Holy
Monastery of Saint Paraskevi of Milochori is perhaps the only walled-off
monastery in the entire world! And Fr. Maximos did not correct him, but
accepted the falsehood, in order that he too might have a primacy in the
firmament! Does Fr. Theodoros not know of the walling off decades ago of the
Holy Monastery of Esphigmenou on Mount Athos (the genuine one, of course, not
the “imitation”), and of many other monasteries of the P.C., or perhaps—more
likely—does he consider them “outside the Church” and therefore nonexistent?
“Canonical,” therefore, according to the aforementioned “anti-ecumenists,” are
Bartholomew and the Ecumenists with him, who proclaim urbi et orbi that
all religions constitute “paths” leading to God, but the Orthodox of the P.C.
are “schismatics”! It should be noted that the Ecumenists and those who
knowingly commune with them are subject to the anathemas of the Ecumenical
Councils: (1) “anathema to all heretics” and “if anyone sets aside any
ecclesiastical tradition, written or unwritten, anathema” (Seventh Ecumenical
Council, Acts VII and VIII, Acts of the Holy and Ecumenical Councils,
ed. Kalyve of the Precious Forerunner of the Holy Skete of Saint Anna,
Mount Athos, vol. 3, pp. 878/879 and 383); and (2) the 11th anathema of the
Fifth Ecumenical Council, by reason of their refusal on 7-12-1965 to
anathematize the Papists (Acts, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 343).
These things being so, the
ordinations of 1935 by the three Bishops of the P.C. were in every respect in
accordance with the sacred Tradition. It was then known that the aim of the
introduction of the N.C. was the union of the Orthodox Church with the two
great “branches of Christianity,” Papism and Protestantism, and for this reason
there was the “need” for the joint celebration of feasts with them. This aim
was known from many sources, such as, for example, from the Patriarchal
Encyclicals of the years 1902 and 1920, from statements, conferences, articles,
books, and actions of the Ecumenists, as for example from the book of Anthimos
of Vizye entitled The Calendar Question (1922, p. 141): “that through
the issue of the Calendar, once its unification is achieved, there will
undoubtedly be accomplished the first important step toward the attainment of
the contemplated and, by circumstances, imperatively imposed Communion of the
Churches.” These Masonic plans of the Ecumenists were known in 1935 to the
three Bishops of the P.C. who had walled themselves off, as is evident from the
writings of Chrysostomos, formerly of Florina, for example: “But She
[i.e., the Orthodox Church] always rejected the Gregorian calendar as an
innovation of elder Rome, incompatible with the traditions of the 7 Ecumenical
Councils, and as an attempt of the latter to subject also the Orthodox Church
to the absolutist dominion of the Pope” (Works, op. cit., vol. A, p.
98, the emphasis in original).
The only way that could have
prevented the subjection of the Orthodox Church to Papism after the imposition
of the heresy of the N.C. was the formation of an Orthodox Synod, the
repudiation of the schismatics, and the ordination of new Bishops, according to
the model of the handling of the Bulgarian schism (1872), where the
establishment of a local synod by the Patriarchate of Constantinople was
necessary for the proclamation of the schism, whereupon “the Patriarchate
and the Exarchate were justified, after the proclamation of the schism, to
send hierarchs wherever they wished” (B. Stephanides, Ecclesiastical
History: From the Beginning Until Today, Papadimitriou ed., 2nd ed.,
Athens, 1959, pp. 738–739, emphasis added). The same is also written by Fr.
Epiphanios: “If Philaret [i.e., of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia
(ROCOR)] believed that the Church of Greece had fallen into heresy, then he
could intervene in it … to ordain anew priests (and even bishops) for the
fullness of the Church of Greece” (The Two Extremes, op. cit., p. 86,
emphasis added). But if ROCOR had such a right, why did hierarchs of the Church
of Greece not have it? Therefore, the aforementioned accusation against the
three Bishops of the P.C., that in 1935 they supposedly created a schism,
(see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogrgW5a97NU,
5:50–6:03)
is false, since the entire local
hierarchy had then become potentially schismatic.
Fr. Savvas has perceived his
error and attempts to “correct” it, but with unsound “arguments.” First, he
says that “the calendar is not a dogmatic issue,” because before 325 each
Church celebrated Pascha in a different manner and, nevertheless, they had communion
with one another (See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8A7znjSwOAA,
minutes 28–30). By disconnecting the calendar issue from Ecumenism and the
schism, with which, however, it is inseparably connected, he misleads his
listeners, presenting this purely dogmatic issue as non-dogmatic. If the
deliberate creation of a schism (1924), in order to achieve union with Papism,
that is, the abolition of Orthodoxy, which is being promoted gradually through
the adoption of a common calendar (see Section 4) and which was effected
officially on December 7, 1965,
is not a dogmatic issue, then
what issue is dogmatic?
Second, “responding” to our
argument that all the aforementioned Saints proceeded to acts “contrary to the
Canons” in a time of necessity,
(see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQ4YXKDpjZY&t=7896s,
1:19:28–1:22:12)
Fr. Savvas says that St.
Athanasios the Great did indeed proceed to trans-jurisdictional ordinations,
but before each ordination he first deposed the existing bishop there, so that
there would not be at the same time two bishops in the same province.
(See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8A7znjSwOAA&t=1800s,
31:30–33:00)
On this point, we have to observe
the following. First, this claim is ridiculous and insulting to the Saint,
because it presents him as wishing to eliminate the “contrary to the Canons”
element from the said trans-jurisdictional ordinations by proceeding to
additional “contrary to the Canons” acts (depositions), in order to appear to
observe the Canon of one Bishop in one province, while disregarding the Canon
against intrusion into another province! Second, the author referred not only
to St. Athanasios the Great, but also to a multitude of other Saints who
proceeded to “contrary to the Canons” acts; did they also do the same? Third,
what is the historical source of this information?
4. Conclusions
As is known, during the last two
years, the Ecumenists are again promoting the issue of a “common Pascha” with
the heretics through the acceptance of the Gregorian calendar, which has been
anathematized by the Pan-Orthodox Synod of 1593 (Dodekavivlos, vol. 6,
p. 232, Book XI, ch. 11). As their banner, they have the falsehood that “the
calendar is not a dogmatic issue.”
(See https://fosfanariou.gr/index.php/2026/02/27/pros-mia-koini-imerominis-eortasmou-tou-pasxa/,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwUwAn7Iau8)
They hypocritically say that the
First Ecumenical Council requires the said “common celebration,” despite the
fact that the disturbance of the Orthodox Paschalion, which the
acceptance of the Gregorian calendar will bring about, will render even the
Orthodox Church alien to the Church of Christ (1st Canon of the local Council
of Antioch, ratified by the 2nd of the Sixth Ecumenical Council). The
aforementioned “anti-ecumenists” raise the same banner, thus offering to
Ecumenism the highest service. Even greater, however, is the service they offer
it by preaching the aforementioned ecclesiological heresy. For, as also in
1935, the only way that can prevent the impending evil is the formation of an
Orthodox Synod, the repudiation of the schismatic-heretical Ecumenists, and the
ordination of Orthodox Bishops.
Fr. Savvas and those of like
mind, however, slandering and mocking the ordinations of the P.C. of 1935, with
“catchphrases” such as “they made a synod in order to save the Church, because
they considered the sacraments of the New Calendarists invalid,” and speaking
nonsense about “walling into bishops,” which (“walling in”) supposedly stops
walling off and leads the faithful “outside the Church” (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKxgu4BrgnU,
1:20:00–1:20:25), have so greatly discredited this singular solution that it
appears unlikely to be implemented. As we have seen at length above, however,
this singular solution is not hindered by the sacred Canons, because it accords
with their spirit and with the practice of the Saints in similar circumstances.
The legalistic “arguments” of the Ecumenists and of their aforementioned allied
“anti-ecumenists” distort the spirit of Holy Scripture and of the sacred
Canons, do not accord with the actions of the Saints in similar circumstances,
and serve the protection and promotion of heresy. For this reason, they incur
the anathema of the distortion of the teaching and practice of the Church.
According to the opinion of the author, these “Javerts” would even anathematize
the Lord Himself, because He healed the sick on the Sabbath “contrary to the
Canons”!
Greek source: https://orthodox-voice.blogspot.com/2026/03/blog-post_34.html
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.