Concerning the “Errors” of the Old Calendarists and the “Non-Errors” of Those Who Have Walled Themselves Off

Ioannis N. Paparrigas | July 14, 2026

 

 

I was sent a video in which the speakers are Fr. Theodore Zisis and his son [Monk Seraphim].

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMzZyd8j9do]

Honestly, it is completely unacceptable for people who supposedly possess academic knowledge to appear so ignorant of history in ecclesiastical matters that have not only been answered, but analyzed hundreds of times. They truly disappointed me. I understand that they wish to support their own position. But when this is attempted through historical inaccuracies, then the well-known saying applies: “What is good is not good unless it be done well.”

Fr. Theodore states:

“From the beginning of the walling off, we said that we would not make the mistake made by the Old Calendarists: having bishops of our own.”

And a little further on, note the complete contradiction:

“Unless Orthodox bishops are found who will undertake it. If some Orthodox bishops were found who would undertake the walling off and wall themselves off, the matter would be different.”

But excuse me, what did the Orthodox Bishops who led the struggle of the Old Calendarists do differently? Is it possible that Fr. Theodore is unaware that in 1935, a full eleven years after the unilateral and uncanonical change of the festal calendar in 1924, Orthodox Bishops undertook the struggle of the Old Calendarists?

For a full eleven years, the Old Calendarists had no Bishops. Subsequently, when, with the passage of time, they were once again left without Bishops—some reposed, some lost courage, and others were indeed led into schism—the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) proceeded to ordain new Bishops for them.

Do they perhaps not accept the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia? Of course they do.

What, after all, does Fr. Seraphim Zisis state in the same video?

“They [the New Calendarists] even regarded ROCOR, the Russians of the diaspora, as a schism. My professors at the university taught me that ROCOR, the Russians of the diaspora, was a schism. And from there came Saint John Maximovitch, Elder Seraphim Rose, and Saint Philaret, whose body was found incorrupt. According to them, it is a schism.”

Fr. Theodore continues:

“But now, as presbyters, we do not have the ability to have bishops of our own. We will therefore not make Bishops of our own, so that they may characterize us as a schism. We will remain within the Church and protest, resist, react, and struggle for the Church to return to Orthodoxy.”

But that is self-evident. What presbyter can ordain Bishops?

Either Orthodox bishops will wall themselves off and undertake the struggle, exactly as occurred in the case of the Old Calendarists, or, once they have undertaken it, they themselves will proceed to ordain new Bishops.

I assume, of course, that what Fr. Theodore wishes to say here is that he considers only the first case to be the correct solution, namely, that an already existing Orthodox bishop should wall himself off and lead the struggle. It would be well, however, for him not to be so absolute. For precisely what he now considers self-evident—that Orthodox bishops should wall themselves off and undertake the struggle—was something that, several years ago, they would not even discuss. Today, however, they accept it. Therefore, let them not be so certain and so categorical concerning the next step of history as well.

And he concludes with the celebrated statement:

“We are in Orthodoxy and in the Church; they are outside the Church.”

Who exactly are the “we”? All those who have walled themselves off, or only this particular group?

If he means all those who have walled themselves off, then why is there no ecclesiastical communion with the other groups that have walled themselves off?

Yet another question arises here. Were they not the very ones who, for years, wrote that they did not wish to resemble the Old Calendarists, invoking the existence of factions as their argument?

How, then, is it possible that those who have walled themselves off now have various groups, which moreover are not in ecclesiastical communion with one another—and all this in an era when they have neither the rifle butts (batons) of the gendarmes to face, as the Old Calendarists did, nor the violent persecutions which, as they themselves acknowledge in the video above, the Old Calendarists suffered?

We shall conclude with a well-known saying of our own.

The more they try to prove that they are not “Old Calendarists,” the more they will receive the very same characterizations that for decades were applied to the Old Calendarists, namely, “schismatics,” “outside the Church,” and so many others. And in this, the existence or non-existence of bishops is not to blame......

God does not bless struggles founded upon mutual accusations.

The same, of course, also applies to the Old Calendarists themselves, who have paid dearly for it to this day, reaching the point where churches of different factions stand side by side on the same street. And if one asks each of them separately why this is so, one will almost always receive the same answer:

“It is not our fault; it is the others...”

Let us all therefore take heed, for the history of the Church teaches that when a struggle is accompanied by humility and discernment, it is blessed. But when it is accompanied by mutual accusations, characterizations from both sides, and intransigent attitudes, the outcome rarely vindicates those who believe that they possess the truth exclusively.

P.S. Let our brethren who have walled themselves off study the following article continually:

[English translation: https://orthodoxmiscellany.blogspot.com/2025/06/disciples-at-infallible-school-of-holy.html]

 

Greek source: https://entoytwnika1.blogspot.com/2026/07/blog-post_14.html