Concerning the G.O.C., Walling Off, and the “Only Path”

Ioannis N. Paparrigas | July 16, 2026

 

We were sent an article [by walled-off new calendarist Fr. Dimitrios Athanasiou] that was published on Facebook.

[English translation: https://orthodoxmiscellany.blogspot.com/2026/07/one-non-commemorators-opinion-comments.html]

The author of the article essentially acknowledges Fr. Theodore’s contradiction, writing:

“On the one hand, Fr. Th. Z. says: ‘we will not create bishops of our own,’ but on the other hand, he hopes ‘that Orthodox Bishops will be found who will wall themselves off’ (A GLARING CONTRADICTION). If the latter were to occur (if serving bishops were to wall themselves off), from the perspective of those who have walled themselves off, this would not constitute the ‘founding of a new Church’ (as the G.O.C. are accused of doing), but rather the ‘healthy portion’ of the already existing hierarchy reacting.”

As we ourselves also pointed out yesterday, with the difference that he proposes to those who have walled themselves off that:

“Joining forces with an existing anti-Ecumenist hierarchy, such as that of Artemije (formerly of Raška and Prizren), is not merely an option, but the only path that preserves dogmatic and ecclesiological consistency in practice.”

We should, of course, emphasize that we personally do not like terms such as “only path” and similar expressions, because we have had bad experiences with terms of this kind... In any case, that is not the issue.

The author states:

“Since Fr. Theodore and those with him wanted a bishop to lead the walling off, why did they not recognize Metropolitan Artemije, who had been deposed by the Patriarchate of Serbia and who did precisely that? Fr. Theodore and other walled-off theologians maintain that Artemije proceeded with ‘uncanonical ordinations’ (he ordained ‘chorepiscopi’ without the approval of a synod), thereby creating de facto his own parallel hierarchy—a schism—in Serbia. The reality, however, is otherwise. Their refusal to ‘bow their heads’ to Artemije demonstrates the impasse of their theory. Fearing that they might be characterized as schismatics by the official Church, they isolate themselves even from those bishops who took the very step that they themselves proclaim.”

According to the author’s reasoning, “The reality, however, is otherwise,” and it is this: “Fearing that they might be characterized as schismatics by the official Church...”

And further on, he presents proposals that were implemented years ago by the G.O.C., such as, for example:

“Joining this particular Synod (ed. note: he means that of His Eminence Artemije) fully restores the necessary hierarchical structure (Bishop–Presbyters–Deacons) and guarantees the continuity of Apostolic Succession through future ordinations, preventing spiritual withering and a biological dead end,”..... “Joining his Synod is the only position that brings actions into complete alignment with words”...... “joining it creates a clear, cohesive, and well-organized ecclesiastical structure. This structure can withstand the pressure of time, organize parishes, catechize the faithful, and bequeath the anti-Ecumenist witness to future generations”..... “The theory of the ‘middle way’ has exhausted its limits. For anyone who rejects a return by way of compromise, joining forces with an existing anti-Ecumenist hierarchy, such as that of Artemije, is not merely an option, but the only path that preserves dogmatic and ecclesiological consistency in practice.”

Although, therefore, he accepts the above realities, he does not propose that those who have walled themselves off join the already existing Synod of Genuine Orthodox Christians, which has existed in Greece for many decades. On the contrary, he presents joining the Synod of His Eminence Artemije, which is in fact located in another country, as the “only path.”

This position creates an evident contradiction.

On the one hand, he acknowledges that the walling off of Orthodox Bishops does not constitute the founding of a new Church, but rather represents the healthy portion of the Hierarchy. On the other hand, he does not regard the already existing Synod of the G.O.C. as a possible ecclesiological solution for those who have walled themselves off, and for this reason he does not propose it.

The contradiction becomes even greater in view of the fact that he himself has repeatedly defended the G.O.C. of Indonesia through comments on our blog. [Trans. note: This concerns the G.O.C. of Indonesia controversially participating in certain ecumenical events.]

He has commented on our blog many times, essentially recognizing their Orthodoxy.

If the G.O.C. of Indonesia (who belong to the Synod presided over by Archbishop Kallinikos) are Orthodox, then the corresponding Synod to which they belong also constitutes an ecclesiological solution for those who have walled themselves off.

Nevertheless, when he seeks a solution for those who have walled themselves off, he completely suppresses any mention of the existence of the Synod of the G.O.C. and presents the Synod of His Eminence Artemije as the “only path.”

Since he accepts that the walling off of Orthodox Bishops does not constitute the founding of a new Church, by his own parenthetical comment (“as the G.O.C. are accused of doing”), he essentially also recognizes the ecclesiological framework within which the G.O.C. acted.

The well-known argument that the G.O.C. supposedly founded a “new Church” is essentially refuted by the above admission. Since no new Church is founded in this case, there is no difference whatsoever.

A full eleven years after the unilateral and uncanonical change of the festal calendar, Orthodox Bishops walled themselves off, took up the struggle of the Old Calendarists, and constituted the healthy portion of the hierarchy at that time that reacted against the innovation; subsequently, the Russians Abroad renewed the struggle of the Old Calendarists through new episcopal consecrations.

It emerges, however, from his own article that his argumentation is not applied according to the same standard in every case.

While he recognizes that the walling off of Orthodox Bishops does not constitute the founding of a new Church, and while he publicly defends the G.O.C. of Indonesia, he completely disregards the existence of the Greek Synod of the G.O.C. and presents joining the Synod of His Eminence Artemije as the “only path.”

In our humble opinion, his inconsistency and his own contradiction are evident.

 

Greek source: https://entoytwnika1.blogspot.com/2026/07/blog-post_16.html