Heretical Notions Concerning the Struggle Against the Pan-Heresy Contributed to the Ecumenist Corruption of the Church

Nikos E. Sakalakis | December 6, 2017

"Cleanse the Church by expelling those unworthy of it."   St. Basil the Great – Letter 54 to the Chorepiscopi

In the life of the local Orthodox Churches, there are times when cleansing becomes an urgent necessity, because ideas and practices sprout that undermine the spiritual essence of the Church, that corrode Orthodox values, and distort the liturgical ethos and character of the Ecclesiastical body. The first step toward reversing direction in the Church, for its health, is the removal of unworthy clergy or laity, who have been incurably afflicted by heresy or by a self-determination incompatible with Orthodoxy. "Cleanse the Church by expelling those unworthy of it," St. Basil the Great points out.

Unworthy clergy are an obstacle to the action of the grace of God. The fountains of grace and sanctification are shut (ontologically) where faith, life in Christ, and worship are fundamentally compromised.

In the time of St. Basil the Great, the truth of the Church, as doctrine and life, was discolored by the spiritually unstable or worldly steps of its clergy.

It is true that in the great gift of God, the Church, over the course of time, deep crises were created by the one who leads the whole world astray—not only in the form of organization, administration, and pastoral social presence, but primarily in its identity, as an alienation (heresies) from the correctness of its faith and from the authenticity of its life.

If we take, as it indeed is, the phrase of St. Basil the Great as an exercise in self-awareness and a stimulus for reflection, the question arises: how would St. Basil the Great react to the ecumenist torrent of dogmatic deviations and theological aberrations that overwhelm today’s (new) ecclesiastical reality?

Undoubtedly, he would call for the convening of an Ecumenical Council to condemn the pan-heresy of Ecumenism.

The truly Orthodox Father, Fr. Charalampos Vasilopoulos, wrote: "The danger from Ecumenism is unimaginable. And solely for the condemnation of Ecumenism as a dreadful heresy ravaging all of Orthodoxy, an Ecumenical Council ought to be convened" ("Ecumenism Unmasked").

On the contrary, today, most Hierarchs who praise the Fathers—especially when they are speakers at celebrations —have synodally legitimized Ecumenism. Truly, a sign of the times!

What would St. Basil the Great say about the vast "ecclesiastical" category that "takes no position," that is neither for nor against anything?

These, as a rule, are deeply resistant when their interests are affected.

In the same Letter (54), St. Basil the Great writes: "It greatly grieves me that the canons of the Fathers have now been neglected and all exactness of the Churches has been driven away, and I fear lest, as this indifference progresses little by little, the affairs of the Church come to complete confusion"—that is, "it greatly grieves me that the canons of the Fathers have recently fallen into contempt, and every good order has been removed from the Churches, and I fear lest, as this indifference gradually increases, the affairs of the Church end up in total confusion."

We have a confirmation of Saint Basil in the recent (relatively) phase/testimony of Ecclesiastical history. The exactness of the Church was disregarded, the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council was [generally] not applied against the heretical Patriarch Athenagoras, indifference and complacency increased regarding the invasion of Ecumenism, due to the potential interpretation of the canon, and thus time and space were given for the ecumenist adaptation of the Church of Greece. The disregard of the 15th canon constitutes a breach of an Ecclesiastical mandate, or its potential interpretation constitutes a contempt of the Fathers.

The potential interpretation of the canon stands in opposition to the ecclesiological mindset of St. Basil the Great.

There are idealistic notions that regard the potential interpretation as sound and unifying. It is an interpretation that does not reflect the timeless stance of the Fathers in times of heresy. This interpretation does not set boundaries for Orthodoxy, and as has been proven in practice, historically, its atmosphere contributed to the ecumenist corruption of the Church.

In conclusion: The potential interpretation of the canon theologically contradicts St. Basil the Great’s call for the cleansing of the Church.

The up to now disregard and marginalization of the 15th canon gradually led the fullness of the Church to the loss of its ecclesiological consciousness, that is, to a rupture with the catholic unity of the timeless Orthodox Church. An introverted isolation developed as spiritual life, that is, a continuous "spiritual" concern for the "self" in the name of obedience.

Obedience, so useful and important in the work of salvation, is today being wronged. We have very many examples of the falsification of obedience, from spiritual fathers who place themselves first, and the spiritual interest of the Church follows!

The cornerstone of obedience is the word of God, expressed as "Hear, O Israel" (Deut. 6:4). Obedience = under + hearing, to that which the Church commands. Entirely foreign to the Orthodox tradition is the view or position that confines the faithful to spiritual duties or asceticism while leaving the course of the Church to the "authorities."

The holy Fathers, in their prayer, devoted more time to hearing the voice of God—"Hear, O Israel"—than to personal requests. Their struggles and their confession were the fruit of obedience to the Church.

Concerning the blessed obedience to the Holy Canons and their theological interpretation—as a Patristic–Ecclesiastical ethos and not as polemics—the contemporary confessor bishop Kyr Augoustinos Kantiotes analyzes this in his (relevant) writings. Especially Kyr Augoustinos, like St. Basil the Great, in the critical circumstances of the Church, safeguarded the sacred deposit of the Holy Canons. A similar spirit was demonstrated by Archimandrite Christophoros Kalyvas, which has been crystallized in his book “Restore the Church.” Their positions bear the utmost Ecclesiological weight, with a dynamic for lifting the Church out of stagnation.

Those who, today, do not adopt the Ecumenist ecclesiology are, for the official institutional Church, from the outset opponents, reactionaries, schismatics, heretics, apostates, fanatics, obscurantists, fundamentalists, extremists, psychopaths, outside the Church!

Examples of "victims" of Ecumenism: the theologian Nikos Sotiropoulos, Fr. Euthymios Trikaminas, brethren of the Old Calendar, the Athonite Fathers, Fr. Theodoros Zisis, Fr. Nikolaos Manolis, and many others, while others follow…

In his books and in his synodal memoranda, at an unsuspected time, Kyr Augustine pulverizes the positions of Patriarch Bartholomew concerning the Holy Canons, as they have been formulated in his related scholarly–theological work.

"O Lord! Unto Thee we lift up eyes and hearts, help Thy faithful children from all the land of Greece to struggle unto the end for the glory of Thy Church." (Kyr Augustine Kantiotes – Ecclesiastical Memoranda [p. 201])

Greek source: https://paterikiparadosi.blogspot.com/2017/12/blog-post_69.html

The Pseudo-Walling Off of Fr. Theodoros Zisis

Ioannis Rizos | March 27, 2018

 

Two years after the pseudo-council of Kolymbari, a preaching novel and foreign to Orthodox Tradition concerning Walling Off has now been established by three Thessalonian theologians—Fr. Theodoros Zisis, Fr. Nikolaos Manolis, and Fr. Seraphim Zisis—based on their own notions, as Saint Epiphanios [of Salamis] would say. [1]

The basic principles of this preaching are summarized in the following:

1. Walling off against heresy is not mandatory.
2. A bishop (or priest) who commemorates the patriarch (or the bishop, respectively), thus sacramentally and within the Church affirming that the heterodox patriarch (or bishop) is Orthodox, causes no spiritual harm to those who are in ecclesiastical communion with him, as long as—according to the three theologians—the said patriarch/bishop has not been synodally deposed.
3. The flock is free—and without spiritual harm—to have ecclesiastical communion with a priest/bishop who belongs to the above category, provided that this priest/bishop is... "pious"!

The greatest proof that the three theologians are in delusion does not arise only from Orthodox argumentation and reasoning, but also from tangible reality itself. And here is the reality that proves my assertion:

The "walled-off" Fr. Theodoros Zisis recently concelebrated with Ukrainian Bishop Longinus [of Banchensky]:

https://web.archive.org/web/20180316003219/https://www.katanixis.gr/2018/03/1000-2018.html.

Bishop Longinus and Fr. Theodoros, during the Divine Liturgy, jointly commemorated the patriarchs of Moscow, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Romania, Jerusalem, as well as the Archbishops of the autocephalous Churches—that is, they commemorated the leading Ecumenists of these Local Churches. Fr. Theodoros here in Greece tells us that the participants in Kolymbari are "Latin-minded" and "heretics" (see video of Monk Fr. Seraphim Zisis [Fr. Theodoros' son], at 1:26:00 and 1:27:42: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blVrzLfOwk4), and because of this, of course, he cuts off ecclesiastical communion with the Metropolitan of Thessaloniki Mr. Anthimos, who is aligned with Kolymbari.

Yet in Ukraine he commemorates within the Church and unashamedly the same persons whom in Greece he considers and calls heretics, having ceased their commemoration.

Therefore, in the end and literally, we are not to reflect on how Patristic and Orthodox the walling off of Fr. Theodoros and the three Thessalonian theologians is, but we must understand that it is not even a case of Walling Off. It is a hearse of delusion that roams the streets, with the funeral wreaths being carried by their entirely guilty and personality-worshipping people.

Fr. Theodoros Zisis is not walled off!

The manifestly anti-Orthodox preaching of the three Thessalonian theologians has borne its bitter fruits: a triumphant restoration of commemoration outside of Greece!

In Greece, he remains a confessor.

These deeds are the fruits of their teaching. For years they have not been teaching the whole truth to the people, but only that which fits and is "in accordance with their own teaching" (Isaiah 5:31); "they have turned away from the ancient paths and walk in ways not cast up" (Jeremiah 18:15).

“Their preaching is a defiled offering and a contempt toward God” (Malachi 1:6). In reality, “they teach the people to offer to God what is fit to be thrown away” (Malachi 1:12).

“You priests stumble in broad daylight… but you shall suffer the same as the people” (Hosea 4:5, 9), even if you call this thing “economy” and “love” for the sake of the flock.

There is no need, then, for the airplanes of the New Order to spray us, as some believe. [A reference to an airplane "chemtrails" conspiracy theory.] The preaching of Fr. Theodoros and those with him is more effective. Ecumenism has spread in depth and breadth, mainly because they continue to preach that which creates and intensifies the spiritual deadening of the world.

They train the people to be unable to discern what is good and what is evil, what is white and what is black, what is defiled and what is holy (Ezek. 44:23).

“They have betrayed their mission. By their counsel they have led many people to do evil,” because “they did not transmit My commandments to the people unadulterated,” says the Lord to the priests. (Malachi 2:6, 8)

The Thessalonian theologians baptize—as per their own criteria(!)—as “pious” bishops and priests who, by the criteria of Orthodoxy, are impious. “…Therefore, it is in no way permitted [not permitted at all] for the priest to commemorate the heterodox…” according to Saint Symeon the New Theologian [2] and according to the holy Fathers.

How then is Bishop Longinus—and all those whom Fr. Theodoros considers pious—pious, when they commemorate the foremost heretical primates?

I appeal to the simple logic of the reader who adopts the positions of Fr. Theodoros and I ask him: If ecclesiastical communion with clergy who commemorate the ecumenist primates does not cause us spiritual harm or sin, for what reason should those primates be condemned by a future Orthodox Council and be deposed? Would it not be absurd for a clergyman/bishop to be deposed when his beliefs cause no spiritual harm or sin to his flock?

And if ecclesiastical communion with such clergy does not cause us spiritual harm and sin, then why were Saint Maximus and thousands of other saints tortured and put to death for refusing ecclesiastical communion with the non-deposed heretical primates of their time?

If there is no defilement from communion with non-deposed clergy who cooperate and walk together with heretical bishops (secretly or openly, sacramentally or publicly, in various forms and degrees), and there is no condemnable spiritual consequence whatsoever, then Walling Off, both as an institution and as a confessional practice lived by the saints throughout the centuries, is utterly useless!

Consequently, the group of Fr. Theodoros becomes in practice the foremost rejecter of the confessional experience of the saints!

With their writings and words, they appear as honorers of the saints, but in practice, by teaching their flocks the opposite path for application, they are shown to be fighters against the saints!

And unfortunately, we see confirmed in our days the prophetic word:

“A thousand shall fall at your left hand, and ten thousand at your right” (Psalm 90:7).

 

1. P.G. 43, 132B.

2. Saint Symeon, Complete Works, chapter XVI, Rigopoulos Publications.

 

Greek source: https://paterikiparadosi.blogspot.com/2018/03/blog-post_864.html

 

Saint Nikodemos: Those who are in the Church must be united.

Those of you, Christians, who go to the Church of Christ, be careful to not be divided and separated among yourselves, having enmities and hatreds and discord, but to have love and concord and reconciliation, all to have the same mind, "all breathing the same thing," all to be as one body and one spirit, with one hope of our calling, according to the Apostle. And let this name of the Church, in which you gather, urge you toward this spiritual love and unity, because [the name] Church means union and gathering. And just as it unites all of you Christians bodily in one place and gives you one common word of teaching, one holy bread, the body of the Lord, and one common cup of the blood of Christ, so likewise it requires from you to be united in spirit, mind, and disposition.

For this reason, blessed Paul, wishing to urge the Christians of that time toward love and unity, used to mention frequently the name of the Church; therefore, at one time he wrote: "To the faithful of the Church of God in Corinth" (1 Corinthians 1:2), and at another time: "To the churches of Galatia" (Galatians 1:1), which, interpreting, the Golden-Mouthed one [St. John Chrysostom] said concerning the first: "He calls it Church of God, showing that they must be united [...] for the name of the Church is a name of union and not of division"; and concerning the second he said: "For this reason also he put the name of the Church, in order to make them ashamed and gather into one; for those who are divided into many parts cannot be called by this name; for the name of the Church is a name of agreement and concord."

Therefore, outside the Church of Christ be the discord, outside the enmities, outside the hatreds and resentments; inside the Church of God be concord, inside be love, inside be agreement. Therefore, one of two things you must necessarily do, Christians: either to abandon enmity and hatred toward your brothers and then enter the Church of God, or, having hatred and discord, you are not worthy to enter the holy Church. For Church and enmity, Church and hatred, Church and discord are two utterly opposed things, which can never be joined together.

(Excerpt from the Christian Morality, by Saint Nikodemos the Hagiorite, pp. 409-410).

 

Greek source: https://entoytwnika1.blogspot.com/2020/01/blog-post_15.html

So that Shepherds and laity who commune with the heretical Ecumenists may learn the Tradition of the Church

Panagiotis Simatis | October 10, 2018

 

Nikephoros Kallistos Xanthopoulos (13th-14th c.) distinguished himself as a historian, interpreter of the Scriptures, poet of ecclesiastical hymns, etc.

From his "Ecclesiastical History" we receive valuable information — among other things — also about the stance of the faithful towards heresies. We have previously presented some texts on this subject. Today we present the stance of the faithful of Samosata, in the interval between the First and Second Ecumenical Councils, when, through the interventions of heretical emperors or the Arian-minded bishops favored by them, Orthodox bishops were being persecuted and in their place Arian-minded ones were being installed, who had not been condemned by a Council. In this case, the faithful applied the patristic stance of Cessation of Communion or Walling Off, long before this was secured by the Fifteenth Canon of the First-Second Council.

Thus, as (Nikephoros Kallistos narrates to us) the band of the heresy of Arius had expelled the Orthodox Shepherds from the Churches, the same thing happened also in Samosata; they expelled the Orthodox Bishop Eustathios and in his place installed Eunomios. And then all the Orthodox, from the least to the greatest, ceased to attend church! And the Bishop remained alone in the Episcopal residence, and no one visited him, nor spoke to him!

"For as the band of Arius, having stripped all the churches of their shepherds, in Samosata likewise introduced another in place of Eustathios, by the name of Eunomios; not one of all the people, neither poor nor rich, neither young nor old, simply no one at all would enter the church, as was the custom; but he alone remained in the episcopal residence, with no one seeing him, nor at all exchanging a word with him. And yet, they say that he was otherwise mild and moderate; and this is acknowledged."

And when he went to a public bath and the attendants closed the doors, he learned that outside there was a multitude of people, and he ordered the attendants to open the doors, so that whoever wished might use the bath. And when some entered, he urged them also to enter the baths. But since those who had entered remained in silence without entering the baths, he considered this stance as one of respect toward his person, and he quickly departed from the bath.

"For when he went to a public bath, and the attendants had closed the doors, having learned that a multitude was standing before the doors, he ordered the attendants to open again the doors of the bathhouse, and without restriction allowed whoever wished to make use of the bath. He did the same also within the halls. And when some entered and stood around, he urged them to partake of the warm waters. But when they stood and still maintained silence, considering their stance as an honor toward him, he quickly left the bath and departed."

They, however (when he departed), because they considered that if they used the same water for their bath, it would be as if they participated in the defilement of heresy, poured the water into the sewers and took their bath after filling the baths with other water!

"But they, considering it a defilement of heresy to partake of that water, poured it out into the sewers; and having drawn other water, they bathed."

When Eunomios learned this, he immediately left the city and returned "home!" For he considered it pointless and foolish to remain in a city where everyone was against him!

"Eunomios, having learned this, immediately left the city and went home; for he considered it very foolish to choose to remain in a city that was entirely opposed to him. And thus he willingly departed from Samosata." (Nikephoros Kallistos, P.G. 146, 633BD)

When Eunomius departed from Samosata, the Arians appointed another Bishop, "by the name of Lucius, truly a wolf and not a shepherd. Yet the sheep, although not having a shepherd, nevertheless performed the deeds of shepherds, preserving inviolate the doctrine of the faith." (op. cit., P.G. 146, 633D-636AB)

We see here that the faithful, realizing that the shepherd appointed to them was a false shepherd, a wolf instead of a shepherd, did not wait for the decision of some Council, but themselves did what the shepherd ought to have done; and thus, by not communing with the false shepherd, the Arian-minded bishop Lucius, they preserved intact the doctrine of the Faith, as we shall see.

And towards him — the faithful of Samosata — behaved in a similar manner as towards Eunomius, as was shown by an incident.

One day, that is, while the children were playing, throwing a ball from one to another, Bishop Lucius was passing by. And it happened that the ball slipped from the hands of one child and passed under the feet of the mule on which Bishop Lucius was seated. And the children "cried out aloud," shouted in terror, because, as the ball passed under the animal of the heretic, they believed it had been defiled! (And how would they play afterwards.)

He, not understanding the behavior of the children, told one of his attendants to remain in the place and find out why the children had acted in such a manner. And (the attendant saw) that the children lit a fire and threw the ball upon it, wishing to disinfect—"cleanse"—it from the defilement (which it had acquired by passing under the mule of the heretical Bishop).

And Theodoret (from whom Nicephorus borrowed the incident) concludes: It is, of course, a childish reaction, but it shows how great was the aversion the inhabitants of Samosata had towards the Arian-minded, who were corrupting the Doctrine of the Faith:

"And this may perhaps be childish; yet it is sufficient to show how deeply this city had nourished hatred towards those who had chosen to falsify the doctrine of the faith." (op. cit., P.G. 146, 636AB)

 

Greek source: https://paterikiparadosi.blogspot.com/2018/10/blog-post_37.html

The heretical principle of the "independence" of Orthodoxy in communion with heresy!

Nikos E. Sakalakis | April 5, 2019

 

Undoubtedly, certain "theological" formulations today are regarded as a confession of faith in the Church, without being in absolute relation to what the Church believes and holds and to what constitutes Patristic tradition.

An example is the statements of Fr. Aimilianos of Simonopetra before His Eminence Maximos, who had gone to the Holy Mountain as a Patriarchal exarch, regarding the steadfastness of the reinstatement of the commemoration of the Ecumenical Patriarch and the punishment of the Holy Monastery of Esphigmenou.

Fr. Aimilianos: "For this reason, before you, holy president, I confess that my devotion to the Mother Great Church of Christ is such that I would prefer to be in error but to hold firmly to the Holy Mother Church, rather than to be correct independently of her, because I would not have the certainty that I am standing on secure ground" (Proceedings of the Second Session [assembly] of September 28, 1979, p. 2).

In contrast to Fr. Aimilianos, St. Gregory Palamas declares:

"That we believe rightly in God, that is, that we think well and securely and piously concerning Him—whence is the proof for us? From the agreement with our God-bearing Fathers;" that is, "that we believe rightly in God, that is, that we think well and securely and piously concerning Him—whence does the proof come? From the agreement with our God-bearing Fathers" (Homily VIII, E.P.E. 9).

This delusion of Fr. Aimilianos, who desires Orthodoxy as an opposing current to Ecumenism while being in communion with it, is also reflected in contemporary Episcopal, Eldership, and Academic positions. His Eminence Maximos spoke (at that time) to the Holy Community about the promotion of Orthodoxy through Dialogue (instead of the correct [approach], which is reproof). Before he went to the Holy Mountain, he had declared:

"The unity and union of the Churches, which constitutes the final and much-desired goal of the Dialogue, cannot be achieved when each church excludes for itself the possibility of delusion. The conviction of each church that only it possesses the truth and that it is never in error excludes dialogue, and consequently, renders it incapable of seeing the truth clearly. The Dialogue does not seek to impose the truth, but to discover it" (Orthodox Migrant, May 1972, p. 5).

To the ecumenistic–heretical propositions of His Eminence Maximos, the abbots and superiors of the Holy Monasteries of the Holy Mountain did not respond.

Questions: How were they able, in their conscience, to "reconcile" the timeless confessional disposition of the Athonite tradition with the ecumenistic activities of the Ecumenical Patriarchate?

Why this inferiority of the "contemporary" abbots before the ecumenistic arrangements? I believe that, until today, the onslaught—penetration of Ecumenism (a chronic illness) has created altered consciences, which seek to confine within "logical" limits the confessional practice—perspective of the Fathers.

They now adopt/profess the principle (heretical) of the independence of Orthodoxy while in communion with heresy, believing that this post-patristic tactic does not negate the identity of an Orthodox. They are in error!

In reality, all those "anti-ecumenists" who do not follow the practice of the Fathers against Ecumenism believe and accept:

• A "new Church," which constitutes the abolition of the first Orthodoxy, as it was delivered to us by the Apostles and the Fathers.

• They accept and believe in the principle of the independence of Orthodoxy, as an opposing current to Ecumenism, while in communion with it.

• They reinforce the "new" ecumenistic Church, which removes from them the identity of the Orthodox.

Behold the infectious axes of life, which they "baptized" as economy. Before the heresy of Ecumenism, its falsehood, its hypocrisy, and its traps, the contemporary "spiritual fathers" and the people they influence respond:

"Better to be in error within the Church than to rightly define the word of truth outside of her."

This open proclamation of communion with heresy does not constitute patristic teaching, as they claim. No special knowledge of the science of Logic and Theology is required for the faithful to perceive that this is a sophism.

St. Gregory Palamas writes:

"Those who have fallen away from this only and one piety rush into the manifold and multiform course of delusion, with which is naturally united falsehood, which divides the soul from the truly existing things…

For this reason, every heresy contains within itself inconsistency and self-destruction..." (Antirrhetic VI, E.P.E. 6).

In the Philokalia (Volume IV, pp. 61-62, 135), we read:

"The great adversary of the truth, which today draws people to perdition, is delusion. Through this, the ignorance of darkness prevailed in the souls of slothful people and alienated them from God...

In delusion, therefore, these three passions exist:

Unbelief, malice, and slothfulness, one giving birth to the other and being allied together."

By studying the words of the Holy Fathers, we understand—and it is not at all paradoxical—that there exists (today) an escalating neo-patristic effort to withdraw the practice of the Fathers, which is also supported by "spiritual fathers"!

In this ecumenistic effort, the historical/theological basis of the stance of the Fathers against heresies is systematically/methodically disregarded.

For this reason, every anti-ecumenistic effort/tactic, which has no connection with the confession of the Fathers, manifests today heresy, inconsistency, and self-destruction...

Greek source: https://paterikiparadosi.blogspot.com/2019/04/blog-post_68.html

Obituary for St. Ieronymos of Aegina

Source: Ἡ Φωνὴ τῆς Ὀρθοδοξίας [The Voice of Orthodoxy], No. 504, November 1, 1966, p. 7.

 

From the funeral of St. Ieronymos, presided over by Bishop Akakios of Diavleia of the Church of the G.O.C. of Greece

 

Obituary

Father Ieronymos, the venerable figure and beloved by all of us, as of yesterday, passed away. The fullness of time came, which had been appointed by the Master of both the dead and the living, Holy God, in order to receive from the temporal into His eternal and true dwellings the most beloved of His creatures of these times through which we are passing, the creature who, as much as is humanly possible, had pleased the Lord.

A lifelong struggler, it was also appointed for him to be perfected through one final trial—the trial of dreadful illness—so that he might be perfected as “gold in a furnace.” The judgments of the Lord are unsearchable. The much-revered Father Ieronymos was born in the regions of the East, of most pious parents. From a tender age, he had as a living example the faith and reverence of his ever-memorable parents, Anestis and Elisabeth [Apostolides], and at the urging especially of his mother, he was turned toward the divine. “Vasileios, it is good for you to dedicate your life to God.” This prompting was what the elect soul, chosen from his mother’s womb, was seeking, in order to give himself with all his soul and heart to the keeping of the evangelical commandments and to the transmission of them to others through the lively and convincing manner which he had the gift to possess.

At a young age, he was ordained a Deacon; he visited the Holy Places, where he remained for a considerable time, delighting in holiness, asceticism, and virtue. He served for eighteen years as a Deacon at the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and after the Asia Minor catastrophe, he fled to Mother Greece, where, by divine Providence, he came and settled on our island, Aegina. Here he was ordained a Priest and ministered for only a short period, because, according to his confession, he saw a dreadful vision and therefore ceased the ministry of the Priesthood. His way of life here is well known to all. As a chanter and preacher at the Chapel of the Hospital, he acted in many ways and beneficially, both for the Institution, which was maintained by the income of the Church, and for the congregation, which was literally captivated by his divine word.

He was the only one who, with the fervor and zeal of his preaching, satisfied the spiritual thirst of his flock. From then on, he became the eminent Spiritual Father of our land. What praise concerning him are we, the unworthy, able to weave? The humility of his character, his kindness, his ascetic life, and, in general, the unique example of his lack of self-interest won over the soul of all our compatriots.

Every person has, in the innermost depths of his soul, an altar upon which he has set whatever he has esteemed as most perfect and spiritually superior in the world in which he lives. If each one of us were to freely open our heart, it is certain that there we have established our much-lamented and much-revered Father Ieronymos. For this reason, our spiritual grief is indescribable; for this reason, the eyes and hearts of us all weep. We are losing the treasure that the All-Good One had especially granted to us, the people of Aegina. Now that he is departing from our midst, now we are troubled, now we awaken and realize the irreplaceable loss. We were astonished when he would tell us the thoughts of each one of us before we had the chance to open our heart to him; it was not necessary! He had already read its contents. What greater proof of the purity of his soul and of the divine Grace that dwelt within him?

Now he departs from our midst for eternity, which throughout his entire life he envisioned and which, like a powerful magnet, drew him, so that he regarded all earthly things as temporary and insignificant! Standing before the Throne of God’s Justice, he will be able to repeat the words of the Apostle Paul:

“I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith; henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day.”

Much-revered Spiritual Father, pray for us all.

May the Lord God grant rest to your soul, where the Light of His Countenance watches over, and where there is the dwelling of those who rejoice with Him. Eternal be your memory!

- P. Togias

 

Greek source online: https://ecclesiagoc.gr/index.php/%E1%BC%84%CF%81%CE%B8%CF%81%CE%B1/%E1%BC%B1%CF%83%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%81%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AC/646-koimisis-osiou-gerondos-jeronymou

Historical Review of the Festal Calendar Issue

St. Chrysostomos the New, Confessor and Hierarch (+1955)

Source: Ἡ Φωνὴ τῆς Ὀρθοδοξίας [The Voice of Orthodoxy], Issue No. 7, May 20, 1946 (O.S.), pp. 1-3.

 

On the 13th of May, 1935, according to the Patristic Calendar, eleven full years were completed since we entered into the sacred and national Struggle for the Patristic and Orthodox festal calendar. We do not deem it pointless nor unprofitable, on this occasion, to proceed to a historical review of this, and to show to the Greek public, on the one hand, the reasons which impelled us into this Struggle, and on the other hand, the reasons for which it prevailed despite so many severe persecutions and reactions on the part of the Greek Hierarchy and the then Greek Government.

Exactly eleven years ago, three Hierarchs—the venerable Germanos of Demetrias, Chrysostomos of Zakynthos, and this writer, Chrysostomos, formerly of Florina—not tolerating the scandal and division which the accursed festal calendar innovation caused to the Orthodox Christian flock, and having previously in vain exhausted all peaceful means for the return of the Hierarchy to the festal calendar order handed down by tradition for the peace of the Church, were compelled, at the dictate of our Orthodox conscience, by written declaration to inform the then Governing Holy Synod that we were severing all ecclesiastical communion with it, not wishing to partake ourselves in the responsibility for the uncanonical introduction of the Gregorian calendar into the Church, as well as for the anti-ecclesiastical and medieval persecution against the faction of the Old Calendarists.

We undertook this serious action, moved by the desire to remove the scandal caused by the festal calendar reform and driven by the hope that the Governing Synod, becoming aware of the responsibility it bore before God for the division of the Orthodox flock, would deign, as it was obliged, to place our serious protest under the judgment of the entire Hierarchy, providing an occasion for it to proceed to the reconsideration of its previous relevant decision. Unfortunately, the Governing Synod at that time, instead of doing what it ought to have done, forgetting its high mission, not only did not give the due attention and the owed response to our document but also, without previously making use of the peaceful means prescribed by the Canons for mutual explanation and enlightenment, rendered us liable and condemned us in absentia to deposition and to five years of physical confinement in the more remote and inhospitable of the holy Monasteries, as if we had committed a crime of sacrilege, having defended the sacred and Orthodox institutions of the Church.

For this uncanonical, unlawful, and inhuman coup of the Governing Synod, we protested, as was fitting, to the Orthodox Churches and to the then Government, which, unfortunately, became complicit with the Governing Synod, proceeding by force through the Police to our abduction, as if we were felons and criminals, to the places of our exile, because, being faithful to the oath which we gave at our ordination, we wished to preserve inviolate the sacred Traditions of our Church.

It is indeed very grievous, because the seriousness of the festal calendar question, from an Orthodox and national point of view, was neither understood nor duly appreciated, neither by the majority of the Hierarchy, which proceeded frivolously and altogether without discernment to its uncanonical regulation, nor by the Greek Government, which uncritically adopted and recklessly executed an outrageous decision of the Synodal Court, degrading the authority not only of ecclesiastical but also of civil justice. For the calendar, however much it may be a matter of time and days for the state and for astronomy, for the Church it escapes the limits and measures of time, and enters into the framework of the ancient Tradition of the Church and of Orthodox divine Worship, insofar as it serves as a bond of unity and as a standard of liturgical precision and order throughout the long existence of the entire Orthodox Eastern Church. Therefore, its unilateral and arbitrary alteration brought disorder and confusion into Orthodox divine Worship, in violation of the divine and sacred Canons, specifically of the 56th of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, which commands the following: “…It seemed good, therefore, also to decree this: that the Church of God throughout the whole inhabited world should perform the fast with one and the same order… But if they do not observe this, if they be Clergy, let them be deposed; if laymen, let them be excommunicated.”

The utterly irrational and uncanonical introduction of the Gregorian calendar into the Orthodox Greek Church, apart from the fact that it serves the proselytizing aims of the Papal church, which traverses land and sea to make one proselyte, also divides the individual Orthodox Churches in time regarding the celebration of the feasts, and in manner regarding the observance of the fasts, the typikon order of the sacred services, and the fulfillment of the various religious observances, which also touches upon the Dogma of the unity of the Church, namely: “in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.” And this, because the unity of the Church does not consist only in the identity of Faith and divine Worship, but also in the simultaneous and uniform manner of the expression of the Faith and divine Worship, which constitutes an essential element of ecclesiastical unity.

And this, from an Orthodox point of view and in summary, is the seriousness of the festal calendar question, whose unilateral and arbitrary alteration, apart from the fact that it touches upon the divine inspiration of the decisions of the Holy Ecumenical Councils, also diminishes the inalienable rights and the precious chrysobulls of pure Orthodoxy, which the Orthodox Greek Church acquired through the ages by means of precious struggles and sacrifices. Likewise, from a national point of view, this matter is of no lesser importance and gravity; for this festal calendar innovation not only served and continues to serve as the chief weapon of foreign religious propagandas, which covet the chrysobulls of the Greek Church, particularly in Greek Macedonia and Thrace, but also opened a festering wound in the heart of National unity, whose depth and cohesion is chiefly constituted by ecclesiastical unity. Indeed, National unity draws its strength and worth from the unity of the Church, which is the guardian and bearer of National traditions and moral values, which the Church enlivens, preserves, and transmits from generation to generation through the public feasts and festivals, in which the National dances, the patriotic songs, and the National poems—these symbols and marks of National unity—receive life and content. Thus, the Orthodox Greek Church is also an important National factor, because it constitutes the soul of the history and civilization of the Greek people, and consequently, the division of ecclesiastical unity cannot but provoke also the division of National unity, which is indispensable for the progress and civilization of the Greek Nation.

Behold, in broad terms, the greatest national harm which the festal calendar innovation has brought about entirely without cause.

And these, then, are the reasons which impelled us into this Sacred and National Struggle.

As for the reasons which contributed to the fact that this Struggle not only did not succumb to the manifold persecutions and reactions which it encountered from the very beginning on the part of the Church and the State, but also that it was strengthened and fortified even more, they are the following.

The first reason for which the calendar question arose is, as I have already stated, the deep awareness that the Church of Greece, through the unilateral introduction of the Papal festal calendar, deviated from the pinnacle of Orthodoxy, having divided the unity of the entire Orthodox Church in the celebration of the feasts and in the observance of the fasts. As a consequence of this deep awareness, there was born in the hearts of the Old Calendarists the fear of conscience, lest by following the calendar innovation they too should deviate from exact and undefiled Orthodoxy, and therefore, for the appeasement of their Orthodox conscience, they severed all ecclesiastical communion with the New Calendarists and formed their own religious organization, celebrating their religious feasts in their own churches and with their own religious ministers.

To this religious organization, whose ranks were growing denser by the day, as was mentioned above, there also joined Hierarchs, being inflamed with the desire to contribute to the peace of the Church through its return to the festal calendar order handed down by Tradition, which the majority of the Orthodox Churches steadfastly uphold, so that the accursed division of the Church, which was brought about by the introduction of the festal innovation, might thus cease.

From this, it becomes entirely evident that this festal calendar Struggle, far from any religious fanaticism or self-interested motive, was prompted purely by a deep faith in Orthodoxy and by a pure ideology. And this is the principal reason why it did not yield to the manifold pressures and reactions which, from the very beginning, both Church and State raised against it, proceeding even to beatings, imprisonments, exiles, and all manner of other maltreatments, to the detriment of ecclesiastical justice and of Greek civilization. It is, moreover, an axiom confirmed by history and experience, that struggles which are driven by a deep faith in a lofty and noble idea, the more they are persecuted and fought against, the more they are strengthened and fortified in their radiance and unconquerable impetus, proving themselves superior to all their adversaries and persecutors.

This philosophical and historical axiom found its full application in the many years and harsh struggles which the Orthodox Eastern Church waged for the prevalence of Orthodoxy against every religious heresy and false teaching. An unfailing witness to this is Ecclesiastical History, whose most glorious pages are constituted by the rewards and trophies achieved by those champions and athletes who lawfully strove for the truth and for Orthodoxy, confirming the Evangelical saying: “and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against the Church.” It is truly a matter of wonder how the New Calendarist Hierarchs did not take into account this infallible lesson of Ecclesiastical History, having fiercely persecuted those who strove for the peace of the Church and the restoration of Orthodoxy, and having hoped that through depositions, imprisonments, exiles, and the defrocking of the Old Calendarist Clergy they would suppress the lofty festal calendar Struggle, which, thanks to the Orthodox and National ideology from which it is driven, under the leadership of the writer, assisted by the Most Reverend Bishops Christophoros of Megara and Polykarpos of Diavleia, and the host of devout Priests, not only did not bend in the least but was even more strengthened and fortified in its radiance and in its noble and sacred zeal for the truth and for Orthodoxy.

The Orthodox Greek Church, as one of the European historians says, on the one hand enlightened Northern and Eastern Europe and Western Asia with the light of Christianity, and on the other hand bravely struggled against all-powerful Rome, in order to preserve Orthodoxy from the various abuses and arbitrariness of Papism. Therefore, this Church, he says, even after the fall of the Byzantine Empire, is preserved unscathed and unaltered in its faith and worship, still speaking the language of the Apostle Paul and of Chrysostom, offering its prayers in the manner of ancient Christianity, preserving the Creed pure from the profane addition (filioque) of later times, and offering the New Testament for the instruction of the faithful in the original, and not in a translation into another language.

And if those who are today struggling on the ramparts of the festal calendar Struggle have not yielded, nor have in any way been daunted before the pressures and persecutions raised against them by the innovating Hierarchy and the State, this must be attributed not to their ability and courage, but to their deep faith that they are striving to save the Church and the Nation from the dreadful consequences of the Ecclesiastical Schism which the festal innovation created, and to the sweet hope that they might bring peace and unity to the entire Orthodox flock within the framework of Orthodoxy.

As a conclusion to the above, we deem it timely to set forth the following related saying of the holy Chrysostom:

“For not only do the dead, when raised, and the lepers, when cleansed, confirm the Gospel, but we also, when being bound, confirm it; how and in what manner? Because, suffering countless things and not yielding, but becoming even more eager, we provide sufficient proof that we are proclaimers of the truth and that there is some divine power within us accomplishing all these things with ease and not allowing the multitude of trials to overcome those who preach; for it is not within human power to prevail through so many hindrances. These things are a confirmation of the Gospel not only to others but also to ourselves; for faith works us to be more approved and stronger, so that we may scorn the plots of the enemies of the truth.”

The Change of the Ecclesiastical Calendar Disrupted the Unity of the Church

In the very important book, The Real Truth Concerning the Ecclesiastical Calendar, which was written by the Fighter for the Patristic Calendar, Gregorios Efstratiadis (+1950), lawyer-publisher-politician, and published in Athens in 1929, in order, among other things, to confront the unsound arguments of the New Calendarists, that their Innovation does not oppose the Dogma and the Tradition of the Church, nor does it harm Her Unity, it is also emphasized the great truth that the Holy Synods of the Church aimed at the Unity in Truth of the local Churches, and this is the greatest Dogma and the most imperative Definition and Canon of theirs, as well as the principal reason for their convocation.

And indeed, not only with regard to the Feast of Feasts, Holy Pascha, but also concerning the other Feasts, Fasts, and in general the things handed down by the Apostles and the Holy Fathers, all the Synods aimed that these be celebrated in common by all the Local Churches. For this reason, the unilateral change of the Ecclesiastical Calendar in 1924 by the Church of Greece and the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople came into conflict with this purpose of the unity of the local Churches and violated the Canons and Definitions of the Ecumenical Councils, which were established precisely for the Unity of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church (see p. 89 of the aforementioned work).

The interest and purpose of the Synods, Efstratiadis emphasizes, was not only for the common celebration of the Feast of Pascha, but also for all the Feasts which are connected with it, as well as for the so-called immovable Feasts — and especially for Christmas — as well as for the Fasts of the ecclesiastical year. The reference to Pascha pertains not only narrowly to what is related to it, but to the entire Typikon order, which depends upon it and has as its basis the Calendar of the Church, because to this the Paschalion of the Church, the Menaion, the Fasts, and the Cycle of the Gospel readings are adapted. Therefore, whoever disturbs this Typikon order of the Church, which is fundamentally disturbed by the change of the Calendar, inevitably violates the Canons of the Church, the purpose of which is the safeguarding of the Unity of the Church (see pp. 89–90).

The provisions that were established concerning Pascha, especially by the First Ecumenical Council and by the Tradition of the Church, did not have as their purpose the determination of the precise astronomical equinox at a specific time, but aimed that it be celebrated by all Orthodox Christians everywhere on one and the same Sunday, so that the one faith and unanimous piety might be preserved, [and to avoid the co-celebration with the Jews or with the heterodox, we would also add], and that there might not exist any disagreement concerning this Feast, since the Catholic Church of the Savior Christ is one, and therefore it is entirely improper that, on the same days, some should be fasting and others celebrating with rejoicing (see p. 95).

Upon this noteworthy line of reasoning, the ever-memorable Gregorios Efstratiadis continues his work, with the skill and profundity that distinguished this excellent apologist of Genuine Orthodoxy, enlightening even us today in a timely manner in confronting the unacceptable sophistries of the Innovating New Calendarists–Ecumenists, writing also the following important points:

But it concerns the Feast of Pascha [the decision of the First Ecumenical Council], the Innovators will answer us together with the Archbishop of Athens [Chrysostomos Papadopoulos], and we did not innovate concerning Pascha. No, we reply. This is Pharisaism and sophistry. When an Ecumenical Council ordains that the purpose of the determination of Pascha is so that the various Churches may not disagree and so that, when some are celebrating, the others may not be fasting—when, that is, the Ecumenical Council establishes the Unity of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and enjoins unanimity within Her—when such is said to have been the purpose of the Canons of the Ecumenical Council, this purpose exists for every common feast, for every common fast.

Nor was it possible to be understood that the First Ecumenical Council limited the necessity of the unity of the Church only to the Feast of Pascha and that it was indifferent to disagreement concerning other feasts and other fasts. Therefore, if there was an affront to the decisions and Canons of the First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea, insofar as the Feast of Pascha was altered and division and disagreement arose among the Churches concerning the day of Pascha, the same affront to the ordinances of that same Ecumenical Council exists also when, through the change of the Ecclesiastical Calendar, disagreement and division of the Churches arises concerning the celebration of any other feast, particularly the feast of Christmas, the feast of Theophany, the feast of the Dormition of the Theotokos, the Holy Apostles, etc. And then likewise is the unity of the Churches offended, and it was precisely for this unity that the Fathers of the Church were concerned, a unity which is shattered and broken by the change of the Ecclesiastical Calendar, decided unilaterally with such frivolity and such lack of Ecclesiastical conscience.

And that the Ecumenical Councils did not look exclusively to the Feast of Pascha, but had in view all the feasts and the fasts, and for all demanded unity and unanimity, is demonstrated, apart from the above-mentioned Synodal decision, apart from the letter of Emperor Constantine [these are texts which had been cited earlier by the author], also by the following:

From the letter of Saint Athanasius the Great, who—being then a Deacon—participated in the Council in Nicaea, which letter he addressed to the African Bishops and in which he says: "…For it (the First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea) was convened on account of the Arian heresy and on account of Pascha. Because those in Syria and Cilicia and Mesopotamia were differing from us and, at the time when the Jews were celebrating, they also were doing likewise. But thanks be to the Lord, just as concerning the faith, so also concerning the holy feast there came to be agreement. And this was the cause of the Council in Nicaea."

The agreement, therefore, of the Church was the reason for the Council in Nicaea, also according to Saint Athanasius the Great. And if concerning any other feast there had arisen disagreement, as concerning Pascha, an Ecumenical Council would likewise have been convened concerning that. For this reason, primarily, the Councils and their ordinances aimed to secure ecclesiastical unity through common agreement.

That the Fathers regarded also the other Feasts of the Lord in the same manner as that of Pascha was stated by [Saint] John Chrysostom.

From the Homily of John Chrysostom to Blessed Philogonius (Homily III), speaking concerning the Feast of Christmas, which he calls "the Metropolis of all feasts," and he says concerning it:

"For from this feast, Theophany and holy Pascha and the Ascension and Pentecost received their beginning and foundation. For if Christ had not been born according to the flesh, He would not have been baptized, which is Theophany; He would not have been crucified, which is Pascha; He would not have sent down the Spirit, which is Pentecost. Therefore, from this, as from a certain source, various rivers flowing forth, these feasts have been appointed for us."

If such is considered by the Fathers of the Church the Feast of Christmas, how was it permitted that there be disagreement among the Churches concerning it, and how is it that only for Pascha would Ecumenical Councils be convened? And since their ordinances were made so that unity concerning the feasts might be secured, how is it that, concerning the Feast of Pascha, we consider the alteration to be forbidden by the Canons, but concerning the Feast of Christmas and the others, which the change of the Calendar shifted by thirteen days, we consider it not to be in conflict with the Canons of the Councils? Since the spirit of the Canons concerning the Feast of Pascha is that there be unanimity among the Churches concerning the day of all the feasts, how then is the Calendar change not uncanonical, by which some Churches celebrate the feasts of Christmas, Theophany, etc., on one day, and others celebrate them on another day?

The Fathers of the Church, therefore, attributed the highest importance to Her Unity and proclaimed as a foremost Dogma the agreement of all in the matters of the performance of external Worship. (pp. 95–98)

As becomes immediately evident and understandable, the Calendar Innovation conflicts with the letter and especially with the spirit of the holy Canons of the Church concerning unanimity and agreement in the celebration of the entire festal cycle of the Church, as is demonstrated with such clarity by the Confessor of the Faith Gregorios Efstratiadis, revealing the enormous error and responsibility of the Innovators, who gravely harmed the external expression of the Dogma of the Unity of the Church. The fact that they dare to celebrate Christmas together with the Heterodox, separating themselves from the Festal Tradition of the Church, which prescribes the celebration of Saint Spyridon on that day and the continuation of the blessed period of Fasting in view of the great Feast of the Christmas of the Orthodox, manifests the chasm which separates them from Orthodoxy and their continual preference and sin to apostatize, rejoicing in Ecumenistic fashion together with the enemies of God in a far country! May God grant them repentance and return!

+E.G.K.
December 12/25, 2017
Saint Spyridon of Trimythous

Greek source: https://ecclesiagoc.gr/index.php/%E1%BC%84%CF%81%CE%B8%CF%81%CE%B1/%E1%BC%B1%CF%83%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%81%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AC/649-h-metavoli-toy-ekklisiastikou-hmerologiou-diespase-thn-enothta-ths-ekklisias