The Antidote to the Poison of "The Two Extremes"

Monk Damianos Agiovasileiatis | March 27, 2017

 

In a recent article (Orthodoxos Typos – February 16, 2017), the person and the book The Two Extremes by Fr. Epiphanios Theodoropoulos are extolled to the point of delirium by the Athonite monk Arsenios of the Holy Monastery of Koutloumousiou, as an authority on spiritual discernment in the interpretation of the Holy Canons, and in general, he describes him as a "guide of the struggle." What is the struggle of Fr. Epiphanios' admirers, and where does it lead them? We shall see this further on.

It is deemed imperative, given the development of ecclesiastical matters over the past decades—especially today, after the Great Council of Crete, which constitutes the crowning achievement of the pan-heresy of Ecumenism—to reveal the enormous harm that this book by Fr. Epiphanios has inflicted upon the conscience of the faithful of the New Calendar Church. No matter how much one tries in discussions with a clergyman, monk, or layperson of the New Calendarists to point out the Canons and prove that the timeless tradition of the Holy Fathers of our Church forbids communion with heretics, and that, in times of danger to the faith from the heretical Primates of the Orthodox Church, the cessation of their commemoration by the faithful becomes imperative, these indications and proofs fall into the void—or, more precisely, into the "black hole" that the unsurpassed sophist Fr. Epiphanios managed to create with another newly-invented ecclesiology, unfortunately. And while they do not deny the divine inspiration of the words and exhortations of the saints, paradoxically, they do exactly the opposite, thus emphatically confirming the words of the Apostle Paul, who prophetically pointed out the tribulation of the last days—namely, our days—beyond the various sins he condemns, that even our brethren "have a form of godliness, but deny the power thereof." (2 Tim. 3:5) [1]

In The Two Extremes, we must admit, there is an attempt—executed with admirable skill—to detach from the Consensus Patrum, as contemporary theologians call it, regarding the manner of confronting heresies and heretics before their synodal condemnation. The "black hole" of Fr. Epiphanios, through which he literally undermined Orthodox Patristic Ecclesiology, consists primarily in the misinterpretation of the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council and its consequences, which can be summarized as follows:

a) Trivial matters—these things have happened before.
b) Social interactions are unworthy of any attention.
c) Obedience to the Church (=Administration).
d) We must not create a schism in the Church.
e) The 15th Canon of the First-Second Council is optional, not mandatory; it grants the right to cease commemoration but does not obligate one to do so.
f) There is no risk of defilement, neither by commemorating the Patriarch, since he has not yet been condemned, nor—much less—by communing with those who commemorate him and other ecumenists.
g) We are losing so many young people—should we really be occupied with these matters now?
h) The guardians are aware.

Although his sophistic arguments were completely refuted—to the point of pulverization—by the late Hieromonk Theodoretos Mavros in his work titled The Antidote, nonetheless, The Two Extremes was widely distributed in religious bookstores across the country, whereas The Antidote was scarcely available, even to the point of prohibition, so that finding it required the luck of a gold prospector. To prove this, I will briefly share a personal experience.

Towards the end of the 1990s, a friend and I went on a pilgrimage to the Monastery of Dionysiou on Mount Athos to speak with a monk of the monastery who was our compatriot. Among other things, our discussion turned to the issue of commemorating Patriarch Demetrios at that time and communion with Ecumenism. We said what we had to say, and as we were leaving, we gave him The Antidote so that he could study it more carefully in peace. However, a passing Hieromonk, upon seeing the book, suddenly rushed over and literally snatched it from his hands, saying, "You will not read this book." Clearly, he recognized it, and at the sight of it, he became like a raging bull. The book, of course, was confiscated, and our joy over the pilgrimage turned into sorrow and distress—not because of the book itself, but because of what was happening more broadly on Mount Athos.

How, then, could there not be clergy, monks, and laypeople today who embrace The Two Extremes as if it were another Gospel? Where would Fr. Arsenios, monk of Dionysiou, and so many other clergy, monks, and laypeople find the Orthodox counterargument without The Antidote?

Reading the article by Monk Arsenios, the exaggerations regarding the wisdom, spiritual clarity, and infallible authority of Fr. Epiphanios make it "brighter than the sun" that his efforts until then were a desperate attempt to silence the voice of his conscience regarding communion with the heresiarch of Phanar. How could his conscience not be troubled when, time and again, reading the lives and writings of the saints, he learns that Saint Maximus the Confessor was exiled three times because he refused to enter into communion with the Monothelite Patriarchs?

–When he reads the directive of Basil the Great: "Those who, while pretending to confess the sound Orthodox faith, commune with those of different mind, such persons, if they do not cease after admonition, are not only to be held as excommunicated but not even to be called brothers"?

–Of Athanasius the Great: "Walking the straight and life-giving path, let us cut off the offending eye, not the physical one but the spiritual one. That is, if the bishop or the presbyter, who are the eyes of the Church, conduct themselves wickedly and scandalize the people, they must be cast out. For it is better to gather in a place of prayer without them than to be thrown into the Gehenna of fire with them, as with Annas and Caiaphas." [2]

–Of Saint Theodore the Studite: "For Chrysostom declared with a great and loud voice as enemies of God not only the heretics but also those who commune with such." [3]

–Or from the letter of the Athonite Fathers to the Latin-minded Emperor Michael Palaiologos: "And how can an Orthodox soul endure these things and not immediately withdraw from the communion of those who have commemorated him, and regard them as those who have profaned the divine? … Besides, communion carries defilement merely from the mention of him, even if the one commemorating him is Orthodox," and that "great is the significance of the commemoration"?

And if he believed that the ecumenists are not heretics, the above words of the saints would naturally not move him, since he would rather be an ecumenist himself. However, from the way he expresses himself in his article, it appears that he had some Orthodox sensitivities.

Heavy was the burden of conscience, then, and it was imperative to find a solution. Perhaps knowing the correct way to confront the pan-heresy, but clearly swayed by the particularly intense—compared to Greece—criticism and propaganda against Old Calendarism for the past four decades from Athonite monastic circles, except for the Monastery of Esphigmenou, he seems to have been at a loss. "No one doubts," he now says, "that our Church has suffered greatly from these two extremes: ecumenism and zealotry." A classic case of subjective self-suggestion through the exclusion of everything, attempting to convince himself of what he actually doubts! Thus, the delirium is explained, yet it is nothing more than the lesson taught to us by the following fable.

Once, a donkey complained to his master (who would take him on a one-hour journey to the city for shopping and, upon returning, would set him free to enjoy his grazing) that he was tired and asked him not to treat him so harshly with heavy loads in the future. "Very well," said the man, "tomorrow I will take better care of you." Early the next morning, he took the donkey to the mill, yoked him to one end of the axle of the large round stone, and at the other end, he hung a sack of barley. With a suitable mechanism, he brought the sack close to the donkey's muzzle, and after he ate a little, he moved it back to its place. This was repeated three to four times until late in the evening. At first, the donkey was pleased with the lighter burden he had to pull, but he kept making endless circles, trying to reach his beloved barley to finally satisfy his hunger.

Similarly "liberated" from the initial burden of the weight of conscience, Fr. Arsenios, as well as most Athonite monks (of the 19 monasteries), spend their monastic life in communion with the heresiarch Bartholomew, far, of course, from the martyric practice of the holy confessor Fathers of our Church and the Orthodox tradition.

Therefore, having "rested" his troubled conscience, in the article he concludes "triumphantly," as if from the mouth of Fr. Epiphanios:

"Come, all you who are weary and burdened by the heavy yoke of the two extremes, and I will give you rest. Take upon yourselves the yoke of the middle and royal path, and you will learn that there lies the meekness and humility of Christ, and you will find rest and peace for your souls. For the yoke of the middle and royal path is good, and its burden is very light."

What saint ever spoke with such authority, even using the words of Christ, supposedly to grant rest to Christians through new theories unknown to the tradition of the Church? Undoubtedly, such a statement is worthy of the arrogant papal authority. What saint ever applied, when the faith was in danger, the so-called middle and royal path? What is this middle path when they commune with one extreme? One either aligns with Orthodoxy or rejects it. One either accepts the light of truth or rejects it. There is no middle ground between truth and falsehood or delusion. And since the holy Fathers define that communion through commemoration brings defilement, it is clear that without orthopraxy in matters of faith, Orthodoxy itself is cast away. There may have been some tolerance at the beginning of the preaching of a heretical doctrine, but today, after a century of ecumenist activity, how can one commune with the ecumenists and rest in the mistaken belief that this aligns with the orthopraxy of the confessing saints?

Behold below the reason why the little-regarded by the New Calendarists, but great before God and excellent in practical Orthodoxy, Fr. Theodoretos chose this specific title in his refutational work against The Two Extremes.

"Fr. Epiphanios Theodoropoulos, through his work The Two Extremes, became the strongest ally of the ecumenists, the best advocate of the 'lukewarm' and indifferent 'conservatives,' the brightest underline for the rationalist theologians and misinterpreters of Church History and the Holy Canons." [4]

Addressing him directly through their written dialogue, he wrote to him:

"Not only did you not help the persecuted Orthodoxy, but in its desperate struggle to escape the deadly embrace of the papal corpse, one might even say with sadism, you would always respond: 'Patience, O Mother, until the appointed time, until the common Chalice, and then you shall see what heroic children you have.'" [5]

"Thus, by accepting those who commune with the Patriarch and commemorating him at the same time—since there is supposedly no danger of defilement (!)—when and who will ever succeed in stopping the advance of the heterodox? When will the faithful realize that heresy is being preached so that they may react? Indeed, it is only with such helpers that Athenagoras achieved what he did, and which his worthy successor continues to an even greater extent!

"The same responsibility that those who offer pornography and drugs to the youth bear today is also borne by Fr. Epiphanios, as well as those who distribute The Two Extremes, with regard to the spread of heresy in the Greek territory! Yet, for the New Calendarists, he continues to be considered the new Zonaras!" [6]

As a genuine Athonite, Fr. Theodoretos knew very well the persons and matters in the Garden of the Theotokos, and for this reason, he always said about the well-known Fr. Paisios, with pain and distress of heart:

"How could we not reach the present confusion when Fr. Paisios, speaking about Patriarch Bartholomew (with whom he proudly posed for the camera), said that 'God ordained the best patriarch for these difficult times'" [7] When he himself attempted to justify the unjustifiable, resorting to naïve and superficial arguments such as the following?

"a) Patriarch Demetrios is a withered branch, but he supports the vine, that is, the Church!

"b) If we do not like Papandreou, should we leave Greece? Likewise, if we do not like Demetrios, should we leave the Church? However, the entire holy Tradition emphasizes that the one who withdraws from the preacher of heresy and severs communion with him does not leave the Church, but rather 'preserves' it from schisms and divisions!

"c) I cry out; whoever comes to my cell, I protest. If I cry out more, they will expel me from Mount Athos. Do you not understand?"

We understand him, but he does not understand. What? The paternal saying of Saint Theodore: "But why do we prefer monasteries over God, and the comfort of this life over suffering for the sake of the good? Where is the saying: ‘Behold, I will not restrain my lips, O Lord, You have known’? Where is the glory and strength of our order?" [8] [9]

Truly, without The Two Extremes, the troubled conscience of many clergy, monastics, and faithful would undoubtedly have led them to the Orthodox practice of freedom from communion with the ecumenists. Instead of bringing them relief, lightening their burden, and granting them rest, it has, on the contrary, trapped them, ultimately transforming the initial heavy yet hope-filled burden into an unceasing circular movement—from complacency to a paper war against ecumenism, from the paper war, with greater zeal, to anti-zealotry, and back again to complacency, and so on.

 

NOTES

1. Tim. B’ 3:5.
2. P.G. 35, 33.
3. P.G. 99, 1049A.
4. Theodoretos Hieromonk. Athonite. July 1997.
5. The Antidoton, p. 152.
6. The Antidoton, p. 147.
7. Kathimerini, 27.11.1993.
8. P.G. 99, 1120D.
9. The Antidoton, p. 10.

P.S. The above article was sent to Orthodoxos Typos two days after the publication of Monk Arsenios' article. Unfortunately, however, it was not published, as it should have been, by the editors, once again proving their bias to the detriment of Orthodoxy.

 

Greek source: https://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2017/03/blog-post_10.html

Saint Ieronymos of Aegina on the New Calendarists

Nikolaos Mannis | February 25, 2025

 

Recently, a "revolution" of the extreme wing has been observed within the realm of the G.O.C., which demands the condemnation of "Cyprianism," as they call the patristic view regarding heretics who have not been synodally judged as ailing members of the Church.

Here we publish two important testimonies that mention the agreement of Saint Ieronymos of Aegina with this patristic view.

Testimony of the late physician Alexander Kalomoiros, published in the official magazine of the G.O.C., The Voice of Orthodoxy, no. 592-593/June 15, 1970, p. 11:

In the summer of 1966, I had the opportunity to visit for confession the much-beloved ascetic and spiritual father of Aegina, Hieromonk Ieronymos Apostolides. Among other things, I wished to ask the spiritual father, renowned for his discernment and zealous adherence to patristic traditions, how he viewed the New Calendarist Church. "The New Calendarist Church," he told me, "is sick; it is not dead."

Testimony of the late Gerontissa Eupraxia Galanopoulou, published in the book of the blessed Sotiria Nousi, Elder Ieronymos of Aegina, pub. Heptalophos, 5th edition, 1996, p. 371:

The strict observance of the evangelical commandments and the ecclesiastical canons was his tireless effort. Regarding the Orthodox Old Calendar, which he had followed and remained faithful to since 1940, he would often, especially after a dreadful vision he had seen, urge the faithful to follow it, but in a fatherly manner, without insistence or fanaticism. He used to say: "The Church of Greece, through the change of the calendar, 'became ill,' and this change became the beginning and cause of many evils. Many disgraceful things will enter our Church through this 'door,' that is, through the change of the calendar, which it opened."

 

Greek source: https://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2025/02/blog-post_25.html

 

 

Swimming with clothes on?

Fr. George Dorbarakis | February 25, 2025

"It is dangerous for one to swim with their clothes on; likewise, to engage with theology while having passions."

 (Saint John Climacus, Step 27, 9)

We all immediately understand: swimming with clothes on is extremely dangerous because, beyond the lack of freedom of movement, the clothes, as they become saturated with water, drag one toward the depths. The same, however, is what the saint says happens to the one who engages with theology—that is, who deals with and speaks about theological matters—while still being influenced by the passions. Why is this so? Because, as he explains, "the depth of the dogmas is profound" (9). Dogmas—these, above all, constitute theology—refer to the very Triune God and to our Lord Jesus Christ: His dual nature, though not His hypostasis. And how do we know these things? From the very revelation of the Lord Himself: He came, revealed them to us, and explained them. "He has declared Him." Without the revelation of the Son and Word of God concerning God Himself—and the first seeds of this in the Old Testament—by what power could we humans, especially while in the state of the fall into sin, comprehend divinity? In such a state, the only thing man is capable of is creating idols—that is, products of his deluded imagination! And this is what human history has demonstrated up to now.

Dogmas, then, are revealed truths that lead us out of ignorance and orient us toward the truth. These constitute the wealth and treasure of our Church. Based on them, we can have a correct spiritual life: spiritual life is a consequence of the correct faith in God so that Orthodoxy also becomes right practice. This is why all the Fathers of our Church emphasize that without the connection of both, each one suffers. In different words, "life must be rational, and speech must be put into action."

So, as long as one remains under the influence of the passions, they cannot and should not engage with theological matters. They believe in them, accept them, but focus their attention on practical matters—that is, on keeping the holy commandments of Christ—so that they may purify their soul. And in proportion to this purification, they begin to understand the dogmas of the faith somewhat more deeply. Remember what the modern father and teacher, Saint Kosmas the Aetolian, also said. Striving to explain the Triune nature of God to the simple, enslaved Christians of the Turkish occupation, he saw the impasse and concluded: “Confess sincerely to the Lord, and you will be enlightened by Him to understand the revelation of our Christ!” Otherwise, a passionate engagement with dogmas will inevitably lead to heresy, because passions directly affect human reasoning, and thus one’s judgment operates under a state of delusion. All heretics of the Church, unfortunately, became heretics in this way: without first purifying the vision of their soul, they sought, with demonic pride, to “investigate” the mysteries of divinity! And, of course, they were led into error!

Greek source: https://metemorfothis.blogspot.com/2025/02/blog-post_25.html

Reflections of a Christian During Illness

Archbishop Apollos (Belyaev) of Vyatka (+1885)

Reflection 1

I have become weak, and I did not open my mouth, for Thou hast done this to me. (Ps. 38:9)

And should I complain when my God and Father increases my wounds out of love, so as to heal me? O Lord! Chasten me; I bow my neck. Your blows are beneficial to me; how many mercies You conceal within them! Ah! If You had not struck my body, my soul would have perished by its own hand. Thus, it was entirely covered with sins, but You looked upon it; You had mercy on it. Behold, You strike the body that served sin; You destroy all my proud plans. Thus, may You be blessed forever! I kiss the hand that has instructed me; I bless the arm that, in chastisement, preserves its servant.

 

Reflection 2

Have mercy on me, O Lord, for I am weak. (Ps. 6:3)

O my all-good God! How can I incline You to mercy, except with tears over the misery of my soul? You see how much I need Your help; You make me feel that without it, I cannot even live. Grant me, O God, that the awareness of my poverty may make me more attentive to myself. In mercy, through illness, You have struck my flesh to cleanse it from sin; You have revealed sickness in my body for the salvation of my soul and to turn me away from harmful pleasures. Bodily illness troubles me—how, then, did I not fear the dreadful pain of my soul? How could I offer it as a sacrifice to vanity and pride, the most dangerous of all passions? I was grievously ill and did not realize that I was sick in spirit. I was like one afflicted with a severe fever, in which the sufferer cannot distinguish what is harmful and what is beneficial. O God! Grant that my illness may open my eyes and enkindle in my heart a zeal for pleasing You.

 

Reflection 3

For unto you it is given on behalf of Christ, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake. (Phil. 1:29)

Holy honor—it is to suffer for Christ! The world, lying in evil, knows this, but the holy Apostle values it as highly as faith—a gift of the Holy Spirit. It is God’s goodness, it is His mercy when He grants us the strength to suffer.

But is there any benefit when one suffers impatiently, unwillingly? No, for thus suffer even the spirits of wickedness. If a sinner suffers but does not wish to endure suffering, does he not find in his torments the beginning of eternal anguish? But he who willingly submits to suffering finds in his sorrows a source of consolation and turns them into eternal good for himself.

Lord Christ! Strengthen me and grant me the faith and patience of the saints! And if a rebellious sigh escapes from my heart, exposing my lack of endurance, remember my weakness, and by Your grace, grant me the strength to cleanse my soul with the tears of repentance.

You see, O God, the afflictions that oppress me. Nature cries out within me—what answer shall I give it? The deceitful world lures me with its enticing flattery—how shall I resist it? Ah! I have no strength within me for this struggle. Am I truly condemned only to suffer in silence? Be my protector; with Your almighty shield, repel all the temptations of the world that have so often beguiled me. Strengthen my heart against the cries of my frail nature! Ah! The afflictions You have sent upon me press heavily upon me. I suffer—hasten to my aid, my merciful Savior!

 

Source: Пастырские наставления [Pastoral Instructions], St. Petersburg: Printing House of the Department of Appanages, 1867.

A Visit to the Holy Monastery of Esphigmenou

By Matias Fagerlund

On a recent trip to Greece I was blessed to visit the Athonite Monastery of Esphigmenou, which is known for its uncompromising defence of the Orthodox Faith, along with two of my nephews. Having collected our diamontiria, the visas required for entry to Mount Athos, at Ouranoupoli and sailed on the beautifully named Axion Estin along the western coast of the peninsula, we disembarked at the arsanas of Hilandar. From here we proceeded not by foot, as I had hoped, but by minibus. While I had already learnt that there are now roads on the Holy Mountain I could not have imagined just how far this new development, anathema to previous generations of monks, has gone. Numerous zigzagging roads cut glaring yellow scars in the otherwise pristine wooded hillsides. Judging by my map – which describes itself as a “hiking” map – the concentration of roads on Mount Athos is, if anything, greater than elsewhere in Greece, and the sight of several diggers along our route suggested that this work of construction, or destruction, is still ongoing. Gone are the days, it would appear, when pilgrims travelled by foot.

After a brief visit to Hilandar, where a friendly Serbian monk invited us to enter the inner section of the catholicon to venerate the precious relics, I was determined to avoid the roads and continue to Esphigmenou by foot along the old mule tracks which used to be the sole transport routes on the peninsula. This idea aroused no particular enthusiasm from my two teenage co-pilgrims, who grudgingly obliged, climbing the atmospheric but now rarely trodden trail with the expressions of two Russian conscripts who have just been ordered to march from Moscow to Vladivostok.

As Esphigmenou came into view we were startled by the sight of a police car approaching the monastery on the road below us. Having read about the harassment and persecution to which the monks of Esphigmenou are subjected on account of their refusal to commemorate the Patriarch of Constantinople, I had imagined that the monastery existed in a siege-like state of constant surveillance and that we would have to devise some clever stratagem to get past the police cordon. This proved to be somewhat of an exaggerated view of the state of affairs. There were no police when we arrived at the gate, only a youngish, good-humoured monk who wondered if we had come to stay or just visit.

The next monk we encountered, who was tasked with registering visitors, seemed suspicious of my Orthodox credentials. Where was I from? “Finland.” “But Finland is not an Orthodox country.” After explaining, using my nephew as interpreter, that while Finland does in fact have an Orthodox Church I am not a member of that (liberally oriented) Church, but of the Greek Old Calendar Church under Archbishop Kallinikos, the ice finally broke: “Bravo!”

We were then assigned to a guestroom, and to specific beds in the room. On a walk around the monastery we noticed that immediately below the windows of our room a large black and white banner had been hung, with the words “ORTHODOXIA I THANATOS” (“ORTHODOXY OR DEATH”). Somewhat disconcertingly, I discovered on returning to the room that the bed assigned to me was located immediately behind “DEATH.”

Adjusting to the daily cycle of services on Mount Athos can be a challenge for someone who is used to going to bed at midnight. At Esphigmenou Matins begins at the eighth hour of the night according to the Byzantine reckoning, which is still followed on Mount Athos – 2 a.m. our time. One hour before that a bell is rung and shortly before the service the semantron is sounded. On entering the church one is immediately struck by how dark it is. I at first wondered where all the monks were, noticing only after a while that they were seated all around the walls, scarcely visible in the general darkness. The large internal space of the catholicon is lit only by vigil lamps and a few candles, which are put out and relit at certain points during the service, and all readings are done by the light of a single candle or vigil lamp. What peace did I not experience in this place! Here, at least, the recent trend in Orthodox churches of replacing lampadas and candles with artificial light has not caught on. To some sensitive souls this intrusion of harsh modernity shatters the perception, if not the reality, of the church as a place set apart from the world, where the heavenly realm meets the earthly. On Mount Athos, where I gather none of the twenty monasteries use electrical light in church, no such obstacle exists. The gentle natural light and absence of any technology make it much easier to concentrate on the one thing needful: prayer.

Another striking aspect of the services is the sobriety with which they are conducted. All readings are done in a plain, monotonous voice, without emphasis or emotion. On weekdays almost nothing is chanted; nearly everything is read. On Sundays the reverse applies: most of the service is chanted, but always in a true Byzantine style, without a trace of sentimentality. The monks do the readings, light lampadas and move across the church with a certain measured haste. Those who serve do so with great seriousness and concentration, including the monk who monitors that the pilgrims hold one hand under the cup when drinking holy water. Not one drop of holy water or one crumb of prosphora must be allowed to fall to the floor. Everything betokens a deep reverence for that which is holy.

Matins is followed immediately by the Liturgy, which on weekdays is served in a small side chapel, and ends just as the first dim rays of light begin to penetrate the church. As far as I could tell, no one approached the chalice on either of the days we were there. I was told afterwards that the monks follow the Rule of Saint Sabbas, which means that they commune fortnightly, and twice a week in Lent.

The service takes about five hours, nearly six on Sundays, and is followed by trapeza. Here, like in church, absolute silence reigns, apart from the reading from the Lives of the Saints, and woe betide any pilgrim who dares to utter so much as a syllable. At trapeza it became apparent that Esphigmenou is somehow managing to cope, despite the patriarchally instigated blockade under which they live. Generous portions of (very tasty) food are served and I was struck by the large number of pilgrims present. Although Esphigmenou is today the largest monastery on Mount Athos, numbering 115 monks, the lay visitors seemed to be in the majority.

Having initially encountered a certain scepticism on account of my obviously non-Greek appearance – can this man really be Orthodox? – I was fortunate later on to become acquainted with some of the monks. One of these was Fr Elias, a Pontic Greek of noble countenance and graceful bearing who spoke fluent Russian. On our second day he approached us to ask if we would like to venerate the relics. These proved to be no ordinary relics: one of the largest pieces of the True Cross, the skull of Saint James the Apostle, the left foot of Saint Mary Magdalene, a piece of the dried blood of Saint John the Baptist, a fragment of a garment worn by the Mother of God, a part of the sponge held up to Christ while He was on the Cross, and many other extraordinary treasures whose presence here no doubt imparts a special grace to this holy site.

Two other monks whom we were blessed to meet were the brothers in the flesh, Fr Niphon and Fr Gaius. Fr Niphon, who keeps the bees, is hoping one day to receive a blessing from Abbot Methodios to go into reclusion, this having always been his desire. Fr Gaius’ obedience is wine-making. We asked, several times, if we could help with the work but this was never on the agenda. Did we want to drink gin, vodka or tsipouro? Having settled on the latter, we sat down at the edge of an olive grove and engaged in conversation amid the gentle humming of honeybees. “Are there other noncommemorators on Mount Athos?” I asked. “Not at the monasteries, but at the sketes and kellia.” We also learnt that Esphigmenou is not the sort of place where monks spend their time in front of a screen. Other sources inform me that many monks on Mount Athos now have WiFi in their cells and iPhones in their pockets but such infernal inventions have no place at Esphigmenou. Only two monks, who produce the monastery’s online publication, have access to e-mail. After a discussion on the necessity of receiving heterodox converts by Baptism, the perfectly Orthodox nature of humour and the importance of bringing back the memory of the Western saints, Fr Gaius popped the inevitable question: What did I think of Brexit? “Wonderful news,” I said. “I hope it leads to the collapse of the EU, which is a stepping-stone towards the one world government of Antichrist”. “Exactly!” This view perhaps explains why Esphigmenou has not chosen to exercise its final legal option of appealing the patriarchal eviction order hanging over the monastery to the European Court of Human Rights, but to rely solely on prayer and the protection of the Mother of God, in whose garden they live.

Even though we spent only two nights at Esphigmenou the experience was a profound one. The very fact that Mount Athos is cut off from the rest of Greece and not readily visitable owing to the visa régime helps to create a sense of being separated from the world and its preoccupations. The absence of electricity, or technology of any kind – and of women – removes every external source of distraction, so that monks and pilgrims alike are able to focus all their attention on their spiritual life. There is in fact nothing else to do. The room we stayed in was barren of everything, even books, leaving one with no other option than to pray. There is something to be learnt here.

 

Source: The Shepherd (St. Edward Brotherhood, Woking, UK), December 2016, pp. 15-19.

 

St. John of San Francisco: Regarding Communion from a Uniate Priest (1959)

Regarding the communion of Orthodox faithful by a Uniate priest, there is, of course, nothing in the ancient church rules, as Catholicism appeared much later. However, canonical rules, beginning from apostolic times, forbid prayerful communion with those of another faith, considering it a falling away from the faith; conversely, the return to the Orthodox Faith, as well as the reception into Orthodoxy of those who have held erroneous beliefs but whose fundamental dogmas remain uncorrupted and whose chrismation is accepted, is accomplished through the sacrament of Communion (95th canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council). The Orthodox Church is guided by this rule, as is the Catholic Church. Therefore, an Orthodox person who has communed in a Catholic church is considered to have fallen away from Orthodoxy and joined the Catholic faith. In some places, Catholics have widely exploited this, persuading the sick to receive communion in the Catholic manner, and then, after their death, burying them as Orthodox. In Shanghai, I twice refused to recognize such a transfer to Catholicism, as it was performed upon individuals whose will had already weakened, yet who had been Orthodox all their lives and had never intended to convert to Catholicism. The communion of Orthodox faithful by Catholics is undoubtedly a transfer into Catholicism, and anyone who gives a different explanation is either a person who does not understand this—which, of course, cannot be said of Catholic priests—or simply a cunning deceiver.

 

Source: Летопись почитания архиепископа Иоанна (Максимовича) [Chronicle of the Veneration of Archbishop John (Maximovitch)], by Bishop Sava (Saračević) of Edmonton, Platina: Brotherhood of St. Herman of Alaska, 1998, pp. 167-168.

A New Calendarist Editorial: What are the real motives behind the cowardly attacks against the Metropolitan of Attica and Boeotia (G.O.C.), kyr Chrysostomos?

Soteris M. Tzoumas | February 23, 2025

 

I have never hidden my special connection and respect for the Patristic Calendar of our Church. My late grandmother, Stamatia Tzouma-Tassa, ensured this, and I am grateful to her.

Nor have I ever denied my special connection with some of the serious clergy who belong to and serve in the Old Calendar. On the contrary, two of them, in fact, during my years of study in New York, were also my spiritual fathers. After all, where could I, a child from the provinces, confess—to the shaven priests of New York?

That is why I often write and express my views on this matter whenever I have the opportunity.

And I highlight their events, whether I happen to attend them or learn about them, because I believe it is useful for them to become more widely known and for us to gain lessons in proper pastoral conduct.

Proper pastoral care has no calendar, old or new, but only a willingness to offer to one's neighbor.

The words once spoken to me by the late Elder of Astoria, Petros Astyfides (née Tzoumas), will always resonate in my ears when I expressed to him my complaint and wonder as to why there is a division over the calendars:

"The Patristic Calendar, my child, is not an obsession nor a quirk of some fanatics and arrogant individuals seeking a role in society. For us, it is a way of life and divine illumination. Alongside our life and work, if we are righteous, we remind the hasty followers of the New Calendar what the true tradition of our Church is, which must not be altered. In the end, God will judge us all."

Metropolitan Petros of Astoria had been visited at St. Markella in Astoria by the then-sojourning in the U.S. Metropolitan of Chios, the late Dionysios, whom I had accompanied. They were even photographed together, both wearing an engolpion. In fact, this photograph adorned Petros' office as long as he lived, placed in a prominent position. What should have happened then? Should the Synod have called him to account for the photograph? Absurd things that took a century for us to move past.

With these principles, I have journeyed through life. And in my humble opinion, many clergy of the Patristic Calendar, of all ranks, bear witness to the faith without fanaticism or intolerance, but rather with love and a willingness to offer to their fellow man—indeed, with greater conscientiousness and consistency than those of the official Church, who have settled into the comfort of a public servant’s couch, receive their little salary (as they call it), and neglect their divine mission. Very few parishes now produce genuine parish work. They have abandoned their responsibilities. But for how long?

And I have come to fully grasp this realization in recent years, and I will explain how and why in the following lines.

As for Apostolic succession and continuity, which is invoked by those who seek to draw dividing lines between us, it is a matter best left unexplored—by either side—because a thorough study of it would leave us speechless. This is something the Lord Himself will answer on the Day of Judgment.

I considered it necessary to write all of the above so that we may all understand the sea of absurdity—bordering on madness—into which we have entered!

A clergyman, and indeed a Hierarch of the Patristic Calendar, whom I respect and esteem—and for whom, if necessary, I stir up storms and argue—is Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Attica and Boeotia. Those of you who have been reading me on this platform for the past 17 years—ever since the great Archbishop Christodoulos departed from our lives—have surely realized this.

I have known His Eminence, Chrysostomos, for many years, but in recent years I have become closely connected with him. And with pride, I publicly declare that I belong to the circle of his spiritual friends—not only because I agree with the way he conducts himself, but because everything he undertakes as a Shepherd on the watchtower where God and His Church have placed him resonates with me completely. Everything he does has my full agreement and makes me admire him openly and loudly, not discreetly and from a distance.

The magnificent Church of Panagia Soumela in Aspropyrgos—a jewel of both interior and exterior architecture, as well as a lifelong work—is his creation, a work that everyone speaks of with admiration but also… envy, because he proved what a capable person can achieve from nothing. But I also "support him" for one more reason: he reminds me in many ways of the great and incomparable Christodoulos. He is a Hierarch with vision, but also with love for all—even for his enemies and slanderers—and with a great sense of humor and self-irony, which reveals his spiritual completeness and that he is at peace with himself. He does not rely on the spiteful and the wanderers of the priesthood and the calendars to tell him who he is.

It is important to stand firmly on your feet—and to show it.

So, what you will read in the following lines comes from someone who appreciates and respects Chrysostomos. And while they may be considered somewhat subjective, know that I have passed them through the patina of time, trials, and personal verification, so that they have become true experiences. This allows me to write and sign my views on such a Hierarch of our Church—even if he belongs to the Patristic Calendar.

For almost a year now—since last May—the most official and prominent Church of the G.O.C., whose Archbishop is Kallinikos, a serious and traditional Hierarch of the Patristic Calendar who has never caused scandal by his way of life, has been undergoing a trial due to a temptation that is beginning to take on the form of an avalanche. If the necessary measures are not taken, the developments will not be pleasant at all, as they will harm and shrink the Church—to the great delight of the opposing factions of the Patristic Calendar.

Specifically, the beloved and venerable Hierarch of Attica and Boeotia, who has carried out remarkable and significant pastoral work and is thus highly regarded, is under attack by a married clergyman who belongs to the jurisdiction of Archbishop Kallinikos of the G.O.C. However, it seems that this priest acts independently and uncontrollably, following his own rules and personal agenda. He has somehow sensed that there is something to be gained and has decided to take charge of its division himself. But the guardians are well aware…!

This cleric, posing as the Javert of the faith, with an excess of audacity and without a trace of empathy, self-criticism, or, most importantly, self-awareness regarding his own life—both past and present—unacceptably accuses Metropolitan Chrysostomos. His accusations stem from certain enlightened actions and initiatives of the Metropolitan, which, in a time of general crisis, present the clergy in a positive light to our people—who are increasingly distancing themselves from the Church and reviling its clergy.

"For envy does not know how to prefer what is beneficial..."

Metropolitan Chrysostomos, "in deeds and words," forms the mind of Christ in his flock and beyond. With his entire life, he speaks of love and practices love.

Day and night, he struggles for the salvation of the souls entrusted to him by the Church of the Patristic Calendar. He does everything he can to keep his flock united and satisfied with their Church. And he has succeeded to the highest degree, as can be seen in the youth of his catechetical schools, his choirs, his theatrical performances, and all his activities. It is a living spiritual hive.

Every event prepared by His Eminence Chrysostomos and his esteemed collaborators, both clergy and laity, is a grand production that even the wealthiest and most well-organized Metropolises of the New Calendar would envy. And this happens because those who participate—both clergy and laity—do so willingly and with love for what they do. They are inspired by their shepherd, who is always the first and the last in labor and offering.

On his own initiative, during the pandemic, he conceived and established the practice of going through the neighborhoods of his diocese to sing the carols, with thousands of people waiting for him in the streets with lit candles and censers—on Christmas Eve according to the Patristic Calendar. I witnessed it firsthand and was left speechless. And I wrote about it twice. And not only on my page.

The slanderous priest—where does he go to sing the carols? On Facebook? For his like-minded followers of the same mold? Does he have no sense of shame?

His Eminence Chrysostomos is a bold yet traditional Hierarch. Daring when necessary, yet prudent and courteous to all. Affable, approachable, graceful, and articulate. He has become "all things to all people" and has transformed his diocese into a model example.

Well then, this man—whom, if the Patristic Calendar Church did not already have, it would need to discover and invent—has provoked the wrath and envy of those consumed by passion, pettiness, and narrow-minded judgment.

And why? Because his kindness, dignity, and love seem to have disturbed them—rather than behaving with insults, arrogance, and condemnation of everyone except himself.

Over the past year, His Eminence Chrysostomos has endured in silence and with great patience the disgraceful and inexplicable(?) attack from this priest—widely acknowledged as erratic—who, as mentioned, belongs to the jurisdiction of Archbishop Kallinikos of the G.O.C.

The slanderous priest considers himself, after the… Patriarch of Alexandria, the judge of the entire world. The arrogant and disgraceful things he writes are clearly driven by the sickness of vanity, malice, and envy. He obviously believes himself to be infallible—second only, of course, to the Pope, who holds the first place in infallibility. Another heresy in itself. And I highlighted the word "inexplicable" with a question mark regarding this attack because there is undoubtedly something hidden behind this war. Something that, sooner or later, will be revealed—for nothing is hidden under the sun—and when that happens, woe to the sinners, for where shall they flee?

Initially, this priest's attack was carried out through personal letters addressed to Archbishop Kallinikos and the Hierarchs of the G.O.C. Church to which he belongs. Those of us on the outside knew nothing, and, of course, everyone kept it as a closely guarded secret within their ranks.

Recently, however, the matter gained widespread publicity after, following his referral to the disciplinary bodies of his Church, he publicly posted his rambling philosophies on Facebook to rally supporters and slanderers—like attracts like—and since then, a swarm of his like-minded followers has emerged. These so-called good Christians, with no sense of shame, have engaged in an unprecedented online lynching of the personality of His Eminence. To his credit—and in contrast to other fellow bishops, even of the official Church—he has followed the command of the Gospel and has not yet resorted to civil courts. However, in my opinion, when some individuals refuse to listen to reason and disregard responses and counterarguments, it becomes necessary to turn to civil and criminal courts—not to stop them from thinking and writing nonsense (for that is an incurable affliction when one has a distorted mind), but to expose the emptiness of their arguments and the malice of their intentions. It would also bring to light the shocking realities of their own lives, which they go to great lengths to keep hidden. When someone is placed under scrutiny, many of the things they have carefully concealed will inevitably come to light. And, of course, those who judge will themselves be judged. For a long time, I personally exercised patience and wrote nothing. He will grow tired, I thought, and stop spewing his filth.

I exercised patience and obedience to His Eminence Metropolitan Chrysostomos, who endured this entire defamation in silence and prayer and discouraged me from writing or responding to the spiteful individual—who had even made personal references to me because of the attention I give to His Eminence Chrysostomos. As if I did not know to ask him and seek his permission. And this man, who parades himself as a priest, drifting from one calendar to another, wants to reprimand us and even teach us? Teach us what? How to spew venom or to sting others as if we were scorpions?

But this injustice has gone on for too long. His Eminence Chrysostomos is ridiculed as supposedly a "heretic" and a "traitor to the Faith," while the true mastermind behind this orchestrated attack remains unpunished. He continues to write and speak only what serves his own predetermined verdict.

That is why I have decided to speak out as well—and let the earth be consumed by fire. Our patience and tolerance have their limits.

This particular slanderous priest, who does not respect the Bishop of his own Church—does he perhaps lack the basic principles of decorum and conduct that should distinguish our clergy?—was ordained under the New Calendar, passed through it first (which, fortunately, is upheld by state laws and, above all, by its Charter, preventing and punishing arbitrary actions and factions), then left and moved to the Old Calendar so he could act unchecked and judge everyone from a position of safety. A question arises: Upon his transition from the New to the Old Calendar, was he reordained? We would like someone to answer this for us.

Keeping one’s finger on the trigger and firing at the first opportunity is easy. Mud is easily flung into the fan. What is difficult is to build up one’s interlocutor with love. But to speak with love, one must first feel love for his neighbor. And here, there is a great deficiency. Instead, there is an excess of malice and envy.

And what exactly were these infamous “treacherous actions” of His Eminence Chrysostomos of Attica and Boeotia that prompted this slanderous priest to begin attacking him? We quote them directly from the excellent letter of support for their shepherd, presented and signed by the priests serving in the Holy Metropolis of Attica and Boeotia:

a) The fact that he gave a relic of Saint Argyrios of Epanomi to the Metropolis of the saint’s homeland. Question: Do we only know how to receive? Where do we get the Holy Relics from? Most—if not all—of the relics we venerate in our churches and monasteries are the result of generous donations from individuals of the New Calendar who are well-disposed toward us. If this action by His Eminence constitutes betrayal of the faith, then—if we truly want to be precise—we should return all the relics! If we want to take this even further, no one should even offer a glass of water to anyone who is not a member of our Church.

Note from EXAPSALMOS: Why is it wrong that he gave a relic? Where did all the relics of the saints that we venerate in Patristic Calendar monasteries come from? Who gave them? How were they obtained? Let the all-knowing priest answer that! And when they received the holy relic to deliver it, and Fr. Michael Konstantinidis, the worthy and capable Protosyncellus of the Metropolis, was reading, they did not engage in joint prayer with His Eminence Justinos of Nea Krini—they simply handed over the sacred relic with due reverence, not in utter silence. They were delivering a holy relic of a saint, not a pita wrap!

b) His presence at a conference in Thessaloniki, organized by three Metropolises of the New Calendar. Some of us were part of his entourage for the celebration of the Three Hierarchs. We saw with our own eyes that, upon our entry into the conference, three times a clergyman was sent to convey the organizers' request for him to sit honorably in the front row. He was not wearing an engolpion because his presence was not in an official capacity. He had attended simply as a Greek citizen, something that has happened countless times in the past with clergy of our Church. At the major rallies for Macedonia in Athens, bishops of our Synod attended without engolpia. On another occasion, two of our bishops attended an event at the Peace and Friendship Stadium, also organized by New Calendar Metropolises, without wearing engolpia.

Note from EXAPSALMOS: Since I was present at this event, I can confirm that one of its organizers, my friend Mr. Nik. Tsamoglou (a dedicated member of the Christian Associations of Macedonia, which organized the event under the auspices of the three Metropolises of Thessaloniki), upon seeing His Eminence Chrysostomos entering the hall, asked me if he could invite him to sit in the front. Of course, I encouraged him to do so, and he twice sent someone to bring him to the front seats, because at first, he refused. Where is the problem in this? Should he have remained standing at the back of the hall like a punished man? What kind of nonsense is this?

c) The Palm Sunday Procession

We were all present and rejoiced, just like the entire crowd, at this event—something that has also happened countless times in the past, both in Greece and abroad. If an act of peaceful goodwill that took place during the procession constitutes betrayal of the faith, then Fr. Nikolaos Kaloskamis, Fr. Euthymios Danilatos, Fr. Ioannis of Chalkida, and many others who exchanged greetings with clergy during Holy Friday processions were also “traitors.” Even more so, Saint Philaret of the ROCOR, who was photographed with a papist, and Leontius of Chile, who attended a cardinal’s funeral. Would anyone dare to call these two giants of Orthodoxy "traitors"? A particular accusation was made regarding the exchange of palm branches. If even this is considered betrayal and a violation of the Holy Canons, then no one should ever accept anything from anyone who is not a member of our Church—not even a pension or the donations placed in the candle box!

Note from EXAPSALMOS: I wrote a piece about the gathering in love of the two Hierarchs at Ilion Square, who, though they may not belong to the same Church, shepherd the same flock. The faithful, seeing them behave with dignity and love, erupted into warm applause. The only one who would have rejoiced if the opposite had happened would be the devil—and, of course, this self-appointed judge of all things, the priest who seemingly cannot even stomach his own intestines.

Certainly, the G.O.C. Synod, under the presidency of Archbishop Kallinikos, was slow to react. It moved—and continues to move—with slow, almost lethargic reflexes because they expected that he would realize his mistake, come to his senses, and return to the straight path. But seeing that no one was reacting, he became emboldened.

Then, the Synod decided to put him in his place and, naturally, referred him for his overall behavior.

And what did the smart aleck come out and say? That the G.O.C. Church, to which he belongs, has no right to convene a Synodal Court and judge him. In other words, in his attempt to escape the sword of ecclesiastical justice and punishment, he essentially declared that the Church to which he belongs does not exist—that it is non-existent.

But the Church is founded primarily on the Holy Canons, not on state laws. Both the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the other ancient Patriarchates operate based on the Holy Canons and have the right to establish disciplinary bodies to handle cases requiring expulsion and exemplary punishment. And this remains true even if they are legally considered mere associations or institutions in the countries where they are based—countries that do not have the Orthodox Church as their official religion.

But even any association (as he himself calls the Church to which he belongs—and for that alone, he should have already been punished) has the right to convene its disciplinary bodies, impose penalties, and expel its non-compliant members from its ranks.

And in this case, that priest should have long ago been subjected to disciplinary scrutiny, required to give an account, and received the appropriate punishment. He must either comply or be expelled. What are they afraid of? The one who leaves the fold is the one who ultimately loses! Just as an abscess that forms in the body must be opened so that all the pus inside can be drained—preventing infection from spreading to the entire organism—so too, such cases must not be allowed to grow unchecked, because if they do, the evil multiplies, like the heads of the Lernaean Hydra.

The G.O.C. Synod must finally take a clear and decisive stance and bring this slanderer to account. The longer this situation drags on, the greater the risk and compromise of what they supposedly strive for—the unity of the Church. The facts speak for themselves. And the venerable Hierarchs of the G.O.C. must take into account who their flock now consists of. The number of traditional Christians, those who were born into and raised in the Patristic Calendar tradition, has dwindled. How many remain? Very few. Thankfully, our Russian Pontian brethren have provided a significant extension to the life and existence of the Patristic Calendar Church, which is not even unified—instead, it consists of many different factions, the mere listing of which is enough to cause confusion and sorrow. If I personally were a conscious adherent of the Patristic Calendar, this division would trouble me more than anything else.

However, with all this turmoil caused by the married priest, the only person who will not be harmed is the very one he seeks to attack! His Eminence Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Attica and Boeotia, a Hierarch of the G.O.C., has already demonstrated countless examples of his character and work—and the shots fired by this married priest will never reach him. Only the envious devil rejoices—along with those like him and his instruments.

That is why he would do well to seriously consider whether such actions align with his priestly calling and who is ultimately harmed by the warfare he wages. Or perhaps he should tell us who is hiding behind him, seeking to undermine Chrysostomos.

But this war is producing the exact opposite result. Chrysostomos, through these attacks, only rises higher, becoming even more beloved by his flock and by all who know him personally and work alongside him!

Unfortunately, all too often, our passions consume us, leading to disastrous consequences for the one who first raised his hand unjustly.

"Let us stand aright! Let us stand with fear!" Father, God may sometimes delay, but He never fails to deliver justice! You will soon come to realize this…

 

Greek source: 

https://www.exapsalmos.gr/poia-einai-ta-pragmatika-kinitra-piso-apo-tis-anandres-epitheseis-kata-tou-mitropoliti-attikovoiotias-g-o-ch-k-chrysostomou/

On the Antichrist, the Second Coming, and the Final Judgment: The Synaxarion from Meatfare Sunday

By Nikephoros Kallistos Xanthopoulos (+1335)

 

The most Divine Fathers placed this parable after the first two [those of the Publican and Pharisee and of the Prodigal Son], lest anyone, learning about God’s love for mankind in those parables, should live carelessly, saying: God loves mankind, and when I cease from sinning, I shall be ready to accomplish everything. They set this fearful day here, in order to instill fear, through death and the expectation of future torments, in those who are heedless, and to bring them back to virtue, not trusting in God’s loving-kindness alone, but taking into account that He is a just Judge, Who will render unto each man according to his deeds. Moreover, since the souls of those who have died stood in our midst yesterday, it was fitting that the Judge should come today. In a certain way, the present Feast is, as it were, the consummation of all the Feasts, just as it will be the final day for all of us. We should reflect that the Fathers will assign the beginning of the world and Adam’s fall from Paradise to the following Sunday, and that the present Feast is the end of all our lives and of this world. The Fathers assigned it to the Sunday of Meatfare, so as to curb greed and gluttony through the fear aroused by this Feast, and to summon us to show compassion to our neighbors. Furthermore, since, after reaping delight, we were exiled from Eden, and came under judgment and the curse, the present Feast is placed here, and also because, on the next Sunday, on which we commemorate the fall of Adam, we are going to be figuratively cast out of Eden, until Christ comes and brings us back to Paradise.

Christ’s coming is called the Second Coming, because whereas He first came to us in bodily form, quietly and without glory, He will now come from Heaven with wonders that transcend nature, with conspicuous radiance, and corporeally, so that He may be recognized by all as being He Who first came and delivered the human race, and Who is going to judge it, to see whether it has preserved what was given to it. When His Coming will take place, no one knows; for the Lord kept this hidden even from the Apostles. But until then, at any rate, He indicated that it will be preceded by certain signs, which some of the Saints explained in greater detail. It is said that the Second Coming will occur after seven millennia have passed. Before Christ comes, the Antichrist will come. He will be born, as Saint Hippolytos of Rome says, from a harlot, who will appear to be a virgin, but will be of the Hebrew race, of the tribe of Dan, the son of Jacob; and he will supposedly live as Christ did, and will perform as many miracles as Christ, and will raise the dead. But all of these things—his birth, his flesh, and everything else—will be an illusion, as the Apostle says; and he will then be revealed as the son of perdition, with all power, with signs and deceitful wonders. However, as Saint John of Damascus says, the Devil himself will not be transformed into flesh, but a man who is the offspring of fornication will receive all the energy of Satan, and will suddenly rise up. He will appear good and gentle to all, and then there will be a mighty famine. He will supposedly satisfy the people, will study the Holy Scriptures, will practise fasting, and, compelled by men, will be proclaimed king; he will show especial love to the Hebrew race, restoring them to Jerusalem and rebuilding their temple. Before seven years have passed, as Daniel says, Enoch and Elias will come, preaching to the people that they should not accept him. He will arrest and torment them, and will then behead them. Those who choose to remain pious will flee far away into the mountains; when he finds them, through the agency of demons, he will make trial of them. Those seven years will be cut short for the sake of the elect, and there will be a mighty famine, and all the elements will be transformed, so that everyone will all but disappear.

After this, the Lord will suddenly come from Heaven like lightning, preceded by His precious Cross, and a river of boiling fire will go before Him, cleansing the entire earth of pollution. The Antichrist will immediately be seized, and he and his minions will be handed over to the eternal fire. As the Angels sound their trumpets, the entire human race will be gathered together from the ends of the earth, and from all the elements, in Jerusalem, because this is the center of the world, and there are set thrones for judgment, but with their souls and bodies all transformed into incorruption and having a single form, the elements themselves having been transformed into a superior state, and by a single word the Lord will separate the righteous from the sinners; those who have done good will depart, gaining eternal life, whereas the sinners will go to eternal punishment, and never will there be an end to their torments

It should be known that Christ will not be looking at that time for fasting, bodily hardships, or miracles, good though these things are, but for things that are far superior, namely, almsgiving and compassion. To the righteous and the sinners He will speak of six virtues: “For I was an hungred, and ye gave Me food; I was thirsty, and ye gave Me drink; I was a stranger, and ye took Me in; naked, and ye clothed Me; I was sick, and ye visited Me; I was in prison, and ye came unto Me; for inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these My brethren, ye have done it unto Me.” Everyone can do these things according to his own ability. Then every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. The torments which the Holy Gospel recounts are these: “there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched; and cast him into the outer darkness.” Clearly accepting all these things, the Church of God believes that the abiding of the Saints with God and the perpetual effulgence of His light and their ascent to Him are the delight of Paradise and the Kingdom of Heaven, and that alienation from God and the consumption of souls by the awareness that, through carelessness and temporal pleasure, they have been deprived of Divine illumination are the torment, the darkness, and the like.

In Thine ineffable love for mankind, O Christ God, count us worthy to hear Thy desired voice, number us with those on Thy right hand, and have mercy on us. Amen.

 

Source: https://www.imoph.org/pdfs/2009/02/22/20090222aSynaxSunMeatfare%20Folder/20090222aSynaxSunMeatfare.pdf

A Prayer for a Christian End

O Lord Jesus Christ, the time of my life is growing short, drawing near to the gates of death; I fear and tremble at the hour of death, this fiery baptism, for I am sinful in all things. My heart dreads the sight of the evil spirits seeking my ruin; I am terrified by the passage through the aerial tollhouses—this, Thy righteous judgment, where I must give an account of all I have sinned in life. I am frightened by that unknown land into which Thou shalt settle me after my departure.

O Lord, Lover of mankind, who desirest not the death of a sinner but that he should turn and live, have mercy on me, who turn to Thee. Count me among Thy flock and grant me to obtain a Christian end to my life—painless, blameless, and peaceful. Behold, I, a great sinner, before that hour of death, fall before Thee, and with hope in Thy saving sufferings and crucifixion, I offer tearful repentance for all my sins and iniquities, voluntary and involuntary, known and unknown. Forgive all my sins and iniquities, and in Thy mercy, consume them with the fire of Thy Holy Spirit, that they may not be remembered at the end of my life.

Forgive, O Lord, all offenses and grievances inflicted upon me by my neighbors, and have mercy on all who hate and wrong me, that I may depart from this life in peace with all people. Grant me to spend the remainder of my life in purity and honorable conduct and to end it in peace and repentance.

Before my departure, O merciful Lord, grant me to receive the Most Pure and Life-Giving Mysteries—Thy Most Holy Body and Blood—that, cleansed and sanctified by partaking of these heavenly Mysteries, I may face the final hour of death without fear, preserved and guarded by Thee, All-Good Lord, from all troubles and temptations. By Thy almighty power, deliver me in that hour from the assaults and violence of the wicked demons, protect me from them by Thy holy Angels, strengthen and console my weak soul by the intercession of the Most Holy Theotokos and Thy Saints. Grant me to pass through the aerial tollhouses in peace, with firm hope in Thee, my Savior.

Yea, O Master, Lord! Deprive me not of Thy great mercy and protection in the fearful hour of my death. Receive my soul then, that I, though a great sinner and unworthy, may by Thy mercy be counted worthy in the life to come to be with Thee, the Source of all good, and to offer prayers and praises unto Thee, now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen.

 

Source: Келейная книжица [Cell Book], Archimandrite John Krestiankin, Pskov: Holy Dormition Pskov-Caves Monastery, 2006.

A vision that the blessed Elder Kallistratos (+2012) saw regarding the New Calendarists

Nikolaos Mannis | February 22, 2025

The blessed Athonite Elder Kallistratos once saw a vision in which the souls of New Calendarists were ascending to Paradise. Being a Zealot, he was astonished and wondered, "But is it possible for the New Calendarists to be saved?" Then he heard the voice of the Lord saying to him, "Do you sit on My throne and have you taken My judgment?"

From then on, he recommended that the faithful follow the Old Calendar but without making judgments regarding the salvation or condemnation of the New Calendarists.

In light of the above information, we also recalled the similar vision of Saint John of Amfiali: https://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2012/05/blog-post_4952.html

 

Greek source: https://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2025/02/2012.html

St. Seraphim (Rose) of Platina: The State of Zealotry and ROCOR in 1976

Letter 218

Apodosis of Ascension, 1976

[May 29/June 11, 1976]

Dear Daniel [Olsen],

We send you our heartfelt greetings on the Feast of our Lord's Ascension and on the Feast of Pentecost. May God preserve you in His grace!

Your question about "zealotry" comes at a time when we also have been giving much thought to such questions—and in fact, it is now becoming a basic question facing our Church. Especially with the passing of Archimandrite Constantine and Archbishop Averky one stops and wonders: who will now be our guides in the difficult days ahead, and give us the right tone and ideology? Bishop Laurus begged the monks at Archbp. Averky's funeral to promise, while giving him the farewell kiss, to be faithful to his teaching and to keep Jordanville as it was under him; but it may not be too easy to keep this promise in the storms ahead.

Such giants as Vlad. Averky and Vladika John have guided us up to now, and their teaching will remain a beacon in the days ahead; Vlad. Averky especially has given us some practical pointers which will help us over some difficult hurdles ahead. (We are trying to compile some of them presently from his many books.)

Before going ahead, we must stop and find out where we are. We wish to be zealots for true Orthodoxy, and our Church leaders have indicated clearly that we must have no contact with the Moscow Patriarchate and similarly enslaved Churches; must refrain from participating in ecumenist activities and must be aware that ecumenism is eating away the very Orthodox fiber of most of the Orthodox Churches, beginning with Constantinople; and must be zealously pursuing a path of true Orthodoxy ourselves, not only in outward acts but especially in spiritual life, but without falling into false zealotry "not according to knowledge"—a point that Vlad. Averky especially emphasized. About the latter danger we have been learning much of late from the situation of the Old Calendarists in Greece, which can help us to avoid some mistakes "on the right side."

Here, briefly, is the Greek Old Calendar situation as we have it from Dr. Kalomiros who seems the most moderate and sensible of the Old Calendarists with whom we have any contact, and as confirmed from a somewhat different point of view by our own Bp. Laurus:

The "Mathewites" preach absolute "strictness": since 1924 all New Calendarists and all those in communion with them are without grace; hence the “crisis” which caused Bp. Mathew to consecrate successors by himself—he and his followers believed that he was then the only Orthodox bishop remaining in the world. It is therefore astonishing that they could have been persuaded to have any contact with our Church at all, as at the Sobor of 1971, and Dr. Kalomiros tells us that this was because Fr. Panteleimon of Boston told them that our bishops had "repented" and now were willing to accept the Mathewite position. Once they saw that this was not so, the Mathewites resumed their attacks on our Church, and the last we heard they were almost resolved to give our Church over to anathema. Dr. Kalomiros calls this group extreme legalists and "scholastics," and this is our impression also from our small contacts with them. Obviously, if they are correct one must quit the Synod altogether and join them. But their "strictness" really seems a little too close to sectarianism to be the answer for us today.

The jurisdiction of Archbishop Auxentios, on the other hand, has been closer to our Church in its acceptance of "economy." But last year they also proclaimed the sacraments of New Calendarists invalid—not because they are legally and technically "schismatic" (which is the Mathewite thinking), but because now (in their view) ecumenism has become a conscious heresy, and therefore the New Calendarists are formal heretics. They asked our bishops to make the same decision, and our bishops refused, on the grounds that this is a question beyond their competence to judge. Bishop Petros of Astoria refused to accept the Auxentiite decision and was therefore excommunicated. Our bishops have not accepted this excommunication and continue to serve with him (as five of our bishops did at the funeral of Archbishop Averky). In February of this year, as Vlad. Nektary recently informed us, one of the Old Calendar groups solemnly anathematized our Church—I don't know which group, but doubtless both of them will be doing it soon. However, the Auxentiite group itself is in danger of splitting into several jurisdictions, chiefly over questions of pride and power (as Dr. Kalomiros himself tells us).

As if all this is not bad enough, there are zealots on Mt. Athos who are part of none of the existing Old Calendar jurisdictions, because of their particular views about "strictness" and "economy." Dr. Kalomiros tells us that our friend Fr. Theodoritos is now in communion only with his own group of four or five monks and is being considered as a candidate for bishop by one group of Auxentiites; although Fr. Theodoritos himself does not mention any of this to us in his letters to us. At any rate, the Mt. Athos zealots are themselves more and more divided and some of them pride themselves on not speaking to those of other shades of belief.

All of this should be sufficient warning of the danger of going overboard on the question of "strictness" and "zealotry." The danger of going astray on the "right" side has become so great now that Metropolitan Philaret, when counselling Fr. Alexei Poluektov two years ago in his publishing of Vera i Zhizn, cautioned him not to use the word "zelot" at all (the milder word "revnitel" is sufficient).

I think the lesson of this is, first of all, to teach us not to be too certain of defining things (especially "strictness" and "economy"), and not to be too quick to "break communion."

Now we have a recent example in our own Church: Fr. Basile Sakkos of Geneva. Seeing that his own bishop had not broken all contact with the "ecumenist" jurisdictions, he broke off communion with him and asked our 1974 Sobor to answer unambiguously two questions (he sent us a copy of his appeal): (1) Are ecumenists and new calendarists heretics? (2) Do we have communion with them or not? Our Sobor did not give him a satisfactory answer, and he apparently now is with the Mathewites.

We at first were sympathetic to his desire to have our bishops make matters "clear" and "consistent," especially realizing that Archbishop Anthony of Geneva is indeed probably too "liberal" in his views and contacts. But on further reflection we find several considerations which make the issue quite complex and not subject to an easy answer:

(1) Ecumenism itself is not a clear-cut heresy like Arianism, or a clearly-distinguishable body such as the Roman Catholic church. It is seldom preached boldly in so many words by its Orthodox participants, and even when outrageous statements are made by Patrs. Athenagoras and Demetrius, or by the new "Thyateira Confession," they are often accompanied by at least a verbal confession that Orthodoxy still is the one true Church of Christ. There is therefore some justification for those who refuse to break off with ecumenist hierarchs, or who do not know at what point they actually become "heretics."

(2) Ecumenism, rather than a formal heresy, is more like an elemental movement, an intellectual attitude which is "in the air" and takes possession of individuals and groups and whole Churches to the degree of their worldliness and openness to intellectual fashions. Thus, it is in our Church also, and even in our minds, unless we are waging a conscious warfare against the "spirit of the times." All the more difficult, then, is it to define it and know exactly where the battle-line is.

(3) Our own flocks, to the degree that they are worldly, don't understand these matters, and a decision to formally "break communion" with all ecumenist Orthodox Churches would simply not be understood by many.

(4) There is a fear, increased by knowledge of the Greek Old Calendarist situation, of falling into a sectarian mentality—that "we alone are pure."

What, then, should we do?

Let us first of all take guidance from our hierarchs who are most aware of the spiritual situation of the Church today and have spoken out. We have especially Metr. Philaret, who speaks rather about the spiritual essence of ecumenism than about its formally heretical nature, and warns other hierarchs and his own flock against participating in ecumenist activities and ideas; and Archbishop Averky, who viewed the whole matter also not in terms of formal heresy but rather as an elemental movement of apostasy, the answer to which is first of all a return to spiritual life.

In general, as long as our Church is one and united, let us trust the judgment of the local bishops; if something they do is disputable, let us be guided by the judgment of our most spiritual bishops (and preferably not just one), but without making a "demonstration" if this disagrees with the local bishop. But let us beware of the conclusions of our own logic and "definitions." I'm afraid that Fr. Panteleimon of Boston has fallen into this latter trap, and is pursuing a course which none of our bishops approve, even while he tells others that our bishops' position is synonymous with what he thinks it should be (sometimes the politics of the Greek Old Calendarist situation apparently forces him to do such things in order to "save face"). He and the Greeks who follow him have formed a kind of autonomous psychological "diocese" within our Church, and it is obvious that they trust and respect none of our bishops; they look for their authority rather to Greece—and in Greece the situation becomes more confused every day, so it is Fr. Panteleimon's thinking alone that becomes their authority. This is a terribly dangerous situation, and it seems inevitable that unless our Greeks change the tone of their "zealotry," it is only a matter of time until they leave us, whether for the Mathewites or to form their own jurisdiction—which will only confuse matters more. Already Fr. Panteleimon practices "selective communion" with our Church, as when he refused to serve at the funeral of Archbishop Averky, but stood in the Altar with a group of his priests and monks. Fr. Panteleimon of Jordanville, when he saw this, told Fr. Herman (who was able to be present to bid farewell to his Abba): "Look what kind of monks we have now. They came here to make a demonstration. It must be the end of the world." That is typical of the attitude of our Church to the too-eager “zealots” of our day: without bitterness or indignation, but with a deep and calm awareness that this is not the answer. It is to us a bad sign that Fr. Panteleimon was in a state of "strained communion" with Vladika Averky in the latter s final months of life, and that for the same cause (Bishop Petros, which our bishops seem to view as merely a question of "competition") he would not serve at his funeral. Vladika Averky was the greatest pillar of our Church, and he wrote to us in his distress over Fr. Panteleimon a heartbreaking letter which shows how great the gulf is between the great elders of our Church and the younger generation which has not received its guidance from them and now thinks it "knows better" than they.

We do not wish to judge Fr. Panteleimon or any of the "zealots," including the Mathewites; but it is clear that our path cannot be with them. Their "strictness" forces them to become so involved in church politics that spiritual questions become quite secondary. I know for myself that if I would have to sit down and think out for myself exactly which shade of "zealotry" is the "correct" one today—I will lose all peace of mind and be constantly preoccupied with questions of breaking communion, of how this will seem to others, and "what will the Greeks think" (and which Greeks?), and "what will the Metropolitan think?" And I will not have time or inclination to become inspired by the wilderness, by the Holy Fathers, by the marvelous saints of ancient and modern times who lived in a higher world. In our times especially, it is not possible to be entirely detached from these questions, but let us place first things first: First comes spiritual life and striving for the Kingdom of Heaven; second come questions of jurisdiction and church politics. And let us approach these secondary questions from right direction: not first of all from the viewpoint of legalism, canons, "strictness," but rather spiritually. The chief danger of our times is not "lack of strictness," but loss of the savor of Orthodoxy·, "strictness" will not save us if we don't have any more the feeling and taste of Orthodoxy, and love it with our whole hearts.

Dr. Kalomiros has written, in a letter to Alexey Young a few months ago, something which gives us a clue:

"Father Panteleimon and Father Neketas and those who are around them may be of Greek origin, but they are not Greeks. They are Americans 100% with all the American characteristics. I do not calumniate them, for that is natural. What is sorrowful, however, with them, is that their being Americans and insisting on their being Americans has cut them off from the Orthodox Tradition, which is not something theoretical, but comes from father to son in a continuous man to man handing down which is possible only when one is united in soul and love with those who are handing him down the tradition. But the American Orthodox have no American ancestors in Orthodoxy. If they declare themselves Americans and want to cut themselves off from their national background…they cut themselves in reality from the possibility of receiving living Orthodox Tradition. This is why I who am Greek and who in certain point of theoretical discussions may disagree with the Fathers of Platina and agree with Father Panteleimon, do not sense in him the 'feeling' of Orthodoxy, which makes the real Orthodox in spite of our many human errors, and I sense this 'feeling' in your periodicals Orthodox Word and Nikodemos, and your practical tendencies are nearer to my heart than the whole atmosphere of The Orthodox Christian Witness, which is directed towards the world, and not from the world towards Eternity."

I fear that our new Orthodox Word, with its attempt (in the introduction to Metr. Philaret's epistle on the "Thyateira Confession") to give the actual thinking of our bishops on questions of "breaking communion"—will be another of those "theoretical" points with which Dr. Kalomiros will disagree. I am sure that our "Greeks" will blast us for it, because they do not want it even to be known that our bishops have never officially broken communion with Constantinople and do not want to. But we cannot insist that we know better than our bishops in a sphere which it is their business to know. If we still have the "feel" of Orthodoxy (and we pray that we will not lose it in the difficult days ahead of us)—it is because we have trusted and loved those bishops and older priests who have handed the faith down to us and have not thought that we can teach them. If on some points we have "theoretical" differences with some bishops, this has not broken the bond of trust and love, and we would not presume to publicly declare such differences. But Fr. Panteleimon, quite frankly, thinks that he is called to teach our bishops, even to the point of publicly rebuking our Metropolitan (as he did at a banquet in 1974). With this we cannot agree, and we would indeed fear to lose the savor of Orthodoxy if we believed we knew better than all our bishops and elders.

This letter is already too long, and we haven't yet "answered your question" about the Serbian hieromonk who serves in our church. On the question of the Serbian Church there has not been unanimity among our bishops. Archbp. Averky thought we should class them with the other Communist-dominated Patriarchates and have no communion with them; but most of our bishops haven't thought so, and in fact Bishop Savva was so firm on this point that he said he would go into retirement if we broke communion with the Serbian Patriarchate. Our bishops apparently have made no decision on the subject, which means Serbia is classed more or less with the "canonical" Churches of the free world (probably a little better than they, because it is Old Calendar), with whom our relations were strained or discouraged but not entirely broken. In the absence of contrary advice from one of our bishops, we would advise you to accept whatever the local bishop allows, even including the reception of Holy Communion; however, if you feel uneasy about receiving Holy Communion from this priest, for personal spiritual reasons you could easily receive communion in some other of our churches there without being guilty of judging the bishop. It is of course not for you to "teach" the people there, which would only result in confusing them and probably yourself. We expect Vladika Nektary to visit us in the next week or so and will ask his opinion. This, of course, is not a "zealot" position—but none of our bishops has handed down to us a position of pure "zealotry," including Archbishop Averky, who always emphasized the spiritual aspect without insisting on the letter of the law, and whose chief worry about our Church was not our lack of "strictness" but rather the evaporation of spiritual life and allowing worldly and political considerations to dominate us.

Well, I have no time left to give you the information on the holy places of Switzerland and France—see how much "church politics" takes away from the spiritual side?! Forgive me. But I will write shortly with this information. Pray for us—and especially that we will finish on time our publications for the 10th anniversary of Vladika Johns repose. Let us ask him to help and guide us now!

 

With love in Christ,

Seraphim, monk