Address: “1924–2024: The Calendar Reform and Ecumenism,” Part 1

 Metropolitan Kyprianos II of Oropos and Phyle | May 13/26, 2024 | Phyle

 

The pious Orthodox Anti-Ecumenists of the Patristic Calendar this year, on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the Calendar Reform, although they face many difficulties, obstacles, and afflictions in their course and Witness, rejoice

“at the same time, because by the Grace and the power of God and the intercessions of the Saints, in whose path we have sought to walk, we have succeeded, despite our weaknesses and our smallness, in maintaining for one century an unwavering Orthodox course, within a syncretistic and ecumenistic environment, being persecuted, slandered, and despised, chiefly by those enlisted in the pan-heresy of Ecumenism, who have greatly multiplied. We glorify and give thanks to the Triune God, because He strengthened us not to deviate from this narrow and afflicted way and to reach this milestone of 100 years of Struggles and Confession.” [1]

***

A. It is known, and much has been written—reliable and indisputable—concerning this, that since 1920 Orthodoxy has not chiefly faced a Calendar Issue, but primarily and above all an Ecumenism Issue.

It is highly indicative in this regard what the well-known Professor of Theology of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Mr. Dimitrios Tselengidis, points out:

“…The most destructive work upon the dogmatic conscience of the fullness of the Orthodox Church has been done, and continues to be done, by Ecumenism. Ecumenism today constitutes the foul-smelling bearer of inter-Christian and inter-religious syncretism and consequently the most official bearer of the most dangerous pan-heresy of all ages, because it contributes decisively to the blunting of the Orthodox criterion and of Orthodox self-consciousness. Specifically, through its representatives, locally and internationally, it continually and gradually attempts ever greater ‘concessions’ in the ecclesiological-dogmatic consciousness of spiritually unsuspecting Orthodox faithful. And this it achieves in particular through the relativization or even the practical annulment of the authority of the teaching of the holy Fathers, and especially of their collective decisions within the framework of the Ecumenical Councils. See, for example, the blatant and continual, for years now, violation of the Second Canon of the Quinisext Ecumenical Council, which explicitly forbids common prayer with those not in communion and with heterodox, with the clear threat of deposition of clergy and excommunication of laypeople who violate it.” [2]

***

The inseparable relationship between the Ecumenical Movement and the Calendar Reform is fully documented, from both a historical and theological standpoint. [3]

The year 1924 constitutes a landmark in the historical manifestation — the first stage and development of the aims of the Ecumenical Movement, foreign to the Patristic Tradition, in the form of inter-Christian and subsequently inter-religious Syncretism. [4]

It is recalled that the Calendar Reform had been preceded by the Encyclical of 1920 issued by the Patriarchate of Constantinople, as well as by the so-called Pan-Orthodox Congress of Constantinople (1923), both lacking an ecclesio-patristic perspective.

The Ecumenical Movement, [5] understood as the cooperation of the various Christian Confessions for the service of the world with the ultimate aim of their union, first appeared in the mid-nineteenth century within the Protestant world: various tendencies, efforts, and movements, although initially having different aims, assumed the form of worldwide unions and spread internationally, preparing the ground for an ecumenical cooperation of all Christians. [6]

Thus, quite naturally, the idea arose very early for the establishment of an organization which would include within its ranks the various Protestant movements, so that the Ecumenical Movement might be institutionalized in the most official manner and indeed on a pan-Christian level.

The establishment of the “League of Nations” promoted the vision of a “League of Churches,” that is, an Inter-Christian Federation, despite the unbridgeable dogmatic differences.

Precisely at this critical point, the Patriarchate of Constantinople entered most officially into the ecumenical developments and undertook initiatives which constituted Innovations and a complete overturning of the exact rule and definition of the pious teaching, of the Apostolic “Type of Teaching.” [7]

***

In January 1920, Constantinople, through the Patriarchal Encyclical, in an unprecedented manner, proposed — as was very rightly observed — something “without precedent in the history of the Church”; [8] it proposed, for the benefit “of the whole body of the Church,” within which “body” both Orthodox and heterodox are understood, that a “League of Churches” be established!...

At the foundations of this Inter-Christian Federation, which was embodied in 1948 with the establishment of the “World Council of Churches” (W.C.C.), lie three doctrinal errors, which constitute a “great blow against Orthodox ‘perfected piety’,” and these are the following:

a) Baptismal Theology; according to this, “all Christians” [“regardless of which Confession they belong to”] are sacramentally and mysteriously united with Christ and with one another through the sacramental grace of holy Baptism. [9]

b) Dogmatic Syncretism; according to this, the various “Christian Churches,” despite the doctrinal differences existing among them, are able to implement “rapprochement,” “friendship,” and “cooperation,” as well as “association” and “communion.” [10]

This “phenomenon” of Dogmatic Syncretism, that is, inter-Christian cooperation, “while both sides (Orthodox and heretics) nevertheless remain within their own doctrinal spheres,” is “unknown and inconceivable in the history of the Church,” bears the odor of an “abhorrent religious syncretism,” and tends “toward the establishment of a harmonious and undisturbed coexistence of truth and error, light and darkness”; this — according to the opinion of a prominent cleric of the Innovation — “can only be interpreted as a ‘sign of the times.’” [11]

c) The Secularizing Perspective; according to this, the “association” and “cooperation” of Orthodox and heterodox are considered necessary in order to confront a world-centered problematic; pan-Christian unity aims at a secularizing vision: we are threatened by social scourges (alcoholism, luxury, love of pleasure, sensual indulgence, etc.), and therefore must cooperate.

The Secularizing Perspective gives the impression that it forgets from what the Truth of the Church truly saves us, since it entirely passes over in silence that “even the elimination of all these social scourges does not save man,” [12] because what is sought is not merely moral improvement through an ideological Christianity, but the deification of man through his incorporation into the Body of the God-Man, the Living Christ.

***

The proposals of the “Encyclical” of 1920 were not only adopted, [13] but were fully implemented in the course of the Ecumenical Movement, [14] and were even expanded, so that today all of them together are characterized as “Steps toward the Stabilization of a Common Christian Mindset.” [15]

We refer to them briefly, for economy of time:

1. “Creation of a common calendar”;
2. “More intensive communication through correspondence”;
3. “Closer relations among representatives of the Churches”;
4. “Communication and ‘fraternization’ of Theological Schools”;
5. “Promotion of ecumenical studies”;
6. “Ecumenical spirit in education as a whole”;
7. “Theological dialogues and conferences”;
8. “Ecumenical formation of the fullness of all confessions”;
9. “‘Fraternization’ of Bishoprics and Metropolises of different confessions”;
10. “Common celebration of enthronement feasts and patron saints”;
11. “Resolution of dogmatic problems”;
12. “Mutual respect for customs and traditions”;
13. “Avoidance of the creation of new problems”;
14. “Granting of houses of worship”;
15. “Mixed marriages”; and finally,
16. “Cooperation on the broadest level regarding contemporary issues.” [15]

It is entirely evident that we have before us a planned and progressively developing intermingling of Orthodox and heterodox, which certainly is anything but a Theological Dialogue, and which moreover led to further anti-Orthodox deviations.

Within the “World Council of Churches” (W.C.C.), according to the admission of a Romanian ecumenist metropolitan,

“despite the protests of the Orthodox, moral norms were approved which oppose Holy Scripture: homosexuality, lesbianism, abortions, and in general the entire Christian biblical and traditional morality was overturned.” [16]

***

Within this historical-theological framework, the Calendar Reform was implemented in 1924, and it is now time, after one hundred years, to realize deeply that, once Ecumenism is rejected as an ecclesiological deviation, the Calendar Innovation is likewise rejected together with it, since it is connatural with and shares the same root as Ecumenism. These two issues — the Ecumenical Movement and the Calendar Reform — cannot be separated.

***

B. However, the causal connection between the Ecumenical Movement and the Calendar Reform does not permit the earlier — and long-standing — causal relationship between Papal Proselytism and the Gregorian Reform, from the sixteenth century onward (1582 ff.), to be forgotten.

After the repeated condemnation of the papal Calendar Innovation by the Orthodox Church (1583, 1587, 1593), the waves of confusion arising from the “World Scandal” [17] of the Gregorian Calendar did not cease to strike the Divine Vessel of Orthodoxy, through intensified papal propaganda in the East.

Professor I. Sokolov, of the Theological Academy of Petrograd, wrote in 1910:

“But also in later times the Greek hierarchs repeatedly recommended to the Orthodox the avoidance even of this new weapon of Latin propaganda, such as Cyril Loukaris, Parthenios I, Paisios II, Cyril V, Gregory VI, and Anthimos VI. Likewise, the Patriarchs of the other Churches showed the same concern in this matter, for which reason in Palestine, in Syria, in Egypt, and in Cyprus patriarchal and pastoral Encyclicals were issued both to the clergy and to the people, in which the character and purpose of this calendar reform were emphasized and it was connected with the rest of the well-known series of the various innovations of the papal Church,” since “the calendar reform introduced by Pope Gregory XIII in 1582 was always — or rather immediately — regarded in the Orthodox East as an ecclesiastical and religious innovation and as one of the customary tendencies of the ecclesiastical absolutism prevailing in the West, whose dream was, and is, and will be, the extension of its influence over the Orthodox East. It was regarded, in other words, as a new papal campaign against Orthodoxy in the East. Having been thus regarded and evaluated, this innovation was immediately condemned” [18] by Orthodoxy in Synods.

It is exceedingly important, and also indicative, in relation to the above, that even during the period of the well-known two Encyclicals of Patriarch Joachim III, in 1902 and 1904 — admittedly forerunners of the Encyclical of 1920 — the papal Cardinal P. Tondini (Tondini de Quarenghi) appeared upon the scene, who, “having moved every stone in the Orthodox East with zeal in favor of the acceptance of this reform (the papal calendar),” ultimately declared in the year 1905

“that this bears ecclesiastical and religious significance and indeed constitutes one of the fundamental and most essential questions on account of which the division between the Churches exists. The very essence of this question lies in the acceptance or non-acceptance of ‘the one source of ecclesiastical jurisdiction,’ that is to say, in the acceptance or rejection of the papal primacy in the Church of Christ.” [19]

***

C. The careful, unbiased, and objective study of the sources referring to the Calendar Question, from the sixteenth century up to our own days, places it within a very broad historical perspective, which it is impossible either to ignore or to pass over superficially.

The Calendar Question, on the basis of the testimonies, is shown not to be approached or treated independently, as though it were supposedly a neutral and non-dogmatic matter.

a. In the early phase of the Calendar Question, Papism “intended to use the question of the Calendar as a propagandistic means of deception and of causing conflict among the Orthodox, attributing to its acceptance by them the significance of recognition of the Primacy of the Pope.” [20]

b. In the later phase of the Calendar Question, Ecumenism aimed, through the adoption of a Common Calendar, at the

“approximation of the two Christian worlds of East and West in the celebration of the great Christian feasts,”

regarding this as

“the first stone for the construction of the edifice of the union of all the Churches of God.” [21]

In the end, the persistence of the pious Orthodox of the Patristic Calendar in the age-old, Patristically-transmitted Ecclesiastical Calendar finds its full vindication today, insofar as — as consistent Anti-ecumenists — they realize the golden rule that

“one must in all things follow the Fathers,”

“and it is more pious to adhere to the ancestral traditions”; [22]

“everything distinguished by antiquity is venerable.” [23]

Even before 1924, the “Julian calendar which from ancient times prevailed in the Orthodox Church” was upheld

“as the only one suitable for the Church,”

“because it is Patristically transmitted and has always been ecclesiastically ratified.” [24]

This steadfast adherence of the pious to Ecclesiastical Tradition preserves them within the blessed communion “together with all the Saints,” [25] within the bounds of Orthodox Catholicity.

And behold, in conclusion, the critical question arises:

If even the Angels, should they “disturb” what has been handed down, are “anathematized,” [26] then how can any man, being in the flesh, who disturbs and introduces innovations — and indeed such innovations — not be estranged from God? … [27]

***

D. However, as the point of reference of our present subject, we have set hope — hope in Christ; and with this we would like to conclude.

A small portion of the Orthodox, the pious Anti-ecumenists of the Patristic Calendar, by the Grace of God undertook the immense burden of resistance to the newly-appeared heresy, as well as the responsibility to labor with perseverance and hope for the awakening of Orthodox Anti-ecumenism.

These, constituting the “Little Flock” [28] and having continually before their eyes the eternal proclamation of the heaven-revealed Basil:

“placing nothing as preferable to the truth and to their own security” [29]

[we consider nothing more preferable than the Truth and our steadfastness in the right Faith],

remained firm, unshaken, and consistent with the demands of the “Orthodox and God-pleasing Resistance.” [30]

Has this perseverance of theirs borne fruit?

Certainly, for despite the violent reactions of the Innovators and the various prejudices of those who are ignorant, the resistance bore abundant fruits and is already bearing even richer ones.

The findings and predictions of the Orthodox Anti-Ecumenists were unfortunately fully confirmed; the inter-Christian and inter-religious opening of the Ecumenical Movement brought about such an alteration in the ecclesiological consciousness of the Orthodox Ecumenists that sincere and weighty confessions are now being made even by clergy of the Innovation, such as the following:

“Ecumenism, the greatest heresy of the twentieth century, proclaiming doctrinal and religious syncretism and tending toward a form of pan-religion through the equalization of Christian confessions and religions, constitutes the most deadly threat to Orthodoxy.” [31]

Confessions of a similar nature continually come to light ever more frequently and with greater force, and they vindicate the hope for the full and dynamic awakening of Orthodox Anti-Ecumenism, by the grace and assistance of the divine Founder of the Church.

“Hope,” according to the Holy Apostle Paul, “does not disappoint.” [32]

We conclude with a very characteristic text of the ever-memorable Protopresbyter Father Michael Pomazansky (Dogmatic Theologian, Philosopher, Professor of the Russian, Greek, and Latin languages, of the Russian Diaspora); this text fully expresses the hopeful perspective of our Holy Synod and constitutes a kind of “symbol” thereof:

“At this critical historical moment,” said the ever-memorable Dogmatic Theologian, “much courage, steadfastness, conscientiousness, readiness for sacrifice, and strong faith in the words of the Savior concerning the unshakable nature of the Church are required from all those who faithfully remain in Orthodoxy.

There is no doubt that in the depths of every local Orthodox Church there exists a true understanding of Orthodoxy and a readiness to rise up for Its defense.

These voices must arise and be heard.

We must not be discouraged by the apparent weakness and obscurity of these voices.” [33]

Already these “voices” are awakening, overcoming weakness and obscurity, and are being added to the front of Orthodox Anti-Ecumenism.

***

Appendix

The term Syncretism [4]

First of all, the term Syncretism is not related to the word comparison or to the verb to compare, since it originated from the Cretans, that is, the inhabitants of Crete.

The Cretans, as Plutarch informs us, [34] in times of external danger, forgot their internal divisions and disputes among themselves and thus united, so that, being joined together, they might confront the common enemy that threatened them. [35]

Syncretism, therefore, primarily means union and association despite differences, for the purpose of confronting a threat.

Furthermore, by the same term is characterized, in general terms, the phenomenon and the tendencies toward reconciliation, mixture, unification, and fusion of languages, philosophical ideas, cultures, and religions. [36]

What is particularly noteworthy during the process of this secondary Syncretism is that “possible differences are overlooked and significant similarities or even coincidences are emphasized” [37] between the parties that stand in relation and interaction with one another.

It should also be noted that the phenomenon of Syncretism is extremely ancient and worldwide, and even in our own days “there exist tendencies of religious syncretism which seek a pan-religious unity,” [37] such as, for example, those expressed through the multifaceted movement of the “New Age.”

 

References

1. Cf. Protopresbyter Fr. Theodoros Zisis, “We cease the publication of Theodromia,” journal Theodromia, Oct.–Dec. 2023, p. 487, §2. Due use and grateful reference, with corresponding adaptation, of a recent text of the Emeritus Professor Fr. Th. Z.

2. Professor of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Mr. Demetrios Tselengidis, newspaper Orthodoxos Typos, issue no. 2,489/29.3.2024, p. 2.

3. See Archimandrite Cyprian and Hieromonk Clement Agiokyprianites (now Metropolitans), Ecumenical Movement and Orthodox Anti-Ecumenism: The Critical Confrontation of One Century, Athens 2001.

4. See in detail: Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Phyle († 2013), The Patristic Stance toward Interreligious Syncretism – Saint Chrysostom and the Jews, Athens 2004, 150 pages.

https://www.imoph.org/Publications_el/BookB-9.pdf

See the Appendix, at the end of the present Text, where “the term Syncretism” is analyzed.

5. The first who used the term “Ecumenical Movement” in its modern sense is considered to be the French pastor Adolphe Monod in 1846, and from that time the term has been used periodically. “However, chiefly from the Oxford Conference (1937) onward, this term received its now customary and commonly established meaning and usage” (B. Th. Stavridis and E. A. Varella, History of the Ecumenical Movement, p. 30, publications “P.I.P.M.”, Analekta Vlatadon – 47, Thessaloniki 1996).

6. See B. Th. Stavridis and E. A. Varella, ibid., pp. 59 ff., 65 ff., 73 ff., 81 ff., 93 ff. Indicatively: 1844 (“Young Men’s Christian Association” / YMCA); 1855 (“Young Women’s Christian Association” / YWCA); 1854 ff. (convocation of various conferences of international missionary organizations); 1910 (First World Missionary Conference); 1914 (“World Alliance for Promoting International Friendship through the Churches”); 1921 (International Missionary Council); 1925 (First World Conference of “Life and Work”); 1927 (First World Conference of “Faith and Order”). The last two World Movements, “Life and Work” and “Faith and Order,” constituted chiefly the nucleus and infrastructure for the establishment of the “World Council of Churches.”

7. Cf. Rom. 6:17.

8. “Without precedent in Church history.” The statement belongs to the first General Secretary of the “W.C.C.,” Dr. Visser ’t Hooft. See George Tsetsis, The Meaning of the Orthodox Presence in the Ecumenical Movement, in the collective volume: Orthodox Visions of Ecumenism, Gennadios Limouris (ed.), WCC Publications, Geneva 1994, p. 172, § The history of Orthodox presence.

9. John N. Karmiris, Dogmatics, Vol. V, Orthodox Ecclesiology, p. 243 and note (see also pp. 241–242, 271–272), Athens 1973. For the sake of “the whole body of the Church,” the “entire Christian body,” it is deemed necessary that there be established among the Churches: “rapprochement” (5 times), “communion” (twice), “connection” (4 times), “friendship” (once), and “co-operation” (once).

10. B. Th. Stavridis and E. A. Varella, op. cit., pp. 332–336 (Encyclical of 1920).

11. Archimandrite Epiphanios I. Theodoropoulos, “The Joint Celebration of Pascha,” journal Enoria, no. 549 / 10.5.1974, p. 112, emphasis ours.

12. Christos Yannaras, Truth and the Unity of the Church, pp. 197–198, Grigoris Publications, Athens 1977.

13. The Churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Serbia, and Romania replied to the Church of Constantinople by letters and praised it for the initiative of the “Encyclical.” See M. P. G. Tsetsis, The Contribution of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to the Establishment of the World Council of Churches, pp. 82–86, op. cit.

14. The “Encyclical” of 1920 was accepted pan-Orthodoxly by the “First Pan-Orthodox Conference of Rhodes” (1961), which, in the “List of the subjects of the forthcoming Pan-Orthodox Pre-Council,” and more specifically in the subdivision “V. Relations of the Orthodox Church with the rest of the Christian world” and in the topic “VI. Orthodoxy and the Ecumenical Movement,” provides for “the presence and participation of the Orthodox Church in the Ecumenical Movement in the spirit of the Patriarchal Encyclical of 1920” (see Ioannes Karmiris, D.S.M., pp. 984 [1082]–985 [1083], op. cit.).

15. Gregory Larentzakis, “Basic principles for the preservation and restoration of Christian unity — Orthodox views,” E.P.E.TH.CH., vol. Aʹ, p. 351, ch. III, Athens 1987.

By the same author, ibid., pp. 352–365, where the “Steps” are analyzed, which — according to the Ecumenists — “can immediately and without dogmatic or canonical impediments be implemented, or where they are already implemented, be strengthened and intensified” (p. 351).

16. Metropolitan Antonie (Plămădeală) of Transylvania, “Contemporary Orthodoxy — Contemporary World. Problems of contemporary Orthodoxy and especially its relations with the Ecumenical Movement,” journal Ekklesia, no. 13/1–15.9.1994, p. 501a, emphasis ours.

17. Patriarch Jeremias II of Constantinople (1572–1594), Letter to the Doge of Venice, Mr. Nikolaos Daponte. See K. N. Sathas, Biographical Sketch concerning Patriarch Jeremias II, p. 28, Athens 1870.

18. I. Sokolov, The Question concerning the Reform of the Calendar as judged by the Orthodox Churches of the East, Petrograd 1910. See Gregorios Papamichael, On the Calendar Reform, journal Pantainos of Alexandria, no. 39 / 10.6.1910, pp. 624–628.

19. Ibid.

20. Metropolitan Kallinikos of Kyzikos, Pascha. See journal Orthodoxia of Constantinople, no. 12/1927, p. 509.

21. Dionysios M. Batistatos (ed.), Proceedings and Decisions of the Pan-Orthodox Congress in Constantinople (10.5–8.6.1923), pp. 57 and 189, Athens 1982.

22. Hieromonk Meletios Pegas, Alexandrian Tome concerning the Paschalion, pp. 145 and 153. See Lettres de Meletius Pigas antérieures à sa promotion au Patriarcat, by Emile Legrand, Paris 1902.

23. Seventh Holy Ecumenical Council, Mansi, vol. 13, col. 252B and col. 328E, Act VI, Volumes III and VI.

24. Encyclical of 1902, Patriarch Joachim III. See Vasileios Th. Stavridis – Evangelia A. Varella, op. cit., p. 325.

25. Eph. 3:18.

26. Gal. 1:8–9.

27. St. Theodore the Studite, PG, vol. 99, col. 1033D, Epistle 36, to Euprepianos and those with him, E.L.I.

28. Luke 12:32.

29. St. Basil the Great, PG, vol. 32, col. 925BC, Epistle 245, to Bishop Theophilos, E.L.II.

30. St. Theodore the Studite, PG, vol. 99, col. 1045D, Epistle 39, to Abbot Theophilos, E.L.I.

31. Archimandrite Spyridon Sp. Bilalis, Orthodoxy and Papism, vol. II, p. 598, 1st edition, “Orthodoxos Typos” Publications, Athens 1969.

32. Rom. 5:5.

33. Protopresbyter Fr. Michael Pomazansky (1888–1988), The Church of Christ and the Contemporary Movement for Unity in Christianity, in the collected volume of his articles in English Selected Essays, p. 230, Holy Trinity Monastery, Jordanville, New York, USA, 1996.

34. Plutarch, Moralia, 490AB: “Furthermore, it is fitting to recall that practice of the Cretans, who, although often engaging in factional strife and warfare among themselves, whenever external enemies attacked, ceased their conflicts and united; and this was what they called ‘syncretism.’”

35. “The Cretans say ‘to syncretize’ when war arises against them after they have united; for they were continually in factional conflict” (Etymologicum Magnum, 732, 54, ed. T. Gaisford, Oxford 1848). From this also derives the verb: syn-kritizō — syncretizō.

37. N. I. Louvareos, “Syncretism,” in M.E.E. – Pyrsós, vol. 22, p. 487bc, Athens 1933; P. K. Pallis, “Syncretism,” in Th.H.E., vol. 11, cols. 512–513, Athens 1967; I. S. Alexakis, “Syncretism,” in N.E.L. Helios, vol. 17, p. 348b; N. Makris, “Syncretism,” in Introductory Dictionary of Political Terms and Philosophy, pp. 372–373, Athens 1990; E. N. Roussos, “Syncretism,” in E.E.E., vol. 21, Religions, p. 376cd, Ekdotiki Athinon, Athens 1992; Stratis Psaltos, “Syncretism,” in Dictionary of Religious Studies, pp. 508–509, “Ellinika Grammata” Publications, Athens 2000.

37. Nikos Makris, op. cit., p. 373.

 

Greek source:

https://www.imoph.org/pdfs/2024/06/07/20240607b1924-2024-omilia.pdf

Saint Theodore the Recruit was … a “Cyprianite”!

Nikolaos Mannis | February 27, 2026

 

 

Among the many accusations (whether public or covert) that have been launched against the present writer is that he happens to be a “Cyprianite.” The accusers, of course, when speaking of “Cyprianism,” mean the patristic teaching which we received from Saint Chrysostomos, formerly of Florina, namely, that we should not regard those subject to judgment as automatically outside the Church when they fall into some false doctrine, but should accept their institutional role (despite temporary non-communion with them) until the convocation of a competent Synod.

To these accusers I fraternally recommend that they read the Synaxarion of the Saturday of the First Week of the Fast, in which is included the Miracle of the Kollyva of Saint Theodore the Recruit. As is well known, the apostate emperor Julian defiled the food of the City (he sprinkled it with the blood of pagan sacrifices) in order to contaminate the Christians. But (the Synaxarion continues),

“the all-seeing eye of God, which seizes the wise in their craftiness, and ever provides for us His servants, also dissolved the impure schemes of the Apostate against us; for to Eudoxios, the Archbishop of the City—though not holding correct doctrine, yet possessing the dignity—He sends His great prize-bearing athlete Theodore, he who was from the corps of the Tyronian regiment, being called the Tyro [i.e., Recruit]. And indeed, appearing to him in waking vision and not in a dream, he spoke thus: ‘Rise with all haste, gather together the flock of Christ, and command with certainty that no one purchase anything whatsoever from what is set forth in the marketplace; for these things have been defiled with the blood of sacrifices by the most impious emperor.’ And when he was perplexed and asked, ‘How would this be easy for those who do not have provisions readily at home, so as not to buy from what is set forth in the marketplace?’ the Saint, providing kollyva, said to him, ‘Relieve their need with these.’ And when he remained perplexed and, not knowing what these might be, inquired what the kollyva were, the great Theodore said: ‘Boiled wheat; for thus we are accustomed to call it in Euchaita.’ And when the Patriarch sought to ascertain who it was that thus provided for the people called by Christ’s name, the Saint again said: ‘I am Theodore, the Martyr of Christ, who has now been sent by Him as your helper.’ Thereupon the Patriarch immediately arose and, having announced to the multitude what had been seen, and having thus acted, preserved the flock of Christ undefiled from the scheme of the enemy and apostate.”

To whom did Saint Theodore appear in order to protect the faithful? To Eudoxios! Do you know who Eudoxios was, dear “anti-Cyprianites”? Eudoxios was the official Patriarch (Archbishop) of Constantinople during the years 360–369 (and naturally also during the period when Julian reigned, that is, during the years 360–363), who, however, was Arian-minded and led the then very powerful faction of the Homoeans (owing to the support of the previous emperor, Constantius). The Eudoxians were officially condemned by the Second Ecumenical Council — see Canon I. The Genuine Orthodox of Constantinople at that time (whom Saint Gregory the Theologian came to shepherd in 369 as Bishop of Sasima) were “few and disorganized, having no ecclesiastical organization, and not a single church belonged to them, all having been seized by their opponents” (Basil of Anchialos [later of Smyrna], On Saint Gregory the Theologian, Athens, 1903).

Why did Saint Theodore not appear to some G.O.C. of that time, but rather to the heresy-minded and potentially heretical (by penalty) Eudoxios? Because he then represented the institution! And how does the Saint refer to the followers of the official Church? “The flock of Christ”! Whereas today’s G.O.C., the simple faithful who follow the official Church, not only call them “schismo-heretics,” but even rebaptize them as though they were not Christians at all!

Brethren, things are very simple. Yes, we must separate ourselves from heresy-minded Bishops so as not to be condemned together with them, but we must not usurp the judgment of the competent Synod and consider them outside the Church and without Divine Grace and Mysteries.

Our Saints (Chrysostomos of Florina, Ieronymos of Aegina, John of Amfiali, and others) held this view, in contrast to Matthew, Kalliopios, Kallinikos, and that ill-starred company…

 

Greek source: https://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2026/02/blog-post_27.html

The three great calamities in Orthodoxy during the five-year period 1919–1924

Monk Vlasios the Athonite

Greek source: Ὀρθόδοξος Τύπος, no. 2200/February 16, 2018.

Metropolis of Oropos and Phyle note: We publish this present “difficult” article simply and only because, in general lines, it confesses great truths. Otherwise, it contains certain positions and evaluations with which we disagree.

 

 

A diabolical envy and a tempting hand fell upon the Orthodox Church during those wretched years of the trials of the race of the Greek Orthodox Christians (1919–1924).

The national calamities were not enough: the many losses in living manpower of the Greek Army during the Balkan Wars (1912–1913) against the Turks and the Bulgarians, the persecutions and massacres of the Greeks of Asia Minor in the cities of Phocaea, Krini, Aïdinion, and others (1914), the massacres of the Pontians (1920–22), and in general the Asia Minor Catastrophe (1922); there came to be added also, in the life of the Greek Orthodox Christians who survived the national tragedies and calamities, the division which arose, through the betrayals of Ecclesiastical Leaders, in the religious-spiritual sphere.

For the first time, the Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarchate officially entered into Ecumenism in January 1920 with that famous Encyclical, entitled: “Unto the Churches of Christ Everywhere,” after the same Patriarchate had first received, in the year 1919, the Delegation of the two Protestant churches (Heretical Communities), namely the Anglican of England and the Episcopalian of America, through which it accepted their proposal that representatives of the Orthodox Church be sent to the preparatory “Conference of the Faith and Order Movement,” which subsequently convened in Geneva from August 12-20, 1920.

***

The arch-ecumenists, who succeeded in casting the Orthodox into their nets, did not conceal from the beginning their aims and their plans.

One of them, very active, the Archbishop of Uppsala, Nathan Söderblom, wrote in 1919, saying among many things:

“The League of Nations must become a religion. Regardless of Confession, Christianity ought to be united in a community of prayers, teaching, sermons, tendencies… and this union must be manifested in an organization which shall constitute a common mouthpiece of Christianity. What I seek is a kind of ecumenical Council, an ecumenical ecclesiastical Committee, representing the whole of Christianity and so organized as to speak in the name of Christianity.”

The leaders of the Ecumenical Movement—chiefly the Anglicans—both revealed and concealed their purposes and objectives, in order to attract the Orthodox into their “System” and into their Conferences.

We have the following example. While at first they spoke about a “Conference – Faith and Order Movement,” later, in an address, the rector of the University of Oxford, Mr. Charles Gore, sent and appointed by the “Archbishop” of Canterbury, Randall [Davidson], stated in his proclamation on 16 April 1923 in Zurich the following:

“The Conference on Life and Work, without entering into questions of Faith and Order, aims to unite the various churches in common beneficial work…”

Unfortunately, in this “Common Beneficial Work” (which later developed, in 1948, into the “World Council of Churches”), the Orthodox also were caught and are dragged along until today, at times accepting whatever sacred and profane thing the directing Masonic Mind serves.

For it is known to many that the Head of the Anglican Church, formally, institutionally, and honorifically, is the reigning Queen of England, who at the same time again honorifically and institutionally is also the Head of Freemasonry in England.

It is this Freemasonry which corrupted the Anglican Church and ordered the ordinations of women as “bishops and priestesses,” and the “marriage” of homosexuals and lesbians in the churches, and also the “marriage” of dogs and animals, since they believe in reincarnation and transmigration of souls.

***

A. This is the first great evil in the Orthodox Church: the issuing of the heretical Encyclical of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, through which, for the first time, it recognized the heretical offshoots of the West as Churches, with the following eleven articles:

1. The acceptance of a unified calendar for the simultaneous celebration of the great feasts by all the Churches.

2. The exchange of fraternal letters.

3. Friendly communication between their representatives.

4. Communication between the Theological Schools and exchange of their writings and journals.

5. The exchange of students.

6. The convocation of pan-Christian conferences (the later establishment of the World Council of Churches).

7. The dispassionate and more historical examination of the dogmatic differences.

8. Mutual respect of morals and customs.

9. Mutual concession of churches and cemeteries.

10. The regulation of mixed marriages, a matter which the robber Council of Crete (2016) discussed and established to be left to the judgment of each Metropolitan.

11. Mutual support for the strengthening of religious faith, philanthropy, missionary work, and other such matters.

It is worthy of wonder how the highest clergy of the Ecumenical Patriarchate did not discern the hidden traps of entanglement and destruction of Orthodoxy set by its enemies, the Heretics.

But the wonder is resolved by the knowledge of the historical circumstance, that at precisely that time, the Greek Army was in Asia Minor and in Eastern Thrace, and for the sake of the National Interest these betrayals of the Faith were committed, in order that we might have the favor of the Great Powers.

For this reason, the Lord God was angered, and instead of national prosperity, there came a national catastrophe (1922).

All these articles, all eleven of them, entangled, confused, and merged the Orthodox with the heretical communities of Europe and America and compelled them to accept even the customs of the Heretics.

Except for the Churches of Bulgaria and Georgia, the other Orthodox Churches are being drawn into Ecumenism.

***

B. The second great calamity in the Orthodox Church was the recognition of the validity of the mysteries of the Anglican “Church,” which took place in 1922 under the Ecumenical Patriarch Meletios II Metaxakis, as well as the recognition of their ordinations, something which caused great enthusiasm among the Protestants.

However, the subsequent attack of Kemal Atatürk and the Asia Minor Catastrophe which followed, as well as the expulsion of Metaxakis by Kemal in 1923, gave rise to the causes for the non-implementation by the Orthodox of this recognition.

***

C. The third and greatest evil and calamity in the Orthodox Church (on the basis of the implementation of that Encyclical), which divided and greatly afflicted it, was the senseless and arbitrary change of the Calendar, which was decided in 1923 under Meletios Metaxakis and was carried out in March 1924 by his successor, since Metaxakis had been driven from the Ecumenical Throne by Kemal Atatürk.

***

Unfortunately today, most of the Hierarchs, instead of seeing what the roots of the evil are and removing them, wage war against, depose, and excommunicate the anti-ecumenist strugglers, in order to please those who have secularized the Church.

 

Greek online source:

https://www.imoph.org/pdfs/2018/05/15/20180515a-3-deina-Orthodoxias-1919-1924.pdf

 

 

Elder Daniel of Katounakia (1846–1929): A timeless “Voice from Mount Athos” against Ecumenism

By Nikos Sakalakis, Mathematician

Source: Θεοδρομία, No. 1 / January-March 2023, pp. 84-91.

 

 

Part I

Undoubtedly, the Teachings—Admonitions of Elder Daniel constitute a spiritual Eden, within which the inner man fully perceives the connection between Asceticism and Confession in their Orthodox dimensions. He represented the profound anti-heretical and Ascetic–Confessional expression of the Athonite monastic commonwealth.

More than ninety-three (93) years have passed since his death.

Let us recall the Scriptural word: “The Spirit of God is in thee, and watchfulness and understanding and abundant wisdom were found in thee” (Dan. 5:14).

It is true that the most ascetical Fathers, these frontier-guards and sentinels of the Orthodox spirit, are those who have articulated—raised to a high (hierarchical) position—the cycle: Asceticism–Confession, Confession–Asceticism.

These Fathers, such as Fr. Daniel of Katounakia, because they were always in continual mystical converse with the Holy Triune God, therefore confessed the Orthodox Faith with firmness, which (today) many toxic ecumenical texts of the pseudo-synod of Crete, as well as texts and statements of Patriarchs, bishops, monks, and theologians, distort.

Among the writings (studies–articles) of Elder Daniel, his work stands out as prophetic–confessional, bearing the title: “A Voice from Mount Athos concerning the forthcoming Ecumenical Council” (Katounakia, Holy Mountain, May 6/19, 1925).

Concerning the theological–conceptual structure of this study, the Brotherhood of the Danielaioi wrote (1977):

“Among His polemical works, first place is held by the work now being published in print for the second time, ‘A Voice from Mount Athos concerning the forthcoming Ecumenical Council.’ We say that it surpasses and excels the other works, because each one of those refutes only a single heresy, whereas this one repels all of them together and indicates the unerring path, by which whoever walks shall arrive at the Kingdom of Heaven.”

For the simplification of the linguistic difficulty of the text [in Greek], we clarify:

“Among his militant studies, first in rank is his work ‘A Voice from Mount Athos concerning the forthcoming Ecumenical Council,’ which is being reprinted for a second time. We say that it supplementarily completes the previous ones and surpasses them, because each one of the earlier studies examines and corrects only a single heresy, whereas the present study repels all heresies collectively, thus showing the unerring path, which, when followed, leads the faithful to the Kingdom of Heaven…”

***

At the time of Elder Daniel, the Ecumenical Patriarchate had announced an outline of a (forthcoming) Ecumenical Council with subjects including: “the revision of the entire body of Ecclesiastical legislation and its adaptation to the present condition of the Church, which would also bring forward the union of the individual Churches on arising ecclesiastical matters, as well as the ways of their manifestation, and the determination of the Paschalion on the basis of already accomplished relevant scientific studies.”

Likewise, a program for the revision of many sacred rites had also been announced by the Patriarchate, such as: “Concerning Transubstantiation; concerning Liturgical and Ecclesiastical books; concerning the Typikon of ceremonies and sacred services; concerning the time of worship, the Sunday rest and other feasts; concerning fasting (its kinds and duration); concerning sacred vessels and vestments; concerning Iconography and Music; concerning the marriage of clergy; concerning the attire of the Sacred Clergy within and outside the Church; concerning Monks and Holy Monasteries; and every other ecclesiastical or theological matter, and finally concerning the determination of the Paschalion and the Calendar.”

Elder Daniel was among the first, chronologically at the beginning of the twentieth century, to perceive the depth of the change in attitude of the ruling Church (the Patriarchate of Constantinople) toward the heresies. He understood, at an early stage, the directions of Ecumenist thought, after a life lived as a true Orthodox ascetic. Finally, he clearly discerned the vision of Ecumenism for its synodal institutionalization.

Elder Daniel responded through his work “Concerning the Forthcoming Ecumenical Council” to those matters which the Patriarchate of Constantinople had gathered together and decisively defined as the agenda of the future council.

His confessional–theological thought is structured (as a response) in the following sections, which constitute his treatise:

A) WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE CONVOCATION OF THE COUNCIL

In the course of developing unity, he writes:

“This Holy Council will not judge and censure the heterodox, but, as it is said, it will place upon the bench the First Ecumenical Council itself, as well as the others, and through revision and judgment will alter many things for the attainment of the broad and spacious way…” (p. 17).

1st Comment: Indeed, the decisions of Crete are being realized daily in successive stages, in accordance with the prophetic observations of Fr. Daniel concerning the ecclesiological content and foundation of the “New Council.”

B) THE ECONOMY OF THE COUNCIL AND THE POSSIBILITY OF ITS ACCEPTANCE

Among other things, Fr. Daniel emphasizes:

“Since the change of the Calendar brought about a great scandal and created schism among the Christ-named fullness, what then will happen when it is heard that the said Holy Council will advance such opinions, which only the carnal-minded men and those holding the views of Luther privately think and embrace?” (p. 19).

2nd Comment: Indeed, the ecclesiology of the pseudo-council of Crete constitutes a reorganization and adaptation of the content of the consciousness of the “carnal-minded men and those holding the views of Luther,” as Fr. Daniel aptly foretold.

C) THE TEACHING CONCERNING TRANSUBSTANTIATION

Here Fr. Daniel clarifies that “the precious Gifts are sanctified after the prayer of the invocation of the Holy Spirit through the blessing of the priest, as is also testified by the ancient Typika of Rome and of Gaul themselves…”

He also emphasizes: “The Papal Church, among other (many) innovations, introduced also the arbitrary sanctification of the precious Gifts as occurring with the proclamation of the Lord’s words, which is contrary to the Apostolic and Ecclesiastical Tradition” (pp. 21–22).

D) THE REVISION OF THE LITURGICAL TYPIKON

With absolute definiteness, the Elder emphasizes:

“The liturgical aspect of our Church, as well as the Typikon, which its pious fullness has followed from the most ancient times, was not established by random or ordinary men, but by Holy men recognized for extensive learning and supreme holiness, and it was confirmed through sacred Revelations by the Holy Seven Ecumenical Councils and Local Councils, possessing authority from the Holy Spirit, Who is incapable of error” (pp. 22–23).

3rd Comment: In the study of Elder Daniel (the holy father), the spirit of Orthodoxy in relation to the Revisionism of Ecumenism is correctly interpreted.

***

God willing, our reference to the remaining sections will follow in the next article. Today, amid the inactivity of many and the lack of resistance on the part of the Holy Mountain, the teaching of the holy Elder Daniel constitutes a lesson in Orthodoxy.

 

Part II

It was the 8th of September 1929 when Heaven received the holy soul of Elder Daniel of Katounakia

In a letter of condolences from the Sacred Skete of Kavsokalyvia, we read:

“…He ought to have lived still longer… The blessed one was the cauterizing fire of every innovator and a great pillar of the Athonite Commonwealth, having watered through his writings every Orthodox soul and every wavering heart.”

In our previous article (Part I), we focused our attention, as a fundamental reference, on certain sections of his prophetic work “A Voice from the Holy Mountain concerning the forthcoming Ecumenical Council.”

Glorifying God, we marvel at Elder Daniel for the prophetic and panoramic discernment with which he perceived the intentions of the future (for him) “council” in Crete, which “council,” as forthcoming, had simply been announced through thematic indications in a “Patriarchal Proclamation,” without a specified place of convocation.

We continue with a (summary) presentation of the remaining sections of his treatise “Concerning the Forthcoming Ecumenical Council.”

E) FASTING

“All matters concerning the time of worship, the observance of Sunday rest and of other days, and those concerning fasting and its duration, which are being proposed for revision and reform, aim—as circumstances loudly proclaim—on the one hand, that we should follow the broad and anti-Gospel path, contrary to the command of the Holy Gospel, for the sake of the negligent and worldly-minded men, and on the other hand, that we should brighten the expectations and hopes of those inclined toward heresy, so that they may boast that we are drawing near to them” (p. 23).

Thereafter, he refers to the roots of Fasting, which flourished in the life of the Church.

The Holy Father emphasizes:

a) “That Fasting was legislated by God and constitutes the principal means through which prayer is accomplished and the temperate and virginal life is practiced has been demonstrated by the very facts themselves, through the manifestation of so many Holy Men, both from the Old and from the New Testament” (p. 24).

b) “The proposed revision will bring not correction, but the overthrow of Apostolic and Synodal ordinances” (p. 25).

c) “If fasts, prayers, vigils, and the appointed services of the Church and the other sacred rites were merely simple forms and insignificant regulations, and not constituent elements of the narrow and afflicted path, why did the entire choir of the Holy Fathers of the Church embrace precisely these things and preserve them unto the end?” (p. 27).

F) THE MONASTIC ORDER

Today, within the faithful there exists disappointment and skepticism concerning the overall passive stagnation of the Monks in the face of the Pan-heresy of Ecumenism. Let us not forget that, in the spiritual ferment introduced by heretics throughout history, the Monks arose as peaks of resistance against heresies, with sacrifices and persecutions. For this reason, Elder Daniel presents Monasticism as a comparative examination of their life and of its form.

He emphasizes the following:

a) “The saving activity of the Monastic order, being founded (= supported) upon the basis of the Sacred Canons and institutions of the Church, brought forth countless holy and God-illumined (= deified) men, who through their supernatural struggles and God-pleasing ascetic labors raised a trophy not only against the passions and sin, but also against so many heresies, and became manifold benefactors both to the Church, through their immortal writings, and to the entire Christ-named fullness, which does not admit of even the slightest revision” (p. 29).

G) THE ATTIRE OF THE CLERGY

A manifestation of the destructive mania of ecumenist revisionism was also seen in the proposals of the Patriarchal reformers concerning a change in the attire of the Holy Clergy — that is, that priests should abandon the established traditional form.

Elder Daniel wrote:

“Concerning the attire of the Clergy both within and outside the Church, which is likewise being put forward for revision, this aims at nothing else than that our venerable and Sacred Clergy, in imitation of the Europeans, should cast off the reverent cassock and put on tight garments. Why? Because thus the European scholars desire it” (p. 32).

1st Comment: In a Memorandum of his (1970), Fr. Philotheos Zervakos, in Chapter III, entitled: “The removal of the mournful and honored cassock, hair, and beard renders the clergy effeminate and unworthy of the Priesthood,” wrote, among other things:

“The former Metropolitan of Kition Meletios Metaxakis (Archbishop of Athens) convened a Priestly conference… almost all the priests of Athens came forward willingly… What did he advise them? Hear and shudder and weep. In Europe all the clergy are shaved, cropped, and without cassocks, and we also must imitate them, lest we appear outdated and uncivilized. Then almost all the Priests, with one voice, with courage and boldness, said to him: ‘We, Your Beatitude, are Greek Orthodox; we shall never become heretics, Protestants, or Papists’” (p. 36).

Η) THE CORRECTION OF THE CALENDAR

The holy Father perceived in good time that the calendar–festal reform and Ecumenism became connected and identified with one another.

He wrote, concerning this:

a) “Perhaps the Anglicans, who desire their union with us, accepted all the other matters and sought information also concerning the Calendar, as to which is the more correct?” (p. 35).

b) “The God-bearing Fathers, all inspired by the Holy Spirit, knowingly set aside the question of correcting the Equinox as harmless, in order to preserve the essence, and so as not to come into conflict with the Ordinances of the Holy Apostles. And thus, they established for us the Paschalion, which our Orthodox Church continues to preserve… Therefore, this proposal concerning Revision signifies nothing other than the overturning of the decision of the First Holy Council.” (p. 35).

I) EPILOGUE:

“But nevertheless, with great humility and reverence, we submit those judgments which are set forth by the divine Fathers of the Church themselves, and what will occur in the event of the convocation of such a Holy Council…” (p. 37).

2nd Comment: Those of us today who stand “opposed” to the ecumenist bishops do not do so out of “personal opinion or egotistical inclination,” as Elder Daniel also emphasizes. We stand opposed to the heresy and not to the persons themselves. We seek to highlight the Orthodox confessional principles which confer upon those who are truly Orthodox their distinctive unity.

3rd Comment: The study of Elder Daniel’s treatise abolishes (for those of good disposition) the wavering between Orthodoxy and Ecumenism, establishing them firmly upon the solid foundation of Orthodoxy.

 

Online Greek sources:

Part 1 -- https://www.imoph.org/pdfs/2023/07/31/20230731aGeron-Danihl-Katounakiotis-A.pdf

Part 2 -- https://www.imoph.org/pdfs/2023/08/21/20230821bGeron-Danihl-Katounakiotis-B.pdf

When the Guardians Betray

Elder Savvas Lavriotis

Greek source: Orthodoxos Typos, issue no. 2237/November 30, 2018, pp. 1 and 5.

Shared by the G.O.C. Metropolis of Oropos and Phyle: https://www.imoph.org/pdfs/2019/05/15/20190515aFylakesProdidoun.pdf

 

 

“Why hast Thou led us astray, O Lord, from Thy way?
Thou hast hardened our hearts, that we should not fear Thee?”
(Isaiah 63:17)

“…the shepherds acted impiously toward Me, and the prophets prophesied by Baal and went after that which is profitless.”
(Jeremiah 2:8)

 

The word of the Lord is light and a lamp in our life. The Readings of the Services, the Troparia, and the Synaxaria are part of the daily life of the monk. The above prophetic passages are read at Vespers of the Feast of the Holy Great-Martyr Demetrios the Myrrh-streamer.

In our time we live, hear, and see unbelievable things. One such unbelievable, and yet true, event is also the following fact.

We read in Orthodoxos Typos (October 26, 2018, issue no. 2232), that the Metropolitans Paul of Drama and Barnabas of Neapolis, together with the Abbot of the Holy Monastery of Dionysiou of the Holy Mountain, Peter, went on the 14th of October to a Muslim (Mohammedan) cemetery, where they offered joint prayer with an Imam for a relative of a prominent businessman (a Turk).

It also publishes a photograph in which, with hands raised, they pray for the repose of the Turk. The photograph is taken from a video which has circulated and which anyone may see, and which speaks for itself.

What, then, is happening? Have Bishops and Athonite Abbots abandoned the Gospel and taken up the Qur’an, abandoned Christianity and joined Mohammedanism? Have they, in short, changed religion?

We do not wish to believe such a thing. Might all this reveal the mystery of lawlessness, something which for years has been at work through the pan-heresy of Ecumenism, and which will be the final temptation of the Church?

Already a month has passed, and we expected that the institutional Holy Mountain, the Holy Community, would have taken action regarding so serious a matter. If the old Athonite Fathers were living today, they would be weeping, as did the prophets of the Old Testament:

“…the shepherds acted impiously toward Me, and the prophets prophesied by Baal and went after that which is profitless” (Jeremiah 2:8).

So many Abbots, so many Hieromonks, Spiritual Fathers, and Monks in Monasteries, Kellia, and Sketes—do they no longer concern themselves with matters of the Faith?

The Masonic funds from Europe, with which the Monasteries “beautify” the Holy Mountain with luxury and extravagance, in order to make it more attractive and touristic, scandalizing the people who live in poverty and hunger—are these more beloved, God-pleasing, and traditional?

Do financial matters perhaps have greater value for our salvation?

But how can we remain silent in the face of such impiety! Even the stones will rise up against us.

As the least, simple, and insignificant Athonite Monks, therefore, for reasons purely of conscience and Orthodox Confession, just as we have already ecclesiologically separated our position with regard to the heretical decisions of the pseudo-synod of Kolymbari in Crete—during which the Papists, the Monophysites, and the multitude of Protestants were synodically recognized as Churches, something which is contrary to our Orthodox Faith and which we have analyzed in a patristic and theological manner in the published text Confession of Faith—so also, with the same sense of responsibility, we denounce the present event before the institutional authority of our Sacred Place.

The Athonite Abbot in question cannot be justified on the grounds of ignorance of the Orthodox Faith and the Sacred Canons: He went to a purely religious place, to a Mohammedan cemetery, and offered joint prayer with an Imam, praying for repose—not merely of a heretic, but even of one of another religion; this is unheard of. It is at the same time noteworthy, and very painful, that for the first time in history Athonites dare to participate in joint prayers and even proceed from inter-Christian Ecumenism to interreligious Ecumenism, since, recently, there have also been joint prayers by other Athonite Monks with heretical Papists inside churches, such as at the Phanar, in Smyrna, and elsewhere; and all these, among other things, boast that they are also descendants of great Neptic Elders…

For all these things, we would like to set forth—not our own personal judgments—but, as we always do, to present the Teaching of the Holy Fathers of the Church.

Let us first see what is said to us concerning the religion of Mohammed and the Mohammedans, with whom the Abbot in question and the Bishops so readily offered joint prayer.

Saint Gregory Palamas, the Athonite, one of the greatest Fathers and Theologians of the Church, when in 1354 he was traveling by sea toward Constantinople in order to mediate so that peace might be achieved in the civil conflict between the imperial court and [John VI] Kantakouzenos, was captured prisoner by the Turks, who had already occupied all of Asia Minor, on account of the apostasy from the Faith and the sins of the people and the rulers.

While being a prisoner, he was summoned three times to dialogue with the Emir of the Achaemenid Turks (certainly not like the dialogues conducted by today’s Ecumenists), as well as with the Chiones, that is, Islamized Christians; then, at the risk of his life, he confessed with boldness:

a) That there is one true God, the Holy Triune God — the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

b) That Jesus Christ is not a simple prophet, but the Son and Word of God, He who was foretold through all the Prophets.

c) That the Cross of Christ is the trophy and the banner of Christ (and he did not supposedly remove it so as not to offend the Mohammedan invaders brought into our homeland, as today’s Ecumenist Archbishops and others do).

And d) to the question of Tasimanes (a ruler), “Why do you not accept our prophet and do not believe in his book, which descended from heaven?” Saint Gregory Palamas replied with courage, bringing testimonies even from the Qur’an itself, saying:

“That Christ is testified to by Moses and by all the Prophets, and He alone is said throughout the ages to be the Son and Word of God, and He alone was born of a Virgin Mother. He alone ascended into the heavens and remains immortal, and in Him alone we hope that He will come to judge the living and the dead. All these things are also confessed by you Turks; for this reason, we believe in Christ and in His Gospel. But Muhammad we do not find to be testified to by the prophets, nor has he accomplished anything wondrous and noteworthy that leads to faith; therefore, we do not believe in him nor in the book (the Qur’an) which he delivered.” (See Philotheos Kokkinos, Life of Saint Gregory Palamas, E.P.E., vol. 70, pp. 345–373).

And succinctly he would say:

“Of all the barbarians, the most barbarous is this impious, God-hated, and utterly defiled race, who believe in a mere and mortal man — this Muhammad” (…). 

All these things are sufficiently capable of showing us how the Fathers of the Church spoke and confessed their Faith before those of other religions and heretics.

Let us also consider another Athonite Saint, the great Teacher of the Church and of enslaved Romiosyne, Saint Nikodemos, who, living under the slavery of the Turkish rule, not only did not practice diplomacy or politics with those of another religion, but on the contrary, through his Spirit-inspired writings, and by preparing many New Martyrs for Martyrdom, became the anointer of the New Martyrs and handed down to us their moving Martyrologies, as he recorded them in the New Martyrologion, writing:

“…many of these New Martyrs, having shown mercy toward the perdition of those of another faith, went for this very reason to martyrdom and proclaimed to them the truth, teaching them to abandon the darkness in which they are found and to hasten toward the light of the piety and faith of Christ, lest they be condemned in the unquenchable fire of hell” (Discourse on the New Martyrs).

We see with what boldness he writes concerning the uniqueness of the Christian Faith and of Orthodoxy, and how he reproves those of another religion, so that Christians might preserve their Faith.

But Saint Kosmas the Aetolian also, himself an Athonite, with great missionary zeal, traveled apostolically throughout all Romiosyne, over mountains and seas, and through many villages, some of which had changed their faith and others their language after unbearable pressures; he, by his evangelical and apostolic preaching, brought them back to the Patristic Faith, and in the end he himself was martyred by the Turko-Albanians.

And, as Saint Nikodemos the Athonite also writes most poetically in the hymnographic Service:

“The New Martyrs, having destroyed the ancient delusion, exalted the faith of the Orthodox and struggled steadfastly…” (Apolytikion of the New Martyrs).

“Proclaiming the glory of the Trinity, you fill the hearts of Christians with joy, and you leave the tribe of Hagar in shame, O renowned New Martyrs, the glory of the Orthodox…” (Apolytikion of the New Martyrs).

All these,

“the steadfast in soul, having been armored by the power of Christ, entered into the arena of contest, triumphing over the impiety of the Hagarenes, and proclaiming with boldness the faith of Christ” (Oikos of the New Martyrs).

Whoever, therefore, studies both the hymnographic Service and the sublime festal Encomiastic Homily of the Saint will taste something of that crucified sweetness of the love of Christ which set the souls of the New Martyrs aflame. He will perceive what the divine love of the Martyrs means, and what relation this can possibly have to the tasteless and flaccid ecumenical talk of “love” of our present-day “shepherds.”

After all these things, as well as many others which one could cite, it is now entirely clear and brighter than the sun that what is being carried out today is not at all accidental. We are now living through a complete, methodical, and deliberate apostasy from the Patristic Orthodox Faith, which is being engineered, indeed as principal agents, by the shepherds themselves—patriarchs, bishops, abbots, priests, and theologians; these too are among the signs of the times.

Patriarch Bartholomew himself, let us not forget, distributes Qur’ans, takes part in Ramadan meals, offers joint prayers with all religions, and clearly proclaims:

“We religious leaders must bring to the forefront the spiritual principles of Ecumenism, of brotherhood and of peace; but in order to achieve this, we must be united in the spirit of the one God — Roman Catholics and Orthodox, Protestants and Jews, Muslims and Hindus, Buddhists” (Episkepsis, no. 494, p. 23, Geneva 1994).

His name is commemorated seven times a day on the Holy Mountain, “as one rightly dividing the word of the truth—Orthodoxy”…

These are the false shepherds about whom, for 2,000 years, Scripture, the Apostles, and the Holy Fathers have warned us.

“But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who shall secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction” (2 Peter 2:1).

The great problem, however, is no longer them, for they have already followed the path of destruction and no longer worship Christ. The great problem is us—what are we doing in the face of all these things? This is the question and the necessity which should very seriously concern us. “He who has done and taught these things, he shall be called great.”

The diagnosis of an illness is of no benefit if we do not proceed also to its treatment; otherwise, we are merely playing games.

That which today, for most clergy, monks, and laypeople, remains incomprehensible is the matter of communion with heretics.

The term ecclesiastical communion, in the theological language of the Fathers, is weighty and possesses soteriological significance. Concerning the matter of communion, the Lord Himself speaks to us and commands us to flee far from the false shepherds—the wolf-shepherds:

“…the hireling, and not being a shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, sees the wolf coming and abandons the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them. The hireling flees because he is a hireling and does not care for the sheep” (John 10:12–13).

Moreover, when the Lord lived upon the earth, did He have any relationship, any spiritual communion, with the religious authority of Judaism—the Scribes, the Pharisees, and the Sadducees of His time?

And the Lord continues:

“…but you do not believe, for you are not of My sheep (not all sheep belong to Christ), as I said to you; My sheep hear My voice, and I know them” (John 10:26).

The sheep of Christ know His voice and have the command to follow only the true shepherds and not the false shepherds or wolf-shepherds.

And He continues:

“Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees… of their teaching” (Matthew 16:6–12).

Communion with heretics operates like leaven, which permeates the whole lump, whether for good or for evil.

And the Apostle says:

“O Timothy, guard the deposit, turning away (fleeing far away, a cessation of communion) from profane empty utterances and contradictions of the falsely so-called knowledge (Ecumenism), which some, professing, have concerning the faith suffered shipwreck (have been led to destruction)” (1 Timothy 6:20).

This teaching is expressed succinctly also by the great Father of the Church, Photios:

“The error of shepherds is the shipwreck of those in communion with them.” (P.G. 102, 698)

The Orthodox dogmatic teaching of the Church has been confirmed in many ways and by many means through the Ecumenical Councils. The Sacred Canons of the Church are of obligatory acceptance by the members of the Church, just as are the Commandments. There are no optional canons (that is, if one wishes he applies a canon, and if he wishes he does not apply it), just as there are no optional commandments.

Concerning joint prayers, the Sacred Canons prescribe, for example, the 45th Canon of the Holy Apostles:

“If any Clergyman or layman enters into a synagogue of Jews or of heretics to pray, let him be deposed and excommunicated.”

And commenting on this, Zonaras says:

“The Canon considers it a great sin… for what agreement has Christ with Belial? Or what portion has a believer with an unbeliever, according to the great Apostle?” (Pedalion, p. 84).

For about fifty years now, anyone examining the course of the so-called Theological Dialogues will ascertain that actions and choices were followed which had been prearranged within predetermined frameworks in which they were required to operate, and these frameworks were none other than the decisions of the Second Vatican Council (1962–65). All these things are expressed chiefly through joint prayers and bring about the greatest alteration in the Orthodox mindset of the people.

After all these things, the following questions arise:

a) What will be the stance of the Brotherhood itself of the Holy Monastery of Dionysiou? For in the person of the Abbot the entire Brotherhood is in communion, which means that whatever the Abbot does is in agreement also with the whole Brotherhood; for this reason, in all the documents of the Monastery they are signed “together with the brethren with me in Christ”. They commemorate his name daily in the Divine Liturgies, receive his blessing, commune from his hands, and concelebrate with him.

All these are not mere formalities; they are matters of essence, because they presuppose identity of Faith—that is, the Brotherhood holds the same Faith as the Abbot, and likewise the Abbot as the Brotherhood.

Patristic theology defines that “he who is in communion with one excommunicated is himself also excommunicated” (Theodore Balsamon); that is, those who commune with heretics become defiled, through their communion with heretics, by the very heresy itself.

The 2nd Canon of the Council of Antioch states: “He who communes with those who are excommunicated, let him also be excommunicated”, because

“from of old the Orthodox Church of God has accepted that the commemoration of the name of the bishop at the holy altar constitutes full communion with him” (Athonite Fathers, Letter to Michael VIII Palaiologos).

Likewise, a serious problem also arises for lay brethren who will be received as guests, since they too will face the problem of defilement.

b) The other Abbots and the rest of the fellow Athonite Monks in Christ who will visit the Monastery—by maintaining ecclesiastical communion with them, they too will indirectly be accepting his joint prayer.

And in general, what stance will the Athonites take? Will they continue to tolerate this ecumenical course of the Monastery, which many other Monasteries also follow?

c) Based on the above, the question posed to the Holy Community is what it intends to do.

What is fitting according to the sacred institutions of our Sacred Place is to convene an extraordinary Assembly for the swift resolution of the matter, which is already being widely discussed both within and outside the Holy Mountain.

We remind that formerly the same Holy Community wrote:

“The Holy Mountain has always preserved the self-awareness that it remains, by the Grace of Christ, a faithful guardian of the holy Orthodox Faith, which the God-proclaiming Apostles delivered to the Church and which our God-bearing Fathers, through the holy Ecumenical Councils, preserved unaltered throughout the ages” (Memorandum of the Holy Mountain, Orthodoxos Typos, no. 1801, October 9, 2009).

The Holy Mountain, apart from Venerable Saints and Ascetics, has also brought forth a multitude of Hieromartyrs and New Martyrs. The defense of the Orthodox Faith unto death always accompanied their ascetical and neptic struggles, since “a life is of no benefit when doctrines are corrupted” (Saint John Chrysostom).

We pray that our Sacred Place, the Garden of the Panagia, which is so greatly honored by the whole world, may preserve the Orthodox Faith as the apple of its eye, if we wish to have the blessing, the grace, and the protection of the Lady Theotokos—Who, we recall, in the time of the persecution by the unionist and Latin-minded Patriarch Bekkos against the Athonites, who had ceased commemorating him, spoke those fearful words:

“The enemies of me and of my Son are coming.”

Therefore, as Athonites, the feasts and celebrations in honor of Saint Kosmas the First and the Hieromartyrs under Bekkos are of no benefit to us if we do not also imitate them in the Confession of Orthodoxy. The time, therefore, is a time for Confession.

One of the contemporary virtuous Elders, Elder Savvas Kapsaliotis, a man who harmoniously united Asceticism with Confession, used to say characteristically and succinctly:

“I have spent six decades in the Schema; I wish to be in agreement with the Holy Hieromartyr Kosmas the First, because there are two paths. One leads to the excommunicated and disgraced ones of the Lavra, and the other to the martyr’s crown of Saint Kosmas the First.”

We pray for good illumination and repentance for all of us.

A good Confession, so that we may also have a good defense. Amen.

Athonite Fathers

 

 

Additional Greek source:

https://www.agioritespateres.com/otan-oi-fylakes-prodidoun/