Subdeacon Nektarios, M.A.
As interest in the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece (GOC) and our Holy Struggle continues to grow, particularly among new inquirers and those within World Orthodoxy who are seeing through the deceptive narratives of the Ecumenists, the issue of saints invariably comes to the forefront. According to the majority of GOC priests with whom I am in frequent contact, they consistently tell me that this is a primary topic of interest for those considering joining the Old Calendarist Church.
Many individuals coming from World Orthodoxy were introduced to Orthodoxy through one or more of the Neo-Athonite elders canonized by the heretical Ecumenical Patriarchate. As a result, they often struggle to understand why the Old Calendarist Church does not recognize these canonizations. Another topic that frequently arises regarding saints is the accusation—propagated by various pseudo-Orthodox internet organizations and their associated clergy—that the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece lack saints of their own. These groups regularly spread propaganda among the laity, claiming that they alone possess saints and accusing the Old Calendarist Church of having none. This accusation, however, could not be further from the truth.
The first question we must examine is: Why do the Old Calendarists reject the canonizations of the “official” churches? The simple answer is that the Old Calendarist Church recognizes that the modernist jurisdictions—those who have adopted the heresy of ecumenism, the new calendar, or both—have fallen into heresy and schism. These jurisdictions have rejected the Orthodox faith as it was delivered by the apostles and have synodally introduced “another gospel” (Galatians 1:8) through their innovations.
Not only have the vast majority of modernist jurisdictions embraced the pan-heresy of ecumenism or the new calendar, but nearly all of them have willingly joined the World Council of Churches. By doing so, they have adopted its foreign and heretical Protestant ecclesiology, as required by their membership in that organization.
This initial question leads to another foundational one: Do we recognize the authority of heretics? To answer briefly, we can first turn to the Scriptures and the teachings of the holy apostles. In Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, he teaches us:
I marvel that ye are so quickly transferring yourselves from the One Who called you in the grace of Christ to a different gospel, which is not another Gospel, only there are some who trouble you and wish to turn around the Gospel of the Christ. But even if we, or an angel from out of heaven, should preach a gospel to you besides what Gospel we preached to you, let such a one be anathema. As we have said before, and now again I say, if anyone preach a gospel to you besides what ye received, let such a one be anathema. (Galatians 1:6-9, ONT) [1].
In the canonical tradition of the Orthodox Church, specifically Canon 15 of the First-Second Council of Constantinople in 861, provision is made for breaking communion with public preachers of heresy. The canon states:
But as for those persons, on the other hand, who, on account of some heresy condemned by holy Councils, or Fathers, withdrawing themselves from communion with their president, who, that is to say, is preaching the heresy publicly, and teaching it barehead in church, such persons not only are not subject to any canonical penalty on account of their having walled themselves off from any and all communion with the one called a Bishop before any conciliar or synodal verdict has been rendered, but, on the contrary, they shall be deemed worthy to enjoy the honor which befits them among Orthodox Christians. For they have defied, not Bishops, but pseudo-bishops and pseudo-teachers; and they have not sundered the union of the Church with any schism, but, on the contrary, have been sedulous to rescue the Church from schisms and divisions [2].
In his interpretation of this canon, the renowned Serbian priest and noted non-commemorator, Justin Popovich, expounds upon Canon 15 of the First-Second Council of Constantinople in a manner identical to the canon itself, stating:
In regard to this matter, it decreed that should a bishop publicly confess some heresy already condemned by the Holy Fathers and previous councils, one who ceases to commemorate such a bishop even before conciliar condemnation not only is not to be censured, but should be praised as condemning a false bishop. In so doing, moreover, he is not dividing the Church, but struggling for the unity of the Faith (Canon Fifteen). [3].
Continuing to examine the question of whether public preachers of heresy have any authority as clergy, we can turn to Kyriakos Kyriazopoulos, an Orthodox canonist and professor of Ecclesiastical Law at the Law School of Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, who writes:
It is a common occurrence in Church history for pseudo-synods to condemn Orthodox clergy to deposition, which, however, is ecclesiologically and canonically null and void, as it is carried out by heretical bishops (e.g., the pseudo-synod of Hieria in 754 condemned Saint John of Damascus, then a hieromonk, to deposition and excommunication; the pseudo-synod convened by Patriarch John Kalekas of Constantinople, with the participation of the Patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem in 1344, condemned Saint Gregory Palamas, then a hieromonk, to deposition and excommunication). This means that if a synod adhering to heresy condemns an Orthodox priest who publicly confesses and proclaims the Orthodox dogmas, and who engages in theological critique of the heresy introduced pseudo-synodically or of the heresy publicly preached by the bishop, and ceases the commemoration of the bishop because the latter adheres to the heretical decisions of the pseudo-synod or because he publicly preaches heresy, then the priest in question, condemned to an ecclesiologically and canonically void deposition, continues to perform his priestly duties normally without awaiting the lifting of his deposition by an Orthodox synod or an Orthodox bishop.
Specifically, Saint Cyril of Alexandria, in his Third Letter to Archbishop Nestorius of Constantinople, writes: “We are in communion with all those who are separated from your piety because of the Faith or who have been deposed, whether laypeople or clergy. For it is not just to allow those who think rightly to suffer injustice through your sentences, for they have rightly opposed you, doing well.” (P.G. 77, 108A).
Likewise, Saint Cyril of Alexandria, in his Letter to the faithful of the Church of Constantinople who ceased commemorating or communing with their Archbishop Nestorius, writes:
“Always rekindling this faith within yourselves, keep yourselves spotless and blameless, neither communing with the one mentioned (meaning Nestorius) nor attending to him as a teacher, if he remains a wolf instead of a shepherd and continues, even after this reminder from us to him, to hold to his distorted beliefs. And as for the clergy or laypeople who are separated from him or deposed by him because of the true Faith, we are in communion with them, not upholding his unjust sentence, but rather praising those who have suffered. To them, we say this: If you are reproached in the Lord, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you.” (P.G. 77, 124A) [4].
As we can see from a brief examination of the Scriptures, canons, canonical interpretations, and the Church Fathers, remaining in communion with a publicly preaching heretical bishop or synod is not required. In fact, the severance of Eucharistic communion with these heretics is necessary. This also demonstrates that heretics do not possess the authority of bishops, as they are, in reality, pseudo-bishops. When considering heretics, we can look at their condemnation not only from an ecclesiastical perspective but also from the standpoint of Roman law, as written by Emperor Saint Theodosios the Younger in his Roman Code, where he addresses heretics, stating:
It is Our will that all the peoples who are ruled by the administration of Our Clemency shall practice that religion which the divine Peter the Apostle transmitted to the Romans, as the religion which he introduced makes clear even unto this day. It is evident that this is the religion that is followed by pontiff Damasus and by Peter, bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic sanctity; that is, according to the apostolic discipline and the evangelic doctrine, we shall believe in the single Deity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, under the concept of equal majesty and of the Holy Trinity.
We command that those persons who follow this rule shall embrace the name of Catholic Christians. The rest, however, whom We adjudge demented and insane, shall sustain the infamy of heretical dogmas, their meeting places shall not receive the name of churches, and they shall be smitten first by divine vengeance and secondly by the retribution of Our own initiative, which We shall assume in accordance with the divine judgment (28 February 380) [5].
With all of the aforementioned in mind, and in light of the clear teaching of the Orthodox Church that heretics or schismatics ‘because the origin of separation arose through schism, and those who had apostatized from the Church no longer possessed the grace of the Holy Spirit, for it ceased to be imparted when the continuity was broken. The first separatists had received their ordination from the Fathers and possessed the spiritual gift through the laying on of hands. But those who were broken off had become laymen, and, because they are no longer able to confer the grace of the Holy Spirit upon others from which they themselves have fallen away, they have no authority either to baptize or to ordain,’ much less the authority to determine who is glorified within the boundaries of the Church they themselves have departed from [6].
If we can continue to recognize any degree of heretic, schismatic, or renovationist power as authoritative, can we, therefore, theoretically recognize the canonizations of the Arians, Nestorians, Monophysites, Monothelites, and Apollinarians, as well as present-day adherents of the heresy of ecumenism, who blur the ecclesiological boundaries of the Orthodox Church? Of course, the answer is absolutely not. We cannot recognize the authority of anyone who preaches another gospel. Since we do not recognize their authority as canonical clergymen, we also do not recognize their authority to determine the sanctity of others or to officially proclaim their glorification as saints of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
The next issue that needs to be addressed is the propaganda spread by online organizations claiming that the Old Calendarist Church has not produced any saints of its own. To provide a few examples of saints and elders who were, in fact, members of the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece and are simultaneously recognized as grace-filled ‘contemporary elders’ even by New Calendarists, we can refer to the well-known publication The Great Gerontikon of Virtuous Athonites of the Twentieth Century, written by the New Calendarist Athonite monk Father Moses of Mount Athos (†2014).
This three-volume work contains over 1,600 pages of material on these elders, many of whom were Old Calendarists as well as Zealot non-commemorators. Some of these God-bearing elders, who were part of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece and are included in The Great Gerontikon, include Elder Eugenios (Lemonis) of Piraeus, Elder Kallinikos the Hesychast, Elder Avvakum the Barefoot, and the recently glorified Saint Ieronymos Agiopavlitis of Crete.
Other saints of the Old Calendarist Church include Saint Catherine Routis the New Martyr, Saint Chrysostomos of Florina, Saint Ieronymos the Hesychast of Aegina—who is publicly lauded as a saint even by New Calendarist figures such as Father Peter Heers of Orthodox Ethos—New Hieromartyr Joseph of Desfina, Saint John the New Merciful, Saint Myrtidiotissa of Klissoura, as well as the Romanian Old Calendarist Saint Glicherie of Romania, who is still recognized as a saint by the ROCOR-MP.
This is only a small list of the already glorified saints and ‘contemporary elders’ of the Old Calendarist Church who are recognized as God-bearing even among New Calendarist innovators. Unfortunately, many of the lives of these confessors of the faith—especially among the Athonite elders—have been historically revised so that their jurisdictional affiliation is purposefully hidden, leaving those outside of Greece none the wiser. As we have clearly established, the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece does, in fact, have saints of its own—many of whom are even recognized as sanctified and God-bearing by the same New Calendarists who refer to the Old Calendarist Church as schismatic. We must now examine a few examples of statements and actions attributed to certain New Calendarist saints that naturally call their authenticity into question from the perspective of the Old Calendarist Church.
One well-known ‘contemporary elder’ who has gained a massive following among the New Calendarist innovators is Father Paisios the Athonite. This elder is frequently praised for his anti-ecumenical stance and strict adherence to Orthodox tradition. However, a significant issue arises when we consider that Father Paisios did not uphold the Orthodox stance concerning public preachers of heresy, which requires ceasing liturgical and prayerful communion with such individuals. Instead, he insisted on maintaining communion with Patriarch Bartholomew, a staunch ecumenist and unrepentant heretic. Patriarch Bartholomew is recognized not only by the Old Calendarists as a heretic but also by many New Calendarists as a grievous violator of Orthodox tradition and piety.
Father Paisios is quoted on a prominent New Calendarist website as saying about Patriarch Bartholomew: “He is a genuine missionary and professor of the desert,” and “God gave us during these difficult times the best Patriarch” [7]. It is perplexing that an elder so lauded for his Orthodox phronema and his supposed fight against the heresy of ecumenism would recognize the most heretical Ecumenical Patriarch in the past century as a God-given leader and “professor of the desert,” implying that he was a kind of ascetic father. Furthermore, in 1992, on Mount Athos, Father Paisios went so far as to receive the blessing of Patriarch Bartholomew, despite the latter’s blatant participation in the heresy of ecumenism and Father Paisios’ alleged convictions against the heresy of ecumenism [8].
Lastly, we must consider a false prophecy attributed to Father Paisios, given to a Greek military general named Grapsas. This supposed prophetic conversation goes as follows:
General Grapsas: “I can’t take any more elder, I’m going to retire from the military.
The Elder turned, looked at him and said:
Father Paisios: “You will not resign; you will be the leader of our country’s defense staff when the Turks will attack us.”
Everyone looked, full of amazement.
People: “And when will this happen, Elder” they asked him?
Father Paisios: “When it will be the time for spinach” he told them, and he changed the subject Many years have passed since then, Elder Paisios "fell asleep" and the officer remained in the army and progressed.
He is the Chief of General Staff until Thursday, August 6, Mr. Grapsas..." Of course, "the time for spinach" has passed and General Mr. Grapsas has already been demobilized. However, neither the Turks attacked our country, nor is Mr. Grapsas anymore the commander of the army. Thus, the prophecy of the saintly Elder Paisios, presented by the calendarists, was proven false. [9].
In a letter written by Father Paisios concerning the heresy of Ecumenism, we encounter yet another troubling example of his outright rejection of the patristic methodology rooted in the Scriptures, the apostles, the Church Fathers, and the canons. Instead, he prioritized remaining in communion with a heretical patriarchate at all costs. In his flawed ecclesiology, Father Paisios appeared to place greater importance on maintaining communion with a heretic within the "official church" than on adhering to the apostolic and patristic commands to flee from unrepentant preachers of heresy. Teaching the exact opposite of the scriptural commands and the examples set by Saint Maximus the Confessor, Saint Ambrose of Milan, Saint John Chrysostom, the Russian Catacomb Saints, and many others, Father Paisios writes:
With just such a worldly love the Patriarch takes us to Rome. While he should have shown love first to us his children and to our Mother Church, he unfortunately sent his love very far away. The result, it's true, delighted the secular children who love the world—who have this worldly love—, but completely scandalized us, the children of Orthodoxy, young and old, who have fear of God...
With sadness I must write that among all the "unionists" I've met, never have I seen them to have either a drop or shred of spirituality. Nevertheless, they know how to speak about love and union while they themselves are not united with God, for they have not loved Him.
I would like tenderly to beseech all our unionist brothers: Since the issue of the union of the Churches is something spiritual, and we have need of spiritual love, let's leave it to those who greatly love God and are [genuine] theologians, like the Fathers of the Church—not the legalists—who have offered up and continue to give themselves in service to the Church (instead of just buying big candles), and who were and are lit by the fire of love for God rather than by the lighter of the church sacristan…
We should recognize that there exist not only natural but also spiritual laws. Therefore, the future wrath of God is not averted by a convocation of sinners (for then we shall receive double the wrath), but by repentance and adherence to the commandments of the Lord.
Also, we should know well that our Orthodox Church does not have even one shortcoming. The only apparent insufficiency is the shortage of sober Hierarchs and Shepherds with a Patristic foundation. "Few are chosen." This should not, however be upsetting. The Church is Christ's Church, and He governs Her. It is not a Temple built by the pious from rocks, sand and mortar, which is then destroyed by the fire of barbarians; the Church is Christ Himself. "And whosoever shall fall on this Stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder." (Matt. 21:44-45)
When He must needs, the Lord will bring forth the Mark of Ephesuses and Gregory Palamases, so as to bring together all our scandalized brethren, to confess the Orthodox Faith, to strengthen the Tradition, and to give great joy to our Mother, the Church.
In times past we see that many faithful children of our Church, monastics and laymen, have unfortunately broken away from Her on account of the unionists. In my opinion, separation from the Church each time the Patriarch makes a mistake is not good at all. From within, close to the Mother Church, it is the duty and obligation of each member to struggle in their own way. To cease commemoration of the Patriarch; to break away and create their own Church; and to continue to speak insultingly to the Patriarch: this I think, is senseless [10].
Moving on from Father Paisios the Athonite, we now turn to another New Calendarist elder recently glorified by the heretical Patriarchate of Constantinople: Father Iakovos of Evia. According to many New Calendarists, Father Iakovos was another staunch confessor of Holy Orthodoxy who also fought against and rejected the heresy of ecumenism. However, in a recent biography written about him, The Garden of the Holy Spirit: Elder Iakovos of Evia by Professor Stylianos G. Papadopoulos, we find another account of a supposed anti-ecumenist, God-bearing elder praising a heretical clergyman.
In this instance, Father Iakovos is recorded as having praised Father Bartholomew—the future Patriarch of Constantinople—prophesying that he would one day become Patriarch and even thanking God for the election of a servant of antichrist. In this text, we read:
On February 10, 1989 [the then Metropolitan of Chalcedon and now Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew] visited the monastery and served Divine Liturgy. The Elder was particularly pleased and “prophesied” to him with certainty (while Patriarch Demetrios was still in good health): “You will become Patriarch! You will shepherd Christ’s Church. I pray that you visit St. David’s monastery as Patriarch.” The Elder offered him an icon and gave him also a sprig of basil for Patriarch Demetrios with a request to “pray for our monastery.” Two years later, humble Demetrios slept, and the issue of a new Patriarch arose. In October 1991, the Elder was informed by a visiting priest that the Turkish government was considering removing the names of the synodical metropolitans from the list of candidates. The Elder went to church, prayed to St. David, and came back to the priest: “I prayed, Father, to St. David. ‘St. David,’ I told him, ‘you have surely granted all my requests so far. Now, I don’t know how, but just go to Turkey, meddle up the Turks and their papers, and see that Fr. Bartholomew is elected Patriarch!” When later on he learned that Bartholomew was indeed elected Patriarch, he rose up shining with joy, he made the sign of the cross, and repeated thrice: “Glory to You, O God!” [11].
In a more recent and controversial glorification from the heretical patriarchate we have the case of “Eldress” Gabrielia Papagianni, known to be such an offensive syncretistic ecumenist, even among the new calendarist of Greece, that her glorification was protested by the Official State Church of Greece and the Metropolis of Piraeus. The New Calendarist Metropolis of Piraeus, Office of Sects & Heresies in a public statement warns the faithful about the dubious teaching and reputation of this monastic saying,
This case pertains to a nun named Gabrielia Papagianni (1897-1992), whose life, purportedly apostolic activities, and teachings have been published in a voluminous book (approximately 500 pages) by another nun, who is evidently her subordinate, also named Gabrielia and titled "The Asceticism of Love." This book has been thoroughly studied by Father Vasileios Speliopoulos, who subsequently published a well-founded and fully documented critique titled "Critiques and Comments on the Content of the Book 'The Asceticism of Love,'" prefaced by Archpriest Sarantis Sarantos. The spiritual damage that has arisen from the circulation of this book is incalculable, given that it is currently in its 13th edition and has already been used in many parishes as a catechetical manual […] In the following paragraphs, we will provide a brief commentary on the book after first presenting some biographical details of the aforementioned nun.
More Specifically:
Reference is made to "the many non-Christian and heterodox friends of the Elderess with whom she maintained relationships throughout her life, without ever attempting to convert them, or even engage in the slightest effort to do so. On the contrary, she often regarded them as saints (e.g., pages 212 and 407) or role models for Christians (p. 72), and, therefore, conversed with them about God (but which God?)" (page 4).
There is mention of "the close relationship of the Elderess with the Quaker heresy" (page 5). Quakers are members of a Christian Anti-Trinitarian denomination known as the Religious Society of Friends, founded in the 17th century in England by a traveling preacher named George Fox. According to the author of the critique, "their work [the Quakers] in Thessaloniki is promoted as significant, while she [the Elderess] herself holds positions as director in their school and as an evangelist. Who, however, could ever believe that if her views and interpretation of the Gospel did not entirely align with those of the heresy, they would entrust her with these two unquestionably critical positions in such an anti-Trinitarian sect? In addition, the reader is intentionally given the impression that Quakers are a group of Orthodox Christians with significant work and activities, an erroneous and highly misleading impression, even proselytizing" (page 5).
Also, in the criticized book (pages 50-51), a comparison is made between Guruistic techniques and Orthodox perspectives. The Elderess believes that in Orthodox Monasticism, as well as in Hinduism, it is common for the ascetic to attempt to become invisible to people, something entirely foreign and unknown in our own ascetic tradition. On page 53, Hindu worship is compared to Orthodox worship, with the "similarities" including the constant invocation of the name of God, allegedly present in both religions, with the only difference being the name of God invoked. Of course, the difference is much more significant, and the message is subtly conveyed that all religions have the truth, with the only difference being the name they give to the Divine (page 6).
Furthermore, reference is made to the veneration of mosques, and it is claimed that this "does not contradict the spirit of the book because Muslims, Hindus, and Jews all have God within them and are led by the same spirit of God, as claimed by the Elderess herself" (page 6). Specifically, it is written: "Many times they told me: Why do you consider Hindus as your own, or Muslims, or Jews? But because I see Christ Himself in them, who perhaps consciously did not recognize Him yet... And I saw many of them, through their actions, doing what led them to do God's spirit..." (page 325) [12].
Lastly, we examine yet another recent canonization by the heretical Patriarchate of Constantinople: the lesser-known New Calendarist Elder Gervasios (Paraskevopoulos) of Patras. In the life of this New Calendarist elder, he addresses the many innovations taking place in their church under the leadership of heretical hierarchs. In one notable section of his recorded life, Elder Gervasios capitulates to these innovators, instructing his disciples to obey those introducing changes into the church and preaching another gospel. In this portion of the text, it reads:
Characteristic is the Elder's answer when he was asked by his spiritual children what position they should take after the change of the Calendar. The prudent clergyman answered: "What was done is not correct, because no one has the right to change and alter anything at all, except after the calling of a general synod, such as the Ecumenical Synods, because whatever the Fathers decreed in Synods by the descent of the Comforter from on high, which so many centuries respected, and which they sealed well with their blood and handed down to us, is for every Orthodox the only appointed thing. Nevertheless, be careful lest they proceed to other innovations arbitrarily, because as I see it, this is the first step towards Papism. For the time being we will obey these innovators, remaining on guard for subsequent changes. We are being attacked from all sides. May the Lord preserve his flock, may God enlighten them” [13]
Upon examining the authority of public and unrepentant preachers of heresy, we see that according to Holy Scripture, the Apostles, the canons, canonical interpretations, Church Fathers, and other sources of authoritative Orthodox teaching, it is not recognized that such heretics possess the ability to dispense mysteries, let alone the discernment or authority to glorify saints for the Church. These New Calendarist elders, through their spoken words and lived examples, have demonstrated that they did not adhere to the patristic methodology of combating heretics. Instead, they praised heretics, prayed for their installation into positions of power, received their heretical blessings, uttered false prophecies, and capitulated to and “obeyed these innovators,” what looks to be indefinitely. Furthermore, in the case of Eldress Gabriella, she herself participated in syncretistic ecumenism. Well-intentioned as these individuals may have been, they did not uphold the Orthodox faith but instead encouraged others to remain in Eucharistic communion with unrepentant heretics—directly opposing the apostolic and patristic commandments to flee from heretics and protect the faithful from the infectious influence of such innovations.
