■ There is no “inhuman schism,” but, rather, resistance against inhuman heresy

The Calendar Question or the Heresy of

Ecumenism?*
PART I

“Ecumenism is something far worse than a panheresy;

ecumenism in the sacred realm of Orthodoxy
is a sickness unto death.”
(Prof. Andreas Theodorou)1

I. Three Articles from the Holy Mountain

A year has now passed since the beginning of the commotion centering on the
Athonite monastery of Esphigmenou, during which many articles saw the light of pub-
lication and a “dialogue”—at times acrimonious and, in any case, not impartial—was
conducted in an effort to identify the essence of the problem and to propose solutions
to it.
Among the participants in this “dialogue” was the well-known and erudite Athonite
monk, Elder Theokletos of Dionysiou. We have in front of us three of his articles, on
which we intend to comment briefly, since we consider them particularly symptomatic
of what is, to put it charitably, an erroneous and unsuccessful way of presenting the
so-called calendar question.
These three articles (hereafter, Articles I, II, and III)2 by Elder Theokletos, which
were obviously written without any circumspection or equanimity, are surprising for
their innumerable derogatory characterizations of Old Calendarist Orthodox, and are
unacceptable both in letter and in spirit, and all the more so because they come from
the pen of a venerable Hesychast.
Taken as a whole, the phraseology of these texts, the positions that they advocate,
the truths that they suppress, and the author’s selective memory and sophistical attitude
constitute quite literally an insult and affront to, as well as a defamation and disparage-
ment of, the intelligence of Old Calendarist Orthodox, not only in Greece, but also all
who belong to the constantly expanding domain, both at home and abroad, of those
who struggle knowledgeably, with fear of God, and unselfishly against the panheresy
of ecumenism.
Furthermore, these articles bear witness—and we write this with heartfelt sor-
row—to the guilt complex of a monastic conscience which, although it was at one time
vibrant with Divine zeal and used to characterize ecumenism as anti-Patristic, subse-
quently proclaimed that “the crisis of ecumenism had passed, along with the unfortu-
nate Patriarch Athenagoras” (†1972) [!], and finally, today, maintains that ecumenism
consists, supposedly, in “relations and encounters of a social nature” and “certain acts
of politeness and courtesy towards the heterodox” (Article I) [!]
 II. “Let even our disputings be governed by standards of propriety”

Ecumenism, then, is not an issue for Elder Theokletos: the calendar innovation
of 1924 was simply a “leap of thirteen days” (Articles I, II, and III), and the only
“impropriety” of the reform was “the inept way in which it was carried out” (Article III);
consequently, according to Father Theokletos, the Old Calendarists had no grounds for
walling themselves off from the innovators, and their act of walling-off constituted and
continues to constitute—or so he alleges—an actual schism.
It should be noted that Elder Theokletos studiously avoids referring to ecumenism
as a heresy, while simultaneously shifting the reader’s attention to a volley of complete-
ly vulgar, ill-mannered, and unbrotherly ad hominem attacks on the Old Calendarist
Orthodox anti-ecumenists.
It is also evident that he does this under the impulse of the aforementioned guilt
complex, because he has to protect the ecclesiastical jurisdiction to which he belongs—
namely, the Patriarchate of Constantinople—against the criticisms leveled at it by the
anti-ecumenists, for whom Elder Theokletos does not refrain from employing, in an
unbrotherly and shameful manner, all of the epithets of Athonite invective:
The common herd; illiterate, ignorant, and half-educated; simpletons and igno-
ramuses; credulous, dimwitted, simple-minded cretins; animated by conceit and
diabolical self-confidence; obstinate, fanatical, motivated by irrational religious
zeal; unscrupulous, opportunists, ungodly, charlatans, deceivers and deceived;
disreputable, lunatics, schizophrenics, maniacs, demented and delirious; mentally
blind and suffering from spiritual ankylosis, collective delusion and derangement;
demonically intoxicated, etc.
In this way, Elder Theokletos succumbs prematurely to a deadly sin, since
he attempts persistently to conceal amid a thick cloud of insults, even now, at the
age of eighty-seven, the historically-
established truth that the Church of
Constantinople was, unfortunately, the
one that laid the foundations for the
syncretistic ecumenical movement in
the sacred precincts of Orthodoxy
in the year 1920, and that ever since
then the Phanar has steadfastly and
brazenly led the way in constructing
the Babylon of inter-Christian and
interfaith ecumenism. 29 June 1995: Patriarch Bartholomew and
• In what follows, we shall endeav- Pope John Paul II jointly bless the people in St.
or, by the Grace of God, to refute in a Peter’s Basilica at the Vatican, during a “concel-
“seemly” way the accusations made by ebration” on the occasion of the patronal feast of
Elder Theokletos against the anti-ecu- the Roman Church.
For Elder Theokletos of Dionysiou, this action
menists, while humbly reminding him constitutes “relations and encounters of a social
of the Divinely-inspired exhortation of nature with the heterodox”!
St. Gregory the Theologian:
But let us understand that, just as in dress, diet, laughter, and demeanor there is
a certain decorum, so there is also in speech and silence, since among the other
appellations and attributes that we ascribe to God, we honor Him as the Word. Let
even our disputings be governed by standards of propriety.3
 III. The Connection Between the Calendar Question and Ecumenism

We have repeatedly written4 that it is totally irresponsible to dissociate the issue

of the calendar from that of the ecumenical movement for the following very important
reasons, which can be fully substantiated and which, moreover, the ecumenists them-
selves invoke and cite!
First, in January of 1920, as is well known, the “Synodal Encyclical of the Church
of Constantinople to the Churches of Christ Everywhere”5 proposed, in a truly unheard-
of way—as it has been very correctly observed—, something “without precedent in
Church history,”6 that is, the establishment of a “League of Churches”7 for the benefit
of “the whole body of the Church,”8 a “body” which includes Orthodox and hetero-
dox!
With this encyclical, “the Œcumenical Patriarchate laid down the golden rule
of Orthodox ecumenism (Zander), as well as the charter for the attitude that the
Orthodox party in the ecumenical movement should in the future observe (Stavrides,
Konidaris).”9
According to the ecumenists, the “Synodal Encyclical” “constitutes a definitive
expression of Orthodox ecumenism, and also a milestone in the history of the ecu-
menical movement.”10 It received pan-Orthodox acceptance in 1961 at the “First Pan-
Orthodox Consultation” in Rhodes, which recommended “the presence and participa-
tion of the Orthodox Church in the ecumenical movement in the spirit of the Patriarchal
Encyclical of 1920.”11
One of the fundamental heresies of the 1920 Encyclical is dogmatic syncretism,
which truly represents a “grave blow to the ‘perfect doctrine’ of Orthodoxy,”12 accord-
ing to the ever-memorable Archimandrite Spyridon (Bilalis), because, on the basis of
this encyclical, it is possible for the different “Christian Churches,” that is, “the whole
body of the Church,” in spite of the dogmatic differences that exist between them,
to implement “rapprochement,” “friendship,” “coöperation,” “contact,” and “fellow-
ship,”13 under the guidance of a “scheme for practical implementation” “consisting of
eleven points.”14
The first of these points is the acceptance of “a uniform calendar for the simultane-
ous celebration of the great Christian feasts by all the Churches.”15
Since Elder Theokletos is pleased to invoke that “excellent Canonist, [his] friend,
the late Archimandrite Epiphanios Theodoropoulos” (Articles II and III), we would
simply remind him that Father Epiphanios regarded this “phenomenon” of dogmatic
syncretism, that is, inter-Christian coöperation, “with the Orthodox and the heterodox
remaining in their own dogmatic realms,”16 as “unknown and inconceivable in the his-
tory of the Church,”17 since it reeks of “appalling religious syncretism,”18 aims “at the
harmonious and tranquil coëxistence of truth and error, of light and darkness,”19 and
“can only be interpreted as a ‘sign of the times.’”20
The incontrovertible fact that the uniform calendar of East and West was on the
agenda of dogmatic syncretism and was implemented in order to promote, more specif-
ically, syncretism in the celebration of Feasts, lends a clearly ecclesiological character
to the calendar reform of 1924.
What Elder Theokletos characterizes as an innocuous “leap of thirteen days” has
led the Orthodox ecumenists directly into the domain of dogmatic syncretism and into
a practical expression of ecumenism, and this without regard to the historical origins of
the calendar question in the sixteenth century.
In confirmation of the ecclesiological nature of the 1924 reform and of its mani-
festly ecumenist presuppositions, we would remind Father Theokletos that the eleven
proposals, or “points,”21 of the modernist Encyclical of 1920 were not only adopted,
but were fully implemented in the course of the ecumenical movement, and, indeed,
were expanded to sixteen, so that today they are characterized all together as “steps
towards the firm foundation of a common Christian outlook.”22
These steps, which, according to the ecumenists of Constantinople, “can be imple-
mented immediately and without dogmatic or canonical impediments, or, where they
have already been implemented, can be strengthened or regularized,” are as follows:
1. ‘The creation of a common calendar,’ 2. ‘More regular contact through cor-
respondence,’ 3. ‘Closer relationships between representatives of the Churches,’
4. ‘Communication and “fraternization” between theological schools,’ 5. ‘The
promotion of ecumenical studies,’ 6. ‘An ecumenical spirit in universal educa-
tion,’ 7. ‘Theological dialogues and conferences,’ 8. ‘The ecumenical education
of the faithful of all confessions,’ 9. ‘The “fraternization” of dioceses of different
confessions,’ 10. ‘The common celebration of Patronal Feasts and Patron Saints,’
11. ‘The resolution of dogmatic problems,’ 12. ‘Mutual respect for mores and cus-
toms,’ 13. ‘Avoidance of the creation of new problems,’ 14. ‘Provision of houses
of prayer,’ 15. ‘Mixed marriages,’ and 16. ‘Coöperation at the broadest level on
pressing problems.’23
This syncretistic hobnobbing of Orthodox and heterodox, which constitutes almost
a de facto union, is due to the inherent modernizing tendencies of ecumenism, as the
latter was proclaimed by Constantinople in 1920, tendencies which constantly impel
one to advance from successive violations in matters of minor significance to disdain
for matters of great moment.
Let us remember that St. Photios the Great, in dealing with the evils which the
Latins had unleashed in the newly-illumined Bulgaria, first enumerates those points
that were regarded as minor (questions involving fasting), but which widened the road
for more serious matters and led to the ultimate Trinitarian heresy of the Filioque.
“Even a small violation in matters of Tradition is wont to lead to complete disregard
for dogma.”24
Elder Theokletos talks sarcastically about a simple “leap of thirteen days,” by vir-
tue of which “one day” was called “the twenty-third instead of the tenth” (Article II);
in reality, however, the syncretistic heresy of ecumenism, one of the fundamental aims
of which was the calendar reform, brought about a “transmutation of all things into
ungodliness,”25 to quote St. Theodore the Studite.
• This topic is vast and needs further dissection, because there has not been, since
1924, an “inhuman schism,” as Elder Theokletos puts it (Article II), but, rather, Orthodox
resistance against the inhuman and misanthropic heresy of syncretistic ecumenism.
For “I reckon it misanthropy,” writes St. Maximos the Confessor, “and a departure
from Divine love to lend support to error, to the greater corruption of those previously
seized by it.”26

(to be continued)

* Source: A
Ü giow KuprianÒw, No 317 (November-December 2003), pp. 292-295.
--------------------------------
Notes
1. Andreas Theodorou, ÑH ÉOryodoj¤a xy¢w ka‹ sÆmeon [Orthodoxy Yesterday and
Today] (Athens: “Orthodoxos Typos” Publications, 1973), p. 21.
2. Article I: ÉOryÒdojow TÊpow, No. 1494 (28 February 2003), p. 3; Article II:
XristianikÆ, No. 658 (971) (15 May 2003), p. 8, and No. 659 (972) (29 May 2003), p. 10;
Article III: XristianikÆ, No. 663 (976) (24 July 2003), pp. 9-10.
3. St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 27 (“First Theological Oration”), §5,
Patrologia Græca, Vol. XXXVI, col. 17C.
4. See, for example Volumes II, III, and VII in the series “Contributions to a Theology
of Anti-Ecumenism.”
5. Basil T. Stavrides and Evangelia A. Barellas, ÑIstor¤a t∞w Ofikoumenik∞w KinÆsevw
[History of the Ecumenical Movement] (Thessaloniki: Patriarchal Institute of Patristic
Studies, 1996), 3rd ed., pp. 332-336.
6. George Tsetsis, “The Meaning of the Orthodox Presence in the Ecumenical
Movement,” in Orthodox Visions of Ecumenism, ed. Gennadios Limouris (Geneva: WCC
Publications, 1994), p. 172. This statement was made by the first General Secretary of the
WCC, Dr. W.A. Visser ’t Hooft.
7. See note 5.
8. See note 5.
9. Great Protopresbyter GeorgeTsetsis, OfikoumenikÚw YrÒnow ka‹ Ofikoum°nh^ÉEp¤shma
Patriarxikå Ke¤mena [The Œcumenical Throne and the Oikoumene: Official Patriarchal
Texts] (Katerine: Tertios Publications, 1989), pp. 56, 57.
10. See note 9.
11. John Karmiris, Tå Dogmatikå ka‹ Sumbolikå Mnhme›a t∞w ÉOryodÒjou
Kayolik∞w ÉEkklhs¤aw [The Dogmatic and Credal Monuments of the Orthodox Catholic
Church] (Graz, Austria: Akademische Druck u. Verlagsanstalt, 1968), Vol. II, pp. 984-985
[1082-1083].
12. Archimandrite Spyridon Bilalis, ÉOryodoj¤a ka‹ PapismÒw [Orthodoxy and
Papism] (Athens: “Orthodoxos Typos” Publications, 1969), Vol. II, p. 492.
13. See note 5.
14. Stavrides and Barellas, ÑIstor¤a t∞w Ofikoumenik∞w KinÆsevw, p. 55.
15. See note 5.
16. Archimandrite Epiphanios Theodoropoulos, “ÑO suneortasmÚw toË Pãsxa”
[“The Joint Celebration of Pascha”], ÉEnor¤a, No. 549 (10 May 1974), p. 112.
17. See note 16.
18. See note 16.
19. See note 16.
20. See note 16.
21. See note 14
22. Gregory Larentzakis, “Basika‹ érxa‹ thrÆsevw ka‹ épokatastãsevw t∞w
Xristianik∞w •nÒthtow^ÉOryÒdojoi épÒceiw” [“Basic Principles for the Preservation
and Restoration of Christian Unity: Orthodox Viewpoints”], in ÉEpisthmonikØ Parous¤a
ÑEst¤aw YeolÒgvn Xãlkhw [A Professional Meeting at the Halki Center for Theology]
(Athens: 1987), Vol. I, p. 351.
23. Ibid., pp. 352-365, where there is an analysis of the “Steps” in question.
24. St. Photios the Great, Epistle 13, “Encyclical to the Archiepiscopal Thrones of the
East,” Patrologia Græca, Vol. CII, col. 724D.
25. St. Theodore the Studite, Epistle II.13, “To the Patriarch of Jerusalem,” Patrologia
Græca, Vol. XCIX, col. 1164B.
 26. St. Maximos the Confessor, Epistle 12, “To John the Chamberlain,” Patrologia
Græca, Vol. XCI, col. 465CD.
■ There is no “inhuman schism,” but, rather, resistance against inhuman heresy

The Calendar Question or the Heresy of

Ecumenism?*
part ii

“Was it really necessary for the Orthodox Church, the all-immaculate

Theanthropic Body and instrument of the God-Man Christ, to be
so monstrously humiliated that Her theological representatives,
including even Hierarchs, should seek after ‘organic’ participa-
tion and inclusion in the World Council of Churches.... Alas, an
unprecedented betrayal!”
(Archimandrite Justin [Popovich; †1979])1

IV. The Ecclesiological Presuppositions of the 1920 Encyclical

However, it is not only the sixteen “steps towards the firm foundation of a com-
mon Christian outlook,”2 which were fully implemented in the course of the ecumenical
movement and which include the eleven “points”3 of the modernist Encyclical of 1920,
that lend an undeniably ecclesiological character to the calendar reform of 1924; it is
also the anti-Orthodox ecclesiological presuppositions of this encyclical.
We will next discuss these presuppositions, which in essence constitute two of the
fundamental theologies of the ecumenical movement that were developed more fully
with the passage of time as the aforementioned “steps”4 were implemented.

***

• Elder Theokletos of Dionysiou, as the doyen of the Athonite élite, ought to be

fully aware of these crucial issues, since he does not belong among the “half-educated
artisans” as—in his opinion— do we anti-ecumenist Orthodox (Article III); indeed, he
engages in lofty flights of noetic prayer.
In any case, the murky cloud of the epithets of Athonite invective, within which
Elder Theokletos moves and about which we spoke in section II, becomes still murkier
for two reasons: on the one hand, on account of the very frequent references that this
Athonite Hesychast makes to himself in all of these articles, and, on the other hand, on
account of a barely-veiled narcissism, both of which are wholly foreign to the Angelic
way of life.
Moreover, the entire literary œuvre of Elder Theokletos, culminating in his auto-
biography, entitled ÉApÚ tØn Noerå ProseuxØ s¢ Xristokentrik¢w ÉEmpeir¤ew [From
Noetic Prayer to Christocentric Experiences],5 shows very clearly that he is obsessed
with his posthumous reputation!
One only has to reflect, with considerable melancholy indeed, that even today there
are secular authors who do not stoop to using the narcissistic “I,” or the first person, in
their writing....
 * * *

1. One text that helps us to interpret the 1920 Encyclical is undoubtedly the official
Synodal Epistle (Protocol No. 2672/10 April 1919) to the delegation from the Faith and
Order movement that was then in the process of being established.
This delegation, in its capacity as a preparatory commission of the “World Inter-
Christian Conference,” a body comprised of Episcopalian clergy, visited Constantinople,
requested “the heartfelt support of the holy Eastern Orthodox Church, the mother of the
Churches,” and invited the Orthodox Church to take part in a consultation.
The Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople responded and affirmed
“with ready mind and joyful heart” that it would send representatives to the consultation
in question, “thus extending a helping hand to those laboring in the same field and in
the same vineyard of the Lord.”6
It should be noted that this response, in which the aforementioned Synod expresses
its belief in the ecumenist theology of the “Wider Church”—since Orthodox and Epis-
copalians are supposedly working within one and the same Vineyard of the Lord—,
was a consequence of the “findings” of the “special commission” which had already
prepared the text of the 1920 Encyclical.7
• Let us bear in mind that the theology of the “Wider Church,” whose leading expo-
nents—apart from its two synodal formulations (1919 and 1920)—are Father Sergius
Bulgakov, Professor John Karmiris, and Metropolitans Damaskinos of Switzerland and
John of Pergamon, speaks about “the Church in the broadest sense”; about “the Church
of Christ in her totality” and “no longer about Orthodoxy alone”; about a” Church out-
side the Church,” “outside the walls, “outside the canonical limits” and “ecclesiastical
boundaries” of Orthodoxy.8

***

2. The 1920 Encyclical was composed by a “subcommittee” which “was, in

essence, the faculty of the Theological School of Halki, that is, the Principal,
Metropolitan Germanos (Strenopoulos) of Seleucia (later of Thyateira), and the pro-
fessors, Archimandrite J. Evstratiou, Deacon B. Stephanides, B. Antoniades, and P.
Comnenos. Nonetheless, there can be no doubt about the special rôle played by the
Metropolitan of Seleucia in its composition.”9
Consequently, Metropolitan Germanos was the most suitable person to interpret
the ecclesiological presuppositions of the 1920 Encyclical, something which he did
publicly, and indeed, with especial clarity, at the first Universal Christian Conference
of the Life and Work movement (Stockholm, 16-30 August 1925).
Germanos, now Archbishop of Thyateira, with his see in London, before making
his presentation to the plenary session of the conference, “referred at length to the
Encycical of 1920 and expressed certain thoughts concerning the principles that should
govern inter-Christian relations, as these had been formulated by the Œcumenical
Patriarchate,”10 based, of course, on the theology of the “Wider Church.”
‘It is necessary,’ he said, ‘that the churches be made aware that, besides that unity,
in the narrow sense of the word, which brings together the members of any single
communion into one body, there is also another, more inclusive notion of unity,
according to which all who accept the fundamental doctrine of the revelation of
God in Jesus Christ and who accept Him as their Savior and Lord should consider
one another members of the same body and not strangers. Without entering into
 an examination of the dogmatic differences which separate the churches,’ added
the Archbishop of Thyateira, ‘we should cultivate precisely this idea of wider
unity.’11
• The newfangled theology of the “Wider Church” and the syncretistic context in
which its cultivation was proposed are both very evident in these remarks.

* * *

3. Finally, the 1920 Encyclical presupposes the acceptance of yet another of the
fundamental theologies of the ecumenical movement, namely, “Baptismal theology.”
This ecumenist theology, whose chief exponents are John Karmiris12 and
Metropolitan John of Pergamon,13 maintains that baptism—Orthodox or heterodox—
supposedly delimits the Church, establishing the so-called “baptismal boundaries” of
the Church, and that, in this way, She includes Orthodox and heterodox, who are held
together by the “baptismal unity” of the Church.
The World Council of Churches is founded on “Baptismal theology”;14 Pope John
Paul II proclaimed this theology in 1995;15 Patriarch Demetrios proclaimed it in an
encycical in 1974;16 both Patriarch Bartholomew, in 1995,17 and Patriarch Ignatios of
Antioch, in 1987,18 proclaimed it in a markedly official way.
“Baptismal theology” is of such vital significance to the Orthodox ecumenists that
they affirm the following with absolute clarity:
‘For this reason’ that is to say, that ‘all of us Christians [regardless of what confes-
sion we belong to] are sacramentally and ineffably united with Christ and with
each other through the Grace of Holy Baptism,’ ‘the Œcumenical Patriarchate
did not hesitate to address its famous proclamation of 1920 “to the Churches
of Christ everywhere,” characterizing the Christian Confessions as “Churches,”
and emphasizing “that it is above all imperative that love between the Churches
be rekindled and strengthened, and that they not regard each other as foreign or
distant, but...as fellow-heirs, and of the same body, [partakers of] the promise of
God in Christ.”’19
• In spite of this, Elder Theokletos assures us, strangely enough, that ecumenism
consists, supposedly, in “certain acts of politeness and courtesy towards the heterodox”
(Article I) [!]

***

Now, can there be any pious Orthodox Christian who does not immediately and
fully understand that the 1920 Encycical, with ecclesiological presuppositions of this
kind, leads us directly into the realm of false belief? And who does not realize that the
first of its “points,”20 that is, “the acceptance of a uniform calendar for the simultane-
ous celebration of the great Christian feasts by all the Churches,”21 is clearly ecclesio-
logical in character, since it was on the agenda of syncretistic ecumenism?
• Nevertheless, it is imperative that we clarify the connection between the innova-
tionist Archbishop Chrysostomos (Papadopoulos) of Athens and the 1920 Encyclical
and, as well, the contribution of the “Pan-Orthodox Congress” of Constantinople (10
May–8 June 1923) to the calendar reform of 1924, so that we may provide yet firmer
foundations for our view that the calendar question cannot be dissociated from the
ecumenical movement.
 (to be continued)

* Source: A
Ü giow KuprianÒw, No 318 (January-February 2004), pp. 11-13.

--------------------------------
Notes

1. Archimandrite Justin Popovich, “ÉOryodoj¤a ka‹ "OfikoumenismÒw"^M¤a

ÉOryÒdojow Gnvmãteusiw ka‹ Martur¤a” [“Orthodoxy and ‘Ecumenism’: An Orthodox
Appraisal and Testimony”], Koinvn¤a (March-April 1975), pp. 95-101; ÉOryÒdojow TÊpow,
No. 235 (1 June 1975), pp. 1, 4.
2. Gregory Larentzakis, “Basika‹ érxa‹ thrÆsevw ka‹ épokatastãsevw t∞w
Xristianik∞w •nÒthtow^ÉOryÒdojoi épÒceiw” [“Basic Principles for the Preservation
and Restoration of Christian Unity: Orthodox Viewpoints”], in ÉEpisthmonikØ Parous¤a
ÑEst¤aw YeolÒgvn Xãlkhw [A Professional Meeting at the Halki Center for Theology]
(Athens: 1987), Vol. I, p. 351-365.
3. Basil T. Stavrides and Evangelia A. Barellas, ÑIstor¤a t∞w Ofikoumenik∞w KinÆsevw
[History of the Ecumenical Movement] (Thessaloniki: Patriarchal Institute of Patristic
Studies, 1996), 3rd ed., p. 55.
4. See note 2.
5. Athens: “Speliote” Publications, 2004.
6. Great Protopresbyter George Tsetsis, ÑH SumbolØ toË OfikoumenikoË Patriarxe¤ou
stØn ÜIdrush toË Pagkosm¤ou Sumboul¤ou t«n ÉEkklhsi«n [The Contribution of
the Œcumenical Patriarchate to the Founding of the World Council of Churches]
(Katerine: Tertios Publications, 1988), pp. 53-64, 236-250; idem, OfikoumenikÚw YrÒnow
ka‹ Ofikoum°nh^ÉEp¤shma Patriarxikå Ke¤mena [The Œcumenical Throne and the
Oikoumene: Official Patriarchal Texts] (Katerine: Tertios Publications, 1989), pp. 47-51.
7. See note 6.
8. G.A. Galitis, “ÑH ÉEkklhs¤a ka‹ ofl ÉEkklhs¤ew” [“The Church and the Churches”],
GrhgÒriow ı Palamçw, No. 755 (November-December 1994), pp. 537, 543; ÉEp¤skeciw,
No. 523 (31 October 1995), p. 13, No. 260 (15 October 1981), pp. 13-14, No. 517 (30
April 1995), p. 10, and No. 518 (31 May 1995), p. 16; ÉEkklhs¤a, No. 7 (1 May 1988), p.
267a; Archimandrite Cyprian Agiokyprianites, Orthodoxy and the Ecumenical Movement
(Etna, CA: Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 1997), p. 20.
9. Tsetsis, OfikoumenikÚw YrÒnow, pp. 56-57; idem, ÑH SumbolØ toË OfikoumenikoË
Patriarxe¤ou, pp. 78, 80; Stavrides and Barellas, ÑIstor¤a t∞w Ofikoumenik∞w KinÆsevw,
p. 54.
10. Tsetsis, ÑH SumbolØ toË OfikoumenikoË Patriarxe¤ou, p. 101.
11. See note 10.
12. John Karmiris, Dogmatik∞w Tm∞ma EÄ, ÉOryÒdojow ÉEkklhsiolog¤a [Dogmatic
Theology, Part V, “Orthodox Ecclesiology”] (Athens: 1973), pp. 241, 242, 243.
13. Professor John Zizioulas, “Orthodox Ecclesiology and the Ecumenical Movement,”
Sourozh, No. 21 (August 1985), pp. 16-27.
14. See George N. Laimopoulos (ed.), ÑH ZÄ GenikØ Sun°leush toË Pagkosm¤ou
Sumboul¤ou ÉEkklhsi«n, Kamp°rra^Febrouãriow 1991: XronikÒ, Ke¤mena, ÉAjiologÆseiw
[The Seventh General Assembly of the World Council of Churches, Canberra, February
1991: Chronicle, Texts, Remarks] (Katerini: Tertios Publications, 1992), p. 136.
15. Encyclical, Ut Unum Sint (25 May 1995), §66.
16. ÉEp¤skeciw, Special Issue (14 April 1974).
17. ÉEp¤skeciw, No. 520 (31 July 1995), p. 20.
18. ÉEp¤skeciw, No. 370 (15 January 1987), pp. 8-13.
19. Karmiris, Dogmatik∞w Tm∞ma EÄ, p. 243.
20. See note 3.
21. Stavrides and Barellas, ÑIstor¤a t∞w Ofikoumenik∞w KinÆsevw, p. 334.
 ■ There is no “inhuman schism,” but, rather, resistance against inhuman heresy

The Calendar Question or the Heresy of

Ecumenism?*
PART III

Ecumenism “assaults fundamental matters of Faith, and is truly a panheresy.

The Phanar, unfortunately, is its leading exponent”; “The heroic Great
Church of Constantinople, imprisoned in the Phanar, has been, for a
century now, in a new captivity following that of the
Turkish Yoke—the captivity of ecumenism.”
(Protopresbyter Theodore Zissis,
Professor at the University of Thessaloniki)1

V. Ecumenism and Anti-Ecumenism: “Soteriological Consequences”

We continue, by the Grace of God,

our critical report on three articles by
Elder Theokletos of Dionysiou, in an
endeavor to substantiate fully our thesis
that the calendar question is indis-
solubly bound up with the ecumenical
movement.
It is not possible, from an eccle-
siastical standpoint, for the calendar
question to be examined in isolation The visit/pilgrimage of Pope John Paul II
and by itself; the reform of 1924 must to Athens (4-5 May 2001), with the consent and
always be considered and examined the active participation of the innovationist
along with the ecumenical movement, New Calendar Church, left “the door” wide
open “ to the poison of heresy, syncretism, and
as a child in relation to its mother.
ecumenism.” However, that door had already
There exists such a direct con-
been opened in 1924.
nection, a causal connection, between
ecumenism and the calendar that, ever since 1924, there have not, in essence, been
“New Calendarists” and “Old Calendarists,” but ecumenists and anti-ecumenists; and,
for this reason, there is no “inhuman schism,” as Elder Theokletos contends (Article
II), but, rather, Orthodox resistance against the inhuman and misanthropic heresy of
syncretistic ecumenism.

***

This truth, that is, of the existence of ecumenism and anti-ecumenism and of the
conflict between heresy and truth, is of such very great importance that it unquestion-
ably has soteriological repercussions—and hence, the responsibility of those who over-
look it, gloss over it, or distort it is enormous.
 Elder Theokletos, we are sorry to write, on account of his lack of brotherly love
and the dense cloud of narcissistic self-references in his works, is incapable of under-
standing that ecumenism really is a “sickness unto death.”2 He regards it as consisting,
supposedly, in “relations and encounters of a social nature” and “certain acts of polite-
ness and courtesy towards the heterodox” [!] (Article I).
On the contrary, however, Father Theodore Zissis very correctly diagnoses and
proclaims, in an entirely Patristic spirit, that
by means of the ‘poison of heresy, syncretism, and ecumenism,’ ‘the spiritual
atmosphere of the Orthodox Church has truly been polluted in a hazardous way;
the ecclesiastical climate has altered; adulterated spiritual products are in circu-
lation, even in the realm of Orthodox monasticism. This is the real ecological
problem with which the leaders of the Church ought to be dealing. But instead of
taking urgent measures against this spiritual pollution and destruction, which has
soteriological consequences, they increase the pollution and continue boldly on
their ecumenist course, with the spurious argument that they are witnessing to the
Orthodox Faith and showing love for the heterodox.’3
The contrast between these views of Elder Theokletos and Father Theodore
Zissis is so glaring that we would not hesitate to exclaim, along with St. Gregory the
Theologian, who observed something similar in his own era:
“O, what Jeremiah will bewail our confusion and spiritual blindness? He alone
knew how to utter lamentations befitting our misfortunes!”4
• Furthermore, to paraphrase St. Gregory a bit, we have found that Elder Theokletos,
regrettably, debases the authentic language of the Patristic and monastic Tradition,
which was always “unpretentious and gentlemanly”: “unpretentious and gentlemanly
language was reckoned to be a hallmark of piety.”5 Monks, and especially Hesychasts,
ought to be articulate in their speech, standing “within [their] proper bounds.”6
Unfortunately, Elder Theokletos, as can be demonstrated—and this will become
clearer in the course of our argument—,“by throwing off the rider, reason, and spurn-
ing reverence, which keeps us within due limits,”7 does not follow these limits handed
down by the Fathers and does not distinguish between language which is “alien” to us
and language which is “proper” to us, either in matters of brotherly love or in matters
of Faith.

VI. The 1923 Congress, Ecumenism, and the Calendar

Evidence for the direct connection between ecumenism and the calendar is also
provided, after the 1920 Encyclical, by the “Pan-Orthodox Congress” of 1923, which
met in Constantinople (10 May–8 June 1923) and which had an ecumenist agenda. It
was on the basis of this agenda that the congress occupied itself with reforming the
Church Calendar and ultimately decided that the reform should be implemented.
On 3 February 1923, Meletios Metaxakis, as Patriarch, invited representatives
of the Orthodox Churches to Constantinople to take part in a pan-Orthodox congress,
which would reach a decision on reforming the calendar “for the furtherance,” as he
wrote, “of pan-Christian unity”8
The congress was indeed convened, and it hammered out the final step towards
the calendar innovation, because by means of this innovation the “rapprochement of the
two Christian worlds of East and West in the celebration of the great Christian feasts”9
would, allegedly, be achieved.
Patriarch Meletios, who presided over this congress, stated that the participants
would deal with “issues pertaining to the union of all the Churches”10 and expressed
the belief that “the time has come for the restoration of Christian unity, at least on this
point.”11
Likewise, the members of the congress made it clear that they were concerned with
the issue of the calendar “as members of the pan-Christian brotherhood.”12
Moreover, very symptomatic of the ecumenist agenda of the self-styled “Pan-
Orthodox Congress” was the presence, at its fifth session (Wednesday, 28 May 1923),
of the former Anglican Bishop of Oxford, Charles Gore, and his companion, the
Reverend Mr. Buxton.
On that occasion, Patriarch Meletios and Bishop Gore had an illuminating discus-
sion about the union of Orthodoxy and Anglicanism, regarding their “full union” and
about the “terms of union,” and acknowledged that “the calendar question” represented
the “second step” “towards union,” “so that we might celebrate together the great
Christian feasts of the Nativity, the Resurrection, and Pentecost,” and that “it would be
good to bring about a reform of the calendar, which would be conducive to all of us
Christians celebrating Holy Pascha at the same time” (Gore).13

***

It is, therefore, indisputable that both the Patriarchal Encyclical of 1920 and the
Pan-Orthodox Congress of 1923 were fully aware that the calendar constituted a suit-
able and necessary tool for the promotion of the ecumenist vision, that is to say, for the
realization of syncretistic ecumenism, based solely on “a fellowship of love.”14
The “acceptance of a uniform calendar” (Encyclical of 1920) “for the further-
ance of pan-Christian unity” (Congress of 1923), placed in the context of aspirations
for “rapprochement,” “fellowship,” “contact,” “friendship,” and “coöperation” “of the
whole Christian body,”15 as foreseen specifically by the “scheme”16 of 1920, lends an
incontrovertibly ecclesiological character to the calendar reform of 1924.

VII. In Communion with Heretics and Alienated from the Fathers

The fact that the Church of Constantinople, with the coöperation of other Orthodox
Churches, formulated an unprecedented and totally subversive “principle,”17 which
“constitutes one of the basic presuppositions of the ecumenical movement,”18 is a cause
for profound sorrow.
On the basis of this “principle,” the syncretistic “fellowship” and “coöperation” of
Orthodoxy and heresy, “regarding each other [henceforth] as kith and kin in Christ,” “is
not precluded by the differences that exist between them” (Encyclical of 1920), but in
fact, this “coöperation between the Churches would prepare the way” “for full dogmatic
agreement.”19
After the calendar innovation of 1924 and the implementation of the other ten
“points”20 of the “scheme,”21 the syncretistic vision was realized, namely, the vision “of
a common journey of the Orthodox with the rest of the Christian world”22 and of “com-
mon service” of the world, “regardless of the fundamental theological differences”23
between the Christians who were journeying and serving together.
After eighty years, not only the intentions and pronouncements of the Orthodox ecu-
menists, but also the entrenched practices of their syncretistic “common journey” with
the whole spectrum of the heterodox, are now so evident that the accusation which
they direct against the Old Calendarist anti-ecumenists as being, supposedly, “calen-
dar-worshippers” [!], “worshippers of days” [!], and finally, “idolaters” [!]24 is a mark,
as St. John Chrysostomos would say, “not only of foolishness, but also of the utmost
madness”!25
In addition, the following joint statement is truly tragic, and also fully confirms our
thesis about the ecclesiological nature of the 1924 reform:
Undoubtedly, the tendency to indulge in idle talk about concelebration with the het-
erodox began during the twentieth century that has now passed by, when a change
in the ecclesiological perceptions of the Orthodox not only occurred, but was also
cultivated, that is, ever since the Orthodox began to relinquish the ecclesiological
principle, enshrined in the lives of the Saints and the writings of the Fathers, that
the Orthodox Church constitutes the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church
of the holy Symbol of the Faith.26
In truth, the “common journey” of the Orthodox ecumenists with heretics has cor-
roded and corrupted their confession of the Faith in such a way and to such an extent
that they are, unfortunately, unaware that,
‘there is [already] a clear breach and rupture [on their part] with Tradition,’ and
that ‘they have cut themselves off from the Church of the Saints who are alive in
Heaven,’ ‘and, on top of everything else, are becoming enemies of the Saints,’ that
is, are maintaining ‘an attitude of hostility towards the Saints.’27

***

The Orthodox ecumenists prefer this “breach,” this “rupture,” this “cutting-off,”
and this “hostility towards the Saints”...for the sake of “furthering the pan-Christian
unity”28 “of the whole Body of the Church”!29
The Old Calendarist Orthodox anti-ecumenists, devoutly following the “glorious
and venerable rule of our Tradition” (St. Clement of Rome),30 that is, the agreement
of the Fathers and the Church (consensus Patrum et Ecclesiæ), have always believed
that rapprochement (and how much more so institutional coöperation, communion, and
concelebration!) with heretics signifies separation from the Saints; and conversely:
separation from heretics signifies rapprochement and union with God, the Truth, and
the Fathers.
St. Athanasios the Great declares, in this connection: “We ought to live according
to the standard of the Saints and the Fathers, and imitate them, and to know that, if we
depart from them, we estrange ourselves from their fellowship.”31
And St. Mark of Ephesus complements this when he says:
I am absolutely convinced that the more I distance myself from him [the Patriarch
and the other pro-Papal unionists] and those like him, the closer I draw to God and
all the faithful and Holy Fathers; and just as I separate myself from these people,
even so am I united with the truth and the Holy Fathers and theologians of the
Church.32

***

Although we have by now provided sufficient evidence for the ecclesiological

character of the anti-Patristic calendar reform of 1924, insofar as the calendar question
is a legitimate and first-born child of the ecumenical movement, we consider it neces-
sary, in order to dispel all doubts in this regard, to demonstrate the direct connection
 of the innovationist Archbishop Chrysostomos (Papadopoulos) of Athens both with the
Patriarchal Encyclical of 1920 and, more generally, with ecumenism.

(to be continued)

* Source: A
Ü giow KuprianÒw, No 319 (March-April 2004), pp. 22-25.

--------------------------------
Notes

1. Protopresbyter Theodore Zissis, “ÉÉAnhsuxhtik¢w ÉEjel¤jeiw. N°a éno¤gmata stÚ

BatikanÚ ka‹ stoÁw Protestãntew. Fanãri ka‹ ÉAyÆna ént¤paloi ka‹ sunodoipÒroi”
[“Disturbing Developments: New Overtures to the Vatican and to Protestants: The
Phanar and Athens Are Rivals and Fellow-Travelers”], Yeodrom¤a (April-June 2003), pp.
284, 288. This detailed article was reprinted in ÉOryÒdojow TÊpow, Nos. 1527-1531 (21
November 2003–19 December 2003).
2. Andreas Theodorou, ÑH ÉOryodoj¤a xy¢w ka‹ sÆmeon [Orthodoxy Yesterday and
Today] (Athens: “Orthodoxos Typos” Publications, 1973), p. 21.
3. Zissis, “ÉÉAnhsuxhtik¢w ÉEjel¤jeiw,” pp. 275, 277-278.
4. St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 21, “On St. Athanasios the Great,” §12,
Patrologia Græca, Vol. XXXV, col. 1096A.
5. Ibid., cols. 1093D-1096A.
6. Idem, Oration 27 (“First Theological Oration”), §5, Patrologia Græca, Vol.
XXXVI, col. 17A.
7. See note 6.
8. Dionysios M. Batistatos (ed.), Praktikå ka‹ ÉApofãseiw toË §n KvnstantinoupÒlei
PanoryodÒjou Sunedr¤ou, 10 Ma˝ou^8 ÉIoun¤ou 1923 [Proceedings and Decisions of the
Pan-Orthodox Congress in Constantinople, 10 May–8 June 1923] (Athens: 1982), 2nd
ed., p. 6.
9. Ibid., p. 57.
10. Ibid., p. 84.
11. Ibid., p. 14.
12. Ibid., p. 72.
13. Ibid., pp. 86-88.
14. John Karmiris, Tå Dogmatikå ka‹ Sumbolikå Mnhme›a t∞w ÉOryodÒjou
Kayolik∞w ÉEkklhs¤aw [The Dogmatic and Credal Monuments of the Orthodox Catholic
Church] (Graz, Austria: Akademische Druck u. Verlagsanstalt, 1968), Vol. II, p. 9856
[1054].
15. Basil T. Stavrides and Evangelia A. Barellas, ÑIstor¤a t∞w Ofikoumenik∞w KinÆsevw
[History of the Ecumenical Movement] (Thessaloniki: Patriarchal Institute of Patristic
Studies, 1996), 3rd ed., pp. 332-336.
16. Ibid., pp. 54, 55.
17. Ibid., p. 57.
18. Ibid.
19. Ibid. These statements are from a presentation by the General Secretary of the
WCC, Dr. W.A. Visser ’t Hooft, at a conference in Rhodes (1959).
20. Ibid., pp. 54, 55.
21. Ibid. The 1920 Encyclical proposed a “scheme for the practical implementation
 of principles, consisting of eleven points.”
22. Great Protopresbyter George Tsetsis, “ÑH ÉOryÒdojh Parous¤a stØ BÄ
PaneurvpaÛkØ OfikoumenikØ SÊnajh toË GRAZ” [“The Orthodox Presence at the
Second Pan-European Ecumenical Assembly in Graz”], ÉEnhm°rvsiw, 13–1997/1, p. 2.
23. “ÑUpÒmnhma toË OfikoumenikoË Patriarxe¤ou ˜son éforç efiw tØn ént¤lhcin
ka‹ toÁw ıramatismoÁw aÈtoË per‹ ToË Pagkosm¤ou Sumboul¤ou ÉEkklhsi«n”
[“Memorandum of the Œcumenical Patriarchate Regarding Its Understanding and Visions
Concerning the World Council of Churches”] (Phanar, 30 November 1995), ÉEnhm°rvsiw,
11–1995/12, p. 24.
24. Archimandite Athanasios Kollas (ÑIerokÆruj of the Metropolis of Demetrias),
“TÚ ÑHmerologiakÚ Sx¤sma” [“The Calendar Schism”], Website of the Metropolis of
Demetrias.
25. St. John Chrysostomos, First Oration Against the Jews, §5, Patrologia Græca,
Vol. XLVIII, col. 850.
26. “ÑUpÒmnhma per‹ OÉfikoumenismoË” [“A Memorandum Concerning Ecumenism”],
§5, ParakatayÆkh (1999), 2nd ed., p. 36. The “Memorandum” was signed by seventeen
clergymen and laymen and was submitted on 23 September 1998 to the Hierarchy of the
Church of Greece.
27. Zissis, “ÉÉAnhsuxhtik¢w ÉEjel¤jeiw,” pp. 284, 285, 286.
28. See note 8.
29. See note 15.
30. St. Clement of Rome, First Epistle to the Corinthians VII.2, BiblioyÆkh ÑEllÆnvn
Pat°rvn ka‹ ÉEkklhsiastik«n Suggraf°vn, Vol. 1, p. 15, ll. 32-33.
31. St. Athanasios the Great, Epistle to Dracontios, §4, Patrologia Græca, Vol. XXV,
col. 528B.
32. St. Mark of Ephesus, “Apologia Uttered Impromptu at the Time of His Death,”
Patrologia Græca, Vol. CLX, col. 536D.
■ There is no “inhuman schism” but, rather, resistance against inhuman heresy

The Calendar Question or the

Heresy of Ecumenism?
Part IV*
“In calling the ecumenists heretics, we are not speaking theoretically, nor are we insulting them, but we
are reiterating those things which we are obligated by the Sacred Canons to make known, to uphold, and to
teach.... The leading ecumenists are heretics, first and foremost because of their mentality; but, in addition,
they are heretics in the more general sense of ‘excommunicates,’ precisely because they have contact, in the form
of joint prayer, with heretics ‘who adhere to their heresies.’ Finally, they are ‘excommunicate’ and subject to
anathema because they are ‘unprincipled’ violators of many of the Sacred Canons of both Œcumenical and
local Synods and of the Holy Fathers recognized by the Œcumenical Synods. This last infraction would be
sufficient by itself for them to be characterized as and to be ‘excommunicate,’ even though they profess to be
Orthodox in their thinking and preaching.”
(Monk Nicodemos [Bilalis] of the Holy Mountain)1

The Phanar, 13 April 2004. Patriarch Bartholomew

officially welcomes the Roman Catholic delegation, under
Cardinal Philippe Barbarini of Lyons, which sought “for-
giveness” for the sack of Constantinople by the Crusaders
more than eight hundred years previously (13 April
1204).
“The joint prayer of the Œcumenical Patriarch and
the Cardinal of Lyons literally stunned the faithful laity,
who were flabbergasted as they watched this act of joint
prayer in the Church of St. George in the Phanar.” 2

VIII. Was Archbishop Chrysostomos (Papadopoulos) an Ecumenist?

A FULLY DOCUMENTED answer to this crucial question will demonstrate the incon-
trovertibly ecclesiological character of the anti-Patristic calendar reform of 924, and will
show that the calendar question is part and parcel of the thoroughly anti-Patristic ecumenical
movement.
To be sure, Elder Theokletos of Dionysiou, when he separates the reform of 924 (which
he regards as simply a “leap of thirteen days” ) from the heresy of ecumenism (which he
regards as consisting in “certain acts of politeness and courtesy towards the heterodox” ), and
at the same time insults the Old Calendarist anti-ecumenist Orthodox in a most surly and
unbrotherly manner, is deplorably in error.
It is obvious that Elder Theokletos, who moves within a dense cloud of narcissistic
self-references, with which his articles are all, without exception, literally teeming, has been
forsaken by the illuminating Grace of the Comforter to the extent that he is “unaware of,”
or “forgets,” or “overlooks,” or “misinterprets,” or “is incapable” of understanding certain very
basic issues, of which he not only ought to have expert knowledge, but which he also ought
to address with absolute Patristic and monastic exactitude.
In the case of Elder Theokletos, which is truly tragic, we are not dealing simply with
“ignorance,” knowing, as we do from what St. Justin Martyr writes, that “it is not easy quickly
to change a soul possessed by ignorance”; 3 it is quite evident that we are dealing, here, with
a tragic instance of someone who has suffered spiritual abandonment by reason of “compla-
cency,” as Abba Isaac the Syrian very aptly describes it: “He who becomes puffed up with his
own wisdom is allowed to fall into the murky snares of ignorance.” 4
The “conceit and complacency” for which Father Theokletos is now notorious is, accord-
ing to St. Peter of Damascus, an “imperceptible ruination,” 5 and every admirer of monasti-
cism and Mount Athos is truly distressed at how it came about that a man who is now almost
ninety years old and is a Hesychast in the tradition of the Philokalia should, by incessantly
talking about himself and crudely disparaging other people, have forgotten the saying of Elias
the Presbyter that “many have put off all their garments of skin, but the final one, that of
vainglory, is shed only by those who abhor its mother, complacency.” 6

***

NOW, THE INNOVATIONIST and reformer Chrysostomos Papadopoulos was an

active ecumenist, both as an Archimandrite and a university professor (94-923) and as
Metropolitan of Athens (923-938).
. To begin with, during the years 98-99, as an Archimandrite, Chrysostomos
Papadopoulos, together with the well-known ecumenists, Metropolitan Meletios (Metaxakis)
of Athens and Professor Amilkas Alivizatos, held unofficial theological discussions with
Episcopalians in America and Anglicans in England. These discussions “occupy a unique posi-
tion in the series of theological contacts” between Orthodox ecumenists and Anglicans.7
2. Subsequently, as an Archimandrite, Chrysostomos Papadopoulos became very well
acquainted with the 920 Encyclical and acted in accordance with its agenda.
It is significant that he had been present, “in the capacity of a visitor,” at the prepara-
tory conference of the Life and Work movement (Geneva, 9-2 August 920), at which the
Lutheran Archbishop of Uppsala, Sweden, Nathan Söderblom, “holding in his hands the
[1920] Encyclical of the Œcumenical Patriarchate, extolled its contents.” 8
• In fact, another “visitor,” Metropolitan Germanos (Strenopoulos) of Seleucia
(Patriarchate of Constantinople), stated that “the goals” of this conference “were in harmony
with the [1920] Encyclical, whereby the Œcumenical Patriarchate proposed the formation of
a ‘League of Churches.’” 9
3. Likewise, Chrysostomos Papadopoulos took part, as a delegate of the Churches of
Greece (along with the ecumenist Amilkas Alivizatos) and Cyprus, in the preliminary meeting
of the pan-Christian Faith and Order conference (Geneva, 2-20 August 920).
The eighteen Orthodox delegates at this conference “set about organizing an agenda for
this consultation ON THE BASIS OF THE PATRIARCHAL ENCYCLICAL OF 1920.” 0
According to Nicholas Zernov, “The extensive participation of Orthodox” in this confer-
ence, “was not unrelated to the Encyclical which the Œcumenical Patriarchate had issued
several months earlier [January of 1920].” 
At this conference, Amilkas Alivizatos “set forth the program of the Orthodox,” making
the following telltale comments, among others: “The proposed program aims, at least for the
time being, at the creation of a LEAGUE OF CHURCHES ALONG THE LINES OF THE
LEAGUE OF NATIONS, which will facilitate the ultimate goal of the union of the Churches
in faith and administration.” 2
• This is precisely what the 920 Encyclical envisioned, and it was realized in 948 with
the founding of the World Council of Churches.
4. Subsequently, as Metropolitan of Athens, Chrysostomos Papadopoulos, who talked,
at his enthronement (March 923), about the “union of the other Churches and Christian
communities with the Orthodox Church” and about the “determination of a common basis for
relations” between them, was unquestionably referring to the syncretistic theology of the 920
Encyclical when he promulgated the following notions:

A UNION IN MATTERS OF DOGMA, which is, unfortunately, difficult to achieve,

IS NOT A PRECONDITION for such coöperation and solidarity [between Orthodox
and heterodox], SINCE A UNION OF CHRISTIAN LOVE IS SUFFICIENT, and
this can, moreover, pave the way for a complete union in conformity with the spirit of
Christianity.3

5. Finally, it is extremely significant that the Hierarch who delivered the eulogy for the
deceased Chrysostomos Papadopoulos on 23 October 938, praised him because, among
other things, “the departed First Hierarch” had cultivated the “bond of friendship with foreign
Churches,” had “nurtured an ardent longing to attain a mutual understanding with them,”
and had “put forth such great efforts, laboring in a superhuman way” for the “union of all the
Christian Churches.” 4
6. The ever-memorable Archimandrite Theokletos (Strangas), a historian of the Church
of Greece, commented as follows on the foregoing section of the funeral speech: “That is to
say, after Meletios [Metaxakis], he [Chrysostomos Papadopoulos], too, was a pro-ecumenist
and, in addition, a pro-unionist.” 5
7. In truth, when Chrysostomos Papadopoulos, as Metropolitan of Athens, “recklessly
changed the calendar” 6 in 924, he was laboring under the influence of ecumenism, and, in
particular, of the 920 Encyclical, and he was not simply a “pro-ecumenist,” but was in the
vanguard of ecumenism.
As he himself noted in a positive vein, speaking as an historian, the Orthodox
Churches,

‘keeping abreast of spiritual movements outside the Orthodox Church’ ‘and of the
Christian activity of important organizations such as the World Alliance for Promoting
International Friendship through the Churches, the worldwide Faith and Order league,
and the ecumenical Life and Work league, HAVE PURSUED A JOINT STUDY OF
WAYS TO REVIVE CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES IN THE LIFE OF THE PEOPLES
OF THE WORLD.’ 7

• This was indeed envisioned by the 920 Encyclical.

***

THE HISTORICAL evidence that we have so far adduced demonstrates with complete
clarity that those who resisted the reform of 924 were most profoundly aware that they were
first and foremost and in essence opposing the ecclesiological heresy of ecumenism.
In spite of this, we are obligated to continue our critical discussion of these (to put it
mildly) unacceptable articles by Elder Theokletos, in the hope that he might desist from
deceiving himself and those who are unaware of the issues involved; for, although he has
recently been promoting himself as a “confessor” (!) and even a “fellow confessor” (!) with the
late Photis Kontoglou,8 in reality he teaches false doctrines, since his views and his attitude
are tantamount to an affirmation of ecumenism.
• St. Ignatios the God-bearer forewarning us and confirming us in the Faith of the
Synods and the Father says: “Let not those who appear trustworthy, but teach false doctrines,
confuse you.” 9
(to be continued)
 * Source: A
Ü giow KuprianÒw, No 320 (May-June 2004), pp. 50-52.

Notes

. Monk Nicodemos the Hagiorite, ““KanonikØ” ≤ diakopØ toË “MnhmosÊnou” toË

ÉAyhnagÒrou AÄ ÍpÚ t«n tri«n flerarx«n” [“It is Canonical for the Three Hierarchs to Break Off
Commemoration of Athenagoras I”], ÉOryÒdojow TÊpow, No. 42 (5 June 97), p. 3.
2. Georgios Zervos, “TÚ BatikanÚn §japatç tØn ÉOryÒdojon ÉEkklhs¤an” [“The Vatican
Deceives the Orthodox Church”], ÉOryÒdojow TÊpow, No. 547 (23 April 2004), p. 2.
3. St. Justin Martyr, First Apology, §2, Patrologia Græca, Vol. VI, col. 345A.
4. St. Isaac the Syrian, Discourse 73, AÜ panta [Complete Works], p. 284.
5. St. Peter of Damascus, Short Discourse on the Acquisition of the Virtues and on Abstinence from the
Passions, in Filokal¤a, Vol. III, p. 74, l. 25.
6. Elias the Presbyter, Gnomic Anthology IV, §3, in Filokal¤a, Vol. II, p. 33.
7. Basil T. Stavrides and Evangelia A. Barellas, ÑIstor¤a t∞w Ofikoumenik∞w KinÆsevw [History of
the Ecumenical Movement] (Thessaloniki: Patriarchal Institute of Patristic Studies, 996), 3rd ed., p. 303;
Basil T. Stavrides, ÉOryodoj¤a ka‹ ÉAgglikanismÚw katå tÚn KÄ Afi«na [Orthodoxy and Anglicanism in
the Twentieth Century] (Thessaloniki: 960), p. 3; Ioannis C. Konstantinides, “Mel°tiow Metajãkhw”
[“Meletios Metaxakis”], in YrhskeutikØ ka‹ ÉHyikØ ÉEgkuklopaide¤a [Encyclopedia of Religion and
Ethics], Vol. VIII (Athens: 966), col. 967; Basil T. Stavrides, “ÉAgglikanismÚw ka‹ ÉOryodoj¤a”
[“Anglicanism and Orthodoxy”], in YrhskeutikØ ka‹ ÉHyikØ ÉEgkuklopaide¤a [Encyclopedia of Religion
and Ethics], Vol. I (Athens: 962), cols. 20-202.
8. Stavrides and Barellas, ÑIstor¤a t∞w Ofikoumenik∞w KinÆsevw, p. 80.
9. Great Protopresbyter George Tsetsis, ÑH SumbolØ toË OfikoumenikoË Patriarxe¤ou stØn
ÜIdrush toË Pagkosm¤ou Sumboul¤ou ÉEkklhsi«n [The Contribution of the Œcumenical Patriarchate to
the Founding of the World Council of Churches] (Katerine: Tertios Publications, 988), p. 99.
0. Stavrides and Barellas, ÑIstor¤a t∞w Ofikoumenik∞w KinÆsevw, p. 93.
. Tsetsis, ÑH SumbolØ toË OfikoumenikoË Patriarxe¤ou, p. 96.
2. See note 0.
3. See Monk Paul of Cyprus, NeohmerologitismÚw^OfikoumenismÒw [New Calendarism and
Ecumenism] (Athens: “Keryx Gnesion Orthodoxon” Publishing, 982), p. 60.
4. ÉEkklhs¤a, Nos. 43-44 (29 October 938), p. 355.
5. Archimandrite Theokletos (Strangas), ÉEkklhs¤aw ÑEllãdow ÑIstor¤a §k phg«n éceud«n
(1817-1967) [History of the Church of Greece From Reliable Sources (1817-1967)] (Athens: 97), Vol. III, p.
260, n..
6. Ibid., p. 259.
7. Archbishop Chrysostomos A. Papadopoulos, ÑH ÉOryÒdojow ÉAnatolikØ ÉEkklhs¤a [The
Eastern Orthodox Church] (Athens: “A.D.E.” Publications, 954), p. 92.
8. Monk Theokletos of Dionysiou, ÑO F≈thw KÒntoglou stØn tr¤th diãstasÆ tou [Photis
Kontoglou During His Third Period] (Goumenissa: 2003).
• To the attentive reader it becomes immediately evident that, in this book, Elder Theokletos com-
promises himself irreparably, in that his agenda is actually autobiographical, that is, to promote not so
much Photis Kontoglou, as himself as a “confessor” (!), who in fact corrects the “deviations” of the blessed
master-painter Photis! In the end, through this book, Elder Theokletos shows himself to be openly and
incurably obsessed with his posthumous reputation.
9. St. Ignatios the God-bearer, Epistle to Polycarp, III., Patrologia Græca, Vol. V, col. 72B.
• There is no “inhuman schism,” but, rather, resistance against inhuman heresy

The Calendar Question or the

Heresy of Ecumenism?
Part V*

A Critical Review of Three Articles by

Elder Theokletos of Dionysiou

The third visit of the ecumen-

ist Patriarch Bartholomew to the
Vatican (2004; the first was in 1995,
and the second in 2002), which cul-
minated in his anti-Orthodox litur-
gical hobnobbing with the heretical
Pope John Paul II at the Patronal
Feast of the Church of Rome (29
June),
• contributed yet further to “the
gradual loss of any sense of the
essence and power of heresy”;
• underscored the “danger-
ous tendencies and the reckless
inter-ecclesiastical overtures of the
Dialogue of Love, which, by the
cut-and-slice ‘salami’ method, lead
us, time after time, to new and
unpleasant surprises”;
• brought to mind the “gradual
exhaustion and weakening of the
immune system of the Orthodox
ecclesiastical organism.”
These “observations” form
part of the “symptomatology” of
the “contemporary ecclesiological
epidemic” of ecumenism, which “relentlessly assails many segments of
Orthodoxy,” as the ever-memorable Professor Andreas Theodorou correctly
pointed out sixteen years ago.1
 IX
Knowingly “Communing With the
Advocates of Darkness”

S o far, by the Grace of God, we have demonstrated and fully

substantiated the direct and incontrovertible connection—
indeed, the causal connection—between the calendar reform of
1924 and the ecumenical movement, which officially began in
1920, and, in light of this connection, the existence, since 1924,
not of New Calendarists and Old Calendarists, but, to be precise,
of ecumenists and anti-ecumenists.
Elder Theokletos of Dionysiou, when he dissociates the cal-
endar question from the ecumenical movement and, likewise,
when he essentially denies the existence of anti-ecclesiastical
ecumenism after 1972, demonstrates, on the one hand, that he
is either suppressing the historical truth or does not understand
it, owing to some deep and incurable prejudice; and, on the other
hand, that he is very profoundly alienated by the corrosive influ-
ence of his communion with the innovationist New Calendar
Church.
St. Gregory Palamas, that true and paradigmatic Athonite
Hesychast, who was replete with light and Grace, rightly under-
scores the ruinous consequences, at a spiritual level, of direct or
indirect communion with heresy and convicts Elder Theokletos
of knowingly communing with the “advocates of darkness,” that
is, the innovating ecumenists.
Elder Theokletos, who for nearly sixty consecutive years
(1941-2004) has been “in communion with heretics,” gives
“the upstart teachers” of ecumenism, “who distort Orthodox
dogmas,” “occasion to speak arrogantly”2 against the Truth
and is becoming, at the same time, ever more “lukewarm”; that
is, he aligns himself with those who “do not cleave ardently to
the truth of Orthodoxy.”3
“It is no small matter to commune with the advocates of
darkness,” says the Herald of Grace; “it is no small matter
to give occasion to men such as these to speak arrogantly”4
against Orthodoxy.
Elder Theokletos, who has manifestly been given over “to
a reprobate mind,”5 since he knowingly “communes with the
advocates of darkness,” vehemently attacks the weaker Old
Calendarist Faithful, exploiting their actual or putative short-
comings in order to hide his own flagrant guilt and that of his
superiors.
“For, since there is no strength in their own dogmas,” as
St. Gregory the Theologian said, “they hunt for it in our weak
points, and for this reason they apply themselves to our—let
me say ‘mistakes’ or ‘sins’?—like flies to wounds.”6

***

1. Elder Theokletos surely cannot be unaware that, inter alia,

on the eve of the 1924 reform, the Patriarchate of Constantinople
was gripped by dismay, because “it sensed,” even after the
adoption of the New Calendar by the so-called Pan-Orthodox
Congress of 1923 (Constantinople, 10 May/6 June 1923), the
“continuing effect” of the arguments demanding adherence to the
New Calendar and the “endless scrutiny of those things related
to” this “issue.”
As Metropolitan Germanos of Sardis (†1945) observed,
‘the goal that we are pursuing, that of pan-Christian unity, at
least in the simultaneous celebration of the Nativity and the
Resurrection of the Lord, continues to remain unfulfilled,’ ‘even
after the response of the Churches to the resolutions of the Pan-
Orthodox Congress.’7

2. Likewise, Elder Theokletos surely cannot be unaware of

the “fear and disquiet of many Orthodox” over ecumenism, as the
late Professor Andreas Theodorou (†March 2004) wrote in this
connection in 1988.
Ecumenism, “like a contemporary ecclesiological epidemic
relentlessly assails many segments of Orthodoxy,” as the ever-
memorable professor correctly pointed out, and the “symptoms
of this disease” contribute to the “gradual exhaustion and weak-
ening of the immune system of the Orthodox ecclesiastical organ-
ism,” “representing a real danger and a deadly entanglement for
Orthodoxy, a fact which we should never let slip from our visual
field.”8
• However, in the “visual field” of Elder Theokletos there has
never existed either the “contemporary ecclesiological epidemic”
of ecumenism, which was inaugurated in 1920 and which gave
rise to the calendar reform of 1924, or the “real danger and
deadly entanglement” occasioned by ecumenism, which, accord-
ing to Father Theokletos, consists in “relations and encounters
of a social nature” and “certain acts of politeness and courtesy
towards the heterodox” (Article I)!

X
The Letter of Father Gervasios (Paraskevopoulos)

S ince Elder Theokletos regards the Old Calendarist Faithful

as “simple-minded cretins and schismatic brethren” (Article
III), he has, as usual, devised a fictitious and tedious “dialogue,”
invoking a letter to himself (6 May 1957) from the ever-memo-
rable Father Gervasios (Paraskevopoulos) (†1964) of Patras,
in his effort to prove that the “motives of the ringleaders in the
schism were ignoble” (Article III); in addition, he endeavors to
besmirch in the worst possible way the memory of the saintly
Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina (†1955), in particular,
lapsing into an hysterical tirade, entirely in keeping with the tra-
dition of Athonite invective.

***

1. In the first place, any sober reader will immediately realize

that the publication of this letter of Father Gervasios irredeem-
ably compromises Elder Theokletos.
 • Father Gervasios, as a truly spiritual man, is courteous and
moderate in his manner of expression, whereas Elder Theokletos
is distinguished by his discourtesy and immoderation.
• Father Gervasios states clearly and unequivocally that he
regards “the action of our Hierarchy as reckless” and the cal-
endar change implemented in 1924 by “the Greek Church as
not being in conformity with Holy Tradition, and all the more
so because it was not a pan-Orthodox decision,” whereas Elder
Theokletos declares that “there is nothing improper in the leap
of thirteen days, other than the inept way in which [the reform]
was carried out” (Article III).
• Father Gervasios, in referring to the “motives” of the lead-
ers of the Old Calendar movement, does not adduce unswerving
assumptions, but talks in merely theoretical terms, on the basis
of well-known rumors and his own personal judgments, albeit
sparingly; whereas Elder Theokletos outdoes himself by means
of his well-known—and risible—psychoanalytic method, there-
by showing himself to be unfair, slanderous, ill-informed, and a
consummate sophist.
2. In the second place, Elder Theokletos commits a major
blunder when, while appealing to the very short letter of the ever-
memorable Father Gervasios, he simultaneously and reprehen-
sibly neglects to mention, or suppresses, the very detailed epis-
tolary essay which the saintly Father Philotheos (Zervakos; †25
April/8 May 1980) sent to him from Paros on 16 August 1979.9
In this momentous letter,
• Father Philotheos writes with especial zeal and candor
about the “unvarnished truth” regarding the innovationist
Archbishop Chrysostomos (Papadopoulos) and his culpable
rôle in the 1924 reform, demonstrating the mendacity of all
that he says in his booklet ÑHmerologitik«n Kathgori«n
ÖElegxow [A Refutation of Accusations by the Calendarists] [sic]
(1st edition; Athens: 1937).
• Father Philotheos regards the introduction of the New
Calendar as “uncanonical, unlawful, and reckless.”
• Father Philotheos asserts that the innovationist Archbishop,
by “endeavoring to prove [through his booklet] that Old
Calendarism is [supposedly] an outright error, proves only
this: his unstable character and his delusion of mind and intel-
lect.”
• Father Philotheos unambiguously and unreservedly links the
1924 reform with ecumenism when he says that Chrysostomos
(Papadopoulos) “suffered from delusion of mind and intel-
lect because he followed—deplorably enough—the modernist,
innovationist, and Freemason Metaxakis,” “along with whom
he opened the doors of the rational sheepfold to Athenagoras,
Meliton of Chalcedon, and Iakovos of America, who entered the
rational sheepfold and tore to pieces the rational sheep and the
Œcumenical Patriarchate.”
• Father Philotheos asserts that “Metaxakis led [Papado-
poulos] into other errors, which I shall pass over.”
• Father Philotheos describes, as an eyewitness and an ear-
witness, that historic and truly tragic moment when the repentant
Archbishop Chrysostomos, traumatized by the threats of fanat-
ics,
began to beat his head forcefully with both hands and to say,
with groans and tears: ‘Perish the moment, perish the moment I
accepted the New Calendar! It was he, that perverse Metaxakis,
who led me down the garden path.

XI
An Incomparably Greater Blunder

T his great blunder of Elder Theokletos, that is, his suppres-

sion of what is, in essence, a letter of refutation to him from
Elder Philotheos, becomes incomparably greater when we take
into account the following points:
1. Elder Theokletos, although he has always been persuaded
that “it is possible for us to have yet another Philotheos in the
Hagiologion [calendar of Saints—Trans.] of the Church,”10
and although he is convinced that “God will reveal his [Father
Philotheos’s] sanctity through miracles,”11 has never adopted
the “unvarnished truth” set forth by Elder Philotheos concern-
ing the 1924 reform. Not only does he never appeal to this truth,
but he has even fought against it!
2. Elder Theokletos, qua biographer of the venerable
Philotheos of Paros, admits that “no one has ever been so con-
cerned or written so much” about the calendar question “as the
wise Philotheos”;12 Father Philotheos, however, always wrote
such things with the expectation that the Old Calendar would
be restored, for the sake of bringing peace to the Church.
• For example, on 7 September 1964, Father Philotheos wrote
the following to the Abbot of the Holy Monastery of Dionysiou,
Father Gabriel (†1983), the Elder of Father Theokletos:
It is now becoming an urgent necessity—and the times demand
it—that we all intensify our efforts and work unanimously and
assiduously for the restoration of the Old Calendar. This, as we
all know, is required for the very unity of our glorious and
much-suffering Greek Church, which unity was rent asunder
from the moment the Papal Calendar was arbitrarily and sinfully
introduced.13

3. Father Theokletos, in his biography of Elder Philotheos,

makes the following comments on the Elder’s well-known pro-
zealot work, ÑH §n ÑAg¤ƒ ÖOrei prosÊnodow [The Pre-Synodal
Conference on the Holy Mountain]:
Basing himself on the dogmatic teaching of the Church and her
age-old Tradition, he never accepted any innovations. For this
reason, he opposed every attempt at modernization and hastened
to rebut the innovationist proposals of modernist theologians or
Church officials. This booklet, therefore, serves such a purpose
with forceful language and very strong arguments.14

• However, the booklet in question, which was written by

Elder Philotheos in 1926, is unreservedly and unequivocally anti-
ecumenical:15
—It staunchly opposes the Pre-Synodal Conference that was
scheduled to convene on the Holy Mountain, and which eventu-
ally convened in 1930 as a preparatory commission and as a
sequel to the so-called Pan-Orthodox Congress of 1923. This
conference is viewed as preparing the ground for the so-called
Pan-Orthodox Consultations (Rhodes, 1961-), in anticipation
of the transparently ecumenist “Holy and Great Synod.”16
—It vehemently condemns the preoccupation of Bishops
specifically “with the Sun and the Moon, with the elements
(winds and water), with calendars and Paschalia,” which
cause “confusion, disturbance, conflicts, disputes, enmities,
hatred, and other kinds of evil,” when the Church is facing so
many other truly serious problems.
—It courageously proposes, inter alia, to the “Œcumenical
Synod that is about convene,” “that it restore the Church
Calendar as the Holy Fathers handed it down to us.”

XII
He Wars Against the Saints and Contradicts Himself

M oreover, Elder Theokletos condemns himself when he

invokes the non-existent authority of a very brief and
superficial letter of Father Gervasios (Paraskevopoulos), while
he fails to accept the clarifications and recommendations of the
venerable Elder Philotheos (Zervakos) and does not imitate the
latter’s holy zeal for the peace and unity of the Church through
the restoration of the Old Calendar:
1. Elder Theokletos, in fact, acts completely to the contrary:
as someone “lukewarm”17 (or “non-fanatical,” as he puts it
in his writings18). He fights with unwonted passion against the
pellucid ideas of Elder Philotheos, thereby becoming a warrior
against the Saints, insofar as:
—he has reprinted the booklet by Archbishop Chrysostomos
(Papadopoulos), ÑHmerologitik«n Kathgori«n ÖElegxow
[A Refutation of Accusations Made by the Calendarists] [sic]
(2nd edition; Thessaloniki: 1979), which was condemned by
Elder Philotheos;
 —he published as an appendix to this booklet the aforemen-
tioned letter of Father Gervasios (Paraskevopoulos), while
studiously suppressing the views of Elder Philotheos, which are
diametrically opposed to his own;
—he literally explodes at the mere thought of restoring the
Old Calendar;19
—he trumpets the idea that “there is nothing improper in the
leap of thirteen days” (Article III), and that the Church simply
“called one day the twenty-third instead of the tenth” (Article
II);
—characterizes those in resistance to the ecumenist innovation
of 1924 as “simple-minded cretins and schismatics” (Article III),
as “heterodox pseudo-monastics” (Article II), and as constitut-
ing the “inhuman schism of the Old Calendarists” (Articles II
and III), and the like!
2. Furthermore, Elder Theokletos not only contradicts
himself, but is also the cause of his own terrible undoing, when
we take into consideration the following additional and totally
damning evidence from two of his early articles:20
—In 1957, expressing agreement with Elder Philotheos, he
stated categorically that he was aware of “the insincerity of the
late Archbishop Chrysostomos Papadopoulos of Athens” in
all that he wrote “in a booklet entitled ‘ÑHmerologitik«n
Kathgori«n ÖElegxow,’ published in 1937,” and also of his
efforts “to entice the other Churches to join him in this venture,
in order to lend legitimacy to his uncanonical action” [i.e., the
calendar reform]!
—In 1957, expressing agreement with Elder Philotheos,
and even outdoing him, he regarded the 1924 reform as “an
uncanonical action,” as “something fundamentally uncanonical,”
as “an incalculable evil for the Church,” which “compromises
the [Greek] Church before the rest of the Orthodox world and
before foreigners,” as “an uncanonical wound that still remains
unhealed,” as a “perilous innovation,” as “an innovative trend”
that leads to the “slippery slope of innovations,” as an “incongru-
ity” in need of correction, as a matter on which “the Church of
 Greece, since she is not covered from a canonical standpoint, is
not justified in demanding obedience,” as “the calendar ques-
tion which has split the Church,” a question which “we should
not view only within the narrow limits of thirteen days, but in
relation to the catholic life of the Church”; on the basis of all
this, “it becomes obvious that we must resolve the uncertainty
generated by the calendar question, which, if prolonged, will
perpetuate confusion in the Church, will destroy the founda-
tions of Orthodox ecclesiology, leaving her without adequate
protection, will adulterate her spiritual identity, and will thwart
her goals”!
—In 1957, expressing agreement with Elder Philotheos, Father
Theokletos in essence made a direct link between the calendar
question and ecumenism—the first-fruits of which were the so-
called Pan-Orthodox Congress of 1923 and Patriarch Meletios
(Metaxakis)—, by emphasizing the relationship between the
calendar and the “other dangerous innovations being concocted
in Constantinople,” “when the Patriarch of the Œcumenical
Throne was the pernicious Meletios Metaxakis, who was influ-
enced more by progressive Anglicanism than by the ‘antiquated’
dogmas of Orthodoxy”!
—In 1957, Elder Theokletos accurately and correctly char-
acterized the “Old Calendarists” as “farseeing” and “justified
in their protests,” as “brethren who practice their religion
conscientiously,” as “a multitude of people, scrupulous in their
observance of the Faith, who keep watch over Orthodoxy and
are ready to sacrifice themselves for her glory and good,” and as
“the people of God” who prefer “to suffer hardship than to enjoy
a transitory and ill-conceived peace”; it is wrong to call them a
“rabble”: “this word is inappropriate and most un-Christian;
Christ abode among this ‘rabble’; for its sake Paul laid down
laws; for its sake the Fathers formulated dogmas; to put it
briefly, these are the true elect.... Let us remember who it was
that reacted against Iconoclasm.” They are wrongly accused of
being “disobedient”: “this accusation is unjust”; they are wor-
thy of honor: “we ought to honor them, as history will assuredly
do”; they are “an example worthy of emulation for the Greek
Orthodox Church,” deserving to be accorded “respect, affec-
tion, and love.” They are a “living reality, like that of the early
Church,” and they are devout children “of the Greek Orthodox
Church,” “whose rebirth is guaranteed by their spirit and way
of life”!

***

We must, however, continue our critical analysis of the errors

of Elder Theokletos, because his successive falls cannot be
explained other than by means of a spiritual perspective, in that
they represent the truly tragic phenomenon of abandonment by
the illuminating Grace of our Savior, the Giver of light.
“It is no small matter to commune with the advocates of
darkness”; “it is no small matter to give occasion to men such
as these to speak arrogantly”21

(to be continued)

* Source: A
Ü giow KuprianÒw, No 321 (July-August 2004), pp. 66-71, 75.

———————————
Notes
1. See ÉEkklhsiastikØ ÉAlÆyeia (16 December 1988), p. 7.
2. St. Gregory Palamas, First Refutation of Akindynos, Ch. XII, §61.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Cf. Romans 1:28.
6. St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 27 (“First Theological Oration”), §5,
Patrologia Græca, Vol. XXXVI, col. 17B.
7. †S.G., “ÑEortolÒgion^N°on ÑHmerolÒgion” [“The Festal Calendar and
the New Calendar”] ÉOryodoj¤a, No. 4 (3 July 1926), p. 108,
8. Andreas Theodorou, “Letter to the Editor,” in ÉEkklhsiastikØ ÉAlÆyeia
(16 December 1988), p. 7.
9. Archimandrite Philotheos Zervakos, “ÉEndiaf°rousa §pistolØ diå tÚ
≤merologiakÒ” [“An Interesting Letter Concerning the Calendar Question”], ÑO
ÜOsiow FilÒyeow t∞w Pãrou [Thessaloniki] (January-April 2001), pp. 50-57.
10. ÉAyvniko‹ DialÒgoi, Nos. 73-74 and 75-76 (1980), in Stylianos N.
 Kementzezides, ÑO G°rvn FilÒyeow Zerbãkow^ÑO OÈranodrÒmow ÑOdoipÒrow
(1884-1980) [Elder Philotheos Zervakos: The Heavenward Wayfarer (1884-
1980)] (Thessaloniki: “Orthodoxos Kypsele” Publications, 1988), Vol. II, pp. 35,
38.
11. Ibid.
12. Monk Theokletos of Dionysiou, ÑO ÜOsiow FilÒyeow t∞w Pãrou. ÜEnaw
¶nyeow ÉAskhtØw-ÑIerapÒstolow (1884-1980) [Elder Philotheos of Paros: A God-
Inspired Ascetic and Missionary (1884-1980)] (Thapsana, Paros: 1999), p. 318,
n. 37.
13. Ibid.
14. Ibid., p. 203 and p. 315, n. 15.
15. For the full text of this booklet, see Kementzezides, ÑO G°rvn FilÒyeow
Zerbãkow, Vol. II, pp. 43-49.
16. See Evangelia Barella, DioryÒdojoi ka‹ Ofikoumenika‹ Sx°seiw toË
Patriarxe¤ou KvnstantinoupÒlevw katå tÚn KÄ Afi«na [Inter-Orthodox and
Ecumenical Relations of the Patriarchate of Constantinople During the Twentieth
Century] (Thessaloniki: Patriarchal Institute of Patristic Studies, 1994), pp. 98-
143 (“The Path Towards the Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church”).
17. See note 2.
18. Archbishop Chrysostomos (Papadopoulos) of Athens, ÑHmerologitik«n
Kathgori«n ÖElegxow [A Refutation of Accusations Made by the Calendarists]
(Thessaloniki: 1979), 2nd ed., p. 4 (“Introductory Remarks”).
19. See the “note” by Father Theokletos in a letter to him from the Archbishop
of Athens (23 June 2003), ÉOryÒdojow TÊpow, No. 1554 (11 June 2004), p. 3.
20. Monk Theokletos of Dionysiou, “SxÒlia §p‹ t∞w PanoryodÒjou
ProsunÒdou” [“Notes on the Pre-Synodal Pan-Orthodox Conference”] and
“ÑHmerologiak«n ParaleipÒmena” [“The Untold Story of the Calendar
Question”], two articles from the Athonite periodical A Ü giow PaËlow Jhropota-
m¤thw (January and April 1957), in ÉAyvnikå A Ö nyh [Athonite Flowers] (Athens:
“Aster” Publications, 1962), pp. 191-199, 203-211.
21. See note 2.
■ There is no “inhuman schism,” but, rather, resistance against inhuman heresy

The Calendar Question or the

Heresy of Ecumenism?
Part VI
A Critical Review of Three Articles by
Elder Theokletos of Dionysiou

“But if you see the true Faith
suffering harm anywhere, do
not prefer concord to truth,
but make a valiant stand
even unto death. And
even then, do not be at
war in soul, or inimical
in attitude, but fight solely
over the issues,...without be-
traying the truth under any cir-
cumstances.”
(St. John Chrysostomos, “Homily
XXII on the Epistle to the Romans,” §3,
Patrologia Græca, Vol. LX, col. 611)
“But if the topic of conversa-
tion is about the Faith and the
Traditions of our Church,
then even the most peace-
able and placid individu-
al must fight in their de-
fense, though not with tu-
mult of heart, but with a
valiant and steadfast spirit, as
Joel says: ‘In that case, let the meek
become a warrior’ (Joel 4:11).”
(St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite,
Ἀόρατος Πόλεμος [Unseen Warfare],
Part II, ch. 19, n. 1)

XIII. He Fights Against the Saints, Against the Church, and

Against God

I n our previous article, we proved, with full documenta-

tion, that the learned Athonite Hesychast Elder Theokletos of Di-
onysiou, in the texts under consideration, succumbs to such serious
absurdities that he gives the impression of being a split personality,
and one which does not merely contradict itself and contribute to
its own undoing, but is being led, unfortunately, even to the point
of fighting against the Saints.
No matter how hyperbolic this conclusion might sound, it does,
nonetheless, correspond fully to reality, as we will demonstrate in
what follows. Indeed, Elder Theokletos is being led, precisely by
virtue of his warfare against the Saints, directly into warfare both
against the Church and against God.
Elder Theokletos, by obfuscating—as we will show in the pres-
ent article—the existence of the dreadful heresy of ecumenism, by
suppressing manifest historical truth, by covering up heresy and in-
novation, by justifying heretics and modernists, and, at the same
time, by pouring scorn on the views, and setting aside the guidance,
not only of Elder Philotheos (Zervakos), but also of several other
contemporary holy persons, is beyond question not simply an ad-
versary of the Saints, but also an adversary of the Church and an ad-
versary of God.
Let us bear in mind, while we are on the subject, that the Sev-
enth Œcumenical Synod, in its Divinely inspired dogmatic decree,
condemns both heretics and anyone who justifies and vindicates
them, whether they be alive or reposed: “If anyone justifies one who
either belongs to a Christ-reviling heresy or has died therein, let him
be anathema.” 1

***

In the person of Elder Theokletos the Hesychast there

is proof that inhuman Athonite mean-spiritedness knows no limits,
since this hapless man, deeply alienated by the corrosive influence
of the many years he has spent in communion with heresy, today re-
gards anti-ecumenist Orthodox as a common herd, unscrupulous, op-
portunists, ungodly, charlatans, deceivers and deceived, etc., whereas,
in 1957, he declared them to be “an example worthy of emulation for
the Greek Orthodox Church,” and “a multitude of people who keep
watch over Orthodoxy and are ready to sacrifice themselves for her
glory and good”! 2
Since the death of Patriarch Athenagoras in 1972, Elder Theokle-
tos has been the best ally of the innovating ecumenists, since he not
only justifies, vindicates, and defends them, but at the same time
condemns and insults in an unbrotherly manner those Orthodox
who—notwithstanding their weaknesses3—lawfully, rightly, and
with self-sacrifice engage in resistance against the heresy that was in-
troduced in 1924, and which provoked a veritable “transmutation of
all things into ungodliness” 4 in the realm of the Orthodox Church.
The ecumenists, appropriating the bellicose conservatism, aggres-
sive fanaticism, and bigoted zealotry of fundamentalism,5 insult, in
season and out of season, and denigrate in an un-Christian way
those who criticize all of their anti-Orthodox actions and proclama-
tions. But Elder Theokletos the Hesychast, “loving all the words of
engulfing ruin and a deceitful tongue,” 6 outdoes, outstrips, and sur-
passes them by a long chalk, while his God-fighting attitude places
him squarely with those of heterodox views, who have no concern
for love or brotherly affection, as St. Ignatios the God-Bearer of An-
tioch says:
‘Consider,’ writes the Saint to the Faithful in Smyrna,
‘those who hold heterodox views concerning the Grace of Je-
sus Christ which has come to us, how contrary they are to
the mind of God. They have no regard for
love.’ 7
Although the Orthodox ecumenists, as the
Inter-Orthodox Theological Conference in
Thessaloniki (20-24 September 2004) aptly and
emphatically pointed out, have assumed a “lead-
ing rôle” in consolidating “this panheresy of ec-
umenism, with its very serious soteriological re-
percussions,” 8 and although they have turned
the world upside down and scandalized the Or-
thodox peoples, Elder Theokletos the Hesychast
is not indignant, nor does he any longer defend
the “little” 9 brothers of Jesus, but derides and
insults them in a most vulgar way, his brand of invective having now
become internationally known and proverbial.
‘Oh, their ignorance and impiety,’ said the Holy Fathers
of the Seventh Œcumenical Synod about those who vio-
lated the Traditions of the Church. ‘If they only realized
that to scandalize one of these little ones who believe in
Christ incurs uncontainable indignation; how much more
 indignation do they arouse by turning the world upside
down.’10

XIV. Elder Theokletos the Hesychast is a Pro-Ecumenist

T he erudite Athonite Elder Theokletos, in the three articles

under consideration, shows that he has a selective memory; that
is, he remembers from the past, and particularly the more remote
past, only what is convenient for him, and this, in a deficient and
distorted form, in order to hurt the Old Calendarist Orthodox in
every way possible.
This selectivity on the part of Father Theokletos indicates either
a lack of objectivity and sincerity, or an inability to acquire a criti-
cal grasp of a whole range of historical and theological issues, or it
shows that he does not possess the courage to confront and accept the
stark historical reality that is so threatening to him.
The mere fact that he constantly harks back to, and dwells on,
the 1960s (did history perhaps come to a standstill at that point?),
when he allegedly met the ever-memorable Metropolitan Chrysos-
tomos (Kabourides) of Florina in Athens (Article II), would be suf-
ficient to refute the credibility of his selective memory, since the saint-
ly Hierarch had already reposed in the Lord in 1955!
Nevertheless, we will endeavor, in what follows, to awaken the
memory of Elder Theokletos, so that he might keep in mind the
major issues touching on the truth of the Faith, to which he ought
to have been especially attentive, that they might be deeply engraved
in his memory and give rise in him to a sense of “uncontrollable in-
dignation,” 11 and also fear for his own salvation and that of those
who trust in his erudition, because ecumenism is not only escalating,
but also has “very serious soteriological repercussions.” 12

***

In the first place, we deem it expedient to set forth, as

a sure foundation for all of our ensuing comments, the following
noteworthy opinion of Elder Theokletos, which he expressed at an
unsuspected time.
 In 1974, in a article that he addressed to the Sacred Communi-
ty of the Holy Mountain “on the long-standing schism of the Zeal-
ots,” 13 he states his conviction that within the contemporary cur-
rent of ecumenism, which is supposedly “developing into a variety
of versions,” 14 there are two extremes.
■ Specifically, this variety of versions, according to Elder The­
okletos, is to be found “in between Orthodox ecumenism and the
blatantly heretical kind.” 15
Nevertheless, in speaking about “blatantly heretical” ecumen-
ism, Elder Theokletos, strangely enough, does not undertake, as he
should have done, to describe its characteristic traits, nor does he
name its exponents and embodiers, who—as he subsequently dem-
onstrates—“are in danger of falling” into “the pit of heresy.” 16
Quite to the contrary, when it comes to the “Zealots” and “Old
Calendarists,” he is, as usual, indefatigable, mobilizing, moreover,
the psychoanalytic method that is so dear to him!
In any case, if there do exist (and there certainly do!) “out-and-
out ecumenists,” 17 what was Elder Theokletos’ attitude towards
them during his sixty years of contact with them?
■ If, for example, joint prayers with heretics and adherents of
other faiths, especially at an official level, constitute one of the chief
hallmarks of “blatantly heretical ecumenism” 18 (or perhaps not?),
how was Elder Theokletos disposed, at the very least, towards the
Hierarchs of the Phanar, who now invariably pray with heterodox
and those of other religions?
Elder Theokletos, as a veritable pro-ecumenist, systematically
avoids answering questions of this kind, since he is in a very difficult
position: as one who wars against the Saints, he despises the views
of, and disregards the guidance of, his saintly contemporaries, while
at the same time he justifies the ecumenists, adopting their excus-
es in sins,
as ‘proclaiming’—so he alleges—‘the good news of Or-
thodoxy,’ as displaying ‘tendencies towards a broader dis-
semination of Orthodoxy or of a dialogue with the whole
world’ and as supposedly emulating the tactics and ‘the
language of St. Mark of Ephesus.’ 19
 Such, unfortunately, is the lamentable fall of an erudite Athonite
Hesychast!
■ Let us call to mind, for the time being—since we shall return
to this issue—, that Elder Paisios (†1994), in contrast even to those
who are viewed as “Orthodox ecumenists,” 20
‘fought against ecumenism’ and ‘would not consent to
joint prayers or fellowship with persons who were not Or-
thodox. He would emphasize: “In order for us to pray with
someone, we must agree in faith.”’ 21
Likewise, in contrast to the manifestly pro-ecumenist Elder The­
okletos,
“he broke off relations with, or avoid-
ed seeing, clergy who took part in joint
prayers with the heterodox.” 22

XV. The Selective Methodology of Elder Theokletos

T he notion of the learned Hesychast Elder Theokletos that

there are two kinds of ecumenism, the one Orthodox and the
other heretical, aside from being erroneous—since it confuses heret-
ical ecumenism with Orthodox ecumenicity—, is truly misleading.
The Old Calendarist Orthodox anti-ecumenists are possessed of
the conviction that
ecumenism, of whatever shape or form, has ever been,
and continues to be, alien to our Synodal and Patristic
Tradition, in that it unites its followers in the so-called
“broad ecumenical world family,”23 within which there is
an ongoing, de facto syncretistic process that is energet-
ically evolving at many simultaneously interdependent
levels (theology, worship, service, witness, education, di-
alogues, conferences, consultations, publications, etc.),
always on the basis—as the ecumenists take delight in
proclaiming—of the “pioneering and dynamic 1920 En-
cyclical of the Œcumenical Patriarchate.”24
 There does not exist another ecumenism, distinct from that
which was inaugurated by the cacodox 1920 Encyclical; the “found-
ing charter of the contemporary ecumenical movements” 25 is the
1920 Encyclical, and “its basic principles” “have, ever since, consti-
tuted definitive parameters for the harmonious functioning of the
major inter-Christian organizations.” 26 At the so-called First Pan-
Orthodox Consultation (Rhodes, 1961), there was talk of “the pres-
ence and participation of the Orthodox Church in the ecumenical
movement in the spirit of the Patriarchal Encyclical of 1920.” 27
The comments made by
the then General Secretary of
the WCC, Dr. Konrad Rais-
er, in his lecture at the “In-
ternational Academic Sym-
posium” in Thessaloniki (1-3
June 2003) are extremely sig-
nificant:
‘Any reflection about
the importance of the The front cover and the first page
Orthodox contribution of the 1920 Encyclical
to the WCC must begin
with the fundamental decision on the part of the Ortho-
dox churches to assume a leading role in giving shape to
the modern ecumenical movement’; ‘the encyclical’ of 1920
‘has indeed remained one of the foundational documents
of the ecumenical movement and of the World Council of
Churches in particular, because it was here that the propos-
al to establish a “league (fellowship) between the churches”
was formulated for the first time.’ 28
■ One is unpleasantly astonished when he realizes that Elder
Theokletos’ selective memory does not appear to be in the least both-
ered by the frequency and gravity of those declarations and events
that consolidated the syncretistic process inaugurated by the sin-
gular and heretical ecumenism of the 1920 Encyclical and fully de-
fined the identity of the ecumenical movement, whereby “every
landmark of the Fathers has been moved; every foundation, every
bulwark of dogma has been shaken,” 29 as St. Basil the Great would
again say today.
By contrast, Elder Theokletos is vexed and agitated about cer-
tain secondary events which supposedly occurred during the 1960s
(whereas, in fact, they took place in the 1950s!), with a view to im-
pugning the credibility of the arguments put forward by anti-ecu-
menists and deflecting attention, in a truly crude fashion, from the
colossal issue of ecumenism to the weaknesses of Old Calendarist
Orthodox.

***

Nevertheless, in order to diagnose the identity of ecu-

menism correctly, the Hesychast Elder Theokletos ought to have
had recourse to the past and to have recalled anew and studied more
holistically the crucial events that signalled the inception of a new
and tragic period for Orthodoxy worldwide.
We will gladly assist him in this truly poignant retrospection in
a brotherly endeavor to draw his attention at long last away from
the insignificant events of the 1960s (the twentieth century did have
other decades!), and to persuade him to adopt an entirely new point
of view.

1. The 1920s

■ In this decade, the 1920 Encyclical was unleashed. Ridden

with theological errors, it was a “definitive expression of Orthodox
ecumenism, and also a milestone in the history of the ecumenical
movement.” 30 It constitutes one of the “expressions of a farsighted
ecclesiastical policy” 31 and “is a product of the long-standing ecclesi-
astical policy of the Phanar and a direct consequence of the famous
correspondence between Joachim III and the Primates of the auto-
cephalous local Churches during the years 1902-1904.” 32
It has repeatedly been observed that the 1920 Encyclical laid the
foundations for syncretistic and “blatantly heretical” ecumenism.33
■In this decade, the so-called Pan-Orthodox Congress of 1923
(Constantinople, 10 May-8 June 1923) convened and, functioning
within the framework of a syncre-
tistic and “blatantly heretical” ec-
umenism, promoted the same, a
fact of which Elder Theokletos is
surely not unaware, since in 1957
he emphasized the relationship be-
tween the calendar question, the
rules concerning Pascha, innova-
tion, and Meletios Metaxakes:
Let us not forget, more-
over, that when the changes
in the calendar and the rules
for Pascha were being con- Patriarch Meletios Metaxakes
cocted in Constantinople, as (1871-1935).
well as other dangerous inno-
vations, the report of which alarmed the flock of the Ortho-
dox Church, the Patriarch of the Œcumenical Throne was
the pernicious Meletios Metaxakes, who was influenced
more by progressive Anglicanism than by the ‘antiquated’
dogmas of Orthodoxy.34

2. The 1930s

■ In this decade, the Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission,

which convened on the Holy Mountain in 1930, as a sequel to the so-
called Pan-Orthodox Congress of 1923, advanced still further the
goals of syncretistic and “blatantly heretical” 35 ecumenism, since it
prepared the ground for the so-called Pan-Orthodox Consultations
(Rhodes, 1961, etc.), in anticipation, to be sure, of the transparently
ecumenist “Holy and Great Synod.” 36
Elder Theokletos is certainly not unaware of the importance of
the Commission that met on the Holy Mountain, since in 1957,
with reference to the desiderata of the Commission, he wrote the
following sound remarks:
The Inter-Orthodox Commission that met on the Holy
Mountain was more audacious in promoting the issues than
 the Pre-Synod under consideration, on these two counts:
‘Revision and Codification of the Sacred Canons’ and also
‘The Calendar and the Paschalion.’ These issues were ac-
cepted by the Commission for discussion at the Pre-Synod.
Only the word ‘revision’ was contested, by [Bishop] Alex-
ey of Grodno, a representative of
the Polish Church, as having the
potential to scandalize the con-
sciences of the Faithful. For, what
conceivable revision of the Sa-
cred Canons could there be? The
Bishop of Ohrid [Saint Nikolai
(Velimirović)—Trans.] expressed
his very grave disquiet, which
he articulated as follows: ‘Giv-
en our bitter experience of anoth-
er consultation [the Pan-Ortho-
dox Congress of Constantinople,
1923—Ed.] at which our Church
had representatives, we are com-
pelled to be brutally frank. It is St. Nikolai (Velimirović), Bishop of
well known that the resolutions Ohrid and Žiča (1880-1956).
of that assembly, although not ac-
cepted, were regarded as the resolutions of an Œcumenical
Synod, and this created a kind of schism.’ 37
3. The 1940s

■ In this decade, in 1948, the most fundamental proposal of the

1920 Encyclical—and the one most destructive for Orthodoxy—,
that is, the institutionalization of the ecumenical movement through
the founding of the so-called World Council of Churches, was im-
plemented in Amsterdam, Holland (22 August-4 September 1948).
The participation, at a gradual pace, of all the local Orthodox
Churches in this unprecedented inter-Christian federation, which is
the consequence of a repeatedly renewed,38 Pan-Orthodox decision,
not only does not provoke “uncontrollable indignation” in Elder
Theokletos,39 but does not even exist in his memory!
 Quite to the contrary, the leading
Serbian dogmatic theologian, the ven-
erable Elder Justin (Popović; †1979)
regarded participation [by the Ortho-
dox—Trans.] in the WCC as “apoca-
lyptically horrendous,” as an embar-
rassment, as un-Orthodox, as anti-Or-
thodox, as an outrageous humiliation,
and as an unprecedented betrayal! 40
• Behold, yet another substanti-
ation of hostility towards the Saints
on the part of the Hesychast Elder
Theokletos. Whereas, in 1974, he wrote
a dithyrambic preface to Elder Justin’s
outstanding book Ἡ ᾿Ορθόδοξος
The venerable Archimandrite Justin
(Popović; 1884-1979).
᾿Εκκλησία καὶ ὁ Οἰκουμενισμός
[The Orthodox Church and Ecumen-
ism],41 in which he quite correctly
noted “the holy indignation of Father Justin against various forms
of humanism and ecumenism, as contributing to the desecration of
the God-Man,” 42 today this erudite Athonite encourages the ecu-
menists in their sacrilegious work and “justifies” 43 them!

4. The 1950s

■ In this decade, on 1 November 1958, the regular Synod of

the Church of Greece (Twenty-Fifth Hierarchy) convened, under
the presidency of Archbishop Theokletos II of Athens, which had
as the eighth item on its agenda the problem of “Relations of the
Church of Greece Towards Other Orthodox Churches and Hetero-
dox Churches, and Towards the World Council of Churches.” 44
Following three reports, by Metropolitans Chrysostomos of
Philippi, Irenaios of Samos, and Panteleimon of Thessaloniki,
lengthy discussion, and repeated and effusive references to the syn-
cretistic 1920 Encyclical, it was finally decided, “by unanimous ac-
clamation” 45(!) that “our Church” should “participate in the World
Church Movement.” 46
This great fall, this outrageous humiliation,47 about which Elder
Theokletos kept silent at that time and about which he remains out-
rageously silent to this day, took place when the Hierarchs at the Syn-
od proclaimed such wholly un-Orthodox views as the following:
‘it is to the honor of the Orthodox Catholic Church of
Christ, and her just boast in Christ, that she has, in a time-
ly manner and for some decades, through her first and Ap-
ostolic Œcumenical Throne, grasped the need and put for-
ward the idea that the entire Christian world, as a sin-
gle totality, in a sacred alliance in the name of our Lord
Jesus Christ, should raise the banner of Christ’s Cross in
the world,’ 48 should form ‘a pan-Christian bloc’ 49 and a
‘united Christian front,’ 50 should constitute a ‘League of
Churches,’ ‘in emulation of the “League of Nations” [sic]
that had by then been established’ 51 ‘to resist contempo-
rary anti-Christian currents and assaults,’ 52 since, more-
over, ‘no religion would refuse to coöperate in, and contrib-
ute to, the consolidation of a common front of all religions
against atheism’(!)53
The incontrovertibly ecumenist basis of this proposed “United
Christian Front,” of this “Pan-Christian Bloc,” openly advert to the
syncretistic foundations of “blatantly heretical” 54 ecumenism and,
in particular, of the 1920 Encyclical, since it was clearly and frankly
asserted during that Synod that
even without unity of faith, and without one faith—
using the term with canonical exactitude—, unity in spirit
in the same faith, with regard to the fundamental dogmas
of Christianity, is possible.(!)55
• A reminder to Elder Theokletos: his “late friend, Father Epi-
phanios Theodoropoulos” (Articles II and III), as he habitually calls
him, expressed the unshakable belief that
mere ‘discussion concerning a common celebration of
Pascha or any other Feast together with the heterodox,’ ‘as
long as they remain in their error,’ ‘constitutes the over-
 turning from its foundations of Orthodox dogmatics and
ecclesiology, in particular,’ and ‘reeks of execrable religious
syncretism.’ 56
We would ask Elder Theokletos: Can it be that he concurs with
these views of his “late friend”? If he answers “Yes,” then is it not per-
haps the case that not merely the discussion, but also the establish-
ment, by Orthodox and heretics, of a “United Christian Front,” of
a “Pan-Christian Bloc,” of a “League of Churches,” of a “World Coun-
cil of Churches,” in which, strangely enough, there would exist “uni-
ty of spirit” “without unity of faith,” constitutes an overturning from
its foundations of the One and Only Church?

5. The 1960s

■ This decade represents a milestone in relations between East-

ern and Western ecumenists, because it was then that the Orthodox
reciprocated the collective overture of the Papists to the East at the
Second Vatican Coun-
cil (1962-1965), like-
wise collectively, both
by way of the three
Pan-Orthodox Con-
sultations in Rhodes
(1961, 1963, and 1964),
in which, unfortu-
nately, the Patriarch-
ate of Constantinople
played a leading rôle—
and arbitrarily, at
that—,57 and by way
of the Fourth Pan-Or-
thodox Consultation
of Geneva (Chambésy,
1988).
The first bold steps
Jerusalem, 5 January 1964. The meeting of were taken in the con-
Patriarch Athenagoras with Pope Paul VI. text of the so-called
 Dialogue of Love, and they provoked unionist euphoria in the ranks
of the pro-unionists and the Latin-minded:
In January of 1964, Patriarch Athenagoras met with Pope Paul
VI in Jerusalem; in December of 1965, the lifting of the anathemas
of 1054 took place; in July of 1967, Pope Paul VI visited the Phanar;
in October of 1967, Patriarch Athenagoras visited the Vatican.58
There followed a torrent of events, which, in essence, destroyed
de facto the distinction between Orthodoxy and heresy and the
boundaries between truth and error.
• Nevertheless, this decade also constitutes, by common consent,
a milestone in the history of resistance against Papism and ecumen-
ism. It was then that this resistance became widespread and reached
its peak.
During this period, when he was in the front ranks of illustrious
defenders of Orthodoxy, Elder Theokletos
—correctly characterized the ecumenical activities of Patriarch
Athenagoras en bloc as “machinations of the Devil”;59
—quite rightly maintained that Athenagoras “abolished the dif-
ference between truth and falsehood”;60
—hit the nail on the head when he proclaimed that “in the name
of the [Athonite] monks, we disapprove of the deranged and treach-
erous conduct of the one who, because of our sins, sits on the Throne
of Photios, Gennadios, and Jeremias Tranos”;61
—aptly pointed out that what transpired during the meeting
between Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras at the Phanar (25
July 1967) “betokens the firstfruits of the disgraceful Uniatization of
the Greek Orthodox”;62
—spoke openly about the “traitorous intent” of Athenagoras and
affirmed that “we shed tears for the millions of Orthodox in the Di-
aspora who have been delivered, by God’s permission, to wolves”;63
—wrote very clearly that “Symposia” organized in the context of
the ecumenical movement “are promoting the most detestable syn-
cretism, in the form of ‘ecumenism,’ which destroys every conception
of the Church”;64
—unquestionably regarded Athenagoras as “temerarious” for
“having lifted the excommunication imposed on the Latins” (7 De-
cember 1965), and as “quixotically puffed up” over “his most con-
temptible achievement”;65
• At that time, according to Elder Theokletos, the Holy Moun-
tain was undergoing disturbances, which gave rise to a “tectonic
earthquake”:66
—“only a small number of Athonites have not risen up against
the unionist tendencies” of Athenagoras;67
—a bold “Declaration” was issued (23 January 1964 [New
Style]),68 signed “by all of the Fathers of two very populous sketes,
and none was lost, save two or three ‘sons of perdition’”; 69
—“At least 95 percent of the Athonite Fathers disapprove of the
pro-Papal policy of the Œcumenical Patriarch, whose Polychronion
they have ceased to chant”;70
—“Already,” wrote Elder Theokletos in August of 1967 “on the
Holy Mountain, the greater portion of the most devout monks and
monasteries are not commemorating the Œcumenical Patriarch,
even though there is an increased risk of being formally censured by
him”;71
• In spite of this, from that truly tumultuous decade of the 1960s,
the firstfruits “of the disgraceful Uniatization of the Greek Ortho-
dox,” 72 which, to be precise, had begun as far back as 1920, when
the Athonite Fathers declared that
we will struggle for Orthodoxy until our last breath,
shedding even this blood of ours, if need be,73
—Elder Theokletos, oddly enough, today remembers only some
alleged meeting with the ever-memorable Metropolitan Chrysos-
tomos of Florina (Article II), who, however, had already reposed
in 1955(!), and also an amusing incident involving a certain simple-
minded Zealot from Karoulia and a pair of trousers—“βράκα ἢ
φράγκικο;”! (Article II);74
—outrageously forgets the “disgraceful Uniatization,” 75 which
is escalating today, by means of the “most detestable syncretism, in
the form of ‘ecumenism,’” 76 and
—has the audacity, the hapless man, to write today that ecumen-
ism consists simply in “relations and encounters of a social nature”
and “certain acts of politeness and courtesy towards the heterodox”
(Article I), thereby placing
himself by his own reckon-
ing, among the “sons of per-
dition.” 77
• In the meantime, where-
as since 1964 we have been
waiting for the Athonite Fa-
thers to shed their blood in con-
fessing the Faith (forty years of
severely protracted agony!),
in the Year of Salvation 2004,
when the Phanar—in keeping
with its identity—triumphant-
ly, and together with the Vati-
can, celebrated the anniversa-
ry of Athenagoras’ apostasy,78
—commemoration of the
present Patriarch Bartholomew, who is worse than Athenagoras, is
being implemented throughout Mount Athos (the “sons of perdi-
tion” are no longer “few in number,” but, unfortunately, “very nu-
merous”),
—and those who commemorate him (the “sons of perdition,” ac-
cording to Elder Theokletos) are fully prepared to shed the blood of
those “few” Athonites who refuse to commemorate this Uniatized
Patriarch!
• Could it perhaps be that the “Uniatization” of Athos is com-
plete? Perhaps the Athonites are afraid of the truly earthshaking de-
cade of the 1960s and desire to exorcize it from their collective mem-
ory? Does Athonite anti-ecumenism, at least of that period, not be-
long among the noteworthy “struggles of monks for the sake of Or-
thodoxy”?79

6. The 1970s

■ In this decade, in 1970, the doctoral dissertation of the

present Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew (Ch. Archon-
tones), was published. This dissertation, which he wrote in Rome
at the Pontifical Institute of Oriental Studies, bears the title: Περὶ
τὴν Κωδικοποίησιν τῶν Ἱερῶν Κανόνων καὶ τῶν Κανονικῶν
Διατάξεων ἐν τῇ ᾿Ορθοδόξῳ ᾿Εκκλησίᾳ [Concerning the Codi-
fication of the Sacred Canons and Canonical Ordinances in the Or-
thodox Church].80
Patriarch Bartholomew, a fervent supporter and enthusiastic
champion of canonical codification, propounds the method to be
followed in this endeavor and the necessity of modifying certain ex-
isting ordinances, because “the Church” supposedly, “cannot and
must not live outside space and time.” 81
Likewise [he asserts], the ordinances that regulate re-
lations between Orthodox Christians and the hetero-
dox and those of other religions cannot be ap-
plied today and must be modified. The Church cannot
have ordinances forbidding entrance into the churches of
the heterodox or joint prayer with them, when at the same
time she [the Church], through her representatives, prays
together with them for perfect union
in faith, love, and hope.(!)82
• Elder Theokletos has never mentioned and has never con-
demned this highly official viewpoint, which is truly preposterous
and which fully expresses the ecumenist mentality of the Phanar,
even though, as far back as the 1950s, he was certainly aware of
proposals for revision and codification of the Canons,83 and even
though, since the 1960s, similar views have been articulated in a
markedly official, and also very artless, manner.
For instance, the ecumenist Metropolitan Aimilianos (Timia-
des) of Calabria, a relentless adversary of the Sacred Canons, crudely
despises the Seventh Œcumenical Synod, which characterizes them
as “unshakable and unalterable testimonies and statutes of God.” 84
He wrote, in 1967:
All of the Sacred Canons that restrict the Faithful to
isolation and aloofness vis-à-vis non-Christians and non-
Orthodox, are in need of some modification.... In this vein,
the Forty-fifth Canon of the Holy Apostles, being devoid
of love, is completely inapplicable in our age.... The Fifty-
 sixth Canon of the Holy Apostles, which forbids entrance
even into a heterodox prayer house or a Jewish synagogue,
is far more outdated.... These and similar Canons are in-
compatible with our era, because we belong to the Church
that prays night and day ‘for the good estate of the holy
Churches of God, and for the union of all’(!)85
■ Elder Theokletos, then, has never mentioned, still less pro-
tested, the ecumenist conspiracy of the Phanar to undermine the
unshakable and unalterable testimonies of God, especially those
pertaining to relations with non-Christians.
It was, consequently, to be expected that he would not become
agitated, during this decade, over the openly syncretistic interfaith
ecumenism which the WCC inaugurated in 1971—thereby broad-
ening its unionist vision—at the meeting of its Central Commit-
tee in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia (10-21 January 1971), the main theme
of which was: “Dialogue with People of Other Religious Convic-
tions.” 86 The contribution of the Orthodox members of the WCC
to this venture, through their polyheretical presentations, was of de-
cisive significance.
■ Moreover, Elder Theokletos has never mentioned in any way
the official joint decision regarding interfaith coöperation, made in
1976 at the First Pre-Synodal Consultation (Chambésy, 21-28 No-
vember 1976),87 which was immediately put into effect when, in the
same year, the dialogue with Judaism began at a preparatory meet-
ing in Geneva,88 and the then Patriarch Demetrios wrote, in his
“Christmas Message”, that
From this Œcumenical Throne we declare the new year
of 1977 that is dawning before us to be a year of...coöpera-
tion between all religions for the sake of humanity.(!)89
■ But perhaps Elder Theokletos has mentioned the Thyateira
Confession, published in London in 1975 by Archbishop Athenago-
ras (Kokkinakes) of Thyateira and Great Britain, “with the blessing
and authorisation of the Ecumenical Patriarchate” ?90
The Thyateira Confession contains a “completely heretical, Protes-
tant, or...ecumenical teaching...regarding the [Orthodox] Church,” 91
as the most saintly Metropolitan Philaret, of the Russian Orthodox
Church Abroad, quite correctly wrote, on
6/19 December 1975.
‘Christians believe [this
‘Confession’ teaches, among other her-
esies and errors] that true Or-
dination and Priesthood
are possessed and impart-
ed by Orthodox Bishops,
Roman Catholic Bishops,
Copto-Armenian and Ethi-
opian Bishops, and Angli-
can Bishops,’ ‘and for this
reason, the Mysteries of
the Anglicans are Myster-
ies of the One, Holy, Cath-
olic, Apostolic Church, Front cover (English) and
title page (Greek) of the
as are also the Mysteries Thyateira Confession.
of the Roman Catholics’;
‘Orthodox Christians, Ro-
man Catholics, Anglicans, Copto-Arme-
nians and Ethiopians, Lutherans and
Methodists, and other Protestants are
Christians Baptized in the Name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Spirit’; ‘All of us Christians have, by the
same Baptism, become members of the
Body of Christ, which is the Church.’ 92
• Elder Theokletos was neither bothered, nor perturbed, nor “un-
controllably angered” by the even more shocking fact that the poly-
heretical Thyateira Confession did not represent simply the person-
al convictions of its author; unfortunately
on [this] work there rests the seal of
approval of the whole Church of Con-
stantinople in the person of Patriarch
Demetrius and his Synod. In a special Patriar-
chal Protocol addressed to Metropolitan [sic] Athenagoras
The Synodal endorsement of the Thyateira Confession, in Greek and English.

it is stated that his work was examined by a special Syn-

odical Committee. After approval of it by this Committee,
the Patriarch, in accordance with the decree of the Syn-
od, gave his blessing for the publication of ‘this excellent
work,’ as he writes. Therefore, the responsi-
bility for this work is transferred from
Metropolitan Athenagoras now to the
whole hierarchy of Constantinople.93
 7. The 1980s

■ In this decade, on 27 October 1986, in Assisi, Italy, the first

“Meeting of Religions for World Peace” took place, under the ægis of
the Vatican. One hundred fifty representatives of twelve religions
took part in this meeting—a day of prayer, pilgrimage, and fasting
for peace.94
It was a landmark event in the interfaith movement, since
in Assisi, for the first time, almost all the religions of the
world [“there were thirty-seven persons from non-Chris-
tian religions” 95] met together, united in the context of an
international assembly of prayer for peace, at the initiative
of Pope John Paul II.96
Christians of almost
all confessions were rep-
resented, and delegates
from almost all of the lo-
cal Orthodox Churches
were in attendance. Their
“decision to participate in
the meeting in question
contributed greatly to its
realization.” 97
The significance of
this historic turning point Joint prayer in front of the Basilica of Santa Maria
degli Angeli, Assisi, 27 October 1986.
in the development of the
syncretistic movement, un-
der the leadership of the Pope and always according to the agenda of
so-called Roman ecumenism, was underscored with particular clar-
ity and emphasis.
The Papists boast that one of the “achievements” of the meeting
in Assisi was
‘the awakening of interfaith dialogue. The events in As-
sisi challenged Christians to meet with other religions, in
conformity with the spirit of Vatican II’; 98 ‘the meeting for
 Professor John Zeziou- olics] so that the ap-
las—now Metropolitan proaching third mil-
of Pergamon—on the lennium of the Chris-
one hand, thinks that tian era may find the
the Church, encompas­ Church of God visibly
sing Christians of East united as she was be-
and West, is “invisibly fore the Great Schism.
united,” and, on the oth­ As Your Holiness apt-
er hand, believes in the ly put it some years ago,
theology of the “two East and West are the
lungs.” In his address two lungs by which the
to Pope John Paul II at Church breathes; their
the Patronal Feast of unity is essential to the
Rome in 1998, he em- healthy life of the One,
phasized the necessi- Holy, Catholic, and
ty “of restoring our full Apostolic Church”
communion [of Ortho-
dox and Roman Cath- (“Chronicle of the Eastern Churches,” Eastern Churches
Journal, Vol. V, No. 2 (Summer 1998), p. 270).

prayer for peace united representatives of diverse faiths and

inaugurated a new phase in interfaith dialogue.’ 99
• Elder Theokletos has never mentioned this sensational event,
the starting-point for a plethora of other such events, in which Or-
thodox ecumenists took part and the Phanar played a leading and
active rôle, and he has never become uncontrollably indignant at the
continuing apostasy of the Assisi variety.
Completely to the contrary! While on 24 January 2002, “yet
another step towards pernicious syncretism” 100 was taken, that is,
the extraordinary meeting in Assisi, with unprecedented participa-
tion by religious leaders (two hundred or more) and many promi-
nent Orthodox ecumenists under the leadership of Patriarch Bar-
tholomew, for the purpose of praying “in the spirit of Assisi,” 101 the
Athonites—led by Elder Theokletos—were launching an inhuman
and unfraternal attack against the Old Calendarist Orthodox, who
do not worship the idol of Papocentric ecumenism!102
■ Likewise, during that crucial decade of the 1980s, the selec-
tive memory of Elder Theokletos did not, strangely enough, advert
to Baptismal Theology, an ecclesiology of Protestant provenance,
which was set forth in detail and with absolute clarity in 1985 by
Professor John Zezioulas, now Metropolitan of Pergamon.
To be sure, there had previously been other official exponents of
this patently ecumenist theology, which unquestionably constitutes
another form of the Protestant Branch Theory (e.g., Anton Karta-
shev—prior to 1960; Ioannes Karmires—1973; Patriarch Demetri-
os of Constantinople—1974; the Synod of the Patriarchate of Con-
stantinople—1975; other official expressions of this theology were
to follow: e.g., Patriarch Ignatios of Antioch—1987; the Balamand
Agreement—1993; Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople—1995;
Metropolitan Maximos of Pittsburgh—1995; the Synod of the Mos-
cow Patriarchate—1997; the Conference of European Churches,
Graz, Austria—1997; the Standing Conference of Orthodox Bish-
ops in the Americas—1999103), but John Zezioulas was more sys-
tematic in setting forth his views.
On the basis of his theories,
‘Baptism does create a limit to the Church’; Baptism,
Orthodox or not, supposedly defines the ‘Church,’ which
includes Orthodox and heterodox; there are, supposedly,
‘baptismal limits of the Church’ and ‘outside baptism there
is no Church’; on the contrary, ‘within baptism, even if
there is a break, a division, a schism, you can still speak of
the Church.’ 104
• When certain Old Calendarists express extremist views, Elder
Theokletos veers into a lamentable display of invective; but when
the ecumenists of the Phanar totally subvert the traditional Faith,
Elder Theokletos maintains his Hesychastic poise and excuses them
on the ground that they are allegedly performing “certain acts of po-
liteness and courtesy towards the heterodox” (Article I)!

8. The 1990s

■ Finally, the Hesychastic “sober inebriation” of Elder Theokle-

tos did not allow him to be overcome by uncontrollable indigna-
tion when dogmatic lapses were detected in the dialogue with the
Non-Chalcedonian Monophysites, something which led the Sacred
Community of the Holy Mountain to observe that the conclusions

During the visit of Pope Paul VI to the
Phanar, 25 July 1967, Patriarch Athenagoras pre-
sented “the Primate of Rome, as a token of rec-
ognition of his Apostolic Succession” with “the
official Hierarchical insignia of Orthodox Bish-
ops [the Enkolpion and the Omophorion]“
(Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ ᾿Αλήθεια [Athens], No. 18 [1
July 1977], p. 8).
Translation of document: “In commemo-
ration of this blessed visit of Your Holiness
to our Church, please accept this sacred vest-
ment, Brother in Christ, as a declaration that
we have in common the treasure of Apostol-
ic Priesthood, and that we are persevering to-
gether in love, prayer, and supplication in
preparation for our Communion at the Lord’s
Table. 25 July 1967. + Athenagoras of Con-
stantinople.”
of the Joint Commission of
the Dialogue, on the basis of
its Joint Statements, in particu-
lar (1989, 1990, and 1993)
[s]trike a mortal
blow against the nature
of the Orthodox Church
as the One, Holy, Catho-
lic and Apostolic Church;
and, secondly, the Chris-
tology of the Joint State-
ments is radically at vari-
ance with the Christolog-
ical teaching of the great
Fathers and Œcumenical
Teachers of the Church.105
■ Nor was Elder Theokle-
tos perturbed and agitated
when, in 1993, the Joint Com-
mission of the Orthodox-Ro-
man Catholic Dialogue (Sev-
enth Plenary Session, Bala-
mand, Lebanon, 17-24 June
1993) endorsed “a new kind
of Unia,” 106 that is, the Bal-
amand Union,107 whereby
the “disgraceful Uniatization
of the Orthodox” 108 was con-
summated, in that
[o]n each side it is
recognized that what
Christ has entrusted to
His Church—profession
of apostolic faith, partic-
ipation in the same sacra-
ments, above all the one
 priesthood celebrating the one sacrifice of Christ, the apos-
tolic succession of bishops—cannot be considered the exclu-
sive property of one of our Churches [Orthodox or Roman
Catholic]. In this context it is clear that rebaptism must be
avoided.109
■ But in 1992, too, he did not show any indignation when the
Orthodox ecumenists, as members of the Conference of European
Churches, endorsed, in the “Message” of the Tenth General Assem-
bly (Prague, 1992), the absurd notion that
it is necessary for us to recognize our common heritage
in these two streams of tradition [the ‘ecclesiastical tradi-
tions of East and West’]. It is necessary for us to transcend
stereotypes. Only in this way will we be able to rediscover
unity in diversity through a process of reconciliation.(!)110
■ It was, therefore, natural that, after such a lengthy and ex-
emplary display of equanimity, Elder Theokletos should not have
been bothered even when Patriarch Bartholomew made the follow-
ing unprecedented proclamation at the World Conference on Reli-
gion and Peace (Riva del Garda, Italy, 4 November 1994):
Roman Catholics and Orthodox, Protestants and Jews,
Muslims and Hindus, Buddhists and Confucians: the time
has come not only for rapprochement, but also for an al-
liance and joint effort.(!)111
■ And, last of all, to cut a long story short, Elder Theokletos did
not feel uncontrollable indignation when Patriarch Bartholomew, in
1995, co-signed with Pope John Paul II a Joint Communiqué, plain-
ly a statement of faith, in which the following declarations among
others, in obvious agreement with those of the Balamand Union
(1993), were made:
‘We exhort our faithful, Catholic and Orthodox, to
strengthen the spirit of brotherhood, which derives
from a single Baptism and participation
in the sacramental life...’; ‘They [the Pope and
the Patriarch] included in their prayers all those incor-
porated into Christ on the basis of their
Baptism...’; ‘our Churches recognize one
 another as Sister Churches, responsi-
ble together for safeguarding the one
Church of God.’(!)112
However, Elder Theokletos was also not perturbed when Patri-
arch Bartholomew spoke, on 27 June 1995, in Rome, before count-
less young Roman Catholics, praying with them and saying the fol-
lowing, inter alia:
‘Children of the Church blessed and beloved in the Lord,’
‘We, the East and the West, are concelebrating; it is a gift of
God’; ‘[w]e are celebrating, because we are
the communion of saints journeying on
earth’; ‘the feast of the Church is fulfilled when the
youth are present and celebrating together’; ‘[y]ou have re-
ceived the gifts of the Holy Spirit through Holy Baptism
and Chrismation; you bear in your souls and on your fore-
heads the signs of the Kingdom of God.’ 113

***

There are innumerable other things, at a theoretical and a

practical level, which Elder Theokletos ought to have mentioned
and scrutinized objectively, from a Patristic standpoint, from a ca-
nonical standpoint, theologically, and with sobriety, since they con-
stitute a veritable tragedy for Orthodoxy, the Immaculate Bride of
Christ.
The realization of this tragedy, to which he had drawn attention
in part, with God-pleasing zeal and in a powerful way, during the
1960s, ought to have impelled Elder Theokletos to repeat his lau-
datory references of 1957 to the Old Calendar Orthodox, who have
been fully justified for their discernment, their correct diagnosis of
heresy, and their Patristic stand against it, in spite of their deficien-
cies and excesses.
Paradoxically, the reverse has occurred: Elder Theokletos, de-
spising the Saints and Tradition on this count, too, has proved, and
continues to prove, lenient and indulgent towards ecumenists, but
severe and aggressive towards anti-ecumenists.
 • In this regard, the following in-house and ad hoc critique of the
truly paradoxical strategy of the Athonite Hesychast is very telling:
The issue of Old Calendarism can never be placed on a se-
cure footing, unless we first examine wheth-
er or not, and to what extent, our own
side [that of the New Calendarists] has
been corroded by heresy!
Nor is it possible for us to say that the heretical teach-
ings which this or that Patriarch, Archbishop, or Bishop
proclaims are his personal opinions and do not affect the
Church.
To the extent that the rest of the Bishops, the rest of the
clergy and monastics, and the laity do not protest against
such heretical ideas, we are all equally culpa-
ble!
We [the New Calendarists] watch to see whether one
in a hundred words that a Patriarch or Archbishop utters
is Orthodox. And if there is one, we celebrate his ‘Ortho-
doxy’!
But do people really think that we
are so naïve?
And yet, if some Old Calendarist or Zealot says one
word that deviates from Orthodoxy, he is a heretic!114
Through this paradoxical strategy of his, Elder Theokletos over-
looks St. Gregory the Theologian, who wrote that when an “earth-
quake” occurs in a time of heresy, even those who, in other circum-
stances of life are “peaceable” and “moderate”—especially monas-
tics—
cannot bear to be so meek as to betray God by keeping
quiet; in fact, on this point they are both extremely com-
bative and hard to fight against; such is the ardor of their
zeal.115
‘The task of a monk’ declared St. Theodore the Studite,
‘is not to tolerate even the slightest innovation in the Gospel,
lest, by providing the laity an example of heresy and com-
 munion with heretics, he should have to give an account
for their perdition.’ 116
■Four years ago, the Orthodox ecumenists, “on the centenni-
al of the promulgation of the Patriarchal and Synodal Encyclical of
1902 by Œcumenical Patriarch Joachim III,” extolled with a special
“Academic Symposium” (Chambésy, Gene-
va, 15-16 November 2002) the pioneering
and “decisive contribution of the Patriar-
chal and Synodal Encyclicals (1902, 1904,
and 1920)” “to the birth of the contempo-
rary ecumenical movement,” emphasizing
that the 1902 Encyclical, in particular,
‘was the foundational principle of
the contemporary ecumenical move-
ment for the unity of Christians’ and
Patriarch Joachim III of ‘inspired the Patriarchal Encyclical of
Constantinople (1878-1884,
1901-1912). Through the 1902 1920, which is rightly considered the
Encyclical, in which, inter official Orthodox proposal for an ecu-
alia, he characterized Papism menical movement.’ 117
and Protestantism as “great
branches of Christianity,” he —And whereas, somewhat earlier, the
paved the way for the 1920 1902 Encyclical was characterized as a “pre-
Encyclical. cursor, as it were, of the contemporary ecu-
menical movement,” and it was stated that
“the ecumenical movement owes its origin primarily to” the Encycli-
cals of 1902-1904;118
—whereas any pious believer would expect that, on this ill-
starred centennial, Elder Theokletos would produce a full and sys-
tematic book against syncretistic ecumenism;
—all of a sudden, the erudite Hesychast publishes his autobiog-
raphy,119 in which he shows very clearly that he is obsessed with his
posthumous reputation (the presence of the self-referential “I” is, as
always, inordinate...), and then vehemently rounds on the zealous
anti-ecumenists en bloc, by way of his error-ridden articles in the
press120 and of a special book,121 both of which leave him complete-
ly exposed shortly before he crosses the threshold of life and appears
before the dread Judgment Seat....
 ***

In conclusion, neither his opinions nor his stand to-

wards syncretistic ecumenism bring any credit to Elder Theokle-
tos, a veteran Athonite Hesychast, especially when one takes into
account that what we have been waiting to hear from the erudite
Elder was proclaimed at the recent “Inter-Orthodox Theological
Conference” (Thessaloniki, 20-24 September 2004), namely, the re-
ally tragic truth that
The very act of participation in the ‘World
Council of Churches’ and in theological dialogues with he-
retical Papists, Protestants, and Monophysites consti-
tutes a denial of the uniqueness of the
Church and an adequation of the One, Holy, Catholic,
and Apostolic Church with heresies and schisms. It is, as
has been said, the greatest ecclesiological
heresy in the history of the Church.122
Elder Theokletos, in the past, was a severe critic of the Unia-
tized Patriarch Athenagoras. Thus, one would expect, today, to hear
him, of all people, uttering in a stentorian voice, not a lamentable
barrage of insults against those who, since 1924, have paid even with
their blood for their adherence to the Patristic and Synodal Tradi-
tions of Orthodoxy, but the following bold Patristic clarion call from
the “Inter-Orthodox Theological Conference” of Thessaloniki:
That it be made clear to Church lead-
ers that in the event that they contin-
ue to participate in, and lend support to,
the panheresy of ecumenism—both inter-
Christian and interfaith—, the obliga-
tory salvific, canonical, and Patristic
course for the Faithful, clergy, and la-
ity, is abstinence from communion, that
is, ceasing to commemorate Bishops who
share responsibility for, and commune
with, heresy and error.123
(to be continued)
—————————
Notes

1. S eventh Œcumenical Synod, Mansi, Vol. XIII, col. 400B/Πρακτικὰ τῶν

Ἁγίων καὶ Οἰκουμενικῶν Συνόδων [Proceedings of the Holy Œcumenical
Synods], ed. Spyridon Melias (Holy Mountain: Ekdosis Kalyves Timiou Pro-
dromou, 1981), Vol. II, p. 879a (Seventh Session).
2. Monk Theokletos of Dionysiou, Ἀθωνικὰ Ἄνθη [Athonite Flowers] (Athens:
Ekdoseis “Aster,” 1962), Vol. I, pp. 194-195, 207.
3. It should be noted that in 1957 Elder Theokletos was still capable of distin-
guishing between correctness and extremes and of defending the former with
commendable boldness, writing as follows: “With regard to the Calendar ques-
tion, we ought to discern the extremes and abuses that have been observed in the
history of this issue” (ibid., p. 196).
4. St. Theodore the Studite, “Epistle II.15, ‘To the Patriarch of Jerusalem,” Patro-
logia Græca, Vol. XCIX, col. 1164B.
5. Archimandrite Cyprian Agiokyprianites, “Orthodoxy and Fundamentalism:
The Fundamentalism of the Orthodox Ecumenists,” in idem, Orthodoxy and
the Ecumenical Movement, Vol. II in Contributions to a Theology of Anti-Ecu-
menism (Etna, CA: Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 1997), pp. 91-
97.
6. Cf. Psalm 51:6, Septuaginta.
7. St. Ignatios of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnæans, VI.2, Patrologia Græca, Vol. V,
col. 712BC.
8. Inter-Orthodox Theological Conference, “Α. Διαπιστώσεις—Β. Προτάσεις”
[“I. Findings–II. Proposals”], Ὀρθόδοξος Τύπος, No. 1577 (17 December
2004), p. 5a, §A2; Παρακαταθήκη, No. 38 (September-October 2004), p. 3b.
9. Cf. St. Matthew 18:6.
10. Seventh Œcumenical Synod, Mansi, Vol. XIII, col. 412AB/Πρακτικὰ, Vol. II,
p. 882a (Seventh Session).
11. See note 10.
12. See note 8.
13. Monk Theokletos of Dionysiou, “Περὶ ἓν χρονίζον σχίσμα” [“Concerning a
Long-standing Schism”], in idem, Ἀθωνικὰ Ἄνθη [Athonite Flowers] (Athens:
Ekdoseis “Aster,” 1992), Vol. IV, p. 230. This article originally appeared in the
periodical Ἀθωνικοὶ Διάλογοι (Vol. XXIV [August-September 1974]).
14. See note 13.
15. See note 13.
16. See note 13.
17. See note 13.
18. See note 13.
19. Ibid., pp. 231-232, 226-228.
20. See note 13.
21. Hieromonk Isaac, Βίος Γέροντος Παϊσίου τοῦ Ἁγιορείτου [The Life of Elder
Paisios the Hagiorite] (Mt. Athos: 2004), p. 690.
22. See note 21.
23. “Orthodox Participation in Ecumenical Movement: ‘There is No Alternative to
Dialogue,’” http://www2.wcc-coe.org/pressreleasesen.nsf/index/pu-03-27.html.
Accessed 10 May 2006.
24. Gregorios Larentzakes, “Βασικαὶ ἀρχαὶ τηρήσεως καὶ ἀποκαταστάσεως
τῆς Χριστιανικῆς ἑνότητος—᾿Ορθόδοξοι ἀπόψεις” [“Basic Principles for
the Preservation and Restoration of Christian Unity: Orthodox Viewpoints”],
in Ἐπιστημονικὴ Παρουσία Ἑστίας Θεολόγων Χάλκης [A Professional
Meeting at the Halki Center for Theology] (Athens: 1987), Vol. I, p. 351.
25. Evangelia Barella, Διορθόδοξοι καὶ Οἰκουμενικαὶ Σχέσεις τοῦ Πατριαρχεί-
ου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως κατὰ τὸν Κʹ Αἰῶνα [Inter-Orthodox and Ecumen-
ical Relations of the Patriarchate of Constantinople During the Twentieth Cen-
tury] (Thessaloniki: Patriarchikon Hidryma Paterikon Meleton, 1994), p. 103.
26. Ibid., p. 165.
27. Basileios T. Stavrides and Evangelia A. Barella, Ἱστορία τῆς Οἰκουμενικῆς
Κινήσεως [History of the Ecumenical Movement], 3rd. ed. (Thessaloniki: Pa-
triarchikon Hidryma Paterikon Meleton, 1996), pp. 366-367.
28. Konrad Raiser, “The Importance of the Orthodox Contribution to the WCC,”
http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/who/orth-contrib.html. Accessed 22 May 2006.
29. St. Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit (§77), Patrologia Græca, Vol. XXXII, col.
213A.
30. Great Protopresbyter Georgios Tsetses, Οἰκουμενικὸς Θρόνος καὶ Οἰκου-
μένη—᾿Επίσημα Πατριαρχικὰ Κείμενα [The Œcumenical Throne and the
Oikoumenene: Official Patriarchal Documents] (Katerine: Ekdoseis “Tertios,”
1989), p. 57.
31. Barella, Διορθόδοξοι καὶ Οἰκουμενικαὶ Σχέσεις, p. 103.
32. Ibid., p. 159.
33. See note 13.
34. Monk Theokletos, Ἀθωνικὰ Ἄνθη, Vol. I, p. 207.
■ Not only has Elder Theokletos always been aware of the ecumenist character
of Meletios Metaxakes and the Pan-Orthodox Congress of Constantinople, but
in 1969 he emphasized the pernicious consequences of the tactics of
‘that dreadful destroyer of Orthodoxy, Meletios Metaxakes, the
precursor of the contemporary conspiracy against Orthodoxy’;
‘many elements have curbed the destructive activity of the Con-
gress of Constantinople, among them the Old Calendar move-
ment, which functions as a conservative opposition.’
(Monk Theokletos of Dionysiou, “Περὶ τὸ “Οἰκουμενικὸν Συμπόσιον””
[“Concerning the ‘Ecumenical Symposium’”] and “Τὸ «Βʹ Οἰκουμενικὸν
Συμπόσιον»” [“The ‘Second Ecumenical Symposium’”], Ὀρθόδοξος Τύπος,
No. 109 [10 October 1969], pp. 1, 4; No. 110 [1 November 1969], pp. 1, 4.)
35. See note 13.
36. Barella, Διορθόδοξοι καὶ Οἰκουμενικαὶ Σχέσεις, pp. 98-113.
37. Monk Theokletos, Ἀθωνικὰ Ἄνθη, Vol. I, p. 192; see also idem, “Τὸ «Βʹ
Οἰκουμενικὸν Συμπόσιον».”
38. Joint decisions to participate in the WCC were taken:
(1) at the Fourth Pan-Orthodox Consultation—Chambésy, 1968
 (see Stavrides and Barella, Ἱστορία τῆς Οἰκουμενικῆς Κινήσεως, pp. 367-
368);
(2) at the First Pre-Synodal Pan-Orthodox Consultation—Chambésy, 1976
(see Ἐπίσκεψις, No. 158 [1 December 1976], p. 4, “Ἀνακοινωθέν” [“���� Com-
muniqu�������
”], §4);
(3) at the Third Pre-Synodal Pan-Orthodox Consultation—Chambésy, 1986
(see Ἐπίσκεψις, No. 369 [15 December 1986], pp. 14-17, “Ὀρθόδοξος
Ἐκκλησία καὶ Οἰκουμενικὴ Κίνησις” [“The Orthodox Church and the
Ecumenical Movement”], §5);
(4) at the Inter-Orthodox Consultation—Chambésy, 1991
(see Ἐπίσκεψις, No. 467 [20 September 1991], pp. 5-12, “Ἔκθεσις” [“Re-
port”], ch. 3, §§21-27);
(5) at the Holy Synaxis of Primates of the Orthodox Churches—Phanar, 1992
(see Ἐπίσκεψις, No. 477 [31 March 1992], pp. 8-9, “Μήνυμα τῶν
Προκαθημένων” [“Message of the Primates”], §4);
(6) at the Inter-Orthodox Summit—Thessaloniki, 1998
(see Ἐπίσκεψις, No. 557 [31 May 1998], pp. 5-6, “Ἀξιολογήσεις νεωτέρων
δεδομένων...” [“Evaluation of New Facts in the Relations of Orthodoxy
and the Ecumenical Movement”], §§5-7).
39. See note 10.
40. Hieromonk (now Bishop) Irinej Bulovic (ed.), “Orthodoxy and Ecumenism:
An Orthodox Appraisal and Testimony by Archimandrite Justin (Popović),”
http://www.synodinresistance.org/ Theo_en/E3a4012Popovic.pdf. Accessed 22
May 2006.
41. Archimandrite Justin Popović, Ἡ ᾿Ορθόδοξος ᾿Εκκλησία καὶ ὁ Οἰκουμενισ-
μός [The Orthodox Church and Ecumenism] (Thessaloniki: Ekdoseis “Ortho-
doxos Kypsele,” 1974).
42. Ibid., p. 11.
43. See note 1.
44. Archimandrite Theokletos Strangas, Ἐκκλησίας Ἑλλάδος Ἱστορία ἐκ πηγῶν
ἀψευδῶν (1817-1967) [History of the Church of Greece From Reliable Sources
(1817-1967)] (Athens: 1972), Vol. IV, pp. 2817, 2823; (Athens: 1974), Vol. V, pp.
3148-3200.
45. Ibid., Vol. V, p. 3199.
46. See note 45.
47. See note 40.
48. Archimandrite Theokletos, Ἐκκλησίας Ἑλλάδος Ἱστορία, Vol. V, p. 3170.
49. Ibid., Vol. V, p. 3171.
50. Ibid., Vol. V, p. 3178.
51. Ibid., Vol. V, p. 3172.
52. See note 49.
53. See note 49.
54. See note 13.
55. Archimandrite Theokletos, Ἐκκλησίας Ἑλλάδος Ἱστορία, Vol. V, p. 3182.
56. Archimandrite Epiphanios Theodoropoulos, “Ὁ Συνεορτασμὸς τοῦ Πάσχα”
[“The Joint Celebration of Pascha”], Ἐνορία, No. 549 (10 May 1974). See also
Τὰ Δύο Ἄκρα—«Οἰκουμενισμὸς» καὶ «Ζηλωτισμός¸ [The Two Extremes:
 “Ecumenism” and “Zealotry”], 2nd ed. (Athens: Hierou Hesychasteriou Kecha-
ritomenes Theotokou Troizenos 1979), pp. 32, 33.
57. Archimandrite Cyprian and Hieromonk Klemes Agiokyprianitai, “Ἐπίσημες
ἐπισκέψεις ὀρθοδόξων οἰκουμενιστῶν ἱεραρχῶν στὴν “᾿Αδελφὴ
Ἐκκλησία” τῆς Ρώμης” [“Official Visits by Ecumenist Orthodox Hier-
archs to the ‘Sister Church’ of Rome”], Ὀρθόδοξος ᾿Ενημέρωσις, Nos. 15-
16 (January-June 1995), pp. 41-52. See also Archimandrite Cyprian and Archi-
mandrite Glykerios Agiokyprianitai, Ὁ Παποκεντρικὸς Οἰκουμενισμὸς—
᾿Ανησυχητικὲς ᾿Εξελίξεις [Papocentric Ecumenism: Disquieting Develop-
ments], Vol. VIII in Series B, Συμβολὴ στὴν ᾿Αντι-οικουμενιστικὴ Θεολογία
(Athens: Hiera Synodos ton Enistamenon, 2002), pp. 71-113.
58. Bibliography.
(1) Meeting in Jerusalem—1964: P. Gregoriou (P.G. Garó), Πορεία πρὸς
τὴν ἑνότητα [Journey Towards Unity] (Athens: 1978), Vol. I, pp. 99-155;
idem, Χρονικὸν Συναντήσεως Πάπα Παύλου ΣΤʹ καὶ Οἰκουμενικοῦ
Πατριάρχου ᾿Αθηναγόρα Αʹ [Chronicle of the Meeting Between Pope
Paul VI and Œcumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I] (Athens: 1964); Archi-
mandrite Damaskenos Papandreou, Archimandrite Bartholomaios Ar-
chontones, Father Pierre Duprey, and Father Christophe Dumont, Τόμος
᾿Αγάπης/Vatican-Phanar (1958-1970) (Rome and Istanbul: 1971), pp. 36-38,
41, 171-172; Ioannes Karmires, Τὰ Δογματικὰ καὶ Συμβολικὰ Μνημεῖα
τῆς ᾿Ορθοδόξου Καθολικῆς ᾿Εκκλησίας [The Dogmatic and Credal Mon-
uments of the Orthodox Catholic Church] (Graz, Austria: Akademische
Druck u. Verlagsanstalt, 1968), Vol. II, p. 1011 [1091]; A.J. Delekostopou-
los, Ἔξω ἀπὸ τὰ τείχη: Ἀθηναγόρας Αʹ ὁ Οἰκουμενικὸς Πατριάρχης
[Outside the Walls: Œcumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I] (Athens: 1988),
pp. 149-150; Archimandrite Spyridon Bilales, Ὀρθοδοξία καὶ Παπισμός
[Orthodoxy and Papism] (Athens: Ekdoseis “Orthodoxos Typos,” 1969),
Vol. II, pp. 343-348; Τὰ Πεπραγμένα Χρυσοστομου Βʹ Χατζησταύρου
᾿Αρχιεπισκόπου ᾿Αθηνῶν [The Acts of Archbishop Chrysostomos Hatzistav-
rou II of Athens] (n.p.: n.d.), Vol. II (15 July 1963-15 July 1964), pp. 38-252;
Vol. IV (1 October 1965-24 March 1967), pp. 295-302, 305-312.
(2) The Lifting of the Anathemas of 1054: Gregoriou, Πορεία πρὸς τὴν
ἑνότητα, Vol. II, pp. 5-49; Archimandrite Damaskenos Papandreou, et
al., Τόμος ᾿Αγάπης, pp. 119, 121-124, 126-132, 141-143, 173, 200, 201, 236,
237, 277, 279; Karmires, Τὰ Δογματικὰ καὶ Συμβολικὰ Μνημεῖα, Vol.
II, p. 1022 [1102]-1029 [1109]; Panagiotes N. Trembelas, Αἱ μετὰ τὸ ἔργον
τῆς Βατικανείου Συνόδου ὑποχρεώσεις μας [Our Obligations After the
Work of the Vatican Council] (Athens: 1967), pp. 64-67; idem, Ἐπὶ τῆς
Οἰκουμενικῆς Κινήσεως καὶ τῶν Θεολογικῶν Διαλόγων ἡμιεπίσημα
ἔγγραφα [Semi-Official Documents on the Ecumenical Movement and
the Theological Dialogues] (Athens: 1972), pp. 19-24; Delekostopou-
los, Ἔξω ἀπὸ τὰ τείχη, pp. 164, 218-222; Archimandrite Spyridon Bila-
les, Ὀρθοδοξία καὶ Παπισμός, Vol. II, pp. 353-364; Τὰ Πεπραγμένα
Χρυσοστομου BÄ, Vol. IV, pp. 334-337; Aristeides Panotes. “Ἡ Ἄρσις
τῶν ᾿Ανθεμάτων μεταξὺ Ρώμης καὶ Κωνσταντινουπόλεως—᾿Απὸ τὴν
πολεμικὴν εἰς τὸν διάλογον” [“The Lifting of the Anathemas Between
 Rome and Constantinople: From Polemic to Dialogue”], Ὀρθόδοξος
Παρουσία, Nos. 7-8 (1965), pp. 273-349.
• Metropolitan Chrysostomos Konstantinides of Ephesus, “Προοπτικαὶ
στὸν ᾿Ορθοδοξο-Ρωμαιοκαθολικὸ Θεολογικὸ Διάλογο” [“Prospects in
the Orthodox-Roman Catholic Theological Dialogue”], Ὀρθοδοξία (Con-
stantinople) (July-September 1995), pp. 397-418 (we refer to this study in par-
ticular, because it describes the personal contribution of the now Metropoli-
tan Chrysostomos of Ephesus to the promotion of the process for the lifting
of the anathemas in 1965 [see especially pp. 413-415]).
(3) The Pope at the Phanar—1967: Gregoriou, Πορεία πρὸς τὴν ἑνότητα,
Vol. II, pp. 94-140; Archimandrite Damaskenos Papandreou, et al., Τόμος
᾿Αγάπης, pp. 171-174, 178-180, 186, 189, 212, 223-225; Trembelas, Αἱ μετὰ τὸ
ἔργον, pp. 69-96; Delekostopoulos, Ἔξω ἀπὸ τὰ τείχη, pp. 168-172, 222-
225; Archimandrite Spyridon Bilales, Ὀρθοδοξία καὶ Παπισμός, Vol. II,
pp. 348-351.
(4) Athenagoras at the Vatican—1967: Gregoriou, Πορεία πρὸς τὴν ἑνότητα,
Vol. II, pp. 141-193; Archimandrite Damaskenos Papandreou, et al., Τόμος
᾿Αγάπης, pp. 180, 186, 187, 189-197, 203, 208, 211, 212, 231, 232, 235, 270, 272;
Delekostopoulos, Ἔξω ἀπὸ τὰ τείχη, pp. 172-176, 225-230; Archiman-
drite Spyridon Bilales, Ὀρθοδοξία καὶ Παπισμός, Vol. II, pp. 351-353.
59. Monk Theokletos of Dionysiou, “Ἀνοικτὴ ᾿Επιστολὴ πρὸς τὴν Α.Θ.Π.
τὸν Οἰκουμενικὸν Πατριάρχην κ. ᾿Αθηναγόρα” [“Open Epistle to His
Most Divine All-Holiness Œcumenical Patriarch Athenagoras”], Ἁγιορειτικὴ
Βιβλιοθήκη, Nos. 329-330 (January-February 1964). See idem, Ὁ Φώτης
Κόντογλου στὴν τρίτη διάστασή του [Photes Kontoglou During His Third
Period] (Goumenissa: Ekdosis Hierou Koinobiou Hosiou Nikodemou, 2003),
p. 85.
60. Idem, “Πρὸς Ρώμην!...” [“To Rome!...”], Τύπος Ἑλληνικὸς-᾿Ορθόδοξος
(now Ὀρθόδοξος Τύπος), No. 57 (November 1965), p. 1.
61. Idem, “Ἐπιστολὴ πρὸς τὸν ᾿Αρχιεπίσκοπον ᾿Αθηνῶν” [“Epistle to the Arch-
bishop of Athens”], in Ὁ Φώτης Κόντογλου, p. 90.
62. Idem, “Γρηγοροῦντες καὶ Προσευχόμενοι...” [“Alert and at Prayer...”],
Ὀρθόδοξος Τύπος, No. 78 (August 1967), p. 1.
63. Idem, “Τρία ἑκατομμύρια ὀρθοδόξων Ἑλλήνων...” [“Three Million Greek
Orthodox...”], Τύπος Ἑλληνικὸς-᾿Ορθόδοξος, No. 38 (March 1964), pp. 1, 6.
64. Idem, “Περὶ τὸ “Οἰκουμενικὸν Συμπόσιον,”” Ὀρθόδοξος Τύπος, No. 109
[10 October 1969], pp. 1, 4.
65. Idem, “Ἀφορισμοὶ καὶ ᾿Αφωρισμένοι” [“Excommunications and Excommu-
nicates”], Τύπος Ἑλληνικὸς-᾿Ορθόδοξος, No. 59 (January 1966), p. 1.
66. Idem, Ὁ Φώτης Κόντογλου, p. 76.
67. Idem, “᾿Τὰ 95% τῶν Ἁγιορειτῶν Πατέρων ἀποδοκιμάζουν...” [“95% of
the Hagiorite Fathers disapprove...”], Τύπος Ἑλληνικὸς-᾿Ορθόδοξος, No. 40
(May 1964), pp. 1, 3.
68. “Προκήρυξις Ἁγιορειτῶν Πατέρων πρὸς τὸν ᾿Ορθόδοξον Ἑλληνικὸν
Λαόν” [“Proclamation of Hagiorite Fathers to the Greek Orthodox People”],
Τύπος Ἑλληνικὸς-᾿Ορθόδοξος, No. 38 (March 1964), p. 1. See also Monk
 (now Hieromonk) Theodoretos Hagioreites, Μοναχισμὸς καὶ Αἵρεσις [Mo-
nasticism and Heresy] (Athens: 1977), pp. 140-141.
■ At this juncture, it is worth noting another collective and momentous
Athonite document, lengthy and detailed, which was published six years af-
ter the “Proclamation” and was anti-ecumenist in nature: “Ὑπόμνημα
Ἁγιορειτῶν Μοναχῶν πρὸς τὴν ᾿Αριστείνδην Σύνοδον τῆς Ἐκκλησίας
τῆς Ἑλλάδος” [“Memorandum of Hagiorite Monks to the Extraordinary Syn-
od of the Church of Greece” (30 August 1970) (Ὀρθόδοξος Τύπος, No. 126
[20 September 1970], p. 4; Monk Theodoretos, Μοναχισμὸς καὶ Αἵρεσις, pp.
142-151).
69. See note 67.
70. See note 67.
71. See note 62.
72. See note 62.
73. See note 68.
74. “A certain Zealot, who was formerly a monk of our monastery, with the bold-
ness of an erstwhile brother, came to the monastery and visited me in order to
ask me to arrange for the monastery tailor to make him a pair of trousers, for
which he had brought the material. I immediately summoned the tailor, who
gladly agreed to serve the former brother. But then he asked the simple, but
fateful question: ‘Father D., you didn’t tell me how you want it: breeches or
trousers?’ (In bygone days, the monks were accustomed to wearing breech-
es, that is, wide trousers, so that they would not be impeded in making their
prostrations.) To this question I replied, somewhat jokingly: ‘Brother, Father
D. has left the monastery in order to maintain the exactitude of the Faith, and
you are asking him whether he wants trousers?’ Thereupon, the hermit flared
up with zeal, and the hapless man, bereft of even elementary discretion, be-
came angry, reviled us, and indignantly took the material and departed for the
fearsome region of Karoulia, in order to continue his life of struggle in Ortho-
doxy!” (Monk Theokletos Dionysiates, “Ἀπό τόν Παλαιοημερολογιτισμόν
στήν Μονήν ᾿Εσφιγμένου” [“Old Calendarism at the Esphigmenou Monas-
tery”], Χριστιανική, No. 658 [971] [15 May 2003], p. 8).
75. See note 62.
76. See note 64.
77. See note 67.
78. Sample Bibliography:
(1) Visit of Patriarch Bartholomew to Rome (29 June 2004): Zenit News Agen-
cy, Vatican, 28 June 2004, 29 June 2004, 1 July 2004, 2 July 2004; Vatican
Information Service, 29 June 2004; Καθολική, No. 3004 (20 July 2004), pp.
1, 4; Father Demetrios Salachas, “Ὀρθοδοξία καὶ Καθολικὴ Ἐκκλησία”
[“Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church”] (interview), Καθολική, No. 3004
(20 July 2004), p. 2; “Ἡ Α.Θ. Παναγιότης ὁ Πατριάρχης εἰς Ρώμην” [“His
Most Divine All-Holines, the Patriarch in Rome”], Ἐπίσκεψις, No. 637 (31
July 2004), pp. 3-5; G. Zerbous, “Ὄχι εἰς πανηγύρεις μετὰ Παπικῶν”
[“No to Celebrations with Papists”], Ὀρθόδοξος Τύπος, No. 1556 (25 June
2004), pp. 1, 5; idem, “Συμπροσευχὴ εἰς Ρώμην Πάπα καὶ Πατριάρχου”
[“Joint Prayer in Rome Between the Pope and the Patriarch”], Ὀρθόδοξος
 Τύπος, No. 1557 (2 July 2004), pp. 1, 5; idem, “Πρόσκλησις εἰς τὸν Πάπαν”
[“Invitation to the Pope”], Ὀρθόδοξος Τύπος, No. 1558 (9 July 2004), pp.
1, 5; “Ἡ Κοινὴ Δήλωσις τοῦ Οἰκ. Πατριάρχου καὶ τοῦ Πάπα ᾿Ιωάννου
Παύλου τοῦ Βʹ” [“The Joint Declaration of the Œcumenical Patriarch and
Pope John Paul II”], Ὀρθόδοξος Τύπος, No. 1561 (30 July 2004), p. 3;
Ἀπογευματινή (30 June 2004), pp. 20-21, (2 July 2004), pp. 44-45, (4 July
2004), pp. A12-13; Τὸ Βῆμα (4 July 2004), p. A44; Chancery of the Holy Syn-
od in Resistance, “Ἡ τρίτη ἐπίσκεψις τοῦ οἰκουμενιστοῦ πατριάρχου κ.
Βαρθολομαίου στὸ Βατικανό” [“The Third Visit of the Ecumenist Patri-
arch Bartholomew to the Vatican”], Ἅγιος Κυπριανός, No. 321 (July-Au-
gust 2004), pp. 84-85 (for an English version, see http://www.synodinresis-
tance.org/Theo_en/E3b1a0083Episkepsis.pdf ); Protopresbyter Theodoros
Zeses, “Διὰ τὴν συμπροσευχὴν πατριάρχου καὶ πάπα” [“Concerning
the Joint Prayer Between the Patriarch and the Pope”], Ὀρθόδοξος Τύπος,
No. 1559 (16 July 2004), pp. 3, 4; No. 1560 (23 July 2004), pp. 3, 4 (also in
Θεοδρομία [April-July 2004], pp. 165-177).
(2) Visit of Patriarch Bartholomew to Rome—Reception of Holy Relics—Pa-
tronal Feast of Constantinople (27-30 November 2004): From the website
of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, the following texts: Letter of Pope
John Paul II to Patriarch Bartholomew, 8 September 2004; “Ἱστορικὴ
χειρονομία Ρώμης πρὸς Κωνσταντινούπολιν” [“An Historic Gesture of
Rome towards Constantinople”], a communiqué���������������������������
�������������������������������������
from the Patriarchate, 25
October 2004; Patriarchal Letter to the Orthodox Churches, 27 October
2004; Letter from the Pope to the Patriarch, 27 October 2004; Press release
on the occasion of the translation of the Holy Relics, 25 November 2004;
Letter from the Pope to the Patriarch, 27 November 2004; Address by the
Patriarch at the arrival of the Holy Relics, 27 November 2004; Salutation of
the Patriarch at the Patronal Feast, 30 November 2004; Ἐπίσκεψις, No. 641
(30 October 2004), pp. 5-22 (Chronicles and Documents); From the web-
site of the Greek Catholic Exarchate, “Παράμετρα καὶ παραλειπόμενα
τῆς πρόσφατης μετακομιδῆς ἱερῶν λειψάνων στὴν Πόλη” [“Parame-
ters and Omissions in the Recent Translation of Holy Relics to Constan-
tinople”], 10 December 2004; Καθολική, No. 3012 (21 December 2004),
p. 3 (additional photographs on pp. 1 and 4); Georgios-Spyridon Ma-
louchos, “Παράδειγμα διπλωματίας ἡ προσέγγιση τῶν ᾿Εκκλησιῶν”
[“The Rapprochement of the Churches is a Paradigm of Diplomacy”], Ἡ
Καθημερινή (27 November 2004), p. 5; Ἀπογευματινή (30 November
2004), p. 18; G. Zerbous, “Ἀμετανόητον τὸ Βατικανόν” [“The Vatican
is Unrepentant”], Ὀρθόδοξος Τύπος, No. 1571 (5 November 2004), pp. 1,
5; idem, “Διάλογος εἰς Φανάρι” [“Dialogue at the Phanar”], Ὀρθόδοξος
Τύπος, No. 1575 (3 December 2004), pp. 1, 5; Στῦλος ᾿Ορθοδοξίας, No. 52
(December 2004), p. 20.
(3) Also of relevance to the 1964-2004 anniversary: “Τὸ Βάπτιμσα εἰς τὴν
τράπεζαν Παπικῶν καὶ ᾿Ορθοδόξων (“διαχριστιανικὴ συνάντησις
πλησίον τῆς Ρώμης”)” [“Baptism at the Altar of Papists and Orthodox”
(“inter-Christian meeting near Rome”)], Ὀρθόδοξος Τύπος, No. 1576 (10
December 2004), p. 6.
79. The fact that the recent work by the Fathers of Gregoriou, Οἱ ᾿Αγῶνες τῶν
Μοναχῶν ὑπὲρ τῆς ᾿Ορθοδοξίας [The Struggles of Monks on Behalf of Ortho-
doxy] (Holy Mountain: Ekdosis Hieras Mones Hosiou Gregoriou, 2003), does
not mention the heresy of the twentieth century, namely, the panheresy of ecu-
menism, nor, in consequence, the struggles at least of Athonite monks against
it, especially during the 1960s, is symptomatic and raises legitimate questions.
■ Instead of offering our own commentary on this curious issue, we will cite the
extremely apt observation of Father Dionysios Tatses:
Meetings between Orthodox and Papist clergy are very frequent
in our days. And the double sin of joint prayer is also common.
No one dares—or rather, few dare—to protest and reprove the
guilty parties. Even those who have traditional-
ly reacted against the extravaganzas of the
ecumenists are now keeping a prudent and
discreet silence. They are intimidated and
fainthearted. Something else that is repre-
hensible also happens. They speak and write
against Papism, but they lack the courage to
speak about the ‘works and days’ of the Or-
thodox who have become ecumenists. The
scandal caused to the faithful people by
the joint prayers of the ecumenists is very
grave.
(Protopresbyter Dionysios Tatses, “Συμπροσευχὴ μετὰ τῶν Ἑτεροδόξων.
Τὸ διπλοῦν ἁμάρτημα” [“Joint Prayer with the Heterodox: The Twofold
Sin”], Ὀρθόδοξος Τύπος, No. 1577 [17 December 2004], p. 6.)
■ See also the following article on the same subject: Hieromonk Theodore-
tos Hagioreites, “Ἐὰν τὸ ἅλας μωρανθῇ ἐν τίνι ἀρτυθήσεται;” [“If the
Salt Have Lost Its Savor, Wherewith Shall It Be Seasoned?”], Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ
Παράδοσις, No. 131 (July-August 2003), pp. 28-31.
80. Archimandrite Bartholomaios Ch. Archontones, Περὶ τὴν Κωδικοποίησιν
τῶν Ἱερῶν Κανόνων καὶ τῶν Κανονικῶν Διατάξεων ἐν τῇ ᾿Ορθοδόξῳ
᾿Εκκλησίᾳ [Concerning the Codification of the Sacred Canons and Canoni-
cal Ordinances in the Orthodox Church] (Thessaloniki: Patriarchikon Hidry-
ma Paterikon Meleton, 1970).
81. Ibid., p. 73.
82. Ibid.
■ The following comment by Protopresbyter Basileios Bouloudakes in this re-
gard is both timely and noteworthy:
What sober man can expect to benefit from a Patriarchate which
has essentially caused Orthodoxy to disappear from Europe,
America, Australia, and elsewhere? Anyone who cannot see that
our faithful are suffering wherever the Patriarchate has jurisdic-
tion and are searching with the lantern of Diogenes because they
cannot find a Church and Priests that are even remotely Ortho-
dox must be living on Mars.... What I know is what I wrote in
 1993 about the book by the present Patriarch, Concerning the
Codification of the Sacred Canons and Canonical Ordinances
in the Orthodox Church, namely, that it is ‘a threat to Ortho-
doxy.’ Many things have now begun to come true....
(“Διάλογος διὰ τὴν πορείαν τοῦ «Ο.Τ.» Δευτερολογία τοῦ
πρωτοπρεσβυτέρου Βασιλείου Βουλουδάκη” [“Dialogue on the Course of
‘O.T.’: A Rejoinder by Protopresbyter Basileios Bouloudakes”], Ὀρθόδοξος
Τύπος, No. 1552 [28 May 2004].)
83. For the critical report by Elder Theokletos on the agenda of the Preparatory
Commission on the Holy Mountain, 1930, see note 37.
84. Seventh Œcumenical Synod, First Canon. “Testimonies” (Μαρτύρια): “at-
test and reveal” to clergymen “how they ought to conduct themselves.” “Stat-
utes” (Κατορθώματα): when observed by clergymen, “establish and direct
their lives.”
■ “Observe, here,” says St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite, “how venerable and august
the Divine Canons are; for this Holy Synod dignifies the Divine Canons with the
same titles and names with which Divinely inspired and Holy Scripture is digni-
fied, calling them ‘testimonies,’ ‘statutes,’ and the like” (Πηδάλιον [The Rudder],
p. 322, n. 1).
85. [Metropolitan] Aimilianos of Calabria, “Ἐν ὄψει τῆς Συνόδου” [“In Antici-
pation of the Synod”], Ἐκκλησία (15 July 1967), pp. 400-401.
• It should be noted that Metropolitan Aimilianos bases these views of his, as
he admits, on the “memorable initiative of the renowned Patriarchal Encyclical
of 1920.”
• Although the ecumenist character of the Phanariot Metropolitan Aimilia-
nos (Timiades) of Calabria (now of Selybria) was certainly familiar from oth-
er accounts, a recent article has nonetheless reminded us in a very powerful
way of the identity of Metropolitan Aimilianos, and also of those who, unfor-
tunately, support and promote him in Greece: see Ioannes Kornarakes (Pro-
fessor Emeritus at the University of Athens), “«᾿Ορθόδοξος» ᾿Επίσκοπος—
Στρατευμένος Οἰκουμενιστής!” [“An ‘Orthodox’ Bishop—a Militant Ecu-
menist!”], Ὀρθόδοξος Τύπος, No. 1579 (7 January 2005), pp. 1, 7.
• After roughly twenty-five years, the corrosive effect of ecumenism has ad-
vanced to such a degree that the Synod of the Romanian Church, in the con-
text of the Orthodox-Monophysite Dialogue, has passed the following blasphe-
mous resolution:
“[The Holy Synod] considers that the imposition of anathemas
against heretics by the Œcumenical Synods was due to a lack
of love, whereas today, since there is love, unity is being accom-
plished”!
This constitutes “a very grave insult to the Holy Spirit, by Whose inspiration such
decisions were made,” as the Athonite Fathers correctly observe in their denun-
ciation of this resolution, and also “to the sacred memory of the Holy Fathers,
whom the Church calls God-bearers, mouthpieces of the Word, harps of the Spir-
it, etc.” (“Ὑπόμνημα τῆς Ἱερᾶς Κοινότητος τοῦ Ἁγίου Ὄρους περὶ τοῦ
Διαλόγου ᾿Ορθοδόξων καὶ ᾿Αντιχαλκηδονίων, 14/27.5.1995” [“Memoran-
 dum of the Sacred Community of the Holy Mountain Concerning the Dia-
logue Between Orthodox and Non-Chalcedonians, 14/27 May 1995,” in Εἶναι
οἱ ᾿Αντιχαλκηδόνιοι ᾿Ορθόδοξοι; [Are the Non-Chalcedonians Orthodox?]
[Holy Mountain: Hiera Mone Hagiou Gregoriou, 1995], p. 51).
86. See Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Fili, The World Council of Church-
es and the Interfaith Movement, Vol. I in Contributions to a Theology of Anti-
Ecumenism (Etna, CA: Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 1997),
pp. 19-20; Archimandrite Cyprian and Hieromonk Klemes Agiokyprianitai,
Οἰκουμενικὴ Κίνησις καὶ ᾿Ορθόδοξος ᾿Αντι-οικουμενισμός—Ἡ κρίσιμος
ἀντιπαράθεσις ἑνὸς αἰῶνος [The Ecumenical Movement and Orthodox Anti-
Ecumenism: A Century of Critical Confrontation], Vol. VII in Συμβολὴ στὴν
᾿Αντι-οικουμενιστικὴ Θεολογία (Athens: Hiera Synodos ton Enistamenon,
2001), pp. 59-62.
87. Hieromonk Klemes Agiokyprianites, The Contribution of the Orthodox Ecu-
menists to the Interfaith Venture and Their Responsibility for It, Vol. V in Contri-
butions to a Theology of Anti-Ecumenism (Etna, CA: Center for Traditionalist
Orthodox Studies, 2000), pp. 24-34; Archimandrite Cyprian and Hieromonk
Klemes, Οἰκουμενικὴ Κίνησις καὶ ᾿Ορθόδοξος ᾿Αντι-οικουμενισμός, p. 60,
n. 4.
88. The First Academic Meeting took place in 1977 (Lucerne, Switzerland), the
Second Academic Meeting in 1979 (Bucharest, Romania).
■ The dialogue with Islam was inaugurated in 1986.
89. Ἐπίσκεψις (special issue) (25 December 1976), p. 4.
90. Archbishop Athenagoras (Kokkinakes) of Thyateira and Great Britain, The
Thyateira Confession: The Faith and Prayer of the People of God/in English and
Greek/Published with the blessing and authorisation of the Ecumenical Patri-
archate of Constantinople (London: The Faith Press, 1975) (English text: pp. 1-
151; Greek text: pp. 153-286).
■ The Greek original and an English translation of the Patriarchal letter of au-
thorization appear on pp. 4-5.
91. Metropolitan Philaret, “The Thyateira Confession: An Appeal to the Primates
of the Holy Churches of God, and Their Eminences the Orthodox Hierarchs,”
The Orthodox Word, Vol. XII, No. 1 (January-February 1976), p. 10.
92. Archbishop Athenagoras, The Thyateira Confession, pp. 203, 159, 204.
93. Metropolitan Philaret, “The Thyateira Confession,” pp. 7-8.
94. See Pontifical Commission “Justitia et Pax,” Assisi–World Day of Prayer for
Peace–27 October 1986 (Vatican City: Vatican Polyglot Press, 1987), pp. 5-202.
95. Καθολική, No. 2408 (18 November 1986), p. 1.
96. Καθολική, No. 2409 (25 November 1986), p. 4.
97. See note 96.
98. Καθολική, No. 2408 (18 November 1986), p. 4.
99. Καθολική, No. 2413 (23 December 1986), p. 8.
100. Nikolaos P. Basileiades, Πανθρεισκειακὸς Οἰκουμενισμός: Ἡ νέα ἀπειλή
[Pan-Religious Ecumenism: The New Threat] (Athens: Ekdoseis “Ho Soter,”
2002), pp. 6, 33.
101. Cardinal Roger Etchegaray, “Ἡ ᾿Ασσίζη στὴν καρδιὰ τοῦ ᾿Ιωάννου Παύλου
Βʹ” [“Assisi in the Heart of John Paul II”], Καθολική, No. 2498 (12 February
2002), p. 4.
102. Hieromonk Klemes Agiokyprianites, “Τὸ «Πνεῦμα τῆς ᾿Ασσίζης»—Ἡ
Αἵρεσις τοῦ Οἰκουμενισμοῦ καὶ ὁ Παποκεντρικὸς Οἰκουμενισμός ” [“The
‘Spirit of Assisi’: The Heresy of Ecumenism and Papocentric Ecumenism”],
Ὀρθόδοξος ᾿Ενημέρωσις, No. 38 (September 2002), pp. 161-162 (see also
Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Fili, Ἡ Πατερικὴ Στάσις ἔναντι τοῦ
Διαθρησκειακοῦ Συγκρητισμοῦ—Ἱερος Χρυσόστομος καὶ ᾿Ιουδαῖοι [The
Patristic Stand Towards Interfaith Syncretism: St. John Chrysostomos and the
Jews], Vol. IX in Συμβολὴ στὴν ᾿Αντι-οικουμενιστικὴ Θεολογία [Athens:
Hiera Synodos ton Enistamenon, 2004], pp. 145-150).
103. In 1999, the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation,
sponsored by the Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in the
Americas (SCOBA), the Bishops’ Committee for Ecumenical and Interreli-
gious Affairs of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB), and the
Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB), issued an Agreed State-
ment on “Baptism and ‘Sacramental Economy’” (for a critical analysis of this
Statement, see “When is a Chrismation Not a Chrismation?” Orthodox Tradi-
tion, Vol. XVI, Nos. 3-4 [1999], pp. 71-77)—Trans.
104. Professor John Zizioulas, “Orthodox Theology and the Ecumenical Move-
ment,” Sourozh, No. 21 (August 1985), p. 23.
■ For a critical analysis of these theories, see our article: “Ecumenism and ‘Bap-
tismal Theology’: The Protestant ‘Branch Theory’ of the Church in a New Form,”
Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XVII, No. 1 (2000), pp. 2-11 (see also http://www.syn-
odinresistance.org/Theo_en/ E3a1a003BaptismatikeTheologiaOEM26-29.pdf );
see also Andreas Theodorou, “Βαπτισματικὴ Θεολογία” [“Baptismal Theol-
ogy”], Ὀρθόδοξη Μαρτυρία (Cyprus), No. 51 (Winter 1997), pp. 11-15, and
No. 69 (Winter 2003), pp. 98-102; Georgios I. Mantzarides, “Ἡ ἔνταξη στὴν
Ἐκκλησία ἀπὸ ὀρθόδοξη ἄποψη” [“Incorporation in the Church from an
Orthodox Standpoint”], Σύναξη, No. 67 (July-September 2002), pp. 112-122;
Metropolitan Hierotheos of Navpaktos and Hagios Blasios, “Baptismal Theol-
ogy,” Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XX, No. 2 (2003), pp. 42-45 (see also http://www.
synodinresistance.org/Theo_en/E3f2005dBapTheol-3.pdf ).
• Let us recall, at this juncture, in view of the obvious Anglican influence on
Baptismal Theology, and also in order to corroborate its historical origins, that
both in 1918—when [Patriarch Meletios] Metaxakes, [Archimandrite, lat-
er Archbishop Chrysostomos] Papodopoulos, and [Hamilkas] Alivizatos held
unofficial theological conversations with Episcopalians and Anglicans in New
York, Oxford, and London, “the Orthodox stated that they accepted the valid-
ity of Anglican Baptism,” and in 1920—when a delegation from the Phanar at-
tended the Sixth Lambeth Conference, “the Orthodox delegation accepted the
validity of Anglican Baptism” (see Basileios T. Stavrides, “Ὀρθοδοξία καὶ
᾿Αγγλικανισμός” [“Orthodoxy and Anglicanism”], Θεολογία, Vol. III [July-
September 1961], pp. 419, 425).
105. Sacred Community of the Holy Mountain, Παρατηρήσεις περὶ τοῦ
Θεολογικοῦ Διαλόγου ᾿Ορθοδόξων καὶ ᾿Αντιχαλκηδονίων [Observations
 Concerning the Theological Dialogue Between Orthodox and Non-Chalcedo-
nians] (Holy Mountain: 1996), p. 12.
■ These Observations were preceded by the following events:

(1) an article was published by Metropolitan Damaskenos of Switzer-

land (Co-President of the Joint Theological Commission for Dialogue),
“Ὁ Θεολογικὸς Διάλογος τῆς ᾿Ορθοδόξου ᾿Εκκλησίας καὶ τῶν
᾿Ανατολικῶν ᾿Ορθοδόξων ᾿Εκκλησιῶν” [“The Theological Dialogue
Between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches”],
Ἐπίσκεψις, No. 516 (31 March 1995), pp. 11-22.
(2) the Sacred Community of the Holy Mountain undertook a critique of
this article and denounced the deviations of the Dialogue in its docu-
ment: “Ὑπόμνημα τῆς Ἱερᾶς Κοινότητος τοῦ Ἁγίου Ὄρους περὶ τοῦ
Διαλόγου ᾿Ορθοδόξων καὶ ᾿Αντιχαλκηδονίων, 14/27.5.1995” [“Memo-
randum of the Sacred Community of the Holy Mountain Concerning the
Dialogue Between Orthodox and Non-Chalcedonians, 14/27 May 1995,” in
Εἶναι οἱ ᾿Αντιχαλκηδόνιοι ᾿Ορθόδοξοι; [Are the Non-Chalcedonians Or-
thodox?] [Holy Mountain: Hiera Mone Hagiou Gregoriou, 1995], pp. 41-
53).
(3) Metropolitan Damaskenos published a “Response” to the “Memorandum”
of the Sacred Community in Ἐπίσκεψις, No. 521 (31 August 1995), pp. 7-
18.
(4) the Sacred Community responded to the critique by Metropolitan Dam-
askenos in its Observations (20 February 1996).
106. Inter-Orthodox Theological Conference, “I. Findings–II. Proposals,”
Ὀρθόδοξος Τύπος, No. 1577 (17 December 2004), p. 5b, §A2 (“Ὁ διάλογος
μὲ τοὺς Ρωμαιοκαθολικοὺς ἀνώφελος καὶ ἐπιζήμιος” [“The Dialogue
with the Roman Catholics is Unprofitable and Harmful”]); Παρακαταθήκη,
No. 38 (September-October 2004), p. 4b.
107. For a detailed presentation of this very serious issue, see The Balamand Union:
A Victory of Vatican Diplomacy (Etna, CA: Center for Traditionalist Orthodox
Studies, 1993).
108. See note 62.
109. “The Balamand Statement,” §13, Eastern Churches Journal, Vol. I, No. 1 (Win-
ter 1993-1994), p. 19.
110. Stavrides and Barella, Ἱστορία τῆς Οἰκουμενικῆς Κινήσεως, p. 559.
111. Ἐπίσκεψις, No. 511 (30 November 1994), p. 28; Ὀρθοδοξία (Constantinople)
(October-December 1994), pp. 745-754 (the speech was delivered in English).
112. “Ἐπίσημη ἐπίσκεψη τοῦ Οἰκουμενικοῦ Πατριάρχου στὴν ᾿Εκκλησία τῆς
Ρώμης” [“Official Visit of the Œcumenical Patriarch to the Church of Rome”],
Ἐπίσκεψις, No. 520 (31 July 1995), pp. 19, 20, 5, 6.
■ Through this dreadful fall, Patriarch Bartholomew identified himself fully
with his predecessors and emphatically underscored the destructive dynamic of
the ecumenist policies pursued by the Phanar, since “Orthodoxy [read: the Or-
thodox ecumenists] has, through the mouth of Œcumenical Patriarchs Athe-
nagoras and Demetrios, repeatedly recognized the validity of Roman Catholic
sacraments” (Barella, Διορθόδοξοι καὶ Οἰκουμενικαὶ Σχέσεις, p. 217).
113. See note 112.
114. I.A., Ὀρθόδοξος Τύπος, No. 1559 (16 July 2004), pp. 1, 2.
115. St. Gregory the Theologian, “Homily XXI, ‘On St. Athanasios the Great, Bish-
op of Alexandria,’“ §25, Patrologia Græca, Vol. XXXV, cols. 1109D-1112A.
116. St. Theodore the Studite, “Epistle I.39, ‘To Theophilos the Abbot,’” Patrologia
Græca, Vol. XCIX, col. 1049D.
117. “Ἐπιστημονικὸ Συμπόσιο ἐπὶ τῇ συμπληρώσει ἑκατονταετίας ἀπὸ τῆς
ἐξαπολύσεως τῆς Πατριαρχικῆς καὶ Συνοδικῆς ᾿Εγκυκλίου τοῦ ἔτους
1902 ὑπὸ τοῦ Οἰκουμενικοῦ Πατριάρχου ᾿Ιωακεὶμ τοῦ Γʹ” [“Academic
Symposium on the Occasion of the Centennial of the Promulgation of the
Patriarchal and Synodal Encyclical of the Year 1902 by Œcumenical Patriarch
Joachim III”], Ἐπίσκεψις, No. 615 (30 November 2002), pp. 7-15.
118. Karmires, Τὰ Δογματικὰ καὶ Συμβολικὰ Μνημεῖα, Vol. II, pp. 946a, 946c.
■ Other authoritative students of the ecumenical movement acknowledge that
the 1902 Encyclical “is directly related to this movement” (Stavrides, 1964) and
“is one of the historic milestones of Orthodox participation in the ecumenical move-
ment” (Yannaras, 1977); that “these two Patriarchal Encyclical letters, which are
basically one” (Matsoukas, 1986) and “constitute a single whole,” are “the first
statement, in the twentieth century, by the Œcumenical Patriarchate in favor of
the rapprochement of the Churches and the promotion of Christian unity” (Tset-
ses, 1988, 1989), and finally, that “the letters of Joachim III” constitute “pioneer-
ing documents of the primary coördinates of the presence of our Church in the wid-
er Christian world” (Barella, 1994).
See also Thomas Fitzgerald, “Encyclicals, Orthodox,” in Dictionary of the Ecu-
menical Movement, 2nd ed. (Geneva: WCC Publications, 2002), p. 391.
• For a pointed critical analysis of the Encyclicals of 1902-1904, which argues
that the reprehensible “participation of the Orthodox in the Protestant ecumeni-
cal movement” was thereby inaugurated, see A.D. Delembases, Ἡ Αἵρεσις τοῦ
Οἰκουμενισμοῦ [The Heresy of Ecumenism] (Athens: 1972), pp. 227ff.
119. Monk Theokletos Dionysiates, Ἀπὸ τὴν Νοερὰ Προσευχὴ σὲ Χριστοκεν-
τρικὲς ᾿Εμπειρίες [From Noetic Prayer to Christocentric Experiences] (Ath-
ens: Ekdoseis “Speliote,” 2002).
120. Ὀρθόδοξος Τύπος, No. 1494 (28 February 2003), p. 3; Χριστιανική, No. 658
(971) (15 May 2003), p. 8, and No. 659 (972) (29 May 2003), p. 10; Χριστιανική,
No. 663 (976) (24 July 2003), pp. 9-10.
121. Monk Theokletos Dionysiates, Ἀθωνικὰ Ἄνθη, τ. Ιʹ, ᾿Αποκαλυπτικὰ Στοιχεῖα
τῆς Γενέσεως καὶ ᾿Εξελίξεως τοῦ Παλαιοημερολογιτισμοῦ-Ζηλωτισμοῦ
[Athonite Flowers, Vol. X: Revealing Evidence Concerning the Origin and
Development of Old Calendarism and Zealotry] (Athens: Ekdoseis “Speliote,”
2004).
■ To date, the following two critical reviews of this book have been published:
(1) Hieromonk Theodoretos Hagioreites, “Ἀθωνικὰ Ἄνθη τόμος δέκατος—
Ὅταν ἡ σκοπιμότητα, ἡ ἄγνοια, ἡ διαστροφὴ καὶ ἡ ἐμπάθεια γίνωνται
ἀνθοδέσμη...” [“Athonite Flowers Vol. X—When Expediency, Igno-
rance, Distortion, and Bitterness Become a Bouquet...”], Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ
Παράδοσις, No. 136 (May-June 2004), pp. 41-49.
(2) I.A., Ὀρθόδοξος Τύπος, No. 1559 (16 July 2004), pp. 1, 2.
122. Inter-Orthodox Theological Conference, “I. Findings–II. Propos-
als,” Ὀρθόδοξος Τύπος, No. 1577 (17 December 2004), p. 5b, §A2 (“Οἱ
προβαλλόμενοι λόγοι τῆς συμμετοχῆς τῶν ᾿Ορθοδόξων δὲν εἶναι ἀληθεῖς
καὶ ἔχουν διαψευσθῆ” [“The reasons put forward for the participation are not
valid and have been belied”]); Παρακαταθήκη, No. 38 (September-October
2004), p. 4b.
123. Inter-Orthodox Theological Conference, “II. Proposals, §8” Ὀρθόδοξος
Τύπος, No. 1577 (17 December 2004), p. 5e; Παρακαταθήκη, No. 38 (Sep-
tember-October 2004), p. 12a.