A Rejoinder Regarding St. John of Shanghai on the Moscow Patriarchate

Subdeacon Nektarios Harrison, who was made subdeacon in ROCOR, but subsequently has become a Greek Old Calendarist and a popular apologist for them, has written a rebuttal to my article "St. John of Shanghai, the Moscow Patriarchate, and Other Local Orthodox Churches." While he characterized my article as being "amateur historiography and proof-texting," he essentially confirms the basic thesis of my article, which was that St. John did not consider the Moscow Patriarchate or other local Orthodox Churches to be either graceless or pseudo-churches. He begins his article by going into a subject that was not addressed in my article, and then goes on to bring up everything but the kitchen sink, but I want to begin my response with his concession that what I said in my article was correct:

"When we consider Saint John, we must acknowledge the truth plainly: he was indeed pastoral and more lenient in his approach toward those in the Soviet Moscow Patriarchate, the Metropolia, the Paris Jurisdiction, and World Orthodoxy at large. This is indisputable [Emphasis added]."

So since Nektarios (MA, History) agrees that the thesis of my article is indisputable, one might ask why he went on to dispute it anyway. The reason is that St. John is a universally venerated saint of the Church, and so this is an inconvenient truth for those who wish to maintain the extreme ecclesiology that those of like mind with Nektarios wish to promote.

It is interesting that Nektarios never engages the quotes my article provided, and that is because they indisputably prove what my article was all about.

"At the very outset of his article, Whiteford dismissively brands those who rejected the false union with the Soviet-created Moscow Patriarchate as “people in ROCOR who took more extreme views.” What he will not admit is that these supposed extremists, according to this Moscow Patriarchate apologist, were none other than Saint Philaret of New York, Saint Vitaly (Ustinov), Archbishop Averky, Bishop Gregory, and the remnant of ROCOR who refused to betray the legacy of the Catacomb Church and ROCOR by submitting to Moscow."

I never denied that these bishops had views at odds with those of St. John, in fact I specifically cited Metropolitan Philaret as saying that this was the case. But while Metropolitan Philaret may well be numbered among the saints, and is considered to be one by Old Calendarists, he is not officially recognized as a saint by the Orthodox Church as a whole, and is certainly not on the same level as St. John. My primary point was that those who like to throw around labels like "New ROCOR," as if the views ROCOR holds today are at odds with "Old ROCOR," are demonstrably incorrect, and St. John is indisputable evidence that this is so.

"This polemic comes in the wake of my own recent article, The False Shepherd: Moses McPherson’s War Against the True Orthodox Church, wherein I laid out definitively the historical stance of the Russian Church Abroad toward the Old Calendarist Orthodox Christians. There I demonstrated beyond doubt that ROCOR always recognized the Old Calendarist Orthodox Church—not as schismatic, as the deceitful clergy of the new ROCOR-MP now assert—but as true confessors of Orthodoxy. Saint John, Saint Philaret, Saint Vitaly, Archbishop Averky (Taushev) of Jordanville, Bishop Gregory (Grabbe), together with a host of other towering hierarchs, consistently affirmed them as faithful and canonical Orthodox Christians."

My article was written and published in January of 2025, and so was not written in response to anything Nektarios has written since then, and if you read my article, you will see that it did not discuss St. John's view of the Greek Old Calendarists. The history of ROCOR's relationship with the Greek Old Calendarists is complex, but if we stick to the facts on the question of St. John's view of the Old Calendarists, it is fair to say that he was sympathetic to them. He also, along with the rest of the Synod of Bishops declared the consecrations of the Old Calendarist bishops to be invalid. In Nektarios' book "The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad & the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece: A History," he attempts to argue that most of the bishops did not actually agree with this decision, but to substantiate this, he quotes several bishops who argued that Archbishop Leonty of Chile (who had just performed one of these consecrations a few days prior to this Synod meeting) should be treated leniently. No doubt, some of the bishops supported what he did, but St. John is only quoted as saying that Archbishop Leonty's explanation for his actions should be accepted. He did not, however, reject the decision... at least not according to any document that I have seen. Nektarios' only proof that he rejected this decision is a letter he signed with other bishops, thanking Bishop Petros (one of the Greek Old Calendarist bishops in question) for his hospitality (The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad & the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece: A History," p. 26f). Apparently, the fact that this letter referred to him as a bishop is taken for proof of this, but that is a pretty big leap, and a very thin reed to lean on. St. John was a trained lawyer, an expert in the canons of the Church, and it is highly unlikely that he would not have taken the decision of the Synod of Bishops on this question seriously. St. John was a very kind man, he did seem to have a warm relationship with Bishop Petros, but there is no evidence that he ever concelebrated with him.

It is true that after St. John's repose, ROCOR reversed this decision, recognized these consecrations as valid, and briefly entered into communion with the Old Calendarists, but the extremism of many Old Calendarists (particularly their declaration that the Church of Greece was without grace, and their subsequent schisms and infighting) eventually led to ROCOR severing communion with them. A second attempt at communion with the Old Calendarists began in 1994, and for a couple of years there were a lot concelebrations with them, but relations quickly began to cool. The relationship remained intact officially, until 2007, when that Synod severed communion because of our reconciliation with the Moscow Patriarchate, and refused to even discuss the possibility of a reconciliation with their mother Church of Greece -- which was a disappointment to me, because I well remember Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna saying that they were willing to talk to the Church of Greece anytime, but it was they who refused to talk, but here a golden opportunity was presented to them, and they refused to take it. Had they engaged in talks, and found the terms unacceptable, it would have at least been consistent with their principles, but they showed no interest in talking with them on any terms.

The group ROCOR went into communion with (the "Synod in Resistance" under Metropolitan Cyprianos) was chosen precisely because it took a moderate stance when it came to other local churches -- it did not consider them to be without grace, but only ailing. This was also true of Bishop Petros, by the way, who actually joined ROCOR as a retired bishop before his repose. Back in 1994, many in ROCOR saw this group as having a similar mindset to our own, but as happened in the previous attempt at communion with the Old Calendarists, it became clear that we actually did not see things as closely as we thought. This attempted union happened under Metropolitan Vitaly (Ustinov), by the way, who was not a supporter of St. John, and who took a much dimmer of view of the Moscow Patriarchate then did he.

Even Metropolitan Philaret was not as extreme as many of those in the Greek Old Calendarist movement today. In fact, his actual position on the Moscow Patriarchate was attacked as heretical by more extreme elements who were then in ROCOR (especially by those who later joined the Panteleimonite schism, which left ROCOR to protect a sexual predator -- see The Response to Elder Tavrion). And when they actually went into schism with ROCOR, to protect this sexual predator, Metropolitan Vitaly, whom they had always supported, suddenly became a modernist and an ecumenist.

Nektarios wants to argue that St. John agreeing to enter into communion with Patriarch Alexei I, while Joseph Stalin was running the Soviet Union tells us nothing about what he would have thought with regard to entering into communion with Patriarch Alexei II, while Vladimir Putin was the president of Russia, after the persecution of the Church in Russia had ceased, after the Russian Church had glorified the New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia, and after they issued statements which condemned what we define as Sergianism and Ecumenism. He is free to think so, but that is preposterous on the face of it. Things are not perfect in the Russian Church, but they were far less perfect when St. John actually did enter into communion with it (see Status Quo ROCOR?).

Nektarios goes on to cite a source which affirms that St. John, when he learned that ROCOR was still in existence, ceased commemorating Patriarch Alexei I, and resumed commemorating only Metropolitan Anastasy. This is to argue a point that is not in dispute. However, St. John wrote about why he did this, and it was not because he discovered that the Moscow Patriarchate was actually a graceless pseudo-church -- he stated clearly that he did this out of obedience to his oath he gave at his consecration as a bishop, but that he hoped to see all of ROCOR eventually reconcile with the Moscow Patriarchate, and he continued to commemorate Patriarch Alexei I at the proskomedia:

"Every day at the proskomedia I commemorate Patriarch Alexy. He is the Patriarch. And our prayer still remains. By force of circumstances, we were cut off, but liturgically we are united. The Russian Church, like the entire Orthodox Church, is united in the Eucharist, and we are with her and in her. And administratively, for the sake of our flock and for the sake of certain principles, we have to follow this path, but this in no way violates our mysterious unity of the entire Church" (About Vladyka John, by Bishop Basil Rodzianko).

Nektarios raises the issue of the Moscow Patriarchate's membership in the World Council of Churches, and in the Ecumenical movement in general. The fact is that what is allowed to happen in the Russian Church today is far less objectionable than many things that were allowed prior to the Bolshevik Revolution, and even things that were allowed in ROCOR prior to the repose of St. John of Shanghai.

For example, when Metropolitan Vitaly (Ustinov) was consecrated as a bishop, this was done with a vested Anglican Bishop standing on the kliros.

St. Tikhon of Moscow attended the consecration of an Anglican bishop wearing his mantia:

Archbishop Leonty of Chile was sent by ROCOR as an observer to Vatican II.

Sending a representative to Vatican II was, as a matter of fact, supported by the future Metropolitan Vitaly:

"Archbishop Vitalii felt that an opportunity existed to speak about Orthodoxy, on the situation in the Orthodox world, and about the persecution of the Church in Russia. If they leave, Moscow will stay" (A chapter from Psarev’s Masters thesis, “The Attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad toward Non-Orthodox Christians and the Ecumenical Movement (1920-1964): A Historical Evaluation”).

ROCOR in fact sent many representatives to meetings of the World Council of Churches as well, and only stopped doing so after the Moscow Patriarchate began sending their own representatives. In my opinion, the arguments against participating in the World Council of Churches are now outweighed by the arguments against it, but it is a fact that the ecumenical atrocities that took place at WCC gatherings in the 90's were stopped due to the efforts of the Moscow Patriarchate to reform it, which put at an end to inter-religious worship services, and also forced the WCC to no longer issue statements that were not agreed to unanimously -- which effectively gives the Moscow Patriarchate a veto over such things. The Russian Church has stated that it would withdraw from the WCC, if all the other local churches did as well, and there is a concern about ceding the floor of the WCC to the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which could then present itself as the voice of the Orthodox Church there. I know Nektarios doesn't find that a compelling case for staying in the WCC, but I think it is an understandable position, even though I personally don't agree with it. But this is a debatable question, and not a question of apostasy, as Nektarios would like to suggest.

Nektarios brings up the fact that in 1969, the Moscow Patriarchate approved communing Roman Catholics in extremis -- a decision that was set aside in 1986. While I agree that this was a bad decision, the fact is that it was not without precedence. In 1847, Tsar Nicholas I agreed to a treaty that made similar provisions for Roman Catholics (see Decision of the ROC Synod in 1969). 

Along these lines, Archimandrite Ambrose (Pogodin) recounts:

"I had a minor experience, which I will now dare to relate. In 1952, I had a parish in Bradford, England. There were many refugees in this industrial city that had their own churches: Russians, Poles, Ukrainians and others. There was a substantial community of Galician Ukrainians here, who were Uniats. I was told that they were quite hostile towards us Russians. Once, at night, I had a call from the local hospital telling me that a woman “of your religion” was near death. Taking the Holy Gifts I hurried to the hospital. The night was not only dark but a heavy fog covered everything. One had to walk from one streetlight to another. I reached the hospital and was shown the ward where the seriously ill woman was laying in an oxygen tent. Here I learned that she was not Orthodox but a Galician Uniat. Her husband was sitting next to her, crying. I told him that she was not Orthodox but belonged to the Roman Catholic faith. It was urgent that any Roman Catholic priest be called. At the same time I assured the husband that I will not allow her to die without Communion, and if the Catholic priest could not come or does not come in time, I will give her Communion myself. The Catholic priest arrived quickly. He was an Englishman and did not know Russian or Ukrainian. I offered my help. I asked the sick woman if she repents of her sins and does she want to receive Communion. She answered, “Yes, Father” in her Ukrainian accent. I related her words for the priest and he gave her Communion. I was at the hospital several days later and was overjoyed to see that the sick woman was recovering quickly, and she was happy to see me. After this, I was walking on the street past a Galician club and was pleasantly surprised when all those who were outside the building doffed their hats and greeted me, a Russian priest, warmly. I told of this to our great hierarch, Archbishop John [Maksimovich] and said to him that I would have given Communion to the dying woman even though she was a Uniat. After this I was ready to accept any punishment that the Holy Orthodox Church would give me. Archbishop John’s reply was worthy of his sanctity and love towards people: “No punishment would have been given to you”" (On the Question of the Order of Reception of Persons into the Orthodox Church, Coming to Her from Other Christian Churches).

If I was in Fr. Ambrose's situation, and had a Roman Catholic priest not been available, I would not have done what he said he would have done, but his actions were not driven by adherence to the heresy of ecumenism, but by compassion for human beings who were in a desperate situation, and evidently St. John didn't see it as a grave sin. 

On a Synodal level, ROCOR discussed something similar on October 26/November 8, 1962:

"Archbishop Nikon noted that we are giving communion to Uniats for missionary purposes. Archbishop Vitalii [the future Metropolitan of ROCOR] argued that this is so because in the Carpathians people never knew that they were not Orthodox and they continue to live as in olden times. Their bishops were recognized by the Pope, but the people still think they are Orthodox. Archbishop Afanasii noted that it all depends on how to understand membership in the Orthodox Church. If a person goes to an Orthodox church for communion then he is Orthodox. Ruthenians by the thousands took communion in the Pochaev Lavra, and nobody ever questioned if they were Orthodox, because they were such in spirit. Archbishop Averkii [of Jordanville] confirmed that simple Carpatho-Russian people never suspected that they were not Orthodox; the intelligentsia, however, needed to be received through the special rite" (A chapter from Psarev’s Masters thesis, “The Attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad toward Non-Orthodox Christians and the Ecumenical Movement (1920-1964): A Historical Evaluation.”)

Archbishop Leonty of Chile, the same bishop who consecrated the original Old Calendar bishops that constituted the various Old Calendar synods that exist today, had views on this that run somewhat counter to those of the Old Calendarists:

"Igor’ Andruskiewitsch, secretary to Archbishop Leontii when he lived in Buenos Aires, recalled at a meeting with the author, that he once asked the archbishop if it would be permissible to call for a Catholic priest if he were in an accident. Archbishop Leontii replied:

I do not know how I would have answered you before Vatican II, but now, after Vatican II, I will not answer you. When the moment comes, our Lord and Savior will tell you what to do. You will be able to decide without me. Because after Vatican II, I have my doubts. They changed the canon of the Eucharistic liturgy again, which had been changed earlier. Therefore I do not know whether their Eucharist is valid.

Andruskiewitsch mentioned that Archbishop Leontii used to say that before Vatican II Roman Catholic Communion was of benefit to faithful Catholics" (A chapter from Psarev’s Masters thesis, “The Attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad toward Non-Orthodox Christians and the Ecumenical Movement (1920-1964): A Historical Evaluation”).

I do not cite these facts because I think these things were good. I simply cite them as evidence that Church History is more complicated than Old Calendarists would like their people to believe. And the fact is, the views of the bishops of ROCOR today are far more conservative than the views of many of the bishops of "Old ROCOR" or the prerevolutionary Russian Church were.

And on the question of communion with New Calendar Churches, we have this:

"[In] A letter dated September 27, 1961, from the Synod of Bishops of the True Orthodox Church of Greece, a copy of which was sent to Archbishop Iakovos, states:

"Our Church adheres to the old calendar and considers the introduction of the new calendar a grave mistake. However, its policy has always been to maintain spiritual communion with the Orthodox Churches that have adopted the new calendar, as long as they celebrate Easter in accordance with the decision of the First Ecumenical Council. Our Church has never declared the Ecumenical Patriarchate or the Greek Archdiocese of North and South America to be schismatic, nor has it severed spiritual communion with them" (Machine translation of Икуменически възгледи и контакти на Руската Задгранична Църква (РЗЦ) [Ecumenical views and contacts of the Russian Church Abroad (ROCA)]).

Concelebrations with other local Churches continued throughout the time leading up to reconciliation with the Moscow Patriarchate. I was present (as a laymen at the time) at the glorification of St. John of Shanghai and well remember that a Serbian priest concelebrated with the assembled clergy. Nektarios interviewed Fr. Andrew Kencis who tried to dismiss this by saying that he asked Metropolitan Vitaly (Ustinov) about it, and Metropolitan Vitaly reportedly replied, "That is on Vladika Anthony's neck" -- who was the ruling bishop of the ROCOR Diocese of Western America, and in whose cathedral this glorification took place. Had Archbishop Anthony allowed a Roman Catholic priest to concelebrate, does anyone think Metropolitan Vitaly would merely have said "That is on Vladika Anthony's neck"? He would have put his foot down, and this would not have been allowed to happen. The fact that he did not put his foot down in this case is evidence that he did not think this priest was a graceless heretic.

I also know that concelebrations like this happened prior to 2007, because as a deacon, and later as a priest, I often concelebrated with Serbian clergy, and always did so with the blessing of my bishop.

And when it comes to the current stance of the Moscow Patriarchate when it comes to praying with the heterodox, I would invite those interested to compare the following documents:

In 1974, under the leadership of Metropolitan Philaret, the Synod of bishops sent out a document entitled "Regarding the Behavior of an Orthodox Priest towards Heterodox." 

The draft document "On Issues Concerning Prayer with Non-Orthodox Christians,” which will likely approved at the next All-Russian Council.

These two documents are remarkably similar.

It is certainly true that prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was a wide range of opinions about the Moscow Patriarchate. Metropolitan Anastasy and St. John were on the more charitable end of the spectrum. Metropolitan Philaret and Metropolitan Vitaly were closer to the other end of the spectrum. It would be dishonest to pretend that either views were not part of "Old ROCOR." But as for myself, I feel very comfortable aligning myself with those on the end of the spectrum with St. John of Shanghai.

For more information, see:

Stump the Priest: Old Calendarism

"Anti-Patristic: The Stance of the Zealot Old Calendarists, by Monk Basil of the Holy Monastery of Saint Gregory (Grigoriou), Mount Athos.

A Rejoinder to Hieromonk Patapios’ “A Reply to Patrick Barnes: The Deficient Scholarship of Monk Basil’s Comments on the Allegedly Anti-Patristic Stand of the So-Called “Old Calendarist Zealots”

Stump the Priest: Old Calendarism

A monk from Esphigemenou monaster, about to toss a Molotov cocktail.

Question: "The Esphigmenou monastery [on Mount Athos] has recently made headlines; what is happening with them and why are the monks being evicted? How do you view Old Calendarists like these monks, who have broken communion with the rest of the Church?"

The history of the Greek Old Calendar movement is a sad one. What is most sad about it is that it was a problem that could have so easily been avoided had the New Calendar not been introduced into the Church of Greece (along with several other local Orthodox Churches) in the manner in which it was.

In the turmoil that followed World War I, you had the Bolsheviks reeking havoc in Russia, and the Greeks having launched a disastrous attempt to recapture Asia Minor from the Turks which led to a mass expulsion of the Greek population of Asia Minor, there were those who seized the opportunity presented by this upheaval to push for various "reforms" in the Church, and one of those "reforms" was to change the Church Calendar. Specifically, the kingdom of Greece had changed the civil calendar to the Gregorian Calendar, and so there were those who wished to push this change in the Church of Greece as well. In 1923, there was a "pan-Orthodox Synod" (which had representatives from less than half of the Church) which was held to consider this change. What they approved was a calendar that was essentially the same as the Gregorian Calendar, but which preserved the Old Calendar Paschalion (which determines the date of Pascha, and therefore all the aspects of the liturgical calendar that are determined by the date of Pascha). In 1924, the Church of Greece adopted this "Revised Julian Calendar," and in reaction, an Old Calendarist movement began.

The Church of Greece in cooperation with the government of Greece began a policy of repressing the Old Calendarists, which only added bitterness to schism. Gradually various divisions emerged among the Old Calendarists. Many of the Old Calendarists declared the New Calendar Church of Greece to be "without grace," and the degree to which extreme stances were taken added to the division among the Old Calendarists.

The history of the various Old Calendarists schisms is very complicated, and having read the conflicting accounts that the different factions have given about their history, it is my opinion that only God knows which of them are telling the truth in any given instance, and there is good reason to believe that none of their accounts add up entirely. But rather than get lost in the woods discussing their history, let me make a few observations, and then get to the key issues to this question:

1. Had the Calendar not been changed the way that it was, there never would have been a schism.

2. Old Calendarists have pointed to many Ecumenical abuses, especially on the part of clergy under the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and many of their objections have merit -- though their arguments that the rest of the Orthodox Church has fallen away as a result of these abuses does not stand up to scrutiny. However, those responsible for these abuses have some share in the blame that these groups have not been reconciled with the rest of the Church.

3. However, the Old Calendarists have generally taken a simplistic view of the canons and Church history in an attempt to justify their separation from the Church that has swayed many, but which is not justified by the Tradition and Canons of the Church.

4. Many (probably most) Old Calendarists are sincere, but there are also many who use the issues that motivate the Old Calendarists as an excuse for schism in order to provide a haven for those who simply wish to function outside of the reach of the accountability they would have to face in legitimate Orthodox Churches.

Is the New Calendar a Heresy?

While Old Calendarists cite other issues today, the issue that caused their groups to originally go into schism was the change of the Calendar, and so the question must be asked, is the New Calendar a heresy? Was it a sufficient basis for going into schism, and denouncing the Church of Greece?

I am not on the New Calendar, and I am glad that this is the case for two reasons:

1. I do not believe that the New Calendar should have been introduced unless every local Church agreed to make the change, at the same time. Whatever advantages the New Calendar may have, they are not worth causing division, and that is in fact what it caused.

2. Changing the fixed calendar to the New Calendar, but continuing to use the Old Calendar to determine the date of Pascha causes liturgical chaos. The Typikon was not written with such a strange mix in mind. Personally, I think it would make far more sense to change the entire calendar, so that it still worked with the Typikon. As it is, you have lenten commemorations occurring before Lent (such as the feast of the 40 Martyrs of Sebaste), and you have paschal commemorations occurring during lent (such as the feast of St. George). You also have the Apostles fast often ending before it begins, as it did this year.

But despite these issues, it cannot be successfully argued that the New Calendar is a heresy, and according to the Canons, it is only heresy, preached clearly and unequivocally, that is a sufficient basis for separating from your lawful bishop, or a bishop separating from his lawful synod.

The Canons

If you ask an Old Calendarist for the canonical basis of their schism, they will point to Canon 15 of the First and Second Council (The Protodeutera Council) of Constantinople, held in 861, which states in part:

"But as for those persons, on the other hand, who, on account of some heresy condemned by holy Councils, or Fathers, withdrawing themselves from communion with their president, who, that is to say, is preaching the heresy publicly, and teaching it barehead in church, such persons not only are not subject to any canonical penalty on account of their having walled themselves off from any and all communion with the one called a Bishop before any conciliar or synodal verdict has been rendered, but, on the contrary, they shall be deemed worthy to enjoy the honor which befits them among Orthodox Christians. For they have defied, not Bishops, but pseudobishops and pseudo-teachers; and they have not sundered the union of the Church with any schism, but, on the contrary, have been sedulous to rescue the Church from schisms and divisions."

Another basis that is often appealed to is the example of St. Theodore the Studite, who broke communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople because he allowed the Emperor to enter into a fourth marriage.. which was certainly contrary to the well established Tradition of the Church. This controversy is known as the Moechian Controversy (from the Greek word "μοιχός," which means "adulterer," because St. Theodore considered this marriage to be nothing more than adultery). During this controversy, St. Theodore the Studite briefly separated himself from two Patriarchs who are also Saints of the Church.The fact that he separated from two saints of the Church suggests that the example is not one that is so clear cut that one could base a great deal upon it.

Aside from that, a few decades after the repose of St. Theodore, the First and Second Synod was called in Constantinople, and while they did say that a bishop preaching heresy bareheaded in the Church was grounds for schism, they made it very clear that personal sins or canonical violations were not a sufficient basis for a schism.

Canon 13 of that council states:

“The All-evil One having planted the seed of heretical tares in the Church of Christ, and seeing these being cut down to the roots with the sword of the Spirit, took a different course of trickery by attempting to divide the body of Christ by means of the madness of the schismatics. But, checking even this plot of his, the holy Council has decreed that henceforth if any Presbyter or Deacon, on the alleged ground that his own bishop has been condemned for certain crimes, before a conciliar or synodal hearing and investigation has been made, should dare to secede from his communion, and fail to mention his name in the sacred prayers of the liturgical services in accordance with the custom handed down in the Church, he shall be subject to prompt deposition from office and shall be stripped of every prelatic honor. For anyone who has been established in the rank of Presbyter and forestalls the Metropolitan’s judgment, and, judging matters before a trial has been held, insofar as lies in his power, condemns his own father and Bishop, he is not even worthy of the honor or name of Presbyter. Those, on the other hand, who go along with him, in case any of them should be among those in holy orders, they too shall forfeit their own rights to honor, or, in case they should be monks or laymen, let them be utterly excommunicated from the Church until such time as they spew upon and openly renounce all connection with the schismatics and decide to return to their own Bishop” (D. Cummings, trans., The Rudder of the Orthodox Catholic Church: The Compilation of the Holy Canons Saints Nicodemus and Agapius (West Brookfield, MA: The Orthodox Christian Educational Society, 1983), p. 469).


Canon 14 says:

“If any Bishop, on the allegation that charges of crime lie against his own Metropolitan, shall secede or apostatize from him before a conciliar or synodal verdict has been issued against him, and shall abstain from communion with him, and fail to mention his name, in accordance with consuetude, in the course of the divine mystagogy (i.e., liturgical celebration of the Eucharistic mystery), the holy Council has decreed that he shall be deposed from office, if merely by seceding from his own Metropolitan he shall create a schism. For everyone ought to know his own bounds, and neither ought a presbyter treat his own bishop scornfully or contemptuously, nor ought a bishop to treat his own Metropolitan so” (Ibid., p. 470).


Essentially, this says that what goes for Deacons and Priests, goes for a Bishop in his dealings with his Metropolitan too.


And then we have Canon 15:


“The rules laid down with reference to Presbyters and Bishops and Metropolitans are still more applicable to Patriarchs. So that in case any Presbyter or Bishop or Metropolitan dares to secede or apostatize from the communion of his own Patriarch, and fails to mention the latter’s name in accordance with custom duly fixed and ordained, in the divine Mystagogy, but, before a conciliar verdict has been pronounced and has passed judgment against him, creates a schism, the holy Council has decreed that this person shall be held an alien to every priestly function if only he be convicted of having committed this transgression of the law. Accordingly, these rules have been sealed and ordained as respecting those persons who under the pretext of charges against their own presidents stand aloof, and create a schism, and disrupt the union of the Church. But as for those persons, on the other hand, who, on account of some heresy condemned by holy Councils, or Fathers, withdrawing themselves from communion with their president, who, that is to say, is preaching the heresy publicly, and teaching it barehead in church, such persons not only are not subject to any canonical penalty on account of their having walled themselves off from any and all communion with the one called a Bishop before any conciliar or synodal verdict has been rendered, but, on the contrary, they shall be deemed worthy to enjoy the honor which befits them among Orthodox Christians. For they have defied, not Bishops, but pseudobishops and pseudo-teachers; and they have not sundered the union of the Church with any schism, but, on the contrary, have been sedulous to rescue the Church from schisms and divisions” (Ibid., p. 470f).


And so what was said in the previous canons about separating from Bishops and Metropolitans is all the more applicable to one’s Patriarch. There is only one exception given here, and that is when one separates from their Bishop, Metropolitan, or Patriarch, on the basis of heresy that is publicly taught “bareheaded” in the Church.  The canon does not say it is justified merely on the grounds that a bishops holds a heretical opinion.  It also does not say it is justified because such an heretical opinion might be inferred from his actions or vaguely worded statements. It is only when it is a heresy that has been condemned by the fathers or councils, and is taught publicly, and “bareheadedly”.

These canons, coming as they do in the wake of the Moechian controversy, were clearly designed to ensure that another such controversy would not occur. They clearly define the only basis for schism prior to a conciliar verdict, and that is the clear preaching of heresy. Furthermore, even this canon does not provide for the establishment of parallel jurisdictions prior to a conciliar verdict. In other words, you could withdraw from communion from a bishop who is preaching heresy, but until the Church deals with the matter, you have no grounds for establishing rival Synods, as the Greek Old Calendarists have done.

Now getting back to the monks at Esphigmenou, while all the monasteries on Mount Athos have at times raised objections to actions and statements of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and while they all have remained on the Old Calendar, all of them remain in communion with the rest of the Church... except for this monastery. It has unfortunately attracted the most extreme monks on the Holy Mountain, and they have painted themselves into a theological and ecclesiological corner.

There have been other examples of Orthodox governments using military force to remove heretical or schismatic monks from a monastery, but I think it would have been better in this case for the Ecumenical Patriarchate to focus their attention on removing the points of scandal that have inspired these monks to take the extreme position that they have, and then to attempt to reason with them in good faith, rather than resorting to the use of force at this point.

The shame of it all is that among the Old Calendarists there are many people who are very pious and devout, and were it not for the issues that have led them into schism, they would be great assets to the rest of the Church and contribute much to its strength. We should pray that they will see their error in their position, but we should also speak out against examples of modernism and ecumenism when we see them, because these things are not only a temptation that has led many into schism -- they are also things that could eventual divide the Church even further. The more we all embrace the Tradition of the Church, the more we will be united; but the more that people in the Church disregard that Tradition, the more division will be the result.

I would recommend that you read "Anti-Patristic: The Stance of the Zealot Old Calendarists, by Monk Basil of the Holy Monastery of Saint Gregory (Grigoriou), Mount Athos.

I would also recommend you read "A Rejoinder to Hieromonk Patapios’ essay: “The Deficient Scholarship of Monk Basil’s Comments on the Allegedly Anti-Patristic Stand of the So-Called“Old Calendarist Zealots."