In recent years, some voices within Old Calendarist circles have made the troubling assertion that widely venerated figures such as St. Paisios, St. Porphyrios, St. Iakovos, and others are merely “pseudo-saints” and “pseudo-elders.” A recent article published on Orthodox Traditionalist exemplifies this position, going so far as to refuse referring to these holy elders with the title of saint.
One of the central claims in these critiques is that true saints always broke communion with heretics before any council condemned them. According to this view, these contemporary elders’ continued communion with hierarchs accused of ecumenism supposedly invalidates their sanctity.
The goal of this text is to examine these claims, particularly focusing on the witness of St. Paisios, and to demonstrate through numerous historical examples why this position fundamentally misunderstands Orthodox tradition regarding communion and sanctity.
The Arguments Made Against St. Paisios
Let us examine the specific claims made against St. Paisios’s sanctity in particular, for in refuting them, we expose not just their individual weakness but the fundamental error of the entire Old Calendarist position:
- “He maintained communion with Patriarch Bartholomew despite the latter’s ecumenist stance, even praising him as “the best Patriarch” and receiving his blessing in 1992”
- “He made an allegedly false prophecy about General Grapsas and a Turkish attack that never materialized”
- “He rejected patristic methodology by advocating for maintaining communion with heretical patriarchates rather than separating from them”
- “He advised against ceasing commemoration of heretical hierarchs, contradicting Canon 15 of the First-Second Council and traditional Orthodox practice”
- “He downplayed ecumenist actions as mere ‘mistakes’ rather than heresy and discouraged lay involvement in theological matters”
The Problem with these Arguments
The irony of this position becomes clear when we consider St. Paisios’s life in its fullness. From his baptism by St. Arsenios of Cappadocia, who prophesied his monastic calling, through his ascetic struggles on Mount Athos that mirrored the ancient fathers, to his death in 1994 that left a continuing stream of miracles, his life manifests every mark of authentic Orthodox sanctity. Yet these critics would have us reject this clear witness of divine grace based on their own narrow interpretation of how saints should behave.
Each of these accusations reveals not just the poverty of their position, but the spiritual danger of their approach. Let us examine how each claim collapses under scrutiny…
Immediate Facts That Refute These Claims
The Timeline
St. Paisios reposed in 1994, merely 2 years after Patriarch Bartholomew’s election. Most of Bartholomew’s controversial actions — the situation in Ukraine, his environmental statements, and his most extreme ecumenical gestures — occurred long after St. Paisios’s repose. This simple fact exposes the absurdity of using St. Paisios’s initial assessment of Bartholomew against him.
The False Accusation of Never Separating
Contrary the claims made by Orthodox Traditionalist publications, St. Paisios actually did wall off in 1970, along with the whole of Mt. Athos and three Metropolitans, against Patriarch Athenagoras, till the death of said Patriarch in 1973. He championed in favor of walling off from the heretical Patriarch and is known that he pushed the monastery of Stavronikita to also cease the Patriarch’s commemoration. This demonstrates his clear discernment and willingness to separate when necessary. Indeed, his biography records that he had
great Orthodox sensitivity, and for this reason did not accept common prayers and communion with non-Orthodox persons. He emphasized, ‘For us to pray in common with someone, we must agree in faith.’ He would sever his ties or avoid seeing clergy that participated in common prayers with heterodox.
— Biography of St. Paisios
This fact further undermines the Old Calendarist position — they criticize a saint renowned for his rigor in upholding Orthodox practice. Even though St. Paisios may not have been aware of all the implications of Patriarch Bartholomew’s later actions at the time, his cautious and measured response was guided by prudence and a deep commitment to pastoral care rather than by any desire to compromise. This example illustrates how St. Paisios embodied the traditional Orthodox approach: upholding strict doctrinal standards while exercising careful discretion in responding to emerging ecclesiastical challenges.
The Mountain Context
From the age of thirty, St. Paisios lived high on the Holy Mountain, maintaining a life comparable to the ancient ascetics, embracing great poverty and solitude in his forest cell. Without any worldly promotion — no radio, television, or press — his reputation for sanctity spread throughout the world purely by the witness of those he helped. His cell became a beacon for thousands who would wait in line until dawn just to speak with him for a few minutes.
Like Elder Ephraim of Katounakia, who had never even heard of ecumenism and therefore could not form or express a personal opinion on the matter, St. Paisios’s favorable opinion about Bartholomew was based on the limited information available to him at that time, showing his humble approach to not judging others without full knowledge.
The Nature of His Sanctity
St. Paisios was not primarily a theoretical theologian versed in church canons and history, but a man of profound spiritual experience and discernment. His life was marked by divine providence from the beginning — St. Arsenios of Cappadocia himself baptized him and prophesied his monastic calling, saying he would “become a monk following in my own footsteps.” Born into the profound spiritual tradition of Cappadocia that has produced countless saints, his family fled the Turkish genocide, carrying this ancient tradition to Greece. His life followed the pattern of the great hesychast fathers, focusing on prayer, asceticism, and pastoral care for the faithful.
Even before monasticism, his character was evident. During the Greek Partisan War (1945-1949), while serving as a radio operator, he maintained his ascetic life and was distinguished for his valor, integrity, and self-sacrifice. Like the great military saints before him, he demonstrated that authentic Orthodox spirituality transforms every aspect of life, not just ecclesiastical matters.
His spiritual power was particularly evident in his ability to guide seekers to authentic Orthodox spirituality. One famous account, documented in “The Gurus, the Young Man, and Elder Paisios,” tells of a young man who, having explored yoga and various occult practices, came to Elder Paisios on Mount Athos. The Elder’s divine gifts and unconditional love — flowing from his union with Christ — proved more powerful than any Eastern mysticism.
Metropolitan Athanasios of Limassol — who is a spiritual child of Elder Joseph of Vatopedi and a firsthand witness to many of these events—recorded his experience in a book dedicated to these accounts. He wrote:
This book, written by a man dear to my heart, describes events he has personally experienced… I too can testify to what he has written, because I was an eyewitness to many of the events that he describes: since I lived on the Holy Mountain at that time, I played a part in the development of his relationship with the righteous Elder Paisios… Seeing the benefit that so many have received from this book, I truly rejoice and bless the name of God, Who made us worthy to see firsthand this saint of our days, Elder Paisios.
— Metropolitan Athanasios of Limassol, The Gurus, the Young Man, and Elder Paisios
While some critics may question the overall ecclesiastical stances or general reliability of figures like Elder Joseph and Metropolitan Athanasios, their direct witness to specific events and personal interactions offers invaluable evidence. Their testimonies remind us that true Orthodox sanctity is not measured solely by doctrinal rigidity but by the transformative power of Christ’s love as evidenced in the lives and actions of His saints. In this case, their firsthand accounts affirm the authenticity of the experiences described and the enduring sanctity of St. Paisios.
Having addressed the immediate facts that refute these claims, let us now examine how the Old Calendarist contradicts the entire witness of Orthodox history.
Historical Precedents That Disprove their position
The Orthodox Practice of Breaking Communion: Theory and Historical Reality
While on a theoretical level, the Fathers do teach about breaking communion with heretics, the practical application has never been as simple as they claim. Throughout Church history, saints have shown great pastoral wisdom in timing their response to error, considering both the spiritual state of their flock and the broader implications for the Church.
Consider these powerful examples:
- St. Meletius of Antioch, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, and St. Basil of Ancyra were not merely in communion with the Homoiousians — they were active members of the movement. For instance, historical accounts indicate that St. Meletius first appears around 357 as a supporter of Acacius, bishop of Caesarea, who led the local Homoean faction. This faction endorsed the Homoean formula, asserting that the Son is like the Father without referencing essence or substance. Such direct involvement demonstrates that these saints not only engaged with but were integral to the theological debates of their time, aligning themselves with the Homoiousian perspective long before it was recognized that their faith and that of Nicaea were essentially one and the same.
- Consider the example of St. Bartholomew the New of Grotafferata Monastery. Despite the formal Schism of 1054, he maintained communion with Rome until his repose in 1055 (or 1065, according to differing sources). This fact illustrates that even recognized saints sometimes navigated complex ecclesiastical realities without compromising their spiritual integrity.
The Case of St. Basil and Eustathius of Sebasteia
As Hieromonk Eugenios documents in his recent work “The Concept of Defilement of the Orthodox from Ecclesiastical Communion with Uncondemned Heretics” (Thessaloniki, 2023), St. Basil the Great’s relationship with Eustathius of Sebasteia provides another striking example. Initially impressed by Eustathius’s apparent virtue and monastic dedication, St. Basil maintained communion with him even after rumors of his questionable faith began circulating. When other Orthodox bishops, including St. Meletius of Antioch, expressed concerns, St. Basil still met with Eustathius personally and was temporarily convinced of his orthodoxy, writing that they had “found him, with God’s help, following the path of complete orthodoxy with gratitude” (Letter 98). Only later, when Eustathius revealed his true heretical beliefs, did St. Basil finally demand he clearly state his position.
The implications of this historical example are profound for our discussion. This poses an insurmountable challenge to the Old Calendarist position: Would they dare question St. Basil’s sanctity because he was temporarily deceived by a heretic? The mere suggestion is absurd, yet this is precisely the logic they apply to contemporary saints like St. Paisios.
This pattern of pastoral discretion in maintaining or breaking communion continues throughout Church history, as we see dramatically illustrated in more recent times with the example of ROCOR.
The ROCOR Example (1920-1960s)
From 1920 until at least the 1960s, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia maintained communion with many local churches, including the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, despite the presence of ecumenism within these churches.
By the logic presented by Orthodox Traditionalist (and many Old Calendarists), would we then need to reconsider the sanctity of St. John Maximovitch?
Those who hold this rigid position cannot have it both ways — either maintaining communion during official errors invalidates sanctity (in which case they must reject the New Martyrs), or their criteria for rejecting saints like St. Paisios are fundamentally flawed.
(St. John Maximovitch is venerated by the GOC-K, as evidenced by his placement in the header on their website)
(Here above we see Orthodox Traditionalist publication sharing their veneration of St. John of San Francisco, and also showing that the GOC-K even have a monastery named after St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco in New York, showing their level of veneration for him).
This example becomes even more powerful when we examine it closely. From its beginning in Yugoslavia in 1921 until the canonical act of 2007, ROCOR was in continuous Eucharistic communion with the Serbian Orthodox Church. Even in the 1960s, the future Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, then a young deacon, concelebrated with ROCOR hierarchs. Bishop Dionysius of the Patriarchate of Constantinople participated in consecrating future ROCOR First Hierarch Metropolitan Philaret. These facts demonstrate how even during periods of administrative separation, the Church maintained its essential unity through communion with other Local Churches.
The Stark Contrast with Schism
The ROCOR situation highlights several crucial differences from genuine schism:
- ROCOR was founded in 1920 based on Decree No. 362 of Patriarch Tikhon and the Holy Synod — that is, with the blessing of legitimate Church authority
- All ROCOR hierarchs had canonical consecrations and maintained Apostolic Succession
- The broader Orthodox world continued to recognize ROCOR’s legitimacy, with multiple Local Churches maintaining communion
This stands in stark contrast to the groups that break communion with the entire Orthodox world and reject widely-recognized contemporary saints. The historical witness of ROCOR demonstrates how the Church has always balanced principled resistance with maintaining unity where possible.
The Reality of Orthodox Unity
The interaction between ROCOR and other Orthodox jurisdictions further exposes the flaws in the Old Calendarist position. St. Sophrony of Essex, while under the Ecumenical Patriarchate, blessed the creation of the Platina brotherhood of Fr. Seraphim Rose, who was under ROCOR. His blessing speaks volumes:
…may the Lord bless your beginning, and may He grant you strength for the creation of this Brotherhood, and inspiration throughout your entire life…
— St. Sophrony to the Fr. Herman Brotherhood, February 11, 1964, Fr. Seraphim Rose: His Life and Works, pg. 353
This interaction demonstrates how true Orthodox life continued across jurisdictional lines, with saints and elders recognizing and supporting authentic spiritual endeavors regardless of temporary administrative divisions. Such examples raise an impossible question: If communion with “modernist” jurisdictions automatically negates sanctity, how do they explain these grace-filled connections between Orthodox faithful of different jurisdictions?
This pattern of mutual recognition and cooperation among holy elders is further illustrated in an account from Elder Ieronymus’s biography, …written by Sotiria Nouse, a new calendarist whom the Old Calendarists trust enough to accept her Synaxarium of Elder Ieronymus. She writes:
Before giving the work “About Elder Ieronymos” to the Publishing House, I requested by letter the blessed Elder Paisios of Mount Athos to inform me if he knew anything about Elder Ieronymos and his opinion on the writing of the book.
Elder Paisios, may his prayers now and from where he is, accompany us, answered me with his blessed letter, which is included at the end. Through this letter, on the one hand, he wished that “the work be good, etc.”, and on the other hand, he advised me to have it read beforehand by Fr. Porphyrios (of Oropos), because “the spiritual specialty of one resembles that of the other.”
Elder, the blessed Fr. Porphyrios, out of humility, when I asked him by phone to go through the text and give his blessing for its publication, answered me:
“Who is writing the Prologue?”
I answered him: “Mr. Paschos, Elder, you know him.”
And he replied: “Since Mr. Paschos, who is also a University Professor, has seen it and is writing the Prologue, I, an uneducated man, am not needed.”
Subsequently, and with hesitation in my reminder: “Elder, what shall we do now, since Fr. Paisios writes that you should also see it?”
And then, obeying the great and holy Elder Porphyrios to the Athonite father Paisios, he says:
“Alright, take the text and read to me over the phone, wherever I tell you. Read 15 pages from the beginning. Ten pages after page 65. Ten pages after page 100. Ten pages after page 150. Skip 50 pages and read to me…”
He listened with great attention to the pages he indicated and that I read to him over the phone. He suggested some words to correct, especially for the word “anxiety” which is written somewhere, he says to me with a strong tone: “Hey, erase that word! It should not exist in your book! It is not permissible for a Christian even to feel it, nor to say it. There is no anxiety for the believer!” and then at the end of reading the excerpts, with some satisfaction, he says:
“Now, it’s okay, give it to the Printing Office. With my blessing.”
Therefore, after the prayer and blessing of these two Holy Elders and with the loving thirst of Elder Ieronymos for admonition and salvation of souls, which he intensely manifested when he was alive, how can the humble words about Elder Ieronymos and his wise counsels not permeate, benefit and sweeten whoever delves into them with zeal and love?’
— Sotiria Nouse, Biography of Elder Ieronymus
This presents Old Calendarist critics with an insurmountable contradiction: they venerate Elder Ieronymos as a saint while rejecting the very elders — St. Paisios and St. Porphyrios — who blessed and validated his biography. They cannot logically maintain both positions: either these elders had the spiritual discernment to validate Elder Ieronymos’s life story (in which case their own sanctity is evident), or they lacked such discernment, in which case the Old Calendarists must explain why they accept a biography blessed by ‘pseudo-elders’). This contradiction exemplifies how the Old Calendarists must constantly ignore or explain away clear evidence of grace and spiritual authority in those they reject.
The Russian Church Declaration of 1913
The 1913 Russian Synodal Declaration rejected the infallible doctrine of St. Gregory Palamas’s regarding the uncreated energies. This wasn’t just an individual hierarch’s error — it was an official pronouncement of a local Council, meaning the entire Russian Church was formally teaching against St. Gregory Palamas’s doctrine of the uncreated energies. Yet the New Martyrs and Confessors, whose sanctity even they recognize, remained in communion. This continues to expose the fundamental error of the Old Calendarists position that saints immediately separate from any hint of heresy.
The Russian Church Situation: St. Victor and the New Martyrs
St. Victor’s witness disproves their position. After identifying Metropolitan Sergius’s errors in 1912 and publicly writing against them, he maintained communion for 15 years before breaking communion. After St. Tikhon was martyred in 1925, St. Peter of Krutitsa became the lawful head of the Russian Church. Even when Metropolitan Sergius betrayed the Church’s freedom, the saints and confessors waited until his formal submission to the Soviets in 1927 before breaking communion.
This pattern of measured response appears repeatedly among the New Martyrs and Confessors — whom even Old Calendarists venerate. St. Victor’s example shows how saints can exercise pastoral wisdom in timing their response to heterodoxy, putting to absolute shame the legalistic, reductionist understanding of Orthodox pastoral wisdom that pervades Old Calendarist critiques.
The Patristic Confirmation
St. John Chrysostom himself validates this approach in his writing about St. Eustathius facing the Arians after the First Ecumenical Council: “He summoned everyone and entreated them not to yield, nor to give in to the wolves, nor to betray the flock to them, but to remain inside curbing them and disputing, while securing the less corrupted of the brothers and sisters.” St. Chrysostom explicitly states that St. Paul’s instruction was not “Abandon the sheep and flee outside.” This patristic wisdom perfectly illuminates St. Paisios’s approach — just as St. Eustathius remained to guide his flock while opposing Arianism from within, St. Paisios chose to remain and guide the faithful while opposing modernist trends.
Their Devastating Error
All the historical evidence that has been covered exposes a devastating logical error in the Old Calendarist position (witnessed by Orthodox Traditionalist publications): they conflate the principle that breaking communion is required when heresy threatens the Faith/when heresy is present with the notion that ‘not breaking communion immediately invalidates sanctity.’
This leap has zero basis in Orthodox tradition.
The Living Witness of Traditional Orthodoxy
The Powerful Witness of Elder Gabriel
St. Paisios’s own spiritual son, Elder Gabriel of the Kelli of St. Christodoulos, provides perhaps the most powerful testimony. In a strongly-worded open letter to Patriarch Bartholomew in 2019, he condemned the Patriarch as “an enemy of the Triune God and our Mother of God” for maintaining “institutional friendship with conscious and unrepentant heretics.” His letter went further, stating that “Under your protection, any heresy and innovation has found refuge not only in the dioceses of the Throne, but also in the Church of Greece and in other places.”
Elder Gabriel has ceased commemoration of Bartholomew and faces persecution because of his confession.
They cannot dismiss Elder Gabriel’s witness — he cannot be accused of being soft on ecumenism or maintaining communion with heretics. Yet this same Elder Gabriel, who wrote that the Patriarch’s actions are “a rebellion against the Savior Himself” and pays a personal price for his stance, maintains unwavering veneration for his spiritual father, St. Paisios.
How can Old Calendarists claim St. Paisios was wrong when his own spiritual son, who demonstrates such strict adherence to Orthodox tradition and suffers for his confession, venerates him as a saint?
The Relationship Between Saints and Church Unity
The interaction between canonized Orthodox saints demonstrates the falsity of their position. They would have us selectively reject certain saints based on jurisdictional allegiances, while throughout Orthodox history, true saints have consistently recognized and respected authentic sanctity wherever it appears. This stands in stark contrast to their approach of rejecting widely-recognized saints based on their narrow criteria.
The Fruits of His Sanctity
The Witness of Miracles in Orthodox Tradition
Let’s be absolutely clear: while miracles alone don’t determine sanctity, they have always been a powerful witness in our Orthodox tradition. At the Fourth Ecumenical Council, it was the miracle of St. Euphemia that triumphed over the Monophysites. St. Spyridon manifested the elements in his hands to defend the Trinity. Throughout our history, the Church has recognized miraculous manifestations as evidence of God’s grace working through His saints.
Miracles That Cannot Be Explained Away
The overwhelming abundance of authenticated miracles through St. Paisios presents them with an insurmountable contradiction — one they conspicuously avoid addressing. These documented cases include:
Personal manifestations of sanctity
- He was counted worthy of seeing many saints and Holy figures, including St. Isaac the Syrian
- He was seen (at a vigil of St. Isaac the Syrian) in the light of Tabor, transformed and floating in the air.
- There are numerous testimonials of his prophecies coming true.
- There are also numerous testimonials of his clairvoyance. He knew people’s names, about their families, where they live, what they wanted, and even what they were thinking.
The following is but a single grain of sand in the full witness of testimonials for the venerable saint:
The testimony of Father Raphael S: “Whenever I would go see the Elder, there were always crowds, and it was difficult to speak to him comfortably. The last time, visiting him as a deacon—I think it was in 1991—I was afraid that this would happen again, and, so, I prayed about it. When I arrived at Panagouda, I was surprised because I did not see anyone. And more than that, the Elder devoted a lot of time to me, giving me advice about every aspect of my life. And while inside myself I was giving glory to God and thanking the Elder because he was taking so much time counseling me, I started getting anxious thinking that would miss the bus—I had to leave Mt. Athos on that certain date. But I did not dare tell him about this thought, and even just thinking about it seemed impious to me. The Elder caught it, though, and, interrupting what he was saying, told me, ‘Do not worry you will not miss the bus.’ And he continued giving me advice. Bewildered, I sent away all my anxiety. But in a little while, I thought again: ‘I am going to have to run to catch the bus.’ Again, the Elder interrupted, ‘Not only will you make the bus, but you will have to wait two hours.’ I could not understand at the time what he had meant. But again, I realized that he was watching my thoughts, and I continued listening to his counsels. After enough time had passed, I thought, ‘The bus is going to be leaving now. I am forced to leave tomorrow.’ And the Elder again said, ‘Okay, fine, get going. But you have to know that you will wait for two hours.’”
In Karyes, I saw a crowd waiting next to the bus. I asked, and they told me that it had started its route normally, but when it had reached the Athoniada, they turned it back to pick up representatives from the Holy Community as well, whose meeting, though, ended up running late. So, I had to wait two hours before we departed.
— St. Paisios: Testimonies, Encounters, and Teachings
Physical Healings
- A plumber in Cyprus had a wire hook miraculously removed from his eye by St. Paisios’s physical appearance — with medical documentation
- Complete restoration of sight to a person blinded in one eye after St. Paisios’s visitation in a Moscow hospital
- A tumor vanishing from a woman’s eyelid
- Healing of a demoniac
- Numerous cancer patients healed at his grave in Souroti
Divine Protection
- A young boy survived a four-story fall unharmed, later pointing to St. Paisios (his icon) as his savior
- Multiple documented interventions in traffic accidents
Ongoing Manifestations
- His personal items, grave, and hermitage continue to exude an inexplicable sweet fragrance
- Countless verified appearances to the faithful after his repose
- Numerous recorded instances of spiritual guidance through visions
- Documented assistance to students in need
These miracles are not isolated incidents but form a consistent pattern of divine intervention, thoroughly documented and witnessed across different countries, circumstances, and time periods.
These witnesses are so numerous, we cannot possibly mention them all here. But they can be found in the following books.
A Legacy That Continues to Bear Fruit
Perhaps most telling is what St. Paisios built and left behind. Souroti Monastery, which he founded and guided spiritually for twenty-eight years (1967-1994), stands today as a testament to his spiritual power. There, he even established a church dedicated to his godfather, St. Arsenios the Cappadocian, housing his precious relics — a physical symbol of the unbroken chain of Orthodox tradition. His six volumes of “Spiritual Counsels” continue to transform lives worldwide. Like his own spiritual father, St. Arsenios the Cappadocian, his influence reaches beyond Orthodox boundaries, touching even Muslim communities — a universal recognition of holiness that transcends religious divisions.
Even during his lifetime, hundreds of people documented miraculous help received through his prayers. Today, his grave at the convent of Saint John the Theologian has become a fount of healing, continuing the pattern established in his life — authentic holiness recognized not through institutional promotion, but through the undeniable witness of divine grace. This stands in stark contrast to the Old Calendarist approach, which would replace the living witness of miracles and transformed lives with rigid, legalistic criteria.
Select Well-Documented Prophecies
While we shouldn’t rely solely on prophecies, as some can be disputed, certain predictions of St. Paisios were so precise and well-documented that they cannot be ignored. The establishment of Souroti Monastery exactly as he foretold, opening precisely one year later on October 26, 1967, stands as one clear example of his prophetic gifts.
It’s also worth noting that some sensationalist publications have attributed to St. Paisios widely circulated political prophecies (such as those involving General Grapsas) and not only lack verification from reliable sources close to the Elder, but have been contested by the subjects themselves.
The Ultimate Question
So we must ask those who reject St. Paisios: How do they explain these manifestations of divine grace? Are we to believe that God would work such powerful miracles through someone they claim was in error? Would He allow His people to be led astray by false signs? Or is it more likely that their narrow interpretation of how saints should behave is simply wrong?
The evidence is overwhelming. The fruits of St. Paisios’s sanctity continue to multiply, while their arguments wither under historical and theological scrutiny. In their zeal to be “more Orthodox than Orthodox,” they have placed themselves in opposition to the clear work of the Holy Spirit.
The pattern we see emerging is clear: while claiming to defend Orthodox tradition, they actually employ thoroughly un-Orthodox methods of judgment. They would have us ignore a saint whose family carried the ancient traditions of Cappadocian Christianity through genocide, whose cell became a beacon of Orthodox spirituality without any institutional promotion, and whose grave continues to be a source of healing for the faithful. This becomes particularly evident when we examine the Protestant-like logic underlying their approach.
Un-Orthodox Patterns of Thought
The Orthodox Way vs. the Spirit of Criticism
Fr. Seraphim Rose directly addressed how we should approach such matters:
Let us then be more humble, more loving and forgiving in our approach to the Holy Fathers. Let the test of our continuity with the unbroken Christian tradition of the past be, not only our attempt to be precise in doctrine, but also our love for the men who have handed it down to us… Let us be in agreement with our great Eastern Father St. Photius of Constantinople, and “not take as doctrine those areas in which they strayed, but we embrace the men.”
— Fr. Seraphim Rose
The Protestant-like Logic of the Old Calendarists
The spirit of Ham prevails in these critiques. Rather than following the Orthodox practice of covering the nakedness of our fathers (Genesis 9:23), many of the Old Calendarists have adopted a thoroughly Protestant mindset, placing individual judgment over church consensus and selectively using tradition to support their predetermined conclusions.
St. Photius the Great directly addressed this spirit of exposing fathers’ supposed faults:
I would imitate the good sons of Noë and hide my father’s shame, by using silence and gratitude as a cloak. I would not follow Cham’s example as do you. Rather, you are crueler and more impudent than he, for you publish abroad the shame of those whom you call your Fathers.
— St. Photius the Great, On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit, pg. 100
He further warns against those who formulate dogma from their own incorrect perceptions:
…why do you make a dogma and law of what was not spoken by them [St. Augustine, St. Jerome] with dogmatic significance and so bring irreparable ruin upon yourself?
— St. Photius the Great, On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit, pg. 100
The Return of Ancient Heresies
The approach evident amongst the Old Calendarist mirrors the ancient Donatist heresy. Like the Donatists who demanded a “pure” church without sinners, they create new “purer” churches whenever they disagree with something, rather than maintaining the Orthodox way of working within the Church for reform when possible. This ancient heresy was condemned by the Church precisely because it demanded a level of institutional purity that Christ Himself never required.
Selective Use of Tradition
They betray their fundamentally un-Orthodox mindset:
- Choosing which saints to accept based on their own criteria
- Ignoring the broader context of Church history
- Applying canons selectively and legalistically
- Placing their individual interpretation above the living witness of the Church
- Judging saints based on isolated incidents rather than the totality of their lives
Summary
Let’s expose the raw hypocrisy at the heart of the Old Calendarist rejection of St. Paisios:
- Their criteria would condemn their own saints. If maintaining communion with those in error invalidates sanctity, they must immediately remove St. John Maximovitch from their icons—a saint who concelebrated with “modernist” hierarchs for decades. They must also reject St. Victor of Vyazov, who waited 15 years to break communion with Metropolitan Sergius. Their silence on these contradictions betrays their inconsistency.
- They venerate what they condemn. Old Calendarists canonize Elder Ieronymos while simultaneously denouncing St. Paisios and St. Porphyrios—the very elders who blessed his biography’s publication. This absurdity forces them to either admit these “pseudo-elders” possessed authentic spiritual discernment (thus validating their sanctity) or explain why they trust a biography dependent on the blessing of those they reject as graceless.
- They invented criteria no saint ever used. Search all Orthodox history — you will not find a single instance where one recognized saint declared another “unsaintly” for maintaining communion during troubled times. This innovation exposes them not as defenders of tradition but as its manipulators.
- They falsely accused St. Paisios of never separating. This lie crumbles before historical fact: St. Paisios DID wall off from Patriarch Athenagoras in 1970, pushed his monastery to cease commemoration, and refused to pray with heterodox. Their willful blindness to documented history reveals their dishonesty.
- Their position collapses under historical scrutiny. The saints they venerate—St. Meletius of Antioch, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, the New Martyrs who remained in a Church teaching against Palamite doctrine—all maintained communion while opposing error until circumstances demanded separation. Yet they hypocritically demand immediate separation as the sole test of sanctity.
- They cannot explain St. Paisios’s miracles. The overwhelming evidence of divine grace—documented healings, prophetic gifts, and the continuing sweet fragrance of his relics—presents them with an insurmountable problem: Would God work powerful miracles through someone leading His people astray? Their silence on this question is deafening.
- "Their methodology is fundamentally Western, not Orthodox. Like Ham exposing his father’s nakedness, they reject the Orthodox way of honoring the saints while covering their perceived mistakes. Instead, they adopt a Protestant approach—elevating individual judgment over church consensus, using tradition selectively to support predetermined conclusions, and demanding institutional purity Christ Himself never required. The supreme irony is that while claiming to defend Orthodoxy against Western influences, their entire mindset betrays the very Western captivity they claim to oppose.
Old Calendarists have built their ecclesiology on quicksand, constantly forced to ignore, explain away, or simply remain silent about contradictions that destroy their entire position. Those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit by denying the clear sanctity of St. Paisios invite upon themselves the judgment reserved for those who “call evil good and good evil.” Their schism is not defense of Orthodoxy but its distortion.
Conclusion
The Old Calendarist position collapses under the weight of its own contradictions. They venerate Elder Ieronymos while rejecting the very saints — St. Paisios and St. Porphyrios — who blessed and validated his biography. They honor St. John Maximovitch who maintained communion with “modernist” jurisdictions while condemning others who did the same. They celebrate the New Martyrs who remained in communion with a Church officially teaching against Palamite doctrine, yet attack contemporary saints for far less.
By creating a new framework for judging saints that no saint in history ever used, these critics have become innovators of the highest order — those who would presume to question the sanctity of thousands of saints using criteria they themselves “invented”, contrary to the witness of actual saints.
Yes, breaking communion is one thing our saints did do contextually. However, calling other Orthodox Christians (and their sacraments) graceless for not immediately breaking communion is not. This clearly contradicts the witness of many holy saints as have been thoroughly cited previously (even ones recognized by Old Calendarists), both in their own personal examples and their associations with others who engaged in these examples.
Instead of following any consistent Orthodox tradition, Old Calendarists like Subdeacon Nektarios repeatedly dodge these points, resorting merely to regurgitating canons that contextually don’t justify their own actions, while drawing others into complex theological and intellectual gymnastics that move people away from these very simple truths.
This knowledge alone should be sufficient to save many who might be led astray into schism by those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit, denying the clear sanctity of St. Paisios the Athonite.
We conclude this text with the words of the venerable saint:
The few Old-Calendarists there are have split into I-do not-know-how-many groups. All they do is split off into smaller groups and anathametize each other and excommunicate each other and depose each other. You do not know how much I have suffered and prayed about this issue. We have to love them and have compassion for them, not condemn them. And even more than that, we have to pray for them, that God will enlighten them. And if it happens one day that someone with good intentions asks us for help, then we should talk to them about it.
— St. Paisios of Mount Athos, Hieromonk Isaac, pg. 664
Through the prayers of St. Paisios the Athonite, and especially our most holy lady Theotokos, the protector of Mount Athos, O Lord Jesus Christ Our God, have mercy on us, and save us.
Amen.