www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Orthodox and Catholic views of Old Calendarists

Do the Orthodox Churches in communion with the historical Patriarchates view the Old Calendarist Orthodox such as the Matthewites and other Old Calendarists as having grace filled sacraments and in the bounds of Orthodoxy? For example would the Old Calendarists be viewed as fellow Orthodox or more like vagantes. I'm not including ROCOR here because I know they are viewed as fellow Orthodox.

Does the Catholic Church view Old Calendarist Orthodox as having grace filled sacraments as the Catholic Church views the historical Patriarchates?

Thank you for your replies.

God Bless,
Joseph

Sorry to say, but the Old Calendarist groups are so splintered,even among themselves, that it is sometimes very difficult to separate the "goats from the sheep." (Usually the goats have much longer beards and peevish personalities. )

Not that many years ago, many USA Old Calendarists were re-united with the Holy See of Constantinople and the Greek Archdiocese of North America. I don't remember if the re-ordination of their bishops, priests, etc. was a requirement for the reunion, but my educated guess is that it wasn't required. The Mysteries of this group were considered to be "vehicles of grace."


There is much to be admired among the Old Calendarists; there is much to be rueful of, for "The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." (Move over, Will Shakespeare!)

Speaking only for Greeks, I must say that the Old Calendarists have lost the questing spirit of Odysseus, the thirst for knowledge and understanding of great Greek heroes such as, Pythagoras, Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Alexander, and specifically Diogenes, who said, "I am a citizen of the world," and coined the word,"cosmopolitan." Ironically, Catholic Greeks, embracing Greek cosmopolitanism, are more "Greek" than the diehard pseudo-Greek Old Calendarists!


The Old Calendarist Greeks certainly are less "cosmopolitan" than the Greek Fathers, who were men of profound knowledge, depth and complexity of personality, and had first-hand experience with the richness of Greek culture.

Our prayer, for them, is to embrace the richness of Orthodoxy and return to the profound ancient Greek ethos which is our "giftos" from a Loving and Merciful God.

The Law is, like stone, cold and hard, devoid of life. But the Gospel is written in our hearts, and is supple, warm, alive, and loving. That is an Orthodox truth the Old Calendarists do not seem to understand.

God Bless!

Bill

[ 11-11-2001: Message edited by: Psalm 46 ]

Actually, I think the Greek Old Calendarists are in communion with ROCOR, but don't take that as gospel-it seems like whos in communion with who in the Old Calederist world is constantly changing.
The Greek's reunited with Constantinople a few years back are headquarted in a St. Irene's monastery in Astoria, NY. They have been quite controversial for their very reactionary views and cultlike approach.

God Bless,

Michael

I am no expert on these matters, but perhaps we can sort a few things out.

The first is the issue of which Old Calendarists. There are about 6 distinct groups of Greek Old Calendarists. Online at www.rulers.org [rulers.org] they list them all in a religious subsection of that site.

One group of Old Calendarists is in communion with ROCOR--the Synod of Metropolitan Cyprian in Greece, which has an exarchate in the USA run by the Etna, CA group "St. Gregory Palamas Monastery." Archbishop Chrysostomos and Bishop Auxentios run this group.

Other Old Calendarists are called Mathewites. They are different from the above-mentioned group becuase of an ecclesiological POV. The Matthewites only believe that they have grace--only Old Calendarists who DO NOT accept the grace of New Calendarists have grace. Thus the Etna group lacks grace because it accepts the grace of New Calendarists.

HOCNA is an inbetween group. They claim they are not Matthewites but I'd like to see someone prove that to me from what they write.

Now--the State Church of Greece and the Metropolitan Cyprian group to my knowledge DO NOT ACCEPT THE GRACE OF THE MATTHEWITES because their first bishops were consecrated by a single consecrator, which is invalid in Orthodoxy unless a persecution abounds (which they of course claim but is unlikely).

The State Church DOES however accept the validity of the Cyprian group, and has stated so publicly, in documents cited by said group.

When the bishops of the St. Irene group in NY joined Constantinople, they were reconsecrated. The faithful however to my knowledge were not rechrismated. I am not sure of the details of this reconsecration-- it could have been that a "correction" or laying on of hands was performed. Or they could have had the whole thing done. The point is that being outside of communion with the Church in Orthodoxy's eyes would mean that the sacraments are not tangible; therefore the offenders can be received back via any way the Church really feels like doing it--they could have rebaptised them if they really wanted to, or just said, "sign on the dotted line." Whichever would have been in the spiritual best interests.

As for the Catholic POV, if the lines of consecration are undoubted, the faith is not changed, etc., then the candidate has "valid" orders. So in my opinion the Cath. Church would recognize Old C's.

In Christ,

anastasios

This article was on the web and may help to explain the position of the "Old Calendarists" regarding their seemingly disunited appearance and why they do what they do. I think it is also important to understand befor you read this that they strongly believe only an Orthodox faith can exist in the Church and that therefore, many who seem Orthodox are not.

Anyway, here it is...

THE ACCURSED

For the unrepentant and darkened soul who does not wish to see, the dread Mysteries of Christ are a judgment and condemnation; but for the repentant, The Holy Supper is sanctification.

Likewise, the darkened mind will react violently to this essay with all sorts twisted and gross slanders as a means of self-preservation while at the same time a light for those who seek truth.
Let us always be mindful of the sayings of the Lord, and of the letters of the apostles; for they have both told us beforehand that there shall be heresies, and have given us, in anticipation, warnings to avoid them. The Lord teaches us that many “ravening wolves shall come in sheep's clothing.” Now, what are these sheep's clothing's but the external surface of Christian profession? Who are the ravening wolves but those deceitful senses and spirits which are lurking within to waste the flock of Christ? Who are the false prophets but deceptive predictors of the future? Who are the false apostles but “orthodox” preachers of a spurious gospel? Who are the Antichrists but the men who rebel against Christ and disbelieve in His Church? Heresies will continue to attack the church with their perversion of doctrine just as Satan will continue to persecute her with murder and cruelty, except that persecution make martyrs and heresy only apostates.

St. Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians, counts “heresies” among “the sins of the flesh,” who also intimates that “a man who is a heretic” must be “rejected after the first admonition,” on the ground that “he that is such is perverted, and committeth sin, as a self-condemned man.” Those who tread their own individual paths are self-condemned, because they have chosen the means of their own condemnation. We, however, are not permitted to cherish any object after our own will or to accept anything another has introduced of his private fancy. In the Lord's apostles we possess our authority; for even they did not choose to introduce anything, but faithfully delivered to all the nations the doctrine which they had received from Christ. If, therefore, even “an angel from heaven should preach any other gospel”, he would be called accursed by us.

Syncretism, not Ecumenism

Today a great many "Orthodox" bishops, priests, and laymen say they proudly support “ecumenism”. And since ecumenism is the endeavor to unite separated Christians who have been deceived by the devil with the Church of Christ, who can protest? Jesus Christ, our Savior, has said that no one can come unto the Father except through the Son. Similarly, no one can approach the Son except through the Church. True ecumenism is therefore praiseworthy and has as its cause the love of neighbor, the healing of the sick, and the strengthening of the true faith. What a noble endeavor indeed.

But if ever this thought were to blossom in the midst of an "ecumenical" dialog today it would be a great scandal to all. These repetitious conventions of world religious leaders have never once discussed true doctrine and struggled with the smallest pain to “rediscover” their lost truth. No, this is what the naive might accept. The unique characteristics of the many beliefs are only discussed insofar as they are considered obstacles to unifying hypocritical men. Therefore, by all means, the least common denominator must be found so a historical “understanding" can be reached in which they can blunt Orthodox sensitivity and create a syncretistic convergence.

They are not bishops and priests, they are not confessors of the faith, they are clever diplomats. Can one imagine diplomatic martyrs, or clever confessors?

Their language has no words to suggest error or false doctrine, only hypocritical flattery and false courteousness that smiles of malicious contempt for the Holy Fathers.

"But let your communication be, Yes, yes; No, no: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil" (Mt. 5:37).

“Ecumenism” is the language of implication, convention, negotiation, vague meanings, hidden intentions, unsure outcomes, and of unknown acceptance. It is the inclination to generalizations and the usage of abstract means of expression. Every document and “joint statement” they issue requires a special theological-linguistic research because of its shapeless hypocrisy.

The Holy Fathers convened to separate false doctrine, false bishops, and thereby protect Christ's flock in His truth. They spoke in clear words and of concise definitions. The so-called “orthodox” syncretists convene with other heretics to discuss calendar reform, common prayers, timing of feast days, and non-compete clauses of mutual recognition. The former is done with the love of God for the love of man while the latter is for the love of man with a malicious disbelief in Christ's Church.

This is not ecumenism, it is syncretism and St. Paul calls this lot “accursed”.

The Acts of the Syncretists

"Orthodox bishops" who participate in "ecumenism" can be found in every city and at every jurisdictional level.

The first to clearly depart into the bizarre was Patriarch Dorotheus who issued the encyclical “To the Churches of Christ Wheresoever They Might Be” which is so proudly flaunted by ecumenists today. This document is the tour-de-force of pan-Christian Freemasonry.

A year later, “Patriarch” Meletius Metaxakis, a Mason, was bad enough to even offend the pope by recognizing Anglican orders and despite anathemas pronounced in 1583AD, 1587AD, and 1593AD on anyone who would do so, he derisively tore at Orthodox unity with the invention of an errant liturgical calendar. Fortunately, his efforts to abolish fasting, allow priests to marry, and remarry, were thwarted – the people must not have been ready for that.

Chrysostom Papadopoulos, the supposed Archbishop of Athens, preached syncretism many years before Athenagoras. At his enthronement he said “For the purpose of such cooperation and mutual help, doctrinal unity, unfortunately difficult to achieve, is not a necessary presupposition, since the bond of Christian love suffices, which, after all, can smooth the road toward union.”

Not to be outdone, Athenagoras, declared: “"Why do we not automatically return to Mysteriological (Sacramental) communion? Because it is necessary for us to prepare our peoples for it, both theologically and psychologically…we, the two worlds of East and West, have come to think that we belong to different Churches and different religions.…It is to prepare our peoples psychologically to understand that there is one Church and one religion".

Having mutually recognized themselves as Sister Churches in Balamand the “Orthodox” and Latins declared: "that which Christ has entrusted to His Church -- profession of apostolic faith, participation in the same sacraments, above all the one priesthood celebrating the one sacrifice of Christ, the apostolic succession of bishops -- cannot be considered the exclusive property of one of our Churches."

In this context elimination of any re-baptism is obvious which is why the Joint Theological counsel recently recognized that the Latin “baptism” is valid knowing the unanimous voice of the fathers declares this to be false.

In November of 1998, Mr. Bartholomew addressed the papal delegation who they were celebrating the feast of St. Andrew with by saying: "Those of our forefathers from whom we inherited this separation were the unfortunate victims of the serpent who is the chief of all evils; they are already in the hands of God, the righteous judge". He continues: “And these men, being the causes for the schism, are now in the hands of God, the righteous judge.”!

June of 1998 when in Rome, the “Most Reverend Metropolitan” of Pergamon spoke again of the so-called "two lungs" with which the Universal Church of Christ breathes.

Recently Australian Archbishop Stylianos (Patriarchate of Constantinople), blasphemed the Holy Spirit in his sermon maintaining that "the individual and even the whole Church has never received the gifts of the Spirit sufficiently" and that "this is precisely why the well known characteristics of the Church, being "one, holy, catholic and apostolic" remain until the day of the Parousia both gifts and postulates at the same time"

And still more recent, Patriarch Ignatius IV Haze of Antioch stated: “Eastern Catholic patriarchs always invite me to their meetings, and I hope to meet with Maronite Patriarch Sfeir during my stay in Rome. We are convinced that no Christian religious community can substitute for another.”!

And ignoring the great many other theological gymnastics for expediency's sake, I will conclude by only mentioning that if the upper management of this syncretist society were given full credit for their actions we may never conclude and that is nothing to say of their puppets.

“Error, indeed, is never set forth in its naked deformity, lest, being thus exposed, it should at once be detected. But it is craftily decked out in an attractive dress, so as, by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced (ridiculous as the expression may seem) more true than the truth itself.” (Irenaeus, “Against Heresies”; Book I, par. 2)

Following Orthodox Bishops

Syncretists make it their business not to convert the heathen, but to subvert the Orthodox. This is the glory which they seek, to compass the fall of those who stand, not the raising of those who are down. Accordingly, since accomplishments come not from the building up of their own organization, but from the demolition of the truth, they undermine our edifices, that they may erect their own. Only deprive them of true believing Orthodox and they have not another objection to talk about. The consequence is that they more easily accomplish the ruin of standing houses than the erection of fallen ruins. Schisms seldom happen among these syncretists, because even when there is theological disagreement, it does not divide them because their very unity is schism and heresy.

One has to wonder why, in the face of such blasphemous activities, so many follow syncretist priests and bishops. Perhaps ignorance on the part of some but many more dare decide and stay with them “lest they should be put out of the synagogue: for they” love the glory of men more than the glory of God (John 12:42—43). That is, they love the big beautiful Churches and comfort of their current circumstances over the cross they would have to bear to decide otherwise. The excuses they forward are almost always born out of ulterior motive or an incorrect justification.
As mentioned earlier, St. Paul says “a man who is a heretic” must be “rejected after the first admonition”. Even still, the bishops and priests who are not syncretists are openly communing with known heretics and accept those who are not gathering with Him, but are scattering His flock.

They might say: "Yes, all this might be true but we should still not separate ourselves from the Church, the Church will endure." They might ask of what concern is it to you if a Patriarch or another bishop is a heretic, and if their Archbishops and Metropolitans commemorate him? - Christ is our only leader. How twisted things have become.

We confess our faith through the name of the bishop we commemorate. This is not some idle tradition but a very important declaration. He must be one we believe a true shepherd of Christ because this declaration defines exactly what we are; either we confess Orthodoxy by confessing an Orthodox bishop or we do not; and we are thereby Orthodox or we are not. Papists commemorate papist bishops, iconoclasts commemorate iconoclast bishops, syncretists commemorate syncretist bishops, and Orthodox commemorate Orthodox bishops. In a Uniate church, all things appear Orthodox and those inside will tell you that they are indeed Orthodox. The hair and beard of the priest may be longer than that of the Orthodox and perhaps the chant is more traditional. Perhaps they don't even speak of any of the papal heresies. But the priest there commemorates a Uniate bishop, who in turn commemorates the Pope of Rome and thus all the appearances of Orthodoxy is for nothing and in fact, very deceiving.

And by what bishop do you declare your faith? You may say that it matters little to you whom the priest commemorates since you believe in your heart that you are Orthodox. Well, so do the Uniates. Would you, then, stay in a Uniate church to receive Holy Communion? But you do remain in a new-calendarist church. Everything there appears Orthodox. Your priest may even have long hair and a long beard, and perhaps they haven't installed the organs, pews, and remodeled the Iconostas yet. Perhaps the priest doesn't wear the Latin collar and doesn't have you kneeling on Sunday. But which bishop does your priest commemorate? And that bishop, which Patriarchs and Archbishops and Synods does he commemorate? Does he commemorate Orthodox bishops and Orthodox Synods or syncretist bishops and syncretist synods? How long is it before, it is a "bishop" whose name is signed on the Balamand Agreement? And most assuredly, it is not long before Bartholomew is commemorated and whom does he have inscribed in the diptychs and whom does he commemorate at every Liturgy? Is it not his “elder brother,” the Pope of Rome as he says on every occasion? Why then flee from the Uniates, since either one way or the other you are commemorating the Pope?

But yet you still might say: “Perhaps my bishops are not Orthodox but my faith is Orthodox.” It may be true that you have the Orthodox faith in every way but A Christian cannot exist as an individual, but only as a member of the Body of Christ, the Orthodox Church. Only through the Holy Cup are you in communion with Christ. When you commune with heretics and follow self-condemned shepherds you exist as an individual because their cup is filled with bread and wine, not the body and Blood. Their ordinations are not ordinations and their communion is not Communion. As we will now see, they and those that follow them, whatever good intentions there may be, have left the Church.

The Holy Fathers

When Nestorius pretended the role of Patriarch centuries ago, many ceased to commune with him when he began to profess heresy. Eventually he "officially" deposed all those monks, priests, and laymen who did so. Is there anyone who would suggest those who ceased to commemorate the "official" Archbishop of Constantinople who was a heretic were not Orthodox? Who perpetuated schism, those who wished to remain in communion with the Church of the Fathers and Apostles or those with a “ravening wolf”? Who is worthy of praise, those who declared their Orthodoxy, eventually causing a council to depose Nestorius, or those who lifelessly continued to commune with him and follow a lost shepherd?

And when the iconoclasts gained “officialdom” and through their “ecumenical council” condemned the Orthodox, who where the true believers? Those who participated and followed “official” Orthodox bishops and thereby contributed to the overturning of truth or the ones who defied the “authorities” and maintained their faith achieving great glory? Who truly bears shame and who truly deserves glory?

St. Mark of Ephesus, after enduring long discussions and divinely refuting the Latin claims, returned to Constantinople with the unionists and declared: "I am convinced that the further I depart from him [the Patriarch] and from those like him [the Latin-minded], the closer do I draw near God and all the faithful and the holy Fathers; and the more I am separated from them, by so much more am I united to the truth and the holy Fathers.”

St. Basil the Great believes that communion is not a mere formality but a grave matter which involves salvation and faith. In his Epistle “To the People of Evaesae,” he prays that he may not fall away from communion with those of the church which abides in “sound and unperverted doctrine,” for right Faith is the foundation of communion, and communion with the Orthodox is a sign that one is placed in the “lot” of the righteous “in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ, when He shall come to give to every one according to his deeds”

In 361 as a Deacon, St. Basil broke communion with Bishop Dianios of C�sarea despite the fact that Dianios had Baptized and Ordained him. In 360, Dianios had signed the un-Orthodox confession of faith of the semi-Arian Council of Constantinople.

And as a Bishop, he confidently broke communion with the Arianophile Bishop Efstathios. Of this he wrote: “However, if we now refuse to follow these [them] and shun all of like thinking, certainly we deserve to obtain forgiveness, "putting truth and our own firmness in the right Faith before everything' “

Saint Nectarios wrote: "Thenceforth the separation of the Churches began, which came into completion quite rightly under Photios, since the Church was in danger of going away from the One, Catholic, and Apostolic Church to become a Roman Church, or rather a papist Church, professing no longer the dogmas of the holy Apostles, but those of the popes".

Saint Mark says literally: "For they have given cause for the schism, having obviously carried out the addition... We had previously broken from them, or rather had cut them off and separated them from the common body of the Church, as being of an improper and impious mind-set (phronema) and for irrationally having made the addition. Therefore, we turned away from them since they were heretics and for this reason separated from them."

The Apostolic Constitutions say that schism is made not by him who separates himself from the ungodly, but who departs from the godly.
“…those who set up unlawful opinions are marks of perdition to the people. In like manner, do not you of the laity come near to such as advance doctrines contrary to the mind of God; nor be you partakers of their impiety. For says God: "Separate yourselves from the midst of these men, lest you perish together with them.' And again: 'Depart from the midst of them, and separate yourselves, says the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing, and I will receive you.' ”

In other words, the Church is not only the Church militant but also the Church triumphant. When Her members rise up against the “official” Orthodox hierarchs who act in opposition to the Triumphant Church of the Holy Apostles and Fathers they are not “schismatic” but in fact the only members of the Church militant.

And later the constitution includes a powerful exhortation commanding us to avoid the communion of impious Heretics and especially those of the End Times: “…Eschew the antheistical heretics, who are past repentance, and separate them from the faithful, and excommunicate them from the Church of God, and charge the faithful to abstain entirely from them, and not to partake with them either in sermons or prayers: for these are those that are enemies to the Church, and lay snares for it; who corrupt the flock, and defile the heritage of Christ, pretenders only to wisdom, and the vilest of men; concerning whom Solomon the wise said: “The wicked doers pretend to act piously.” For, says he, “there is a way which seemeth right to some, but the ends thereof look to the bottom of hell.” These are they concerning whom the Lord declared His mind with bitterness and severity, saying that “they are false Christs and false teachers; ” who have blasphemed the Spirit of grace, and done despite to the gift they had from Him after the grace of baptism, “to whom forgiveness shall not be granted, neither in this world nor in that which is to come; ” who are both more wicked than the Jews and more atheistical than the Gentiles; who blaspheme the God over all, and tread under foot His Son, and do despite to the doctrine of the Spirit; who deny the words of God, or pretend hypocritically to receive them, to the affronting of God, and the deceiving of those that come among them; who abuse the Holy Scriptures, and as for righteousness, they do not so much as know what it is; who spoil the Church of God, as the “little foxes do the vineyard; ” whom we exhort you to avoid, lest you lay traps for your own souls. “For he that walketh with wise men shall be wise, but he that walketh with the foolish shall be known.” For we ought neither to run along with a thief, nor put in our lot with an adulterer….For concerning them did the prophet declare, and say: “It is not lawful to rejoice with the ungodly,” says the Lord. For these are hidden wolves, dumb dogs, that cannot bark, who at present are but few, but in process of time, when the end of the world draws nigh, will be more in number and more troublesome, of whom said the Lord, “Will the Son of man, when He comes, find faith on the earth? ” and, “Because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold; ”and, “There shall come false Christ's and false prophets, and shall show signs in the heaven, so as, if it were possible, to deceive the elect:” from whose deceit God, through Jesus Christ, who is our hope, will deliver us”.

The Last Admonition

To know nothing in opposition to the faith is to know all things. Challenged and refuted by us, let all the syncretists boldly advance arguments against Orthodox doctrine which is that of the Apostles; since they deny the truth of our doctrine, they ought to prove that it also is heresy, refutable by the same rule as that by which they are themselves refuted; and without the vague and fashionable sophisms they so dearly love, but with evidence of Holy Tradition and in full context. At the same time to show us where we must seek the truth, which it is by this time evident has no existence amongst them. The Orthodoxy of our fathers is not behind or out of date; on the contrary, it is earlier than all and witnessed by the Apostles; and this fact is the evidence that our Orthodoxy everywhere occupies the first place. The apostles taught the Holy Fathers and it is with their witness that “ecumenists” are “accursed”.

----------------------

The Balamand document of the Joint Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Church on "Uniatism, Method of Union of the Past and the Present Search for Full Communion", Episkepsis, No. 496, Sept. 1993, pp. 26-32; Paragraphs 12 and 14
Ibid, Paragraph 13
The Holy Community of Mt. Athos - Karyae, “Open letter from the Athonite Monks to Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew”, 11th/24th May 1999
Archbishop Stylianos, Sermon: "Orthodox Liturgy" (World Council of Churches, Seventh Assembly, Canberra, Australia, 7-20 1991. Document No. WO 10.1, p. 3).
Zenit, Interview with Patriarch Ignatius IV Haze of Antioch , October 25, 2001; BOSE, Italy
The Touchstone, Alexandre Kalomiros, Holy Convent of the Annunciation of the Theotokos
Oinussai, Chios, 1976
Patrologia Graeca, Epistle 251: “To the People of Evaesae,” � 4, Vol. XXXII, cols. 937D-940A.
ibid, Epistle 51: “To Bishop Bosporios”, cols. 388C-392A).
ibid, Epistle 245: “To Bishop Theophilos”, col. 925BC).
St Nectarios of Pentapolis, Historical Study on the Causes of the Schism
St Mark of Ephesus, Encyclical to Orthodox
The Apostolic Constitutions, Book 6, Sec. 2, Par. 4
The Touchstone, Alexandre Kalomiros, Holy Convent of the Annunciation of the Theotokos
Oinussai, Chios, 1976
The Apostolic Constitutions, Book 6, Sec. 2, Par. 18

[ 11-17-2001: Message edited by: OrthodoxyOrDeath ]

Dear in Christ, Orthodoxy or Death,

Thank you for your post. I am not sure it is correct to "paste" large quotes, or even articles from other sources into our discussion forum? ...I think this must be especially unwise when the writer of the copied article, and the published source is not named?

While it is an interesting article, perhaps you would want to revise your post, putting what you feel is pertinent into your own words?

Sincerely,

Elias

I would be grateful if someone could identify the jurisdiction that this monastery belongs to, in the context of the classifications that anastasios has provided.

http://www.holywisdom.net/WhoAreWe.html


In IC XC
Samer

...etc. ad nauseam...

Thanks for that info, Anastasios, it just proves to me that the farther away I stay from organized religion, the better.

Interesting, it had the exact opposite effect on me. The more I hear about such groups, the more I want to cling to the Church as the only guarantee of the authentic presence of Jesus Christ in the world.

anastasios

oh, one more thing: you call Old Calendarists "organized" religion?

anastasios