I imagine we don't consider Fr Theoklitos to be a figure of authority in the way you do. Just because he used to be a Zealot doesn't mean we still consider him to have the authority of one. Therefore, we are not going to take his assertions any more seriously than if some random crazy person said it. This probably explains the lack of essays rebutting the claims. If you want to believe whatever your "holy elders" tell you, uncritically, you can do so, but don't expect us to do likewise.
I will let you know if I learn anything else about this, but really Jonathan, this getting ridiculous. "If you want to believe whatever your 'holy elders' tell you..."? I simply asked if you knew anything about the claim, that's all. I hardly know anything about Elder Theoklitos and I did not hold up this claim of his as a proven and uncontestable fact from an “infallible holy elder”. It seems only uncontested in accessible English sources, but as I said, I am interested to know what is available in Greek. You said you do not know Greek, so we could leave it at that. If you don’t know Greek, and don’t know what is in Greek on the subject, however, what is with all of the “we” statements as though you represent the Greek Old Calendarists and can explain why there are a “lack of essays rebutting the claims”, or your assertion that Elder Theoklitos’ claims are not considered by Old Calendarists to be any more serious than the words of a “random crazy person”? Clearly Fr. Maximus (Marretta) in your Synod took the claims of Fr. Basil Gregoriates on Mt. Athos seriously enough to take about two years to formulate a response. Why would a similar attempt not be made in the case of Elder Theoklitos and his claims? If you don’t know Greek, and don’t know what has or has not been said by Old Calendarists in Greek on the subject, it would probably be best to stop speaking for the Greek Old Calendarists on this issue and put the subject aside until further information becomes available. I would certainly be happy to do the same.
I felt you were insinuating something by some of your phrasing, such as "then Elder Theoclitus' claims will remain unchallenged", which to me at any rate carried the clear implicature that the burden of proof was on someone on our side to challenge and refute the claim, as if all you had to do on your side was make a bald accusation and leave it at that. I don't feel you are being entirely honest when you say on the one hand that you aren't necessarily agreeing with Fr Theoclitus, while at the same time you keep bringing his claim up in different conversations, as if this were something that we needed to address promptly in order to justify ourselves. Why do you keep bringing it up if you are not yourself willing to vouch for its validity? You did not begin this by saying "by any chance, do you know of any OCist who addressed this claim?" Rather, you began by saying "why haven't you considered the lack of any challenges to this claim?", as if there needed to be any challenges. I'm saying again that we do not need to address this issue at all unless you can provide some solid evidence supporting Fr Theoclitus' assertions. So, if you don't want to raise hackles, watch your phrasing.
Regarding Fr Basil and Fr Maximus, Fr Basil made assertions about the way the Church has historically treated heresy but he also backed them up with evidence. Fr Maximus for the most part did not deny the validity of the evidence Fr Basil brought to bear, but instead showed how other evidence must also be considered, which taken in its entirety supports the position of the GOC.