In a previous issue of Όρθόόοξος
Ένστασις και Μαρτυρία, [1] we reprinted an important article, in
which the blessed Confessor-Hierarch Chrysostomos (Kavourides), former
Metropolitan of Florina, observes that, “the inspirers and pioneers” of
the reform of the Church Calendar, Patriarch Meletios (Metaxakis) of
Constantinople (1871-1935) and Archbishop Chrysostomos (Papadopoulos) of
Athens, “these two Luthers of the Orthodox Church,” “being devoid,
unfortunately, of a deeply Orthodox spirit, knowingly or unknowingly became
tools of foreign aspirations and designs, the aim of which was to sunder
the unity of the Orthodox Churches." [2] Additionally, there are, in the
same article and in the commentary on the text, detailed references to the
self-proclaimed “Pan-Orthodox Congress" of 1923, in Constantinople (May
10-June 8), and the issues pertaining thereto. [3]
Now, certain of the Faithful may
have considered these characterizations harsh and excessive. Hence, the
following questions arise, which require a clear and properly documented
response, lest we give the impression of being artful slanderers:
• Was Patriarch Meletios
(Metaxakis) a tool “of foreign aspirations and designs"?
• Was the calendar change carried
out in good faith, and was it unrelated to the spirit of innovation and
ecumenism that motivated Patriarch Meletios?
• Was Patriarch Meletios a great
precursor of ecumenism, which is both destructive to, and deadly for, the
Church?
Unfortunately, the historical
evidence is conclusive and overwhelming, since it gives affirmative answers to
these three inexorable questions. For the present, we will cite three witnesses
only, in due course returning to them; and in the future, God willing, we will
also publish a feature article on Archbishop Chrysostomos of Athens.
***
I. Patriarch Meletios Metaxakis
[4] as a tool of “foreign aspirations and designs.” In 1967, the
editorial committee of the Τεκτονικόν Λελτίον [The Masonic Bulletin]
assigned the Freemason Alexander J. Zervoudakis the task of compiling a
study “that would sketch the life of yet another brilliant star, which shines
upon and illumines the firmament of the ‘Greek Orthodox Church.'" [5]
Zervoudakis in fact compiled an extremely detailed biography of Patriarch
Meletios, which is very noteworthy from an historical point of view and which
runs to twenty-five pages. The small section that we have reproduced certainly
speaks for itself and requires no commentary from us. Still, it is worth
observing at the outset that what Zervoudakis writes is beyond contestation—and
this for a number of reasons, but most importantly because he had personal
knowledge of Meletios Metaxakis in his capacity as a Mason. Zervoudakis met
Meletios in Constantinople, during the tragic days of 1922, as a member of a
three-man commission, and conversed with him. “As I departed," Zervoudakis
notes, “I greeted him as one Mason greets another Mason. He smiled and said
to me: I see that you understand me.’ This recollection inspired me
to accept and carry out the request of the editorial committee of the Bulletin,
by publishing a portrait of our brother" (see note 5). He concludes
his article, many pages long, as follows:
With the
spiritual virtues with which Meletios was endowed, with his sound grasp of
logic, and with his independent mind, free from pettiness, it is not surprising
that he was ready to receive the light of Freemasonry.
The first time
that he passed through Constantinople (1906), he became acquainted with the
Masons. He met with them, impressing them with his critical and straightforward
spirit and with his knowledge and opinions on various encyclopedic, general,
ecclesiastical, and religious issues. They were interested in learning what
kind of man he was and what he had done up to that point. What they learned
prompted them to propose to him, in an adroit manner, during his second stay in
Constantinople, the idea of becoming a Mason. It appears that, in this
circumstance, the Masons, members of the Greek Political Association of
Constantinople, with which Meletios was consulting at the time about the
burning question of the Arab-speaking Orthodox (1908), acted in precisely such
a way that the intrepid and inquisitive spirit of Meletios— who had hitherto
heard much about the Masons in Cyprus and elsewhere—prompted him to ask his
colleagues, whom he respected, to give him information about Freemasonry, and,
after he had listened to them, to decide, with his well-known
impetuosity and resolve, to follow the example of many English and other
foreign bishops and seek to learn about, and be initiated into, the mysteries
hidden within Freemasonry.
These Masons
then brought him to the 'Harmony' Lodge, No. 44,6 in Constantinople, which had
gathered in its ranks the cream of Greek society in that city—all the best that
the Greek population in Constantinople had at its disposal in terms of
literature, science, and power—and which, in one way or another, by virtue of
its members, who belonged to every social organization, ethnic or otherwise,
exerted a substantial influence on Greek life. They asked the then-Grand Master
of Greece for permission to initiate Meletios, and when this was granted, he
received the light of Freemasonry, at the beginning of 1909. He remained in
Constantinople for one more year and fervently studied Masonic teaching, which
allowed him to give all of his deeds and words a truly Masonic stamp, as we saw
in our brief account of his activity. In every instance, righteousness
and the true Masonic virtues, one might say, naturally and spontaneously
guided hint in what he should say and how he should act. A clear sign of the
influence that Freemasonry has on the formation of a man's character is when he
is spiritually prepared to accept its teachings, when, that is, he is a born
Mason—as Meletios was.
After his
initiation, Brother Meletios kept up his Masonic activities wherever he went
during his tumultuous life, as circumstances and surroundings permitted it.
[7]
When I, the
author, had the honor of seeing the light of Freemasonry in my turn at the
aforementioned 'Harmony' Lodge, I remember with what pride and joy all of the
brothers spoke about Meletios' initiation, when he was elected into our lodge.
And I shall always remember the explanation that my esteemed Brother, Demetrios
Xanthos, gave when I asked why it was necessary for us brothers to keep this
initiation a secret; he guided me to a correct understanding of this and to a
furthering of my true inner initiation.
Few are those
who, like Brother Meletios, accept Freemasonry and make it the experience of
their life. It was a genuine loss for us that he was so quickly called from the
Grand Harmony Masonic Lodge into eternal repose, before completing the tasks
with which he crowned his passing from our world. [8]
II. Patriarch Meletios
Metaxakis as an innovator and modernist. In 1929, Metropolitan Irenaeus of
Cassandreia submitted a very important Memorandum to the “Holy Synod of
the Hierarchy of Greece, convened on 14 June 1929," [9] which, among many
other topics, deals with Meletios Metaxakis in astonishingly severe terms. What
the ever- memorable Metropolitan Irenaeus says is indisputable, since it is
corroborated by a host of other testimonies. Paragraphs four and five of this historic
Memorandum serve as a veritable catapult against the truly “pernicious
Patriarch Meletios Metaxakis." Let us, then, examine some extracts from
the Memorandum by this Hierarch, which are indeed revealing.
The spirit of
innovationism and rebellion against the good and sound canonical order of the
Eastern Orthodox Church was incarnate in the person of the pernicious
Patriarch Meletios Metaxakis, who, adopting ideas that are preached
sporadically, according to the whim of each individual, in periodicals and the
daily press and are given wide diffusion, opportunely and inopportunely, satisfying
the sinful wishes and self-serving desires of heterodox churches and secret
societies, [10] to which, blinded by vainglory and sacrificing
everything for the enhancement of his own ego, he owed his successive accession
to the highest positions in the local Orthodox Churches, [11] convened a Pan-Orthodox
Congress—unusual nomenclature in ecclesiastical parlance—which was, in
truth, an anti-Orthodox one, in May of 1923 in Constantinople, at which...he
replaced the ecclesiastical Julian Calendar with the Gregorian, in spite of
every prohibition relating to this; and he decided to replace the eternal Paschalion,
which was drawn up for the Orthodox Church by a decision of the First Ecumenical
Synod, entrusting the creation of an astronomically more perfect one to the
observatories of Bucharest, Belgrade, and Athens; he allowed Priests to cut
their hair and to replace their venerable clerical attire with that
of Anglican pastors; in violation of the Canons, he introduced the marriage [after
ordination— Trans.] and second marriage of clergymen; and he
entrusted the determination of the days of fasting and the manner of
their observance to the judgment of the local Churches, thereby destroying
the uniformity and order that have prevailed in the local autocephalous
Orthodox Churches of the East. [12]
Acting in this
way, he opened wide the gates to every innovation, abolishing the distinctive
ethos of the Eastern Orthodox Church, according to which she preserves,
genuinely and without innovation, everything that she has received from the
Lord, the Apostles, the Fathers, and the Ecumenical and local Synods....
What right did this
outsider [13] have to convene a Pan-Orthodox Congress without
consulting the local Metropolitans of the Ecumenical Throne? And according to
what law or Canon did the leader of a single local Church decide to annul a
decree made by all of the Patriarchs of the East—indeed, by those
Patriarchs who were so distinguished in the history of the Church after the
fall of Constantinople, to wit, Jeremiah II of Constantinople, Meletios (Pegas)
of Alexandria, Joachim of Antioch, and Sophronios of Jerusalem—on the question
of the calendar and the Paschalion? [14] Is it permitted,
in civil matters, for a lower court to reverse the decision of a higher court?
Does a court of the first instance, for example, have the right to overturn the
decision of a court of appeal? Neither the rulers nor the people have any respect
for Bishops who show disrespect for the established order of their own Church.
The people have contempt and disdain for Priests of the Most High who try to
make themselves popular and who, through various innovations, divert the Church
from the sacred and holy royal path, which the Godly-Minded Fathers and the
Divinely-Assembled Synods have marked out for her.
The innovations
of Meletios Metaxakis have not only alienated from the sacred Churches those
faithful children of Orthodoxy who believe correctly and with simple hearts,
and who do not reckon the established order of the Church to be susceptible to
additions or innovations, bringing about the depopulation of such Churches in
rural areas..., but have also divided into three groups the ancient
autocephalous Eastern Orthodox daughter Churches, who were formerly renowned
for their enviable sisterly love, concord, unity of faith, and simultaneous
worship and praise of God, Who is holy; into two groups, with regard to the
calendar; and into a third, with regard to the Paschalion. [15]
And we have
become witnesses of a grievous event: the fact that the Romanian Orthodox
Church celebrated Holy Pascha this year five Sundays earlier than
the rest of the Orthodox Churches, [16] in flagrant violation of, and contempt
for, the decisions and wishes of the First Ecumenical Synod....
It is a known
fact that the Romanian Church paid for this violation of unity in the
celebration of the light-bearing Resurrection of the Lord with the secession of
the Orthodox of Bessarabia and other Romanian Orthodox, about eight million
people in all, who celebrated the Holy Pascha along with those who observe the
ancient order of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
No one wishes to
be a prophet of doom, but....
III. Patriarch Meletios
Metaxakis as a great precursor of the ecumenists. As is well known, at the
fourth session (May 21) of the self- proclaimed “Pan-Orthodox Congress"
(so proclaimed at the third session, May 18), which met in 1923 (May 10-June 8)
in Constantinople, Patriarch Meletios Metaxakis introduced to the Congress a “wise
hierarch of the Anglican Church, His Grace, Charles Gore, the former Bishop of Oxford’’;
subsequently, at the fifth session (May 23), “His Grace, Bishop Gore, the
former Bishop of Oxford, approached, accompanied by his companion, the Rev. Mr.
Buxton, and occupied a seat to the right of the Patriarch." Next,
there was a very illuminating discussion between the Patriarch and
Bishop Gore regarding the calendar question, the joint celebration of feasts,
the movement for union, and the conditions for union, etc. [17]
Now, the Anglican Bishop Gore was
not in Constantinople by chance. The fact that he delivered two documents to
Meletios Metaxakis is proof of some “groundwork," since “the one bears the
signatures of five thousand Anglican priests, who state that they
find no difficulty in full union," while “the second document is a
proposal concerning the terms of union; it represents the ideas of the en
tire Anglican Church, because there is a spirit of good will
throughout" (see note 17).
These events took place on
Wednesday (May 23). But something occurred the previous Saturday (May 19) which
in no way falls short of the carryings-on of the ecumenists today. Let us allow
the journal of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to speak for itself:
+++
Anglican Hierarch
in Constantinople
Last Saturday, His Grace,
Charles Gore, the former Bishop of Oxford and President of the Permanent
Committee for Inter-Church Relations of the Archdiocese of Canterbury, arrived
in Constantinople.
His Grace is making a tour of the
different centers of the Church in the East, in order to study the
ecclesiastical issues that concern them. He first visited Prague, then
Bucharest, and, after that, Belgrade and Sofia, and is leaving for Athens
today. On the same day that he arrived, he went to the Patriarchate shortly
before Vespers, accompanied by the Anglican priest in Constantinople, the
Rev. Mr. Borrow, and the Rev. Mr. Buxton, his companion throughout the trip and
the secretary of the committee over which he presides.
His All-Holiness received the distinguished
hierarch, who visited him in his office wearing his Episcopal robes. Shortly
thereafter, as the bells rang for Vespers, His Grace went on ahead and
occupied a seat in the Church with his retinue, opposite the Patriarch's
throne. After a short while, the Patriarch entered in the customary manner,
and Vespers for the Feast of the Holy Fathers of the Synod in Nicaea was
celebrated, with His All-Holiness and the synodal Hierarchs presiding
together. After the dismissal, His All-Holiness addressed the Anglican
hierarch from his throne, expressing his joy over the latter's presence and
praying for the success of his continuing journey. His Grace, the former
Bishop of Oxford, said in reply that he felt particular emotion over being
at the center of Orthodoxy, and he concluded by praying for the union of the
Churches. After taking from the hands of the Great Archdeacon the blessing
Cross that was offered to him, he blessed the congregation with it, as the
choirs chanted “Εις πολλά ετη, Αέσποτα" [“Many years, Master"].
After Vespers, His All-Holiness
introduced the members of the Holy Synod to the honored visitor in the
Patriarchal reception hall. On the following day, His All-Holiness paid a
return visit to His Grace in the Hotel Tokatlian, where he was staying, and discussed
different ecclesiastical matters with him for some time. When he learned about
the Pan-Orthodox Congress, His Grace expressed a desire to go to one of its
sessions and address the representatives of the Orthodox Churches. He
did, indeed, attend the Wednesday session, and remained at the meeting for
about half an hour; after the exchange of addresses, which were delivered
in a spirit of complete cordiality and firm hopes for the sure progress of
the God-pleasing work of union between the Churches, Orthodox and Anglican,
through the prevalence on both sides of a yearning for union, there was a
dialogue about the goal and proceedings of the Congress.
His Grace was escorted with
honor as he departed from the Patriarchate. [18]
***
In view of the evidence set forth
above, and in a compelling way at that, we think that the
Confessor-Hierarch Chrysostomos (Kavourides), former Metropolitan of Florina,
was absolutely right to characterize the inspirers and pioneers of innovation
of the New Calendar as he did in the prologue of the aforementioned article. [19]
NOTES
1. See Όρθόόοξος ’Ένστασις καί Μαρτυρία, Vol. II, No.
17 (October-December 1989), pp. 67-78.
2. This article was a section of a marvellous work by the
Confessor-Hierarch entitled, To Εκκλησιαστικόν Ήμερολόγιον ώς κριτήριον τής
Όρθοόοξίας [The Church Calendar as a Criterion of Orthodoxy], consisting of
eighty-seven densely- written pages and completed on July 1/14, 1935, at the
Holy Monastery of St. Dionysios, in Olympos, to which he had been exiled.
3. There were references to the Congress in footnotes 5 (p.
68), 6 (pp. 69-70, in detail), 7 (p. 70), 8 (p. 70), 14 (p. 73), 15 (p. 73),
and 17 (p. 74) of the article in question (also see footnotes 1 and 2 in the
present article).
4. Meletios Metaxakis (1871-1935). From the village of
Parsas, Lasitheon, Crete, he was meddlesome, a troublemaker, a great innovator,
and beyond doubt a Freemason. He served as Metropolitan of Kition, in Cyprus
(1910-1918), Metropolitan of Athens (1918-1920), Patriarch of Constantinople
(1921-1923), and Patriarch of Alexandria (1926-1935). In 1908, together with
the then-Archimandrite Chrysostomos (Papadopoulos), he was expelled from the
Holy Land by Patriarch Damianos of Jerusalem for activity against [the
Brotherhood of] the Holy Sepulchre. Metropolitan Methodios (Kontostanos) of
Kerkyra (1942-1967) wrote about him: “But Meletios Metaxakis, this outcast from
the Holy Land, from Kition, from Athens, from Constantinople, and subsequently
from Alexandria, an unstable, restless, power-hungry spirit, an evil demon, did
not balk at attempting to impose himself on the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, even
all the way from Alexandria" (see Dionysios M. Batistatos [ed.]. Πρακτικά
και Αποφάσεις τον εν Κωνσταντινονπόλει Πανορθοδόξου Συνεδρίου, 10.5-8.6.1923
[Proceedings and Decisions of the Pan-Orthodox Congress in Constantinople, 10
May-8 June 1923] [Athens: 1982], pp. iv and v. See also Monk Paul of
Cyprus, Νεοημερολογιτισμός-Οίκουμενισμός [New Calendarism and Ecumenism]
[Athens: 1982], pp. 48-59).
5. See Alexander J. Zervoudakis, «Διάσημοι. Τεκτ.: Μελέτιος
Μεταξάκης» [“Famous Freemasons: Meletios Metaxakis"], Τεκτονικόν
Αέλτιον: ’Όργανον τής Μεγάλης Στόας τής Ελλάδος [The Masonic Bulletin: Journal
of the Grand Lodge of Greece], Vol. XVII, No. 71 (January-February 1967),
p. 25.
6. “Permission for his initiation was requested (No. 130, 12
March 1910), Marios Polatos says in Διακόσια Χρόνια Ελληνικού Τεκτονισμού
[Two Hundred Years of Greek Freemasonry] (Athens: 1962), p. 373, which is a
mistake, according to what the author has since ascertained," ibid., p.
49, n. 83.
7. “In this regard, the esteemed Brother Evangelos Asteris, a
33rd degree Mason, the Worshipful Master of the ‘Zeno’ and ‘Hermes’ Lodges in
the jurisdiction of Egypt, related to me that Archimandrite Brother Nicanor
Kanellopoulos, Worshipful Master of the ‘Beicha’ Lodge, told him that
Patriarch Meletios of Alexandria was present with him at two or three
functions of the ‘Alexander the Great’ Lodge, No. 35, in Alexandria, in
1930 or 1931. The same information was given to the Worshipful Master of the
‘Society of Friends’ Lodge, the esteemed Brother Panagiotis G. Kretikos, uncle
of the ever-memorable Brother Emmanuel P. Ladikos, a 33rd degree Mason in
Egypt, who, off the record, recounted to Brother Kretikos that ‘they had notified
Patriarch Meletios, when he was preparing to leave Athens for Alexandria, that
all of the Freemasons in Egypt would organize a general Masonic reception for
him. Meletios then sent them a telegram, asking them to refrain from this
undertaking, in order to avoid creating problems from the side of those opposed
to Freemasonry,”’ ibid., p. 50, n. 84.
8. Ibid., pp. 49-50 (emphasis ours).
9. Metropolitan Irenaeus of Cassandreia, Υπόμνημα εις τήν
Ίεράν Σύνοδον τής Ιεραρχίας τής Ελλάδος, σνγκλειθεϊσαν τή 14.6.1929 [Memorandum
to the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy of Greece, convened on 14 June 1929] (Athens:
1929) (40 pages).
10. Freemasonry constitutes a “secret society." Secret
societies are “associations and orders that keep then purposes and customs
secret" (Μεγάλη Ελληνική Εγκυκλοπαίδεια, Vol. XVII, p. 903).
11. Regarding his election to successive Sees, see the
summary in A.D. Delembasis. Πάσχα Κυρίου (Athens: 1985): pp. 648-649 (as
Metropolitan of Athens), and pp. 660-664 (as Patriarch of Constantinople).
12. See the “Resolutions of the Pan-Orthodox Congress"
in Batistatou, Πρακτικά και Αποφάσεις, pp. 211-222. Resolutions: 1.
Concerning the correction of the Julian Calendar and the determination of the
date of Pascha “on the basis of astronomical calculations." 2. Concerning
conditions for participation [by the Orthodox Church] in consultations
regarding the creation of a more perfect calendar that would be acceptable to
all Christians and concerning the reduction of the number of days in the week
and a fixed date for the celebration of Pascha. 3. Concerning the marriage of
Priests and Deacons after Ordination. 4. Concerning the second marriage of
widowed Priests and Deacons. 5. Concerning various matters: the age at which
clergy should be Ordained; the allocation of funds to pastors; the cutting of
hair and the outer clothing of clergy; the keeping of monastic vows;
impediments to marriage; the celebration on weekends of Saints’ Feasts that
fall in the middle of the week; the fasts. 6. Concerning the celebration of the
sixteen-hundredth anniversary of the First Ecumenical Synod at Nicaea and the
convocation of a Pan-Orthodox Synod. And 7. Concerning sympathy for Patriarch
Tikhon of Russia, who was in prison. These innovations of Meletios
Metaxakis were not received in silence. Even the Masons write of this: “But he
met with strong resistance when he wanted to implement certain
American methods in Constantinople, as well as his innovative ideas regarding
the Calendar and the Paschalion, the marriage of clergy, and other ideas
that he promoted at the Pan-Orthodox Congress, which created problems and an
outcry ” (see Zervoudakis, «Μελέτιος Μεταξάκης,» p. 43 [emphasis ours]).
Archbishop Chrysostomos (Papadopoulos) of Athens also does not conceal the
reaction that resulted: “Unfortunately, the Eastern Patriarchs who refused to
take part in the Congress rejected all of its resolutions in toto from
the very outset. If the Congress had restricted itself only to the issue of
the calendar, perhaps it would not have encountered the kind of reaction that
it did" (see Archbishop Chrysostomos of Athens, Ή Αιόρθωσις τον
Ίονλιανον Ημερολογίου εν τη Εκκλησία τής Ελλάδος [The Revision of the
Julian Calendar in the Church of Greece] [Athens: 1933], pp. 31-32 [emphasis
ours]). Specifically, with regard to the “Congress’s"
resolution on the calendar, “it was rejected by almost all of the Orthodox
world" (see [Metropolitan] Geimanos of Sardis and Pisideia, «Τό
Ημερολογιακόν Ζήτημα» [“The Calendar Question"], ’Ορθοδοξία, No. 3 (30
June 1926), pp. 59-70; see also Delembasis, Πάσχα Κυρίου, pp. 671 -674).
Very telling are the words of Patriarch Photios of Alexandria, who, writing to
Archbishop Chrysostomos of Athens (Protocol No. 2664, 1/14 August 1923), speaks
“about all of the other issues, both the decrees that are being hurled from
Constantinople with a zeal not according to knowledge, to the detriment of the
whole Church, and the machinations and threats that are being made, with the
rapacious ferocity of our eternal enemies, against the most holy Mother of the
Churches..." (see Archimandrite Theokletos A. Strangas, Εκκλησίας
Ελλάδος ’Ιστορία [History of the Church of Greece], Vol. II
[Athens: 1970], pp. 1161-1162 [emphasis ours]).
13. The Greek word that we have rendered as “outsider"
is έπηλυς, -υδος (έπί+ήλυθ<ήλυθον<ήλθον). (The literal meaning of this
word is “one who has come to a country from elsewhere," an “alien,"
or a “foreigner," as opposed to a “native." The point that
Metropolitan Irenaeus seems to be making is that Patriarch Meletios, as a
modernist and ecumenist, was really a stranger to the traditions and mores of
the Orthodox Church—Trans.)
14. See Athanasios Comnenos Ypsilantis, Τα μετά την Άλωσιν
[The Aftermath of the Fall of Constantinople] (Constantinople:
1870), pp. Ill, 113, and 114; Patriarch Dositheos of Jerusalem, Τόμος Αγάπης
κατά Λατίνων [Tomos Agapes Against the Latins] (Iasi: 1689)], pp.
538-540; idem. Περί των εν 7εροσολνμοις Πατριαρχευσάντων-Αωόεκάβιβλος
[Twelve Books Concerning the Patriarchs of Jerusalem], Book X,
Chapter 8, §6 (Bucharest: 1715), p. 1167 ([Thessaloniki: B. Regopoulos, 1983],
p. 57); Meletios of Athens, Εκκλησιαστική ’Ιστορία [Church History],
Vol. Ill (Vienna: 1784), pp. 402, 408; Philaret (Bapheides), Metropolitan
of Didymoteichos, Εκκλησιαστική ’Ιστορία [Church History], Vol.
Ill, Part 1 (Constantinople: 1912), pp. 124-125; C.N. Sathas, Βιογραφικόν
σχεδίασμα περί του Πατριάρχον Ίερεμίου Β' [A Biographical Sketch of
Patriarch Jeremiah IT] (Athens: 1870), pp. 91-92; Archimandrite Gerasimos
Karavangelis, Επιστημονική διατριβή περί τής εορτής του Πάσχα [A Scientific
Treatise Concerning the Feast of Pascha] (Constantinople: 1894), pp.
121-122; Nicholas Voulgaris, «Ή μεταρρΰθμισις τοϋ Ίουλιανοϋ Ημερολογίου» [“The
Reform of the Julian Calendar”], a three-part article in the Trieste newspaper,
Νέα Ήμερα, Vol. XXII, Nos. 1120-1122 (1896); J.N. Kaimiris, «Ιερεμίας Β'
Πατριάρχης Κωνσταντινουπόλεως» [“Jeremiah II, Patriarch of Constantinople’’],
in the Θρησκευτική καί Ηθική Εγκυκλοπαίδεια, Vol. VI (Athens: 1966],
col. 781.
15. “The previous unity and cooperation were sundered and
shattered as a result of evil, or rather, sinful, actions...; the
change [of the calendar] was not accomplished after study and preparation, but primarily
under the influence of outside factors.... Between those who follow the Old
Calendar and those who follow the New, there is a permanent difference of
thirteen days with regard to the celebration of all of the so-called fixed
Feasts, without exception. This is an unprecedented situation in the annals
of the Church, because in spite of the diversity of calendars in the
early centuries and the unsettled state of the festal calendar, there
was never any difference in time between celebrations of one and the same
event (e.g., the repose of a Saint), as happens today. The discord becomes more
pronounced on the great Feasts of the Nativity, Theophany, and the
Dormition of the Theotokos. Some are fasting, while others are celebrating. This
discord leads to the question: Who is celebrating—we or the Church? The answer
‘we’ destroys the sanctity of the Feasts, making them an individual affair for
each person. The answer ‘the Church’ postulates one celebration, for the
Church is one.... The sole exception is the Orthodox Archdiocese of
Finland, which, with the consent of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, always
celebrates Pascha with the Catholics and Lutherans in Finland, according to the
Gregorian Calendar" (See The Church of Greece, To Ημερολογιακόν
Ζήτημα: Είαήγησις τής Εκκλησίας τής Ελλάδος προς τήν Πανορθόδοξον Μεγάλην
Σύνοδον [The Calendar Question: A Proposal by the Church of Greece to
the Great Pan-Orthodox Synod] [Athens: 1971], pp. 5, 8, 10-11.)
16. “In October of 1924, the New (or Gregorian) Calendar was
uncanonically introduced into the Romanian Church by her ‘Primate,’
Metropolitan Miron Cristea (1886-1939), a former Uniate hierarch in
Transylvania, very well-educated and energetic, in the mold of Meletios
(Metaxakis), and was received by all with virtually no reaction. Only the Skete
of Procov, under the leadership of its Abbot, Hieromonk (later Metropolitan)
Glicherie, refused to recognize the calendar change. The Romanian Patriarchate,
both in 1926 and in 1929, celebrated Pascha with the Latins, constituting an
infringement of the Orthodox tradition of centuries. The common celebration of
Pascha with the Latins was sinful, because this was intentional on the
part of Patriarch Miron Cristea; he fully implemented the New (or Gregorian)
Calendar even when it came to the reckoning of Pascha, ignoring the other local
Orthodox Churches, which—even after the calendar change—‘(with the exception of
Finland) celebrate Pascha according to the decree of the Synod in Nicaea,
calculating its date on the basis of the Julian Calendar and accepting March 21,
for the sake of convention, as the vernal equinox.’ Moreover, the action
of Patriarch Miron was wholly ill-advised, because he failed to take into
account the bitter experience of the Romanian people, who, on the one hand, had
been so beleaguered by Uniate propaganda, and, on the other hand, had a former
Uniate for then Patriarch. From a pastoral point of view, this was a totally
reckless act! Indeed, on the second occasion that this was done. Patriarch
Miron Cristea, having the undivided support of the Uniate (Greek-Catholic)
Prime Minister, Julius Maniu, and several others among the clergy, compelled
all of the Romanian Metropolises to proceed with the common celebration of
Pascha with the Papists, a fact which evoked great commotion in the ranks of
the Romanian Church. Metropolitan Gurias of Bessarabia (a region of Romania
between the Rivers Prut and Dniester, north of the Black Sea, 44,420 sq. km. in
area, now annexed to the Soviet Union [at the time of writing, in 1981—Trans.])
openly criticized Miron and, ignoring the Patriarchal decree, ordered his
churches to celebrate with the other autocephalous Orthodox Churches. Patriarch
Miron’s action also scandalized these other Orthodox Churches, many of which
reacted in protest. As well, the White Russian clergy of Bucharest (also known
as the Russian Church Abroad, under the Karlovtsy Synod) took a particularly
strong position during those trying days, ignoring the Patriarchal order and
celebrating Pascha according to the traditional canonical decrees. Even in the
Parliament there were stormy discussions regarding this issue, and both the
Patriarch and the Prime Minister were harshly censured by Representatives Trifu
(Nationalist Party) and N. Lupu (Agrarian Party). The uncanonical and
un-Orthodox celebration of Pascha with the Latins deeply scandalized the pious
Romanians, many of whom returned to the Old Calendar. Among them were three Hieromonks,
as well as two Romanian Hieromonks who had returned to Romania from the Holy
Mountain. Hieromonk Glicherie, who had taken a leading position in the Old
Calendar movement from the beginning, began to build churches in the vicinity
of the Neamts Monastery. The first was established in the village of Vanatori.
By 1936 he had built about forty large churches, the majority of them in
Moldavia" (Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Fill, Ή μαρτυρική
Εκκλησία των Γ.Ο.Χ. Ρουμανίας [The Martyric Old Calendar Orthodox Church
of Romania] [Fill, Attica: 1981], pp. 11-13). [The foregoing
translation, by Archimandrite (now Archbishop) Chrysostomos, to which we have
made some slight modifications, originally appeared in The Orthodox Word, Vol.
XVIII, No. 1 [102] [January-February 1982], pp. 6-7—Trans.]
17. See Batistatou, Πρακτικά και Αποφάσεις, pp. 66,
84-88 (emphasis ours).
18. See the periodical Εκκλησιαστική Αλήθεια, published
in Constantinople, No. 19 (26 May 1923), pp. 166-167 (emphasis ours). It
should, of course, be noted that the ecumenist activities of Meletios Metaxakis
had begun much earlier. Concerning these activities, see Delembasis, Πάσχα
Κυρίου, pp. 625, 661. “At that time, he (Meletios Metaxakis) was in
America, where he engaged in schismatic activities and communed uncanonically
with heretical Protestants there. On December 17, 1921, ‘vested, he took part
in a service in an Anglican church, knelt in prayer with the Anglicans before
the holy table, which he venerated, gave a seimon, and blessed those present in
the church’ of the heretics" (Strangas, Εκκλησίας Ελλάδος Ιστορία, Vol.
II, p. 1118).
19. The judgments of other writers regarding Patriarch
Meletios Metaxakis are also of interest, since they reveal what kind of man he
was: The aforementioned Freemason, Alexander J. Zervoudakis, wrote this about
the “pernicious Patriarch": "The struggle that he had in
overcoming the reactions that he constantly encountered in his endeavor to
impose radical, but beneficial, changes suddenly brought about an
unexpected collapse," that is, his death on July 27-28, 1935 («Μελέτιος
Μεταξάκης,» p. 48 [emphasis ours]). Metropolitan Nicholas of
Nubia, Meletios Metaxakis’ successor in Alexandria, said about him: ''Optimism
frequently impelled him to undertake bold and hazardous schemes, from which he
had to be forcibly restrained by the Holy Synod" (ibid, [emphasis ours]). The
Athenian periodical Ζωή wrote, among other things, on the occasion of
the death of Meletios Metaxakis: “He made himself a singular figure in the
Church, in which his political persona was absorbed in and subjugated to
his ecclesiastical one. Frustrated by conservatism, he manifested liberal
tendencies, which oftentimes proved uncontrollable, although—to use his own
phrase—‘many hitches forced him to moderate’ these tendencies. Nevertheless, he
had no trouble in adapting, or at least attempting to adapt, the Church and
ecclesiastical affairs to expediency, regarding even the institutions of the
Church as easily adaptable to expediency and the demands of the age. ...He
turned his passion, whenever he had no other arena for his laborious
efforts, to the institutions of the Church, seeking to provide an outlet for
his restless initiatives through changes in the external life of the Church,
before beginning the necessary work for its internal renewal" (Ζωή, No.
1195 [10 August 1935] [emphasis ours]).
Greek source: Όρθόόοξος ’Ένστασις και Μαρτυρία, Vol.
II, Nos. 18-21 (January-December 1990), pp. 148-160.
English source: Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XVII (2000),
Nos. 2-3, pp. 2-11.
