By St. Chrysostomos the New, Confessor and
Hierarch († 1955)
The issue of the
Ecclesiastical Calendar has deeper causes and motives.
The inspirers and
pioneers of this matter, such as Patriarch Meletios of Alexandria [2] and
Archbishop Chrysostomos of Athens, [3] lacking, unfortunately, a deep Orthodox
spirit, became—knowingly or unknowingly—tools of foreign desires and aims,
through which the unity of the Orthodox Churches and the Greek ideology’s bond
with Orthodoxy are sought to be broken.
These two Leaders
of the Orthodox Churches of the Patriarchate of Alexandria and of Greece, vying
for the glory of being seen as reformist and modernized clerics, [4] lightly
raised the banner of Ecclesiastical reforms, beginning with the alteration of the
Ecclesiastical Calendar, which constitutes one of the unifying links of the
Orthodox Churches and the compass of Divine worship and the works of the
Patristic Faith and piety.
***
The idea of
introducing the Gregorian calendar also into the Orthodox Church, as supposedly
more perfect, was discussed some years ago even at the Ecclesiastical Congress,
[5] which was convened in Constantinople by the then Ecumenical Patriarch
Meletios, and which was wrongly called pan-Orthodox, [6] since only three
autocephalous Orthodox Churches were represented therein—namely, those of
Greece, Serbia, and Romania, the latter two even being represented not by
clergy, but by lay delegates. [7]
At this Congress,
in which the other Orthodox Churches—and in particular the three Eastern
Patriarchates, namely those of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem [8]—shone by
their absence, the introduction of the Gregorian calendar into Orthodox divine
worship was initially approved in a wholly unstudied manner.
I say unstudied,
because had they properly studied the issue, they would have seen that it had
been condemned as un-Orthodox by Pan-Orthodox Synods convened in Constantinople
in the years 1583, 1587, and 1593, [9] under Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremias II,
[10] who characterized it—as we stated in our preface—as an innovation of Elder
Rome, as a worldwide scandal, and as an arbitrary trampling of the Divine and
Sacred Canons. [11]
Also, had they
properly studied this ecclesiastical matter, they would have seen that the
Gregorian calendar had also been condemned by all the Synods of the Orthodox
Churches when the matter was reopened, and by Ecumenical Patriarch Joachim III,
[12] whose responses to the Ecumenical Patriarchate we presented in our printed
“Protest” to the Orthodox Churches. [13]
If, we say, the
delegates of that Congress had studied all these things, they would not have
dared to unilaterally make a contrary decision regarding the Ecclesiastical
Calendar.
***
What renders the
convocation of this Ecclesiastical Congress suspect is the fact that two
clergymen of a heterodox church [14] also sat therein, and—as we have
extrajudicial information—so too its un-Orthodox and Protestant-scented
decision: that the acceptance of the Gregorian calendar by some Churches should
not be considered by the others, who remain steadfast in the Patristic Julian
Calendar, as a cause of Schism. [15]
Now, we have stated
that this principle is un-Orthodox and Protestant, because in granting freedom
to the individual Orthodox Churches to regulate matters of general
Ecclesiastical nature and significance according to what seems good to them, it
fosters the fragmentation of the Orthodox Churches and the division of
Christians. [16]
For how, indeed,
can the unity of the Orthodox Churches be preserved in this particular case,
when some of them celebrate the feast of the Nativity and of Theophany at a
time when others are still traversing the period of repentance and the
forty-day fast, through which they prepare for the celebration of these great
feasts?
Moreover, how can
this Ecclesiastical innovation not constitute a cause of Schism, since it in
fact severs the innovating Churches from the others and causes them to
celebrate and to fast not together with the Orthodox Churches, but with the
heterodox and heretical Western Churches? [17]
Precisely in order
to avoid the fragmentation of the unity of the Orthodox Churches, the Holy and
God-bearing Fathers, just as they prescribed by the Divine and Sacred Canons
[18] the regulations concerning feasts and fasts to be held in reverence by all
the Churches, so also they ordained by Canons [19] that the same order should
prevail concerning the timing of the feasts and fasts for all the
Churches—under threat, indeed, of the deposition of the clergy and the
excommunication and anathematization of the laity.
And these things
the Fathers of the Church established, in accordance with the command of the
heavenly Teacher, who prayed to His heavenly Father for the unity of His
disciples, [20] and with the exhortation of the Apostle Paul, who commands the
following: “Fulfill ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love,
being of one accord, of one mind,” [21] “endeavouring to keep the unity of the
Spirit in the bond of peace.” [22]
***
Is it then possible
to suppose that the then Ecumenical Patriarch Meletios and Archbishop
Chrysostomos of Athens were ignorant of these Divine and Sacred Canons, which,
under penalty of deposition, excommunication, and anathema, establish the
simultaneous celebration of the feasts and the simultaneous observance of the
fasts by all the Orthodox Churches, for the sake of the unity of the Christian
spirit and the bond of peace among the faithful?
Behold where lies
the foreign Achilles' heel of Patriarch Meletios and Archbishop Chrysostomos:
introducing a Protestant principle into the Orthodox Church, they lead Her onto
the path of Protestantism, which grants full freedom to its adherents not only
in the outward ordinances of worship, but also in the very faith and
understanding of the Dogmas, having no Ecclesiastical Criterion for their
interpretation. [23]
Such indeed did
Patriarch Meletios Metaxakis and Archbishop Chrysostomos Papadopoulos dare to
do—these two Luthers [24] of the Orthodox Church—who, under the pretext of
modernization, did not hesitate nor shrink [25] from trampling upon decisions
of Pan-Orthodox Synods and Apostolic and Synodal Canons, in order to draw near
to the churches of the West through the calendar innovation, [26] thereby
dividing Orthodoxy and annulling the centuries-old practice of the One, Holy,
Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
In the face of
their arbitrariness, we three Hierarchs rose up—namely, Germanos of Demetrias,
[27] the undersigned Chrysostomos, formerly of Florina, [28] and Chrysostomos
of Zakynthos [29]—being filled with a deep ecclesiastical spirit and perceiving
the unbreakable bond between Orthodoxy and the Greek Church, we boldly and
magnanimously raised—not the banner of rebellion against Orthodoxy and of the
division of Christians, as they did—but the glorious and honored standard of
the union of divided Orthodoxy and the restoration of peace to the Church on
the foundation of the venerable Traditions and the Divine and Sacred Canons.
[30]
In the face of
their arbitrariness, we three Hierarchs stood upright—namely, Germanos of
Demetrias, [27] the undersigned, Chrysostomos formerly of Florina, [28] and
Chrysostomos of Zakynthos [29]—being filled with a deep ecclesiastical spirit
and perceiving the unbreakable bond between Orthodoxy and the Greek Church, we
boldly and magnanimously raised—not the banner of rebellion against Orthodoxy
and the division of Christians, as they did—but the glorious and honored
standard of the union of divided Orthodoxy and of the restoration of peace to
the Church upon the foundation of the venerable Traditions and the Divine and
Sacred Canons. [30]
Wherefore, through
our renunciatory document [31] addressed to the Governing Synod, we called upon
it to return to the ground of Orthodoxy by restoring the Orthodox Festal
Calendar in Divine Worship.
NOTES
1. This text is a portion of the admirable work of the
late Metropolitan Chrysostomos Kavourides, formerly of Florina (†1955), titled The
Ecclesiastical Calendar as a Criterion of Orthodoxy.
This treatise of 87 densely printed pages was
completed on 1/14 July 1935 by the Confessor Hierarch at the Holy Monastery of
Saint Dionysios of Olympus, where he had been exiled by the innovators for his
joining the Uninnovated Plērōma of the Patristic Ecclesiastical Calendar.
This enlightened and highly revealing work
constitutes, according to the Martyred Hierarch, an “Apology,” in which “the
deeper motives of this ecclesiastical issue” are investigated, and it is shown
“what meaning and significance it holds for the entire Orthodox Church and how
much harm it has caused the Orthodox Church” (p. 14).
The excerpted text is found on pages 14–17 of the
first edition of the book, and the… comments, explanations, and general
editorial work are ours.
2. Meletios Metaxakis (1871–1935). From the village of
Parsas, Lasithi, Crete. A meddlesome, turbulent, great innovator and
indisputably a Freemason, he served as Metropolitan of Kition in Cyprus
(1910–1918), of Athens (1918–1920), of Constantinople (1921–1923), and of
Alexandria (1926–1935). In the year 1908, he was expelled from the Holy Places
by Patriarch Damianos of Jerusalem, together with Archimandrite Chrysostomos
Papadopoulos, for anti-Hagiotaphite activity.
Methodios Kontostanos, Metropolitan of Corfu
(1942–1967), had written of him:
“But the fugitive from the Holy Places, Meletios
Metaxakis, formerly of Kition, of Athens, of Constantinople, and then of
Alexandria—a restless and unsteady spirit of ambition, an evil genius—even from
Alexandria did not shrink from attempting to impose himself as Patriarch of
Jerusalem.”
(See: Dionysios M. Batistatos – Reprint, Editing,
Introduction: Acts and Decisions of the Pan-Orthodox Congress in
Constantinople, 10 May – 5 June 1923, pp. δ΄ and ε΄, Athens 1982. See also:
Monk Pavlos of Cyprus, New Calendarism–Ecumenism, pp. 48–59, Athens
1982).
3. Chrysostomos Papadopoulos (1868–1938). From Madytos
of Eastern Thrace. Professor at the University of Athens (1914–1923), having
previously served as Director of the School of the Holy Cross in Jerusalem, as
well as of the Rizareios School in Athens. A friend and collaborator of
Meletios Metaxakis, he actively participated from the outset in the so-called
Ecumenical Movement.
(See: Monk Pavlos of Cyprus, op. cit., pp.
59–63. See also at the conclusion of footnote no. 17 of the present article.)
4. The following statements by the same
Hierarch-author in another part of his revealing treatise are quite interesting
and illuminating:
“Indeed, had Patriarch Meletios and Archbishop
Chrysostomos of Athens, while touring America to spread their modernist
principles among the Orthodox populations, not been photographed in lay attire,
Kemal’s Turkey would not have dared to abolish the modest and honored cassock
of the clergy and replace it with the lay ‘rétincôte’ in which Meletios and
Chrysostomos appear in the said photograph.”
(See The Ecclesiastical Calendar as a Criterion of
Orthodoxy, p. 57. “Rétincôte” (riding coat): a garment, jacket, or overcoat
for horseback riding.)
5. This concerns the self-proclaimed (Third Session,
18 May 1923) “Pan-Orthodox Congress,” which convened in the year 1923 (10 May –
8 June); see Dionysios M. Batistatos, op. cit.
For a good and concise critical position regarding the
“Pan-Orthodox Congress,” see Grigorios Efstratiades, The Real Truth about
the Ecclesiastical Calendar, pp. 5–10, Athens 1929.
6. Even the innovating New Calendar Church of Greece,
in its “Report” to the Pan-Orthodox Great Council, acknowledges that:
“Although a discussion on the possibility of a change
had previously taken place, and many Orthodox Churches had reached conclusions
and decisions—of doubtful authority—unfortunately, however, the change was not
made with study and preparation, but under the influence mainly of external
factors”;
and “we characterized these conferences as of doubtful
authority:
a) due to the percentage of participation by the
Orthodox Churches—usually only two or three participated!
b) due to the status and competency of the
representatives who took part in them (senators, astronomy professors, etc.),
c) due to the ease of their decisions (breaking the
continuity of the week, acceptance of a fixed Sunday in April for the common
celebration of Pascha, etc.).”
(See: Church of Greece, The Calendar Issue, pp.
7–8, Athens 1971, our underlining.)
Paradoxically, Professor Antonios Papadopoulos writes:
“For the first time in our century, the Orthodox Churches gathered in
Constantinople and the First Pan-Orthodox Congress was held.”
(See: Ant. Papadopoulos, Witness and Ministry of
Orthodoxy Today, Ecumenical Studies I, p. 27, Thessaloniki 1983.)
We refer Professor Papadopoulos and all who are
interested in the historical truth to the very enlightening—indeed, literally
devastating as regards the un-Orthodox character of it—report and critique of
the so-called self-proclaimed “Pan-Orthodox Congress”: in Monk Pavlos of
Cyprus, op. cit., pp. 68–82.
We also refer to Aristotelis D. Delēmbasis, The
Pascha of the Lord, pp. 667–674, Athens 1985, where it is written by way of
conclusion: “Thus, the implementation of the festal innovation of the
‘Congress’ was not only not Pan-Orthodox, but was in fact opposed almost at a
Pan-Orthodox level.”
We further refer to Metropolitan Irenaios of
Kassandreia (†1945), Memorandum to the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy of
Greece, convened on 14 June 1929..., pp. 19–21, § D, and subsequently §§
E–F.
A particularly devastating testimony regarding the
non-existent authority of the so-called Pan-Orthodox Congress of 1923 is
preserved in the Acts of the 17th Session of the Hierarchy of the Church of
Greece (1 October 1937), where Metropolitan Irenaios of Kassandreia, in defense
of the Patristic Ecclesiastical Calendar, is recorded as saying, among other
things, that at the “Inter-Orthodox Synod” on the Holy Mountain (1930), the
representative of the Serbian Church, Bishop Nicholas of Ohrid, “only then consented
for the delegation of the Church of Serbia to sit in the Synod, when it was
declared that the Inter-Orthodox Synod of the Holy Mountain had no relation
whatsoever to the Pan-Orthodox Congress of Constantinople, which had made a
definitive pronouncement concerning the correction of the calendar. Otherwise,
the Serbs would have condemned the Ecumenical Patriarchate.”
(See Archimandrite Theokletos Strangas, E.E.I.,
vol. 3, p. 2.140. The “Inter-Orthodox Synod” refers to the well-known
“Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission,” which was held on the Holy Mountain,
at the Holy Monastery of Vatopedi, 8–23 June 1930, for the preparation of the
convocation of a Pan-Orthodox Pre-Synod on the Holy Mountain on 19 June 1932,
the Sunday of Pentecost. See also Ioannis N. Karmiris, D.S.M., vol. B,
2nd ed., pp. 979–980.)
This testimony is indeed devastating, for Bishop
Nicholas of Ohrid (†1956), from Žiča, was distinguished for his high sanctity,
learning, and social activity, and he undoubtedly expressed the Orthodox
imperative.
(See: Archimandrite Elias Mastroyannopoulos, Theological
Presentations, pp. 68–72, Athens 1986. Nicholas of Ohrid was proclaimed a
Saint by the Serbian Church in 2003; see periodical Saint Cyprian, no.
314 / May–June 2003, pp. 227–229.)
The Confessor Hierarch, formerly of Florina,
Chrysostomos, referring to this event on the Holy Mountain, preserves the very
enlightening testimony that: “The representatives of the Orthodox Churches of
Serbia and Poland, firmly adhering to the Patristic Ecclesiastical Calendar,
regarding as essentially schismatic the representatives of the Churches that
had innovated in the matter of the calendar, refrained, under the strict
understanding of their Orthodox identity, from praying together with schismatics;
and under the pretext of the language barrier, requested from the Holy
Monastery of Vatopedi the Chapel of Paramythia for their private prayer!”
(See the booklet: Of Their Eminences the
Metropolitans of the Autocephalous Orthodox Church of Greece—Germanos of
Demetrias, Chrysostomos formerly of Florina, and Chrysostomos of Zakynthos,
CLARIFICATION concerning the Issue of the Ecclesiastical Calendar, p. 6,
Athens 1935).
7. Precisely, the composition of the “Committee of the
Orthodox Churches” was as follows:
a) Representatives of the Church of Constantinople:
Metropolitan Callinicus of Cyzicus and Professor of Theology at Halki, Mr.
Vasileios Antoniades.
b) Church of Russia: The hierarchs residing in
Constantinople—Archbishop Anastasius of Kishinev and Khotin (Gribanovsky,
belonging to the Synod of Karlovci of the Russian émigré Church and later
becoming its second Metropolitan, 1934–1964, successor to Anthony Khrapovitsky
of Kiev, †1936), and Archbishop Alexander of the Aleutian Islands and North
America (Nemorovsky, later Archbishop of Brussels and Belgium, 1936–1960).
(These participated “at the spontaneous invitation of the Church of
Constantinople,” i.e., “not directly,” and therefore were not in essence
official representatives of Russia.)
c) Church of Serbia: Metropolitan Gabriel of
Montenegro and the Littoral (later Patriarch of Serbia, †1952), and Professor
of Mathematics and Engineering in Belgrade, Dr. Milutin Milankovitch.
d) Church of Cyprus: Metropolitan Vasileios of
Nicaea (later Ecumenical Patriarch, 1925–1929).
e) Church of Greece: Metropolitan Iakovos of
Dyrrachium (Nikolaou, of Dyrrachium from 1911, later of Mytilene, 1925–1958).
f) Church of Romania: Archimandrite Iuliu
Scriban and Senator Mr. Petru Drăghici.
(See Dionysios M. Batistatos, op. cit., pp.
11–12.)
8. At that time, the Patriarch of Alexandria was the
renowned Photius (Peroglou, 1835–1925); of Antioch, Gregory IV (Haddad,
1906–1928: “After prolonged vacillation, in his final days he introduced the
new calendar,” see Theological Encyclopedia of the Church [Θ.Η.Ε.], vol.
4, col. 751).
Damianos of Jerusalem (1897–1931) sent a telegram to
the “Pan-Orthodox Congress” in which he declared: “...the replacement of the
Calendar-Festal Calendar of the Church is in no way beneficial nor will it be
accepted by our Patriarchate, inasmuch as it places us in a highly
disadvantageous position in the Holy Shrines in relation to the Latins.”
(See Dionysios M. Batistatos, op. cit., p. 69.)
As for the absent schismatic Church of Bulgaria, a
“lesson” on “ecclesiastical communion and unity above nationalism,
supra-national,” was delivered to the delegates during the Fifth Session (23
May 1923) of the “Pan-Orthodox Congress” by “the wise hierarch of the Anglican
Church, the bishop formerly of Oxford, the Most Reverend Gore”—according to
Patriarch Meletios!...
(See Dionysios M. Batistatos, op. cit., pp. 66,
86, our emphasis.)
9. See Athanasios Komninos Hypsilantis, After the
Fall, pp. 111, 113, 114, Constantinople 1870;
Dositheos of Jerusalem, Dodekabiblos, Book XI, Chapter VIII, p. 57, B.
Rigopoulos, Thessaloniki 1983; Meletios of Athens, Ecclesiastical History,
vol. III, pp. 402, 408, Vienna 1784; Philaretos Vafeidis of Didymoteicho, Ecclesiastical
History, vol. III, Part I, pp. 124–125, Constantinople 1912; K.N. Sathas, Biographical
Sketch of Patriarch Jeremias II, pp. 91–92, Athens 1870.
10. Jeremias II Tranos, Patriarch of Constantinople
(1536–1595). He was born in Anchialos. One of the greatest Ecumenical
Patriarchs after the Fall. Under him, the Russian Patriarchate was established
(1589, 1593). He is considered as one who “most excellently represented the
Orthodox Catholic Church before the heterodox,” and is especially known for his
most important dogmatic correspondence with the Lutheran theologians of
Württemberg at the University of Tübingen.
During his patriarchate, he rejected the Gregorian
calendar, “repeatedly condemning the Gregorian reform, particularly through the
synodical encyclical of 28 November 1583 together with Patriarch Sylvester (of
Alexandria), and another addressed to Konstantinos Ostrogski, by his letter of
February 1583 to the Doge of Venice, Nikolaos Daponte, by his letter to the
Protestants in Tübingen from September 1589 from Moldovlachia, by another to
the Metropolitan of Philadelphia in Venice, Gabriel Seviros, from 7 July 1590,
as well as by the decision of the Synod convened in Constantinople in 1593.”
(See Ioannis Karmiris, Theological Encyclopedic
Dictionary, vol. 6, col. 781).
11. At that time, the Archimandrite Chrysostomos
Papadopoulos, judging favorably the Letter of Jeremias II of Constantinople to
the Doge of Venice, Mr. Nikolaos Daponte, writes the following: “This letter of
the Patriarch excellently characterizes the position which the Orthodox Church
immediately assumed regarding the Gregorian modification of the calendar. It is
regarded by her as one of the many innovations of elder Rome, a ‘global
scandal,’ and an arbitrary trampling of ecclesiastical traditions.”
(See Archimandrite Chrysostomos Papadopoulos, The
Gregorian Calendar in the East, in Ecclesiastical Herald, no.
145/31.3.1918, p. 135. For the Letter of Patriarch Jeremias II to the Doge, see
in K. N. Sathas, op. cit., pp. 26–28).
12. Joachim III of Demitrias. He was born in
Constantinople in the year 1834. The greatest of the Ecumenical Patriarchs
after the Fall. He served as Patriarch first from 1878–1884, and again from
1901–1912. His Encyclicals of the years 1902 and 1904 constitute clear examples
of ecumenistic influence for the first time in such an official manner and are
forerunners of the 1920 Encyclical.
(See Very Reverend Protopresbyter Georgios Tsetsis, The
Contribution of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to the Founding of the World
Council of Churches, pp. 31 ff., 51, Katerini 1988).
13. The Confessor Hierarch refers to the following
32-page booklet: By the Most Reverend Metropolitans of the Autocephalous
Orthodox Church of Greece, Germanos of Demetrias, the former Chrysostomos of
Florina, and Chrysostomos of Zakynthos, A PROTEST to the Orthodox Churches
regarding the unilateral and uncanonical introduction of the new calendar,
Athens 1935.
On pages 10–13, there are excerpts from the responses
of the Orthodox Churches of Jerusalem, Romania, Serbia, Montenegro, and Russia.
Strangely, the reference to the response of the Church
of Greece is omitted, which, with Theocletos of Athens as President of the Holy
Synod, wrote that the calendar “maintained for centuries in our Orthodox
Church” participates in “religious and theological importance only to the
extent that the Church’s festal calendar is connected with it,” and accepts the
“reform of the calendar” “if all the local Orthodox Churches of the East are
persuaded,” and “without disturbing the religious consciences of the simpler
[faithful],” and “in mutual agreement with one another.”
(See the complete Responses of the above-mentioned
Churches in Antonios Papadopoulos, Texts on Inter-Orthodox and
Inter-Christian Relations, Oikoumenika II, pp. 17–74. The material
from the Church of Greece is on p. 43).
See also portions of all the responses and the related
critique in Gregorios Eustratiades, The Real Truth Concerning the
Ecclesiastical Calendar, pp. 132–138, Athens 1929, where it is mentioned
that the following Churches did not respond to the Patriarchal Encyclical of
1920:
“1) Alexandria, because at that time Patriarch Photios
had no correspondence with Patriarch Joachim due to personal reasons;
2) Antioch, because relations were then severed
(1897–1907, intervention of the Russian government, the ‘Arab question,’ effort
to Arabize the Patriarchates of Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria [note by the
editor]);
3) Cyprus, because it lacked a President; and
4) Karlovci, because the Encyclical had not been sent
to it.”
The Church of Bulgaria, we remind, had been declared
and condemned as schismatic since 1872 (with this lifted in 1945).
Worthy of mention is the following opinion of Manouel
Gedeon concerning the response of the Church of Greece: “The Church of Greece
apparently did not understand why or what it was being asked, and uttered
certain incoherent statements, whereas it should have said: either ‘I condemn
the so-called Julian [calendar],’ or ‘I accept the Gregorian,’ or ‘I construct
a new one.’”
(See: The Blessed Meletios Pegas, Patriarch of
Alexandria, Letter to Silvester, Patriarch, Concerning the Paschalion,
edition of Hieromonk Savvas, Prologue, p. 15, Athens 1924).
14. In the Fourth Session (21 May 1923), Patriarch Mr.
Meletios proposed the presentation before the Congress of the Anglican bishop
Gore, but ultimately, in the Fifth Session (23 May 1923): “His Eminence
Bishop—former of Oxford—Mr. Gore enters, accompanied also by the accompanying
priest Baxton, and takes a seat to the right of the Patriarch.” Subsequently, a
very illuminating dialogue took place between the Patriarch and Gore,
concerning the calendar, the joint celebration, the movement for union, the conditions
of union, etc.
(See: Dionysios M. Batistatos, op. cit., pp.
66, 84–88).
15. Such a decision was indeed taken, unquestionably
unorthodox, proposed in fact by Patriarch Mr. Meletios, with the support also
of the Committee on the dogmatic-canonical aspect of the matter under Professor
Mr. V. Antoniadis.
(See: Dionysios M. Batistatos, op. cit., p. 24,
§7, and pp. 68–69).
Perhaps for this reason, Mr. Chrysostomos Papadopoulos
of Athens was emboldened one year later and proceeded unilaterally with the
change of the calendar, his prior hesitations having been dispelled—despite
what he had upheld as Archimandrite in the well-known “Report” of the
five-member “Committee on the Reform of the Calendar” of January 1923 to the
Government: “None of these (the Orthodox Churches) is able to separate itself
from the others and accept a new calendar without becoming schismatic in relation
to the others.”
(See the “Report” in Government Gazette of the
Kingdom of Greece, First Issue, No. 24/25.1.1923, § 8).
16. “For thus indeed is the Ecclesiastical law
divinely commanded from above: that matters doubtful and contentious within the
Church of God are to be resolved and determined by Ecumenical Synods, in
agreement and with the judgment of the bishops who shine forth upon the
Apostolic Thrones.” (St. Nikephoros of Constantinople, PG vol. 100, col. 597C).
The “First” of a Holy Synod is obliged “to do nothing
without the unanimous opinion and consent of the whole body of bishops or of
the Synod around him, or, in the case of the Ecumenical Patriarch and
concerning general ecclesiastical matters, only after consultation and
agreement with the primates of the Autocephalous Churches or by decision of
Pan-Orthodox Conferences and Synods.”
(See Ioannis N. Karmiris, Orthodox Ecclesiology,
p. 527, Athens 1973).
17. “Many Orthodox Churches did not accept the change
of the ecclesiastical calendar (see Θ.Η.Ε., vol. 6, col. 49). In this way,
Orthodoxy was divided. Anglicanism succeeded in dividing Orthodoxy twice:
first, on the matter of the recognition of Anglican ordinations, and
second—more evidently—on the calendar issue. The Ecumenism that makes much ado
about ‘unity’ is, in fact, destroying even the existing unity of the Orthodox
for the sake of union with the heterodox.”
(See Aristotelēs D. Delēmbasis, The Heresy of
Ecumenism, p. 237, Athens 1972).
“This joint celebrating and joint fasting of the
Orthodox together with the heterodox and the heretics of the West—despite the
explicit holy-canonical prohibitions (see Canons 10, 45, and 65 of the Holy
Apostles; 6, 9, 32, 33, 34, and 37 of Laodicea; 9 of Timothy of Alexandria)—was
the aim of the so-called Ecumenical Movement from the very beginning.”
This was advocated in the unorthodox Patriarchal
Encyclical of 1920: “By the adoption of a unified calendar for the simultaneous
celebration of the great Christian feasts by all the Churches” (referring to
both Orthodox and heterodox).
This was also declared by Meletios Metaxakis in his
enthronement speech as Patriarch of Constantinople in 1922: “Let me place
myself in the service of the Church from her first Throne, for the
cultivation—as far as possible—of closer relations of friendship with all
non-Orthodox Christian Churches of the East and West; and for the promotion of
the work of union with those among them who...”
This was also proclaimed by Chrysostomos Papadopoulos
of Athens at his enthronement: “For such cooperation and solidarity, the
difficult—unfortunately—dogmatic union is not a necessary prerequisite, for the
union of Christian love is sufficient…”
This was the aim of the "Pan-Orthodox
Congress" of Constantinople in 1923:
“to serve, in this regard (a common calendar),
pan-Christian unity,”
“the drawing together of the two Christian worlds of
East and West in the common celebration of the great Christian feasts,”
“this point will concern us as members of the
pan-Christian brotherhood,”
and the Anglican bishop Gore declared at the fifth
session: “The second step will be taken by the calendar question, which will
bring us to the common celebration of the feasts,” because “for us in the West,
it would be a great spiritual joy to be in a position to celebrate together the
great Christian feasts of the Nativity, the Resurrection, and Pentecost.”
(See: Ioannis Karmiris, D.S.M., vol. II, pp.
957–960; Vasileios Th. Stavridis, The Ecumenical Patriarchs, 1860–present,
vol. I, pp. 467–478, Thessaloniki 1977; Monk Pavlos of Cyprus, loc. cit.,
pp. 53 and 60; Dionysios M. Batistatos, loc. cit., pp. 6, 57, 72, 87,
86, etc.)
Noteworthy: In the funeral oration on the death of
Chrysostomos Papadopoulos, delivered by Chrysostomos of Zakynthos, the late
hierarch was praised as: “having worked beyond human strength” for the
forthcoming union “of all Christian Churches, for which” “he exerted so many
efforts.”
(See: Archimandrite Theokletos A. Strangas, E.E.I.,
vol. III, p. 2160. In a footnote, the author notes: “That is, after Meletios,
he too was a pro-ecumenist, and even pro-unionist.”)
18. See Holy Apostolic Canon 63; 52, 56, 79 of the
Holy Sixth Ecumenical Council; 19, 20 of the Holy Local Council in Gangra; 37,
51 of the Holy Local Council in Laodicea.
(Note by us: The sacred author refers only to these
Holy Canons.)
19. See Holy Canon 56 of the Holy Sixth Ecumenical
Council; 19 of the Holy Local Council in Gangra:
"...that the Church of God throughout the whole
world should perform the fasts in the same manner and order..." (Canon
56).
"If anyone... abolishes the traditional fasts
which are observed in common and kept by the Church... let him be
anathema" (Canon 19).
20. “(I ask)... for those who will believe in Me
through their (the Apostles') word, that they all may be one, just as You,
Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be one in Us, so that the
world may believe that You sent Me.”
(John 17:20–21)
21. Philippians 2:2.
22. Ephesians 4:3.
23. "Protestantism, having limited the subjective
appropriation of salvation solely to faith, having denied the Holy Tradition,
and having inscribed only Holy Scripture and faith upon its banner (sola
scriptura – sola fide), and on the other hand having disputed the authority
of the historic Church and nearly rejected it along with every ecclesiastical
authority—such as Holy Tradition, the Ecumenical Council, or the Pope—reserving
only Holy Scripture, was consequently and fatally swept into unrestrained individualism
and subjectivism, and went astray in many respects concerning the definition of
dogmatic teaching, worship, and the ecclesiastical administration of the
Protestants, thus becoming distanced not only from the Roman Catholic Church,
but also from the Orthodox Catholic Church."
(See Ioannis N. Karmiris, Martin Luther, in Theological
Encyclopedia, vol. 8, col. 363.)
24. Martin Luther (1483–1546). German Professor of
Theology, from Eisleben in Saxony. Leader of the Reformation (October 31, 1517,
Wittenberg, 95 Theses). He was excommunicated by the Pope (1521). The result of
the struggles for the predominance of the Reformation in Central and Western
Europe was the Protest—Protestantism (1529, Protestation Record, Speyer,
Bavaria, Diet).
25. Ἀπορριγῶ (-έω): I am wholly seized by shuddering;
I shiver, tremble, am terrified, afraid, hesitant, I dread to do something.
26. See footnote no. 17.
27. Metropolitan of Demetrias Germanos (Mavrommatis).
From Psara. He served as Metropolitan of Demetrias from 14 July 1907. He was
endowed with exceptional administrative gifts, rare spiritual strength, and
virtues. In the year 1935, he was exiled to the Holy Monastery of Chozoviotissa
in Amorgos. He fell asleep in the Lord on 20 March 1944.
28. Metropolitan Chrysostomos (formerly) of Florina
(Kavouridis). From Madytos in Eastern Thrace (13 November 1870). A great
ecclesiastical and national figure. He studied at the Theological School of
Halki. An exceptionally eloquent orator and prolific author. He successively
served as Metropolitan of Imbros, Pelagonia (Monastir), and Florina. He opposed
the election of Meletios Metaxakis as Ecumenical Patriarch and was therefore
persecuted. He undertook the pastoral care of those adhering to the Patristic
Calendar (1935). He was exiled twice by the innovators. He fell asleep in the
Lord in 1955.
29. Metropolitan of Zakynthos Chrysostomos
(Dimitriou). From Piraeus (25 March 1890). A man of vast learning,
multilingual, extremely prolific writer, and most knowledgeable in musicology.
He served as Metropolitan of Zakynthos from 1934 and, by transfer, of Trifylia
and Olympia from 1957. He reposed on 22 October 1958. In the year 1935, having
joined the Patristic Calendar, he was exiled to the Holy Monastery of Rombos in
Aetolia-Acarnania, where he remained for a short period; having repented,
however, he returned to the innovation.
(See former Metropolitan of Lemnos Vasileios, Concise
Episcopal History of the Church of Greece from 1833 to the Present, vol. B,
pp. 195–196, 177–178, Athens 1953).
30. From this God-pleasing vision “of the union of
fragmented Orthodoxy and the pacification of the Church” the sacred struggle of
the Confessor Hierarch was inspired, and he frequently expressed this sincere
longing.
Later, the blessed Leader would write: “Therefore, we
have from the Canons the full right to temporarily, and prior to a Synodal
decision, interrupt ecclesiastical communion with the Hierarchy and to
temporarily form our own religious Community, until the valid and final
resolution of the calendar issue by a pan-Orthodox Council”; and elsewhere: “We
entered the struggle under the banner of the restoration of the Patristic
Calendar in the Church, setting as our primary aim not the perpetuation and
eternalization of the ecclesiastical division, but the peace of the Church and
the union of Christians in the celebration of the feasts.”
(See former Metropolitan of Florina Chrysostomos, Refutation
of the Calendar Treatise of His Eminence Metropolitan Dorotheos Kottaras...,
p. 18, December 1947).
See also the admirable and deeply theological
Encyclical of 18 January 1945 entitled: “Clarification of the Pastoral
Encyclical of His Eminence, former Metropolitan of Florina Chrysostomos,” a separate booklet of
15 pages. Likewise, the epilogue of the letter of the Confessor Hierarch to
Bishop Germanos Varykopoulos of the Cyclades (9 November 1937), in: Ilias
Angelopoulos – Dionysios Batistatos, Former Metropolitan of Florina
Chrysostomos Kavourides – Fighter for Orthodoxy and the Nation, pp. 83–84,
Athens 1981.
Even in the Holy Seventh Ecumenical Council, it is
repeatedly stated that it was convened “for the union and concord of the
Church,” and: “that we might transform the disagreement of those who are
separated into agreement,” and: “that, casting off the division of the
Churches, we might draw the separated ones toward union.”
Finally, St. Tarasios himself, in his Apologetic to
the People..., before his consecration, declared: “I see and behold the
Church of our God, founded upon the rock, Christ, now torn apart and divided…”
(See Mansi, vol. II, pp. 758b, 881b, 880a, 724a).
31. The “Renunciatory Document” addressed “to
the Governing Synod” of the “Church of Greece,” bearing the title “Protest
and Declaration,” was delivered on May 14/27, 1935 by a Court Bailiff,
while the Holy Synod of the innovators was occupied with resolving the issue
that had arisen concerning the three Confessor Hierarchs—of Demetrias, of Florina, and of Zakynthos.
(See the “Renunciatory Document” in the present
work of former Metropolitan of Florina Chrysostomos, pp. 11–13. See also Archimandrite
Theocletos A. Strangas, E.E.I., vol. III, pp. 2036–2037).
Greek source: ᾿Ορθόδοξος ῎Ενστασις καὶ Μαρτυρία, no.
17 / October–December 1989, pp. 67–78.
Online: https://www.imoph.org/Theology_el/3a4008Empneustai.pdf
