Greek source: Το Άγιον Όρος και η Διαχρονική του Στάση Έναντι
των Αιρέσεων [The Holy Mountain and its Historical Stance Toward Heresies],
Hieromonk Chariton the Athonite, Holy Kellion of the Ascension, Mount
Athos, 2017, pp. 210-225.
1. Meletios
Metaxakis (1922–1923), and the innovation of the change of the Calendar
The case of this patriarch is a
historically difficult phenomenon to interpret. He was a hierarch of four
thrones (of Kition-Larnaca, Archbishop of Athens, Patriarch of Constantinople,
Patriarch of Alexandria, and very nearly also of Jerusalem). He was a most
daring innovator and a Mason, according to the archives of Freemasonry.
He became Patriarch of
Constantinople solely and exclusively for the change of the calendar, with the
fraternal-Masonic support of Eleftherios Venizelos. In 1923 he hastened to
convene, not a Pan-Orthodox Synod, but a crude ten-member “Congress” with only
seven Bishops and three clerical representatives! The first and principal
subject of the Congress was the change of the Calendar and of the Paschalion,
as being “possible.” However, this was not carried out, because of the explicit
negative declaration of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, and also of the
representative of the Church of Greece. Nevertheless, in the end only the
Metropolises of the Ecumenical Throne, the Church of Greece, and the Church of
Cyprus accepted the change of the Calendar, the latter of which he had prepared
for, as Metropolitan of Larnaca. The rest initially remained with the Julian
Calendar, but later some of them adopted the New one. As long as Photius was
Patriarch of Alexandria, the Patriarchate of Alexandria did not accept the calendar
change. After his death, Meletios Metaxakis hurried and took his seat on the
Alexandrian throne, and immediately at once the Patriarchate of Alexandria also
proceeded to the innovation of the change of the calendar. [2]
The Church of Greece proceeded to
the calendar change on December 27, 1923. At the Fourth Session of the First
Assembly of the Hierarchy, under the pressure of the politicians of the
revolutionary government of Stylianos Gonatas, and despite the reservations of
several members of the hierarchy, it accepted the change. The decision of the hierarchy,
under the direction of the Archbishop of Athens, Chrysostomos Papadopoulos,
moved on the following level: only the festal calendar of the fixed feasts
would be adjusted to the new dates of the corrected calendar, but not the Paschalion,
which included the cycle of the movable feasts (dependent on Pascha). As the
date of implementation, with the approval of the Ecumenical Patriarch, March 10,
1924, was appointed.
2. The innovation
of the change of the Calendar on Mount Athos
The decision for the change of
the calendar, which was taken in Constantinople and with the agreement of the
representatives of the Church of Greece, was officially made known also to the
Holy Mountain by an Encyclical of the Ecumenical Patriarch to the Holy
Community on February 27, 1927 (after three years!).
The Encyclical requested from the
Athonites:
“...Inevitably, from the 10th of
the coming month of March, the festal calendar of the Orthodox Church also,
insofar as concerns the fixed feasts, must be adjusted to the civil calendar;
only the Paschalion, for the present, is to remain as it is, until its
final settlement also thereafter by the Universal Church.” [3]
It is worthy of wonder how the
Patriarchate addresses a monastic center of more than a thousand years, such as
the Holy Mountain, without any sense of respect for its age-old tradition,
without even calling the Athonites to a hearing and dialogue (since it loves
dialogues so very much). On such a very serious matter of ecclesiastical
tradition, how does the Patriarchate decide all by itself? And indeed, in the
absence of three Patriarchates, and it orders “inevitably” the change of the
calendar, as though someone were merely going to change an old garment that had
torn for a new one!
The Holy Community, taking into
account the negative opinion that was taking shape among the people and the
monks, convened a Double Assembly of the Abbots and the Representatives of the
Holy Monasteries. Of the 20 Holy Monasteries, 15 declared against it, four did
not arrive at any decision. Only the Holy Monastery of Vatopedi complied and
accepted the calendar innovation, until 1981–82. The Holy Community finally
decided that “it would accept [the revised Calendar] only after a decision of
an Ecumenical Council.”
Striking a balance between not
departing from the traditional ecclesiastical calendar, yet also not disturbing
its relations with the Mother Church, it arrived, in 1927, at the official
decision:
“To preserve the Julian calendar
then in use and not to adopt the new one, yet without breaking communion with
the Churches that had adopted it, since this change affected neither the dogmas
nor the tradition of Orthodoxy.” [4]
Thus, the Monasteries of the Holy
Mountain “remained devoted to the observance of the Old Calendar, ‘since an
Ecumenical Council had not yet been convened,’ but they did not cease to
communicate with those who had embraced the New Calendar and to commemorate the
august name of the Ecumenical Patriarch.” Despite the efforts of the Holy
Community to find a “golden mean” and a balance in the face of the innovation
decided upon by the Patriarchate, the Holy Mountain, through the wavering line
it chose, already enters as an institutional authority into a new page of its
sacred history.
The purpose of the present study
is not, of course, the theological and ecclesiological analysis of this great
issue; that should already have been done by the esteemed hierarchs and
shepherds and by those of Orthodox theology who are established in the practice
of virtue and in contemplation. The fact, however, is one: that on the Holy
Mountain this innovation became the cause for it to mourn and still to mourn,
because a spiritual civil strife entered into its very bowels.
At that time, the holy Elders of
the Holy Mountain thought about and viewed these matters very differently from
us contemporary monks. Then, the whole of the Holy Mountain, like one body and
one soul, resisted this innovation of the change.
“The struggles of the Hesychasts,
the Anti-Unionists, the Kollyvades, with as pioneers a multitude of
named and unnamed Athonite saints, who were tormented, driven out, imprisoned,
and martyred for the defense of the unadulterated faith and the traditions of
the fathers, inspired the spirit of these men... Most of the 5,000–6,000 monks
at that time, desiring their salvation, naturally became concerned, but also
sought to take a correct stand in the face of the sudden challenge. If one
takes into account that the Athonites regard themselves as guardians of
Orthodoxy, with a blood-soaked history in the struggles for the right faith,
which is renewed in their wakeful conscience by the daily Synaxaria, one will
easily understand their militant psychology.” [5]
We mention one example among many
from the old Athonite fathers who resisted the calendar innovation. One such
bright star was also Elder Avvakoum the barefooted, of Lavra. When the
Patriarchate tried to impose this innovation, then at the Monastery of the
Great Lavra 27 hieromonks and monks reacted, among whom were the physician
Elder Athanasios Kampanau and Elder Avvakoum, who was distinguished both for
his love toward all, and especially for his ministry in the monastery’s
hospital and old-age home:
“At the beginning of 1927, the
Monastery of Lavra wanted to put an end to the continuing division of the
brotherhood. To achieve this, it invited in writing the civil Governor to
preside over the session of its Council of Elders, at which the matter of the
zealot fathers was to be examined yet again. At the proposal of the zealot
physician Fr. Athanasios (Kampanau), Fr. Avvakoum was chosen as the
representative of the zealots of the Monastery. On the appointed day and hour,
he appeared in the monastery’s synodal hall, where the Elders were present
together with the Governor. To the Governor’s question:”
“Why, Father, did you break away
from the brotherhood and bring disorder into the Monastery, and why do you not
pray together with the brother fathers?” Fr. Avvakoum answered with meekness
and humility:
“Sir Governor, have you studied
the Holy Canons of the Pedalion?”
“What does the Pedalion
say, Father?” the Governor replied.
“Since you are ignorant of its
contents, first read it, and then come to judge us.”
This answer was judged by the
Council of Elders as contempt for the Authority, and he was exiled to the Holy
Monastery of Xeropotamou. Thus, poor Avvakoum was removed from his monastic
repentance for the third time! About two months later, because the Monastery of
his exile was celebrating its feast (March 9), the civil Governor was also
invited to attend the vigil, and immediately after the vigil he departed in
haste by mule for Karyes. Then Fr. Avvakoum found the opportunity, taking hold
of the animal’s bridle and walking beside it, to explain in his gifted manner
why the Fathers of the Holy Mountain had reacted to the calendar innovation and
what the texts of the Church say about this just reaction of theirs. His
simplicity, his great knowledge of Holy Scripture, and the childlike and
enthusiastic manner of his speech immediately convinced the Governor that this
was a pure-minded idealist and virtuous man. As soon as he reached Karyes, he
at once requested that his exile be revoked. Thus, after a few days, the Great
Lavra received him once again into her embrace.”
When once Fr. Ephraim, little
Ephraim, the ecclesiarch of Lavra, asked him why he had become a zealot—(that
is, why he did not commemorate the Patriarch?)—he answered him:
“Because God will demand an
account from me. He will say to me: Avvakoum, you knew the law of the Church;
how did you trample upon it?” [6]
Today’s monks avoid learning the
law of the Church, the Holy Canons, which forbid us to commemorate a heretical
Patriarch, so that, as they suppose, they may keep their conscience at peace
and put forward excuses in sins, thus believing that they will deceive the
judgment of God.
In the end, Elder Avvakoum was
compelled, because of internal pressures from the Monastery, to take refuge in
the desert of Vigla, where with crowbar and sledgehammer he built from nothing
the kellion of St. Phanourios. There he reached his end, fell asleep,
and was buried. Yet later a hieromonk from Lavra made an exhumation and took
his relics, which he scattered in the monastery’s ossuary, so that the
“deluded” zealots might not find them and make him a saint!!! To such a point
reaches the fanaticism of the ecumenists-modernists, and then they accuse the
zealots of being fanatics. May God someday grant them repentance, that they may
come to their senses…
As for Elder Avvakoum, the
barefoot child of the Panagia, he has no need of canonizations. Those who knew
him know the virtue of the man.
“He knows things that usually
only University Professors know. He can make every wise man ashamed. He is
poor, yet he possesses more than all the wise and intellectual men of the
world. He is truly enlightened.” (N. Louvaris, Academician), and “Divine grace!
Such boundless memory I have neither heard of, nor shall I hear again.” (I.
Karmiris, Academician). Elder Avvakoum had the gift of knowing Holy Scripture
and many of the Holy Fathers by heart; he had boundless memory, like St.
Nikodemos the Hagiorite.
Here we see how, on the one hand,
the lack of timely information from the Patriarchate to the Holy Mountain and
the Holy Community concerning the reasons why this innovation was being made,
and on the other hand the refined sensitivity of the Athonites in matters of
faith and tradition, as well as the genuineness of their ascetical and neptic
life, the straightforwardness of their character—which are a daily lived
reality for monks—but above all, the unloving, demanding, and psychologically
insensitive manner of the Patriarch-Patriarchate in imposing the change of the
Calendar, all these gave the Athonites of that time the sense that this was
indeed an innovation, which was being imposed in a tyrannical manner. An
innovation which harmed not only Sacred Tradition, but also, indirectly and
secretly yet clearly, was the beginning of the future assault upon the dogmatic
consciousness of the Orthodox faith, as is unfortunately proved today by the
heretical openings of Ecumenism.
After the passage of 90 years
since then, the issue of the calendar no longer seriously concerns the body of
the Athonites and [most] Christians. They believe that all this is not worth
discussing, that the change of the calendar was a simple change of 13 days, a
“jump of 13 days,” as some used to say. But this is not how things stand, as
emerges from the study of the historical facts, which we briefly mentioned
above. Those daring men behind the calendar change were also seeking the change
of the Paschalion. This did not happen then, because “...to innovate
concerning this... was for the present premature”; the time had not yet come
for union to be accomplished through the simultaneous celebration of the great
feasts by all the Churches.
The ecumenists may not yet have
succeeded in changing the Paschalion, but through the “first step” of
Ecumenism they did succeed in bringing about the festal division of the Church
and the division of the monastic commonwealth of the Holy Mountain.
We saw what the Athonites thought
at that time, being informed moreover that Patriarch Basil III (1925–1929) was
also a member of occult organizations (he was initiated into Freemasonry in a
lodge of Constantinople). [7]
As a Mason, Patriarch Basil had
many reformist tendencies regarding the clergy and negative dispositions toward
Monasticism. Thus many monks, from the Sketes, the Kellia, and the
hermitages, began at first to keep their distance, while others broke
ecclesiastical communion with the Monasteries. The beginning was made with the
Holy Monastery of Vatopedi, which was the only Monastery on the Holy Mountain
that followed the new calendar until 1981–82. This stance of the Monastery of
Vatopedi became the cause of its coming into conflict with the so-called
“Zealots,” who broke ecclesiastical communion with it. Indeed, when in 1926 the
former abbot Adrianos of Vatopedi served as Protepistatis, many zealots
avoided receiving documents of the Holy Community that had been issued upon
their own request, so as not to “make a metanoia” to him. [8]
At that time, the Athonites
organized themselves and in 1926 established the “Sacred Association of
Fathers,” with a constitution and with the title The Anchor of Orthodoxy,
and with the signatures of more than 300 hieromonks and monks, most of whom
were from the Sketes and Kellia.
The Patriarchate, perceiving the
magnitude of the problem that had arisen, reacted by sending a letter to the
Holy Community, demanding and seeking from the Athonite monks “the due
reverence and obedience to the decision of the Church.” It further expressed
its displeasure “at the ventured contrary stance of kelliotes and
ascetics, indeed in contrast to their own ruling Monasteries,” and recommended
to the Holy Community, with “motherly love,” of course..., “that all the force
of your holiness be exercised against every refractory one who has not yet
conformed to the decision of the Church, which must inevitably be carried out
by all without exception.” [9]
Under these conditions and the
threats of the Patriarchate, the situation was worsening. A significant number
of hieromonks and monks ceased commemorating Patriarch Basil III. Thus, after
so many centuries, the Holy Mountain, on account of the calendar
innovation—which became the first step of the pan-heresy of Ecumenism—made a
cessation of commemoration, as had also happened formerly against the unionist
efforts of the Latin-minded, and as the Holy Canons of the Church prescribe in
time of heresy.
The Holy Community, while at
first maintaining a relaxed and discreet stance, because the whole Holy
Mountain—monastics and kelliotes alike—was opposed to the calendar
innovation, nevertheless, being pressured by the Patriarchate, began thereafter
to change its stance. By its Encyclical to the 20 Holy Monasteries on May 3,
1926, the Holy Community condemned the cessation of commemoration as an
omission contrary “to the most ancient sacred institutions and the age-old
spiritual ordinances...”. They regarded the interruption of commemoration as
disobedience, because at that time the pan-heresy of ecumenism had not yet
appeared clearly, as it has today. This decision remained unenforced, because
the police refused their assistance.
Meanwhile, the monks were
protesting more and more, and a great multitude of ascetics and hermits had
gathered in Karyes—men of prayer and ascetic struggle—in order to demonstrate
their opposition to the decisions of the Holy Community. Among these ascetics
were many whom today we honor for their sanctity, such as Elder Joseph the
Hesychast, the spiritual forefather of several Abbots and Monasteries today,
and others.
In the same Encyclical, the Holy
Community repudiated the book of the monk Arsenios Kotteas, which bore the
title Center of Our Holy Eastern Church, the Trumpet of the Hesychast
Athonite Monks. The book in question had been circulating since 1925 and
had until then been freely distributed in all the Monasteries. At that point,
it ordered its burning and condemned the author himself as a liar and deceiver
of the people.
The developments of 1926 showed
that the phenomenon had taken on large proportions and that the movement of
“Zealotism,” as it had begun to be called, was threatening the unity and very
existence of the Holy Mountain.
The Association of the Athonites,
which appears as organized with many members and also with a dynamic and
militant mobilization, sent, on July 2, 1928, a letter of protest to the Holy
Community, in which it set forth its positions with patristic and canonical
arguments and submitted a series of requests-conditions:
a) Restoration of the old
calendar in the Holy Monastery of Vatopedi,
b) Cessation of the commemoration
of the Ecumenical Patriarch (for the reasons we mentioned),
c) Recall of the nineteen exiled
monks,
d) A change in the stance of the
Holy Community on the matter of the new calendar and its public denunciation by
it.
It is noteworthy that of the 19
signatures on the text, 12 are from Monastery monks. This shows that the monks
in the Monasteries were also protesting vigorously. [10]
It is very important for the
historical researcher to examine for what reason the Holy Community began to
change its stance toward the majority of the Athonites, who were opposed to the
calendar innovation. As the excellent historical researcher Demetrios Mouzakis
observes: “The fact that the majority of the members who joined this movement
consisted of dependent kelliotes-ascetics raises questions and concerns... The question
should be raised whether the issue of the Zealots constitutes yet another
manifestation of reaction on the part of the dependents, and perhaps of the
lower monastic orders, against the centralization and the administrative
arbitrariness of the 20 Monasteries and their higher administrative rank. It is
also noteworthy that at the time when the Kelliote Brotherhood was
declining, another movement of dependents appeared on the scene, perhaps with a
different occasion, but probably with the same motives. That is, the impression
was widespread among the simple monks, and especially among the dependents,
that the general polity and actions of the monastic elite were far removed from
the monastic ideal and the genuine mission of Athonite Monasticism.” [11] Their
stance, however, was chiefly for reasons of faith.
Moreover, even the very
designation “dependency” which the Monasteries use with respect to the kelliotes,
is disparaging and shows conceit, because the Kellia, the hermitages,
and the ancient small monasteries are chronologically earlier than the
monasteries. The kellia began to come under the Monasteries from 1600
onward, for purely financial reasons; until then they were under the Protos of
the Holy Mountain, who today functions simply as an ancient institution. When
St. Athanasios the Athonite came to Athos, he found the institution of the
Protos and the Sacred Assembly of the Elders in Karyes, and the scattered small
monasteries and kellia, and afterwards he built the Lavra, which is the
first great coenobitic Monastery. St. Athanasios himself was not only a great
coenobiarch; he was also a great hesychast cave-dweller, living even in a cave,
and he never despised the kelliotes, as happens today. This contemptuous
attitude of the Monasteries toward the Kelliotes-Ascetics shows an
arrogance, as though they were second-class monks. This, of course, does not
honor the Monasteries; on the contrary, humility is a virtue for the kelliotes,
since the Lord Himself was despised by the religious leadership of His time.
The Holy Monasteries ought to be like loving mothers toward the kelliotes
and their fellow monks, and not behave as those possessing authority, but
rather as those rendering service. Besides, we know that most of the saints of
the Holy Mountain and the founders of the Monasteries were kelliotes.
Could it be that the cause for the change in the stance of the Monasteries was
not so much their fear lest the kelliotes acquire more rights (!), but
rather the protest itself against the calendar innovation, which, under
pressure from the Patriarchate, the Holy Community regarded and accused of
being an unbridled zealotry “not according to knowledge”?
Nor is it correct that the
adoption of the Gregorian-Papal calendar was something indifferent and did not
touch the Holy Canons and the Tradition of the Church, as is believed even to
this day. Already from 1752, under Jeremiah the Great, until 1895, through
thirteen Pan-Orthodox and Local Synods, the Orthodox Church rejected and
condemned the Gregorian-Papal calendar, as was shown and mentioned above. To
what, then, “most ancient sacred institutions and age-old spiritual
ordinances...,” does the cessation of commemoration of an innovating-heretical
patriarch stand opposed?
NOTES
2. See Fr. Nikodemos Bilalis, op. cit., pp. 43, 44.
3. See Demetrios Mouzakis, Mount Athos during the Interwar
Period, publ. N. Sakkoulas, Athens–Komotini, 2008, p. 348, and Archive of
the Ecumenical Patriarchate, cod. A/93, pp. 692–3.
4. See Dem. Mouzakis, op. cit., pp. 348, 349, 350.
5. See Monk Theoklitos of Dionysiou, Introductory Remarks
on the Old Calendarist Schism, ed. 1979, pp. 3, 4.
6. Theodoretos [Mavros] the Hagiorite, Avvakoum the
Barefooted, ed. 2002, p. 30.
7. See Michael Physentzides, Prominent and Famous Greek
Freemasons, vol. I, Vogiatzis edition, p. 149.
8. See op. cit., p. 349, note.
9. See Dem. Mouzakis, op. cit., pp. 352, 353.
10. See D. Mouzakis, op. cit., pp. 355, 356, Archive
of the Holy Monastery of Koutloumousiou.
11. See op. cit., pp. 53, 54.
