A Canonical Assessment of the Calendar Schism

A Canonical Assessment of the Calendar Schism: To the Editorial Board of the newspaper Orthodoxos Typos [1976]

By Fr. Theodoretos (Mavros) the Hagiorite (+2007)

 

Having carefully read what has been written so far in the Orthodoxos Typos and Voice of Orthodoxy and agreeing in part with the views of the Old Calendarists who have written, but not at all with yours, we send this contribution "for the sake of truth and Orthodoxy," hoping that in this way we may better interpret the unknown and misunderstood aspects of the calendar issue.

A. The Julian Calendar, judged solely from an astronomical standpoint, does not constitute a tradition of the Church, despite the sanctity it has acquired due to its use by the Church. Therefore, any calendar [calculation] can be used by the Church, as long as it does not violate its liturgical calendar.

B. Consequently, the Julian Calendar, with the unanimous consent of the Orthodox Churches, can be changed or corrected, provided that the pastoral reason for imposing this change is serious and the correction does not contradict the letter and spirit of the 1st Canon of the Council of Antioch.

C. However, through the change (or correction, as you prefer) of 1924, the following was disclosed: The complete absence of a pastoral reason justifying the change was revealed, a fact continuously proven by the Churches that retained the old calendar and refused even to participate in the 1923 ["Pan-Orthodox"] Congress. Additionally, through the created disruption of the liturgical unity of Orthodoxy, the malicious and bitter fruit of the change was revealed, serving purposes entirely alien and un-Orthodox. Proof of the above can be seen in:

1) The Patriarchal Encyclical of 1920 "To the Churches of Christ everywhere," which stated that it is necessary to rekindle and strengthen, above all, the love between the Churches, not regarding each other as foreign and alien, but as relatives and close in Christ, co-heirs and joint members of the promise of God in Christ"!!! To achieve the above-mentioned love, 11 points were proposed, the first of which was "the adoption of a unified calendar..." (I. Karmiris, DSMN, 2, pp. 958-9).

It should be noted that the above Encyclical is regarded by the Orthodox ecumenists as "the great charter of Orthodox ecumenism" (Eirenopoioi, p. 25, first edition). In other words, the calendar issue was driven solely by the effort to unite the Churches and represents the forecourt and the introduction to the ensuing sorrowful events, culminating in various anti-canonical actions and betrayals of the Orthodoxy of our Fathers, such as joint prayers, lifting of anathemas, heretical statements, etc., with the Ecumenical Throne of Constantinople taking the lead, and with the collaboration of the other Orthodox Churches.

2) The "un-Orthodox" (this characterization belongs to the renowned Metropolitan Irenaios of Kassandreia) Congress of 1923, which "was convened with the aim of promoting unity" (Minutes, p. 27). In it, it was decided not only on the "reform of the calendar" (p. 21) but also on the change of the Paschalion and the divinely-given [divisions of the] week (pp. 53, 57), regardless of the fact that it did not achieve its goals due to the reaction of the Orthodox conscience.

If it is further taken into account that [Meletios] Metaxakis himself, referring to the establishment of the 1923 congress, said: "We are not assembled as a synod whose decisions would be enforceable as canonical provisions" (pp. 36, 49), and that shortly before the innovation, his successor to the Ecumenical Throne, Gregory VII, "was instructed" by Chrysostomos [Papadopoulos] of Athens to accept the change, who, unilaterally and despite Gregory's hesitation and fear, decided on the calendar change with the assistance of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Eustratiadou, The Real Truth About the Ecclesiastical Calendar, pp. 53-6), then one understands how little significance and seriousness the claim of Orthodoxos Typos can have: "Our Church, with the consent of the primatial Ecumenical Patriarchate, accepted the correction of the Julian Calendar simultaneously with it."

And what significance does it have if, even with agreement, two local Churches decided and carried out the aforementioned correction? The reaction of the other Churches, despite the continued communion out of economia that was certainly not good, aimed only at avoiding a schism, demonstrates vividly the uncanonical nature of the above act. Therefore, while the change or correction of the calendar is permitted, as long as a definite pastoral reason justifies it, as we previously stated, precisely due to the absence of the above pastoral reason, everything concerning that correction was done wrongly. This is why the proposal of the [Official] Church of Greece regarding the calendar issue, submitted in 1971 to the relevant committee of the future Pan-Orthodox Synod, among other things, noted the following important points: "Between those following the old calendar and those following the new, there is a permanent difference of 13 days regarding the celebration of all so-called immovable feasts. This constitutes an unprecedented event in the Church's history, for although in the early years there was a variety of calendars and an unrefined liturgical calendar, never before was there a time difference in the celebration of one and the same event (e.g., the Dormition of a saint), as is happening today. The disagreement becomes more pronounced during the great feasts of Christmas, Theophany, and the Dormition of the Theotokos. Some fast while others celebrate. This difference leads to the question: 'Who is truly celebrating, we or the Church?' The answer, 'we,' removes the sanctity of the feasts, making them a personal matter for each individual. The answer, 'the Church,' requires unified celebration, as the Church is one" (p. 10). Even Ecumenical Patriarch Joachim [III] in 1901 characterized the correction of 13 days as "foolish and pointless"—even though he envisioned this correction as being unanimous among the Orthodox Churches—yet it was done, and unilaterally, resulting in the aforementioned tragic consequences. The proposal of the Church of Greece, evaluating the reasons of Joachim, wrote: "Unfortunately, this voice of reason was ignored, and without any ecclesiastical justification, the Julian Calendar was corrected, and the Church was divided into those who accepted the correction and those who rejected it!" And after some reflections on how the Church has the authority to regulate certain anomalies in the commemoration of saints "for the benefit of the Church's faithful," it concludes: "Certainly, nothing can be said to be beneficial if it is combined with the scandalizing of the faithful's conscience!" (p. 32).

The above clearly condemn the positions of Orthodoxos Typos that claim it is supposedly an error of the Old Calendarists to insist that the feasts must be celebrated in agreement by all Orthodox. (See also the 56th Canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council).

Curable issues in the Church.

Examining more deeply and carefully the definition of schisms by St. Basil the Great, "schisms [are called] those who, due to certain ecclesiastical reasons and curable issues, have been separated from one another," we observe the following:

A) The curable issues may originate from those who are causing the schism, as we have in the case of the Eustathians, who rejected marriage and the eating of meat. In this case, the curable issue was caused purely by them alone, due to misinterpretation and disobedience to the teaching of the Church, while those "with whom they separated," namely the bishop, the synod, etc., bear no responsibility whatsoever for the creation of the curable issue nor for the subsequent separation of the Eustathians from the unity of the Church.

B) However, we have had cases where the curable issue is created by the bishop (or synod), not acting arbitrarily or uncanonically, but rather attempting, with commendable pastoral foresight, to protect a vulnerable portion of his flock. In such cases, some faithful, not interpreting the above action correctly (which may appear, in letter and form, to be innovative and contrary to tradition, but in essence is blameless and praiseworthy), separate themselves from communion with him.

We have a classic case like this in the ancient Church with the schism of the Cathari, who did not accept into communion those who were married twice or had fallen into sin, and in the more recent times, the schism of the Old Believers in Russia, who refused the correct and necessary liturgical reforms of their Church. Both the Cathari and the Old Believers, despite their desire to preserve the traditions, were condemned because it was a matter of necessary and obligatory renewal, not of innovative and condemnable actions by their Church. It is understood that before any change, all possible means of preparation for the flock and the avoidance of scandal must be exhausted. Unfortunately, in the case of the Old Believers, the above pastoral foresight was not observed.

C) However, there is another case where the curable issue is again created by the bishop (or the Church), but it is indeed minor and can be remedied. This refers to the case of personal sins and transgressions of the bishop ("criminal accusations"), for which the faithful is not permitted to separate himself but must act modestly and hierarchically to prevent a greater scandal. That is, in this case, although the bishop is the source and cause of the curable issue, due to the private nature of the transgression, the one separating from him is judged guilty of creating a schism, regardless of whether the creator of the curable issue will give a fearful account to God.

Following the above, in order to correctly place the de facto schism between the G.O.C. and the New Calendarists, it is necessary, apart from the aforementioned, to also consider the relevant teaching on schisms from the sacred canons and the Tradition of Orthodoxy in general, so that our final judgment may be as much as possible in accordance with the venerable practice of antiquity.

Necessary and commendable divisions.

Following what has been said above, the question arises: Is it only curable issues that a bishop, synod, etc., can cause? Certainly not, just as the faithful do not always cause only curable issues but also severe heresies. So, in what way can a bishop become the creator of an incurable issue in the Church? Quite simply, when he publicly preaches or acts in a way that seriously offends faith and justice, according to the 31st Apostolic Canon, which states: "If any presbyter, disregarding his own bishop, forms a separate assembly and erects another altar, without having condemned the bishop in faith or justice [which is to say, without knowing him to be a manifest heretic or unjust person, according to the expression of the Pedalion], let him be deposed as one who loves power..."

Zonaras, interpreting the term "justice," writes: "against duty and righteousness" (S, ST, 213). Consequently, not only for heresy but also for any action of the bishop that is "against duty and righteousness," the clergy and laity under him can cease communion with him, according to the above canon. For the personal sins of the bishop, as well as for his private violations of the canons, we have accepted that schisms should not be created. However, here the canon refers to heresy and injustice, which are not limited to the sinning bishop but also offend, on the one hand, the teaching of the Church and, on the other hand, the rights of the flock under his care. While the literal sense of the canon may end here, its spirit goes further. For if the rights of the flock, when violated, provide a reason for separation from their shepherd, how much more so when the bishop publicly preaches in word or deed against the sacred traditions? Is it not part of his duty and the obligations he undertook at his episcopal consecration to uphold all the Apostolic and ecclesiastical orders and canons, both written and unwritten, according to the Apostolic injunction: "Stand fast and hold the traditions"? And did not the Church later add to this, transforming it into: "If anyone rejects any written or unwritten tradition, let him be anathema"?

The same principle as in the 31st Apostolic Canon is also evident in the 13th and 14th Canons of the First-Second Council of 861. According to these, any cessation of communion by a subordinate clergyman with his superior is strictly punished, provided, of course, that the superiors are not "impious or unjust" according to the 31st Apostolic Canon, and the separation of the subordinates occurred "for merely hearing of some possible criminal accusations against them" (Balsamon, S, B, 690). Zonaras and Balsamon consider "criminal accusations" to include acts such as sacrilege, simony, fornication, and more generally the violations of the canons, which should always be understood as personal transgressions and not as a disregard or contempt for the canonical orders and Traditions of the Church in matters concerning the Church at large.

The aforementioned council, completing its 13th and 14th Canons, proceeds in its 15th Canon to explicitly and positively clarify (since the previous references to "criminal accusations" are the words of interpreters and not of the canons themselves) in which case the one who separates is not only not punished but is, on the contrary, worthy of praise. Such a case is considered to be when the bishop openly preaches "bare headed," that is, clearly and publicly.

The Fathers of the First-Second Council, when speaking of heresy in the aforementioned 15th Canon, did they mean heresy in its strict sense, namely the corruption of dogmas alone, or something broader? To clarify this, the 4th Canon of the same Council can help us greatly, where the word "heresy" is twice mentioned, referring to Iconoclasm. If we consider that Iconoclasm, at least in its initial phase, was an overturning of the forms of piety and worship, as well as of the constitution of the Church, which are preserved and expressed in the holy canons and the general Tradition of Orthodoxy, it becomes easily understandable that the Fathers of the Council used the term "heresy" in its broader sense, including the violation of ecclesiastical traditions. This is why the Church equally condemns heretics and those who despise its Traditions with anathema, knowing well that any rejection or contempt of them strikes at the core of the preaching of salvation, the Gospel of Grace. "Those who dare to think or teach otherwise," says the Seventh Ecumenical Council, "or to reject the ecclesiastical traditions, as the impious heretics do, and to devise some innovation... we command them to be deposed" (Decree of the Seventh Ecumenical Council). In other words, the Council equates those who despise the sacred Traditions with heretics and subjects them to the same punishment.

And as for the Apostolic Traditions, no one would certainly argue that their rejection does not provide just cause for the flock to cease communion with those who despise them. But could we assert the same for the other, that is, the Ecclesiastical Traditions? Certainly yes, because any rejection of them constitutes heresy in a broader sense.

Therefore, what the 31st Apostolic Canon intended to convey with the term "faith and justice" can indeed be argued to be encompassed in the term "heresy" as used in the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council, according to the above. We must not forget, moreover, that "the holy canons do not constitute an autonomous, independent, and self-sufficient part of the sources of Revelation, but are organically integrated into the overall Holy Tradition of the Church, interpreting the Holy Scriptures and being interpreted through them and through reference to the entire Holy Tradition." And the Church’s practice in this matter teaches us that her faithful children have struggled not only for dogmas but equally for the Traditions, whenever they were despised by various impious individuals throughout the centuries.

Saint Nikodemos is exceedingly clear on this matter. He writes, "Time would not suffice for me to enumerate the countless examples of holy ones who suffered and died for the ecclesiastical laws and canons." (On Frequent Communion, p. 108, 1962 edition).

Following the above, any insistence on interpreting the word "heresy" in the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council solely according to its literal meaning, while disregarding its spirit and the overall practice of the Church, would lead us to the point of accepting that, for any contempt or violation of the sacred Traditions by the bishop, the clergy and laity under him could not cease communion with him. This would apply even if he despised and innovated regarding sacred icons, the impediments to marriage, monasticism, fasting, the common and established forms of worship, etc. But who could claim such things without essentially becoming a Protestant?

Final judgments.

After the above, the final question arises: Can the results caused by the calendar innovation be considered as a curable issue and thus not warrant the separation of the flock from those who caused it, or was this separation imposed according to what has been stated? In your desire to nullify these results, you write: "Our liturgical calendar, as we have emphasized, is an ecclesiastical tradition. It is a boundary set by the Fathers, which should not and cannot be altered. And to confirm this, we ask: boldly, courageously, and audaciously: Which feast, even one, was altered? Which was abolished? Which ceased to exist? None, ever."

The above arguments of yours constitute a condemnable evasion of the issue, since the purpose of the liturgical calendar is not only to indicate to the faithful the feasts of the annual cycle of the Church, thereby regulating the related fasts and other observances of the faithful, but also to ensure the common observance of all the above practices, as was clearly supported by the proposal of the [Official] Church of Greece! When this is not achieved, that is, when there is no agreed-upon celebration, we have a clear violation, at least in part, of the sacred tradition of the liturgical calendar. For when this common observance is not maintained, especially during the major feasts, then the external signs of the One Holy Church are destroyed, and the Church, the image of the heavenly Kingdom, presents a picture of disorder and chaos, which is not from God and is, therefore, not pleasing to Him or to the triumphant Church, which established and preserved the above-mentioned order.

This is precisely why the calendar innovation of 1924 is an action closely related to the Iconoclastic reform, which, under the pretext of a purer and more spiritual worship, attempted to abolish the traditions! Likewise, in this case, under the pretext of greater chronological accuracy, but in essence stemming from the heretical intent of uniting with the heretics of the West—whom, just three years earlier, they had officially described as "co-heirs of the kingdom of God," having recognized the ordinations of the Anglicans shortly before the congress (1922), and while the Greek world was mourning the Asia Minor catastrophe—the Ecumenical Patriarchate, with the initiative of the Church of Greece, abolished a centuries-old order in the sacred institution of worship on a pan-Orthodox level!

Even if the above heretical Congress had abolished the common celebration of only one feast, it still should not have been accepted by the faithful (and especially by the faithful of the Greek Church, as well as the Patriarchate, since the protagonists of the innovation were Metaxakis and Papadopoulos) due to its sinful intentions. Consequently, the reaction of the Orthodox conscience to the innovations of 1924 is highly commendable and fully covered by the holy canons and the practice of the Church.

And to be more specific regarding the sinister purposes of the so-called "Pan-Orthodox" Congress of 1923, we present the following from its proceedings. During one of its sessions, the Anglican Bishop [Charles] Gore, a specialist on Eastern Church matters, suddenly appeared and said, among other alarming things: "...the second step [toward union] will be the calendar issue, which will bring us to the common celebration of the feasts... Yesterday, I handed to Your Holiness two documents: one bearing the signatures of 5,000 Anglican priests declaring that they find no difficulty in full union... the second document is a proposal regarding the ways of union" (p. 87).

I ask: When were the above signatures gathered, and for what purpose? Was it not well before, and especially after the immediate recognition of the priesthood of those who signed, with the goal of union with the Orthodox, using the 1923 congress as a suitable instrument to achieve this unholy purpose? This excerpt alone is enough to justify the people of God, who, with a prophetic voice, proclaimed at the change of the calendar, "They have Latinized us," reacting with all their strength against the external enemies of Orthodoxy, as well as the internal dictators and innovative shepherds.

We hope that you will not dare to characterize the above-described events as an "after-the-fact alibi," given that they occurred before the calendar innovation, nor will you compare them with the unilateral and uncanonical actions of the pre-1920 past, as those lacked any pan-Orthodox promotion or acceptance, being entirely limited and personal, with the people being unaware of them and, therefore, in no way responsible for their lack of reaction.

Certainly, during the reaction of the Old Calendarists, some irregularities from canonical order were noted, primarily due to the leading hieromonks and monks of the movement, and not to their hierarchy, which, although sometimes carried away (wrongly, of course), occasionally aligned with them. Of greater significance than these irregularities is the declaration of the loss of grace by the innovating Church. What you regard as their second serious irregularity—namely, their lack of communion with the Churches that retained the old calendar—does not hold, because, as "correctly mentioned in the history of their movement," they often sought communion with these Churches in order to form a synod to "rectify the disorder and uncanonical situation that arose." However, they did not succeed, as these Churches preferred communion with the innovators rather than with the Old Calendarists, who were weak in worldly terms.

In conclusion, we note that the holy struggle of the Old Calendarists is fully justified, both because of the unilateral change of the calendar and the strongly uncanonical intentions of the 1923 congress, through which anti-Orthodox forces—both internal and external—sought to achieve, or rather begin, the union of falsehood with truth! This is precisely why we characterize the scission that arose as praiseworthy, in accordance with the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council and the patristic saying, "It is good to be divided rightly." We also view the Church of Greece as primarily responsible for the creation, not only of the above schism but also of the disruption of the liturgical unity of all Orthodoxy, a fact which rendered it "potentially schismatic" in relation to the Churches that retained the old calendar.

Thus, the local confessors of the ancient "Traditions," having shown themselves faithful in the little things, were found to be faithful in the greater things as well, specifically in the "current outcome of the 1923 innovation," which is nothing other than blatant heterodoxy and heresy.

Theodoretos, Monk

Skete of St. Anne

June 1976.

 

Source: translated from Τὸ Ἀντίδοτον [The Antidote], by Hieromonk Theodoretos the Hagiorite, Athens, 1990, pp. 195-209.