The Old Calendar Movement in the Greek Church: An Historical Survey

Fr. George D. Lardas | June 1983

 

This Thesis, a requirement for graduation from Holy Trinity Orthodox Seminary, represents the result of nearly two years of research undertaken at the suggestion of my thesis advisor, Brother Isaac Lambertsen (later Monk Joseph). This topic was of great interest to me, as I am of Greek heritage and had come to the Russian Church Abroad partly due to the influence of Holy Transfiguration Monastery, which is no longer with the Russian Church Abroad. I have a long-standing interest in calendars in general and in the Church calendar in particular, and I wished to find out the story of the Greek Old Calendarists, which I had been aware of for a long time, but of which I knew no details at the time.

The due date for submission the Thesis turned out to be much sooner than I had anticipated, and so for expediency, I composed it in longhand and submitted it with the promise of a typescript in due time. After graduation I moved to a new city in a new state and began new employment. At that time I became aware of a keen interest in the Thesis on the part of rival factions tied to the Old Calendarists both within and outside of the Russian Church Abroad, including an inquiry as to its publication, to which I answered that the work was a student paper, and not intended for publication. I was also told of its disappearance from the Seminary Archives and rumors of pirated copies in circulation.

Under urgency to replace the missing manuscript I began making a typescript of my Thesis from a photocopy of the original handwritten manuscript using the then new word processing technology. This was intended as a proofread version of the original. In so doing I made minor changes to the material: I expanded most of the abbreviations (e.g. Archbishop for Abp.), I corrected a few misspellings and punctuation errors, and I made a few very minor emendations for the sake of clarity.

This first typescript was, however, unsatisfactory since the word processor only had the English and Greek alphabets and a few mathematical symbols, with no ability to add the diacritical marks in citations from the Greek. The character set also omitted the final sigma (ς), for which I substituted the mathematical subset sign (⊂). I supplied the missing diacritical marks by hand to the printed text. The word processor also lacked Cyrillic characters necessitating the use of trans­literation into Latin characters.

In process of time came marriage, ordination, a new parish, new employment, and a growing family, and the typescript was overlooked. After moving to our current parish, I came across the old typescript and determined to pay my obligation to the Seminary. The result is this current (second) typescript, which corrects the deficiencies of the first: this new version uses a complete character set in English, Greek (polytonic), and Russian (including old orthography characters). This version follows the first typescript closely. No attempt was made to undo changes introduced by the old typescript. No attempt has been made to correct known or unknown historical inaccuracies, and no attempt was made to enforce consistency in the spelling of names and places. Also, no attempt was made to bring this Thesis up to date. Many things have transpired since the time of its writing, and the landscape of the Greek Old Calendar churches has changed vastly since then.

This Thesis reflects the limitations of the sources available to me, the latest of which is dated 1981. Most of these sources are admittedly secondary and not primary. Many of these sources are also admittedly not unbiased, and reflect the point of view of writers with strong convictions. In composing this work, I have strived to find out the principal figures, who they were, what they did, what they said, what events took place, and where. I have avoided questions of intent on the part of the major actors, and of canon law, and of the validity of ordinations. I hope that I have succeeded in that despite the limitation of my sources. It is to be noted that the sources cited in this Thesis are no longer available to or accessible by me.

Please note that the numbers in square brackets [nn] represent the pagination of the original handwritten manuscript. This paper is now submitted to the Archives of Holy Trinity Seminary as promised 42 years ago. Accompanying this typescript is a photocopy of my original submission.

This is a student paper and was not intended for publication.

Archpriest George Lardas,
Assistant Pastor St. George Russian Orthodox Church Loveland,
Ohio 45140 Friday 16/29 August 2025 Icon Not-Made-by-Hand

 

Foreword

[2] This paper is a brief historical survey of the Old Calendar movement in the Greek Church giving an account of the origins of this movement and its history, with background information on the origins of the Church calendar and political events in Greece at the time of its inception.

The author would like to thank his Grace, Bishop Gregory of Manhattan for graciously permitting him access to the Synod’s historical files, and the very Reverend Archimandrite Panteleimon of Holy Transfiguration Monastery in Boston for being so kind as to permit the use of mate­rials in the Monastery’s files on the Old Calendarists and for much invaluable assistance, and especially the author wishes to thank his Eminence Archbishop Laurus for his kindness and pa­tience and for the use of certain valuable materials.

The conclusions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of those who contributed to this study. Likewise, the author takes responsibility for inaccuracies of detail due to want of attention or misunderstanding of the sources.

George D. Lardas,
Seminarian Holy Trinity Seminary
Friday 14/27 May 1983 St. Isidore of Chios

 

Chapter I. Introduction

[5] In recent times, the Orthodox Church has been beset by a storm of modernism in various forms; ecumenism, renovationism, and the general indifference of many to her traditions, doc- trines, and history. The calendar question has become a focal point of controversy. To those who wish to maintain the ancient traditions of the Orthodox faith, the Old Calendar has become a sym­bol of fidelity to that tradition. To those who wish to reform the Church, the New Calendar represents an attempt to bring her into step with our modern times.

The New Calendar was first introduced into the Orthodox Church in Greece in 1924. Since that time many other local churches have adopted the reform. On the heels of this reform followed many pressures to modernize and simplify, to make the Church more convenient and comfortable. These changes are gradually altering the outward appearance of those local churches so that the time may come when they might hardly resemble the Orthodoxy of their not-so-distant past.

With the introduction of the New Calendar in Greece, many chose to separate from the official church so as to preserve tradition. These people constitute the faithful the Old Calendar movement. Since 1960, the Russian Church Abroad has played an important role in the affairs of this move­ment, so that at present, every significant group of Old Calendarists owes its episcopal consecrations and canonical status to the Russian Church Abroad.

Not much is known and little is written in English [6] concerning the Old Calendarists. This paper is meant to supply that need in the form of a brief history.

It should be noted that the terms “metropolitan” and “archbishop” are used in a different sense among the Greeks than they are among the Russians. In Greece, an archbishop is the elected head of a synod and corresponds to what would be called a metropolitan in the Russian Church, although with perhaps more authority. The term “metropolitan” is often used as a title of honor among the Greeks, sometimes interchangeably with the word “bishop”.

Chapter II. The Origins of the Church Calendar

[7] The Church calendar is composed of two parts: a solar reckoning for the “fixed” feasts (the menologion), and a lunar calendar for the celebration of Pascha and all the “movable” feasts (the paschalion). [1]

The fixed calendar was established by Julius Caesar in 44 BC in his capacity as Pontifex Max­imus. By the time of Julius Caesar, the calendar had drifted over 80 days out of step with the seasons. After enacting one last “year of confusion,” during which this discrepancy was made up, Julius Caesar once and for all established the number of days in the year at 365 with an extra day added every fourth year. Under his immediate successors, some mistakes were made in applying the leap year rule, but this was corrected in the reign of Caesar Augustus, at which time there was also a slight adjustment made in the distribution of the days in the months to yield the pattern which is so familiar to us today. It was this reckoning that the Christian Church adopted for the annual commemoration of martyrs’ and saints’ days.

The lunar reckoning, however, can be traced back to Hebrew roots. According to the Law of Moses, the Paschal Lamb was sacrificed on the fourteenth day of the first month of spring (Nisan). The Days of Unleavened Bread started that evening, on the eve of the fifteenth day of the moon, and continued to the 21^st day. In accordance with the above, our Lord was crucified on the 14^th day of Nisan in a year when it [8] fell on a Friday. He rested in the grave on Saturday, and rose from the dead on Sunday the 16^th of Nisan.

The feast of our Lord’s Resurrection was variously reckoned by various Christian communities. Some, mainly in Asia Minor, celebrated it on the 14^th day of the moon regardless of the day of the week. These were therefore called Quartodecimans (“Fourteeners”). Everyone else cele­brated it on the Sunday thereafter. There was no general agreement as to how to reckon the paschal moon. Some determined it by observation, others by various calculations. In Rome and the West a somewhat clumsy cycle of 84 years was used. In addition, if the 14^th day of the moon fell on a Saturday, the celebration was postponed to the Sunday a week later. Others used the Hebrew reck­oning then current, according to which twice in the cycle of 19 years the paschal moon occurred before the vernal equinox, that is to say, as early as March 18. If the vernal equinox were considered the natural beginning of the year, then, in a sense, the Jews would occasionally celebrate their Passover twice in one year; that is after the vernal equinox one year, and before the vernal equinos of the following year. It should be noted that such a circumstance no longer occurs, since the Hebrew calendar has drifted six days since that time (the fourth century).

In the third century, the Quartodeciman controversy became so acute as to threaten to disrupt communion between Rome and Asia Minor. Also, although Rome and Alexandria were agreed in principle that Pascha should be celebrated on the Sunday following the paschal full moon, their different reckonings sometimes yielded a difference of five weeks in the celebration of Pascha. This was clearly unacceptable, and it disturbed the peace of the Church. The matter was taken up by the fathers of the [9] First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea in 325 AD.

After deciding the dogmatic issue of the Arian heresy, the Fathers of the Nicene Council decided to adopt the reckoning of Pascha used by the Church of Alexandria as the universal pas­chalion for the Christian Church., summarized in the well-known formula that Pascha is to be the Sunday after the full moon after the vernal equinox. In doing this they enacted no canon, but merely ratified the existing body of Apostolic Canons, the Seventh of which states that Pascha is not be celebrated before the equinox nor with the Jews. That it should be on a Sunday and that after the full moon is not a matter of canon law, but of Apostolic tradition. The clear intent of the Council was not astronomical accuracy, but to bring peace to the Church, and that all should celebrate Pascha together. No acts of the Nicene Council have survived to our times, but this decision is recorded in the “Epistle of the Emperor Constantine to All Those Not Present at the Council,” quoted by the historian Eusebius in his Life of Constantine. [2]

The Alexandrine paschalion was not immediately accepted by all Christian communities, partly because of the continuing storm of the Arian heresy. Rome did not accept it until the beginning of the sixth century and England not until 729, since which time all of Christendom has followed one common paschalion and one common menologion. In short, there was one festal calendar for the whole Christian Church.

That the Alexandrine paschalion was astronomically not quite accurate was known since its inception. It was based on the 19-year [10] cycle of the ancient astronomers, Meton and Callippus, while a more accurate reckoning of Hipparchus was known at that time. The latter was rejected for its complexity. The 19-year cycle of Meton was a model of simplicity. It incorporated a recurring table of paschal moons, a date for each year of the 19-year cycle. Pascha was simply the next Sunday following. The regular progression of ordinary and leap years mesh with the days of the week to repeat every 28 years, and the two cycles, the 19-year lunar cycle and the 28-year solar cycle combine to form a 532-year paschal cycle. A more accurate calendar would require much longer lunar and solar cycles, or perhaps be acyclic.

Over the course of centuries discrepancies accumulated between the calendar and the corresponding astronomical phenomena. This amounted to one day in about 300 years with respect to the phases of the moon and one day in 128 years with respect to the vernal equinox. The practical result of this was that while in the fourth century the Hebrew Passsover and the Christian Pascha occasionally coincided, but by the end of the eighth century this coincidence ceased to occur. The astronomical inaccuracy was noted by the Venerable Bede shortly after all of England adopted the Alexandrine paschalion. The error was also noted by various scholars in the West, by John Sacrobosco in Paris (13^th Century), by King Alphonsus IV of Castile, by Roger Bacon who proposed a reform to Pope Clement IV in the 14^th century, by John Muller of Koenigsburg (also knowns as Regiomontanus) in 1474, and by others. The Council of Basel in Switzerland in 1439 directed Cardinal Nicolas de Cusa to prepare a decree anathematizing any change in the Julian Calendar, but this decree was not published. [3]

In the East the error was noted by Nicephorus Gregoras in 1324. In 1371 the monk Isaakius and Matthew Blastaris the canonist proposed the same reform suggested by Gregoras, and later George Gemistus Plethon also proposed a calendar reform, but in all cases these suggestions were rejected. [4]

Chapter III. The Gregorian Reform

[11] The Gregorian Calendar was introduced by Pope Gregory XIII in 1582 at the advice of his astronomers. By this time the astronomical equinox had drifted back to March 11. To correct this, the calendar was advanced 10 days by dropping the days between October 4 and October 15 from the calendar that year. The lunar calendar was brought into step with the moon by advancing the lunar reckoning by four days. To ensure that the equinox would not drift, century years were henceforth now considered ordinary years and not leap years unless divisible by 400. Thus three days were dropped from the Julian calendar every 400 years. The lunar reckoning was adjusted by a complicated set of rules that in some cases introduced a deliberate error of up to two days to keep the calendar month within the 28-day span allowed for in the Church calendar. In this new calendar the days of the week repeat every 400 years instead of 28 years, and the lunar reckoning is acyclic, wherefore it is impossible to make an exactly repeating table of Easter dates. Easter must be calculated anew for each year.

Italy and Spain accepted this reform immediately, followed by the rest of the Catholic countries soon after. Protestant Europe refused to accept it until much later. England and her colonies adopted the New Calendar in 1752, being the last non-Orthodox country in Europe to do so.

The Gregorian reform was immediately rejected by the Orthodox Church. In 1582 Patriarchs Jeremias II Tranos of Constantinople, Sophronius IV of Jerusalem, and Joachim III of Antioch wrote a protest against the Latin church for forcing the Christians in Palestine to accept the reform. Later Patriarch Jeremias wrote an epistle to the Orthodox churches under [12] Polish rule, namely southwestern Russian and the Ukraine, which were under the jurisdiction of Constantinople, forbidding the use of the papal calendar. [5]

It is noteworthy that the Uniates and Catholics in Greece at least as late as 1947 used the Julian calendar, while the State Church had adopted the Gregorian calendar 23 years earlier. [6] In 1582 the Doge of Venice, Nicolas Daponte sent a delegation to Patriarch Jeremias requesting the common sue of the Gregorian calendar by both the Orthodox and the Catholics in those parts of Greece subject to Venetian rule, mainly the Ionian islands. This the Patriarch politely, but firmly, refused in a letter dated February 1582.

In reply to Pope Gregory’s request that the Eastern Church adopt his reforms, Patriarch Jere­mias called a council in Constantinople in 1583 to consider the matter. The decision was published as a Sigillium bearing the signatures of Patrarchs Jeremias of Constantinople, Sophronius of Jerusaem, and Sylvester of Alexandria, as well as their clergy. This Sigillium anathematized the papal calendar and forbade the use of it under pain of excommunication. This decision was confirmed by a second council held in Constantinople in 1587 at which Jeremias of Constantinople, Meletius Pegas of Alexandria and Sophronius of Jerusalem were present.

A third council was held in Constantinople in 1593 attended by the same three patriarchs and much other clergy repeated the condemnation of the papal calendar. It is worthy of note that in the interim between these last two councils, Patriarch Jeremias undertook a journey to Russia where he enthroned Metropolitan Job of Moscow as Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia on 10 January 1589 in the reign of Tsar Theodore Ivanovich. The decision by the Eastern Patriarchs to establish Moscow as a patriarchate was reached by the Council of 1587 and confirmed by the Council of 1593.

[13] Since that time up to 1924, the Orthodox Church has steadfastly refused to change her festal calendar, and has maintained her liturgical unity unbroken. At various times the local churches have considered and rejected proposals for calendar reform: the Church of Jerusalem in 1670 and 1903; the Church of Greece in 1903 and 1919; the Church of Romania in 1903; and the Church of Russia that same year. In all cases, a change in the calendar was considered a violation of Church order and tradition that threatened the liturgical unity of the Church.

Chapter IV. Greece at the Beginning of the Twentieth Century

[14] In order to understand the events leading up to the calendar change in Greece, it is helpful to review the political developments of that time. [7] Greece is a nation with a long history. Her heritage includes both Classical Antiquity and Byzantium. After the fall of Constantinople, Greece remained under Turkish rule for four centuries. The Greek nation was kept alive by the Orthodox Church and by memories of a once glorious past. With independence came a conflict between the heritage of the Church, which was Byzantium, and modern humanism, which took Classical An­tiquity as its banner. This was reflected in a complex way in almost every aspect of Greek life: politics, education, society, and even language.

Greece gained her independence while republican sentiment was running high in Europe. A monarchy was imposed on Greece by the major powers, and since the old Byzantine nobility had long since disappeared, it was necessary to import a king from Bavaria, Otto (1832-1862), son of King Ludwig I, who was not even of the same faith as his subjects. In the end, he was deposed and was replaced by George I, son of King Christian IX of Denmark. King George was Greece’s first Orthodox king. Since the inception of the monarchy, the main polarity in Greek politics was monarchism vs. republicanism. This conflict was to play an important role at the beginning of the 20^th century.

The parliamentary system prevailed throughout most of Greece’s modern history. Its weakness was the multiplicity of political parties. In order to accomplish anything an absolute majority is required. If no party has a majority, a coalition must be formed. If no coalition can be achieved, a constitutional crisis ensues and the government effectively comes to a halt. The prime minister is elected by the ruling party and governs only so long as he can [15] sustain a vote of confidence. The political parties in Greece are not enduring institutions; they are organized on political principle, but are centered around popular personalities and may embrace several factions. These parties form, break up, and regroup rapidly over the course of a few decades, and this gives rise to the inherent instability of the Greek parliamentary system.

The basic unit of society in Greece has always been the extended family. In the face of a corrupt and inefficient bureaucracy, such as existed under Turkish rule, it was desirable to have someone known or connected to the petitioner in some way to have a petition heard. In modern times this took the form of a patron-client relationship. The typical member of Parliament from a rural district is related to many of his constituents, either by direct family ties or as godfather. By looking after their interests in the capital, he earns their loyalty and votes; he is their man in parliament.

Greeks are independent and reluctant to entrust money or power into the hands of strangers. Most corporations and enterprises are family-owned, and may of the established politicians come from families that have been in politics for years. There is a tendency to distrust opposing parties. A rival point of view is sometimes seen as being dangerous, not only to one’s own ambitions, but also to the state. In short, the Anglo-Saxon concept of a “loyal opposition” seems foreign to Greek politics.

At the turn of the century, Greece was recovering from an unsuccessful and expensive war with Turkey. Turkey still held Crete and some territory in the Balkans, and much of that territory was Greek-speaking.

In 1909, the old parties had come to a stalemate, and the business of government had come to a standstill. The military revolted and compelled King George I to appoint an effective leader whom he found in the person of Eleutherios Venizelos. He made Venizelos Prime Minister, and in the new elections Venizelos’ liberal party was victorious. Venizelos was an energetic politician, and [16] he was to play an important role in Greek history for the next two decades.

King George was assassinated in Thessalonica soon after it was liberated from the Turks during the First Balkan War (1912), and Constantine I succeeded to the throne. Greece emerged from the Balkan Wars strong and united. The early cooperation between Venizelos and Constantine did not last long. They came to disagree on policy during the First World War. Constantine favored neutrality, while Venizelos favored an open alliance with Britain and France. The rift became bitter with Allied interference in Greek domestic affairs. Allied violation of Greek neutrality reached the point where Venizelos set up a rival government in Thessalonica with French and British support. Eventually Constantine was forced to abdicate in favor of his second son, Alexander.

At the end of the war the Allies rewarded Greece with Eastern Thrace (now European Turkey) and Smyrna, but the responsibility for maintaining those territories rested on Greece. King Alex­ander died unexpectedly on 25 October 1920. He was popular and maintained good relations with

Prime Minister Venizelos. At this juncture, Venizelos unexpectedly lost the elections a few weeks later, and with royalist sentiment running high, he departed for Paris.

With Constantine I restored as king, the Allies withdrew their support from Greece, and soon Greece was at war with a rearmed and reorganized Turkey under Mustafa Kemal Attaturk. The darkest pages of modern Greek history followed. The ill-conceived plan to seize more of Asia Minor for Greece was supported by all parties and all politicians. All possible terms for compromise were rejected. The Turks allowed the Greeks to overextend their lines and they the put them to rout. Eastern Thrace and Smyrna were irrevocably lost. Countless thousands perished as ancient Greek communities in Asia Minor were uprooted and Smyrna was put to the torch on 20 September 1922.

[17] On 25 September 1922, hastily reorganized units of the Asia Minor campaign landed near Athens under the command of General Stylianos Gonatas and Colonel Nicholas Plastiras. King Constantine was exiled, the royalists were turned out of office, and Constantine’s elder son George II was crowned in his place. An attempt on the part of the royalists with some Venizelist collaboration to overthrow the regime of Nicholas Plastiras and Theodore Pangalos met with failure. In 1924, King George was asked to take an extended leave abroad. The National Assembly adopted a resolution to abolish the monarchy on 25 March 1925, and a general referendum confirmed this decision. Paul Koundouriotis became head of state as President of the Republic. Kondouriotis resigned in December 1925, while Theodore Pangalos became dictator. A coup by General George Kondylis displaced Pangalos and restored Koundouriotis as president.

The Asia Minor disaster saddled Greece with a poor economy, loss of territory, and over a million refugees to be resettled (about a quarter of the total population). Greece suffered hard times throughout the second quarter of this century: economic depression, World War II, and civil war. The revolution of 1922, which was so important in the introduction of the New Calendar was not a revolution in the socialist sense of the word. The Plastiras regime included military men from all parties, but was predominantly republican. It was established in a time of national anguish and recrimination against the established politicians who had caused the Asia Minor disaster. The re­gime lasted only two years and was replaced by an elected president and a general amnesty for the royalist revolt of October 1923.

Chapter V. The Introduction of the New Calendar into the Church of Greece

[18] In January 1919, in the reign of King Alexander, while Eleutherios Venizelos was Prime Minister and Meletios Metaxakis was Archbishop of Athens, the Greek government inquired of the Synod of the Church of Greece about the possibility of a change in the calendar. [8] Replying on behalf of the Synod, Archbishop Meletios stated that the Greek Church must not change her cal­endar without the consent of the rest of the Orthodox Churches. If, however, the government must change the civil calendar, it is free to do so on the condition that this does not affect the ecclesiastical calendar. A commission was appointed to examine the matter, comprising of Bishops Germanos of Demetrias and Ambrosios of Navpaktos, Professors Demetrios Aiginitis and Emmanuel Zolotas, and Archimandrite Chrysostomos Papadopoulos. This committee submitted a report to the May session of the Synod which stated that a calendar reform may be effected with the consent of all the Orthodox Churches, but the initiative must come from Constantinople, and that it would be preferable to adopt a more accurate and scientific calendar than the Gregorian.

In 1923, a new committee was appointed by the “Revolutionary” government of Nicholas Plastiras to investigate the same question. The committee concluded that to change the ecclesiastical calendar unilaterally would make the Greek Church schismatic, wherefore the Julian Calendar should remain in effect. This report was dated 16 January 1923 and was signed by G. Kofinas, D. Aiginitis, Archimandrite Chrysostomos Papadopoulos, P. Tsitseklis, and Am. Alivizatos. Two days later, King George II issued a royal decree, 18 January 1923, having the force of law, that the Julian Calendar should remain in effect for ecclesiastical purposes, and that the National Holiday (25 March, Greek Independence Day) was to be observed according to Old Style, but for civil purposes, the [19] Gregorian calendar was to be used.

At that time, Constantinople was preparing the “Pan-Orthodox” Council of 1923. The devel­opments leading up to it are interesting in that they reveal for the first time a tendency toward renovationism on the part of the Ecumenical See. In 1920, Metropolitan Dorotheos of Prusa, Locum Tenens to the Patriarchal Throne, which was then vacant, issued an encyclical “To the Churches of Christ Everywhere,” wherein he recognizes the confessions of the West as “fellow heirs of the grace of Christ.” He proposed a common festal calendar for all Christian denominations, an exchange of fraternal letters, delegates, students, and scholars between the various Chris­tian bodies as well as the use of houses of prayer and cemeteries by other confessions, and dialogues to remove the doctrinal differences and obstacles to mixed marriages between the churches. [9]

Meletios Metaxakis was elected to the Ecumenical Throne on 25 November 1921. He had stepped down as Archbishop of Athens in November of the previous year, and had spent the in­terim in North America. Patriarch Meletios presided over the ten sessions of the “Pan-Orthodox” Council, which were held from 10 May to 8 June 1923. Proposed were a change in the festal calendar to coincide with that used in the West, a reduction of fasts and church services, the marriage of the clergy after ordination, the abolition of special clerical garb, and so on.

None of the Slavic churches were represented at the council, and of the six hierarchs present, only one was not from the Church of Constantinople, namely Bishop Ambrosios of Navpaktos, representing the Church of Greece. It is also noteworthy that the council actually proposed a “Revised Julian Calendar,” whereby the leap year rules are slightly different from those of the Gregorian calendar, and slightly more accurate: all century years are to be ordinary years (that is, not leap years) except those that on division by 900 yield a remainder of 200 or 600. This yields an [20] accuracy of about one day in 40,000 years instead of one day in 4000. In actual fact, it agrees with the Gregorian calendar up to the year 2800 and then they diverge by one day. They agree again between the years 2900 and 3200, after which they diverge once more.

The proposed paschalion is even more complicated. It calls for an astronomically determined equinox and full moon, the day calculated from midnight to midnight for the meridian that passes through the Tomb of our Saviour in Jerusalem. The paschalion is to be calculated for years in advance and published in a table to be distributed to the various churches. [10]

The new government did not find Archbishop Theocletos [?] suitable for their purposes, so it replaced him with Archimandrite Chrysostomos Papadopoulos on 25 February 1923. On 14 December of that year, the Revolutionary government abolished the old charter under which the Church of Greece had operated for 70 years and established a new charter whereby the Governing Synod of five bishops was abolished and the sole governing body became the full Synod of Bish­ops called once a year. Meanwhile the day-to-day affairs of the church administration were left in the hands of the Archbishop, whose actions were to be ratified each year at the annual Synod. Moreover, the government reserved the right to transfer or retire bishops on the grounds of suitability. It was under these conditions that a general Synod of the Church of Greece was held 24-30 December 1923, at which the Dictator, Nicholas Plastiras, the Prime Minister of the Revolution, Stylianos Gonatas, and the Minster of Religious Affairs and Education were present. The Minister of Religious Affairs underscored the necessity of agreement between the civil and religious calendars (for at this time they diverged). Archbishop Chrysostomos obtained from the Synod a resolu­tion giving him the authority to make a change in the calendar with the approval of the Ecumenical Patriarchate if the rest of the Orthodox churches should comply with the [21] decision of the Coun­cil of 1923. In fact, no other Orthodox church was seriously contemplating such a change, including the Ecumenical Patriarchate, for Patriarch Meletios was driven from Constantinople by his own flock at the end of the Council of 1923 and was succeeded by Patriarch Gregory who had his hands full with putting the Church of Constantinople in order after the exchange of populations between Greece and Turkey. Archbishop Chrysostomos obtained this resolution on the condition that he supply the Synod with proof in torm of written evidence that the various local churches had approved the New Calendar at the “Pan-Orthodox” council earlier that year. This he failed to pro­duce.

For the next two months, Archbishop Chrysostomos conducted correspondence with Patriarch Gregory trying to persuade him to accept the New Calendar, but Patriarch Gregory hesitated, asking letters from the other Orthodox churches. Archbishop Chrysostomos had already decided the matter, that the change would take place on 10/23 March 1924. As that date approached and noth­ing was forthcoming from Constantinople, Archbishop Chrysostomos used the offices of the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs to put pressure on Patriarch Gregory. He requested that the Ministry inform the Eastern Church that the Church of Greece was putting into effect the “decision” of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to reform the calendar, and to inform the Patriarchate in particular that this had already been decided by the Church of Greece. The letter was dated 4 March 1924. The Ecumenical Patriarchate was dependent on the Greek state for support and could hardly oppose its wishes. The calendar change took place on 10/23 March 1924 as planned. It was announced by an encyclical signed only by Archbishop Chrysostomos on behalf of the [22] Synod of the Church of Greece only seven days before the change. This encyclical was disseminated by telegraph to the various newspapers and was published that Sunday 3/16 March.

The immediate reaction of the other local churches was strongly negative. The Patriarchate of Jerusalem emphasized that the New Calendar was unacceptable to his church because of the danger of Latin proselytism at the Holy Places. The Patriarch of Antioch saw it as a danger to the unity of the church. Only the Churches of Constantinople and Romania accepted the change. In Romania the calendar change brought about a local schism. In fact, there were many Russians in Moldavia at the time, refugees from th Bolshevik revolution, and these were persecuted by the local church because they adhered to the Old Calendar, as well as for the fact that they were Russian. This strained relations between the Russian Church Abroad and the Church of Romania. [11]

The strongest opposition to the calendar change was on the part of Patriarch Photios of Alex­andria. He called a local synod in which it was decided that there was absolutely no necessity to change the calendar, and having consulted with Patriarch Gregory of Antioch and Damianos of Jerusalem and Archbishop Cyril of Cyprus, it was decided that there should be no change. The synod expressed sorrow and pain that such a thing should be considered at all and that this change was a danger to the unity of the Orthodox faithful not only in Greece, but everywhere. [12] Patriarch Photios died two years later and was succeeded as patriarch by Meletios Metaxakis who introduced the New Calendar into the Church of Alexandria. Alexandria, however, remained sympathetic to the Old Calendar movement, especially in the reign of Patriarch Christopher (1935-195?), former Metropolitan of Leontopolis. Patriarch Christopher was not able, however, to return Alexandria to the Old Calendar.

Chapter VI. The Early History of the Old Calendar Movement

[23] When the New Calendar took effect, all of the clergy in Greece submitted. [13] Only Mount Athos and a portion of the pious laymen refused to comply. A lay “Orthodox Association” (Σύλλογος Ὀρθοδόξων) was founded, and soon they were able to acquire two priests who returned to the Old Calendar in the Athens area. Later, more priests came back to the traditional calendar. On Mount Athos at this time was formed a Sacred Union of Zealot Monks (‘Ἱερὸς Συνδεσμὸς τῶν Ζηλωτῶν Μοναχῶν), which published their charter under the title, “Anchor of Orthodoxy” (Ἄγκυρα Ὀρθοδοξίας) in 1926.

That same year the Orthodox Association was reorganized as the Greek Religious Community of Genuine Orthodox Christians (Ἑλληνικὴ Θρησκευτικὴ Κοινότης τῶν Γνησίων Ὀρθοδόξων Χριστιανῶν — ΕΘΚΓΟΧ), which was recognized by the City Court of Athens. This community consisted of such prominent persons as military officers, lawyers, landowners, and men of letters and the arts. In cooperation with the Zealot Monks, the Community embarked on a campaign to secure religious liberties for Old Calendarists, and by all means to persuade the hierarchy to return to the Old Calendar.

This movement was persecuted from the beginning by the police authorities at the request of Archbishop Chrysostomos. Priests of the Old Calendar of necessity met in secret for fear of arrest or disturbance at the divine services. Among the more violent instances of persecution in this early period was the incident at Mandra of Eleusis. The priest, Christopher Psallidas, came to celebrate the feast of the Archangels on the eve of 8/21 November 1927. The villagers prepared for the Vigil and the Feast (they had no priest to serve regular services by the Old Calendar). During the night the church was surrounded and besieged by the police. The doors and windows were barred [24] from within and the services continued uninterrupted to the end of the Liturgy. When the doors were opened, the villagers escorted the priest out to protect him from arrest, bu the police broke up the crowd with gun butts, and as the people scattered, they opened fire on the crowd. Two women were hospitalized, one with a gunshot injury and the other with head injuries due to club­bing. The former recovered, but the latter, Catherine Routti, never regained consciousness and died a week alter. She is considered a New Martyr by the Old Calendarists. [14]

In other places, country chapels where the Old Calendarists met were locked and boarded up. In some places they built their own chapels only to be demolished by the authorities.

The new charter awarded by the Greek government to Mount Athos in 1927 prohibited such organizations as the Zealot Monks and subsequently nineteen of their most active members were deported from the mountain.

By 1930, about eight hundred chapters of the ΕΘΚΓΟΧ were established all over Greece. The Administrative Council (Διοικητικὸν Συμβούλιον) submitted memoranda on behalf of the Community to the Governing Synod of the Church of Greece, to the Holy Synod of Bishops of the same called on 4 July 1929, to the same called in October 1933, and persistently to individual bishops. These memoranda pointed out the condemnation of the papal calendar by three Pan-Orthodox Councils, its uncanonical introduction into the Church of Greece, and its consequences, and they called on them to return to the traditional calendar and avoid schism in the Greek Church.

As a result of these activities, Metropolitan Christopher of Leontopolis, later Patriarch of Al­exandria (1935), published a detailed study of the calendar question entitled, Hemerologiaca (Ἡμερολογιακά), in Alexandria, 1925. Metropolitan Germanos of Demetrias protested the [25] introduction of the New Calendar to the Synod, and held it in abeyance in his diocese until 15 February 1928. Metropolitan Irenaios of Cassandria submitted a memorandum to the Synod on the matter on 14 June 1929. Metropolitans Irenaios of Cassandria, Germanos of Demetrias, and Basil of Dryinoupolis submitted a protest against the uncanonical change of the calendar to the Synod on 4 July 1929. Finally, on 11 October 1933, Metropolitans Basil of Dryinoupolis, Germanos of Demetrias, Irenaios of Cassandria, and Basil of Drama submitted a deposition to the Synod in which they state that the only solution to the Calendar Question was the return of the Church of Greece to the traditional calendar.

These early years of the struggle for the Old Calendar were not without some successes. On 23 December 1926, Minister of the Interior Panagis Tsaldaris issued an order allowing the Com­munity to worship in their own churches without interference in Athens and other major cities. Later, in 1932 and 1933, the Community obtained other decrees allowing them to build their own churches all over Greece. From the beginning, the movement had a strong monastic influence and many monasteries and especially convents were founded, as well as orphanages and other charitable institutions.

The movement was given much spiritual strength by the miraculous appearance of the Cross in the sky over the country chapel of St. John the Theologian on Mount Hymettos just outside of Athens at an All-Night Vigil for the feast of the Exaltation of the Cross on 13/26-14/27 September 1925. Over two thousand were in attendance and saw the vision, including newspaper reporters and the police sent to disperse the crowd and arrest the priest, Fr. John Floros. The vision made a profound impression on all, and the service was allowed to continue without interruption to the end.

Chapter VII. The Old Calendarists Acquire a Hierarchy

[26] In 1935, Metropolitans Germanos of Demetrias, Chrysostomos of Florina, and Chrysostomos of Zakynthos saw that nothing prevailed against Archbishop Chrysostomos of Athens in righting the calendar issue, and they openly severed ties with him and declared that moved by the heroic and self-sacrificing struggle of the Old Calendarists, they would take up the pastoral duties of that movement and henceforth form the Synod of the Genuine Orthodox Christians (Γνησίων Ὀρθοδόξων Χριστιανῶν — ΓΟΧ or GOC) of the Church of Greece. [15] Evidently, there were eleven bishops in all who were contemplating this step, but most were deterred by fear of persecution. The Community of the GOC now had a hierarchy.

On 13/26 May 1935, in the presence of 25,000 faithful, Metropolitans Germanos, Chrysosto­mos, and Chrysostomos consecrated the first of four new bishops for the GOC at the Church of the Dormition in Colonos. These were: Germanos Varykopoulos Bishop of the Cyclades, Polycarp Liosis of Diavleia, Christopher Hadzis of Megaris, and Matthew Karpathakis (of Mount Athos) Bishop of Bresthena. These seven bishops formed the first synod of the Old Calendarists with Germanos of Demetrias as president. This same Germanos was second in seniority after Arch­bishop Chrysostomos Papadopoulos in the Official Church.

This action elicited an immediate respons on the part of the authorities. The seven bishops were quickly arrested and brought to ecclesiastical trial on 1 June 1935 on charges of division, fomenting disturbance, parasynagogue, and contempt of the legal and canonical church.

While the trial was taking place in the offices of the Metropolitan Cathedral a large crowd of Old Calendar faithful gathered quietly on the square outside in the burning summer heat. Led by forty priests and sixty monastics they chanted the Supplicatory Canon to the Mother of God. After a few hours, the crowd was [27] dispersed by the police with fire hoses and clubs. Over one hun­dred people were hurt. [16]

In a memorandum to the Synod of the Church of Greece, three bishops of the Official Church served notice that they would refuse to sit in judgement on their fellow bishops. These three were Procopios of Hydra and Spetsae, Irenaios of Samos and Icaria, and Hierotheos of Aitolia and Acarnania. [17]

The decision was announced officially on 15 June 1935 (NS): Chrysostomos of Florina was banished to the Monastery of St. Dionysios in Olympos, Germanos of Demetrias to the Monastery of the Mother of God of Choseva on the island of Amorgos, Chrysostomos of Zakynthos to the Monastery of Rhombos in Acarnania, but he recanted and returned to the State Church and was restored to his throne. Gerasimos of the Cyclades was banished to the Monastery of St. Dionysios in Strophada, Matthew of Bresthena was not exiled on account of illness (or by another account, was hidden by his disciples) and confined to his monastery in Keratea. Polycarp of Diavleia and Christopher of Megaris wavered and returned to the State Church and were accepted as bishops.

After several months, the four remaining bishops returned to Athens and met again in synod. Actually, Chrysostomos of Florina was confined only until October 1935 when he was given his freedom through the good offices of the new Prime Minister, George Kondylis.

In an epistle to Bishop Germanos of the Cyclades, dated 9 November 1937, [18] Chrysostomos of Florina posited that the New Calendar Church was in potential (δυνάμει), but not actual (ἐνεργείᾳ) schism. The president of the Synod, Germanos of Demetrias, agreed with this position, but Germanos of the Cyclades and Matthew of Bresthena viewed this as a betrayal of the whole point of the movement. The latter two separated from the former in 1937 after a bitter controversy. Later, a disagreement arose between [28] Germanos of the Cyclades and Matthew of Bresthena, and they in turn separated from one another. This was all most unfortunate for the Old Calendarists because it divided the faithful and weakened their voice. At the same time the State Church was considering a return to the Old Calendar, but dropped the idea when the Old Calendarist bishops started to quarrel. The main body of the Old Calendar faithful remained with Chrysostomos and Germanos of Demetrias.

For reasons not given in any available source, Metropolitan Chrysostomos found it necessary in 1943 to sever ties with Germanos of Demetrias, and subsequently most of the Old Calendarists commemorated only Chrysostomos of Florina.

In 1945 Christopher of Megaris and Polycarp of Diavleia once again joined the Old Calendar church and were received by Chrysostomos of Florina on 13 July 1946. Soon after, Germanos of the Cyclades, who was imprisoned for ordaining priests, was set free and he rejoined Metropolitan Chrysostomos.

Bishop Matthew was consecrated as titular bishop of Bresthena. He signed an agreement whereby he would remain in his monastery and not participate in the actual administration of the GOC. [19] After his disagreement with the other bishops and the return of Germanos of the Cyclades to Chrysostomos’ group, he evidently despaired of finding “true” Orthodox bishops of his own mind, and in 1948 he single-handedly consecrated four new bishops, namely: Spyridon of Trimythoun, Andrew of Patras, Demetrios of Thessalonica, and Callistos of Corinth. [20]

By the late 1930s, the persecution of the Old Calendarists had generally ceased, and for the most part they were allowed to exist in peace. These were hard times for Greece, as it too was engulfed in the worldwide economic collapse (the Depression). The Communist party made a small but significant showing in Parliament for the first time in 1935. That same year, the monarchy was restored, and King George II returned to Greece. In 1936, Communist agitation disrupted the country, and to forestall civil war, John [29] Metaxas imposed martial law with the consent of the King and the senior politicians and became dictator. In the next few years, Europe prepared for war. Difficult times ensued with the onset of World War II and the German occupation (1941-­1945), followed by four years of civil war as the Communists tried to take over the country.

During the war, Damascenos was Archbishop of Athens (State Church). He followed a gener­ally conciliatory policy with regard to the Old Calendarists and tried by various means to find a canonical solution to the problem. [21] Archbishop Damascenos died in 1949 and was succeeded by Archbishop Spyridon Vlachos.

Chapter VIII. New Persecutions and Subsequent History

[30] Bishop Matthew of Bresthena died in May 1950. [22] A few days later Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina published an Encyclical No. 13, dated 26 May 1950, in which he renounced the distinction between potential and actual (δυνάμει καὶ ἐνεργείᾳ) schism, and everything that he had written on the matter since 1937, and declared the Mysteries of the Stat Church to be invalid, and that therefore, all who came to the Old Calendar Church from the State Church must be received through Chrismation. [23] The Encyclical was signed by Chrysostomos of Florina as president of the Synod, and by Germanos of the Cyclades, Christopher, now of Christianoupolis, and Polycarp of Diavleia. This encyclical was communicated to the offices of the Archbishop of Athens of the State Church and to the bishops consecrated by Matthew. Chrysostomos’ position was now identical to that of Matthew, but if the intent was to bring unity with the Matthewite party, it did not succeed. The Matthewite and Chrysostomos groups have followed separate courses to this very day, and have never reunited. The Matthewites have always been the smaller of the two groups.

The immediate result of the encyclical was a new wave of persecution by the State Church. In a memorandum to the Greek government in June 1950, Archbishop Spyridon stated that Old Calendarism was more dangerous to the nation than any propaganda, and more dangerous even than communism, and that the Old Calendar movement was just as much a vanguard of pan-Slavism as communism, and was part of an attempt to enslave the Greek nation. He suggested that the State abolish all Old Calendarist societies and make Old Calendarism equivalent to rebellion (treason). Furthermore, he proposed that all Old Calendar churches and monasteries be closed and the prop­erties handed over to the State Church, that Old Calendar clergy wearing clerical garb be punished, that police surveillance and deportation of [31] monastics to Mount Athos be instituted, and that their baptisms and weddings not be recognized by the State as valid. In comparing Old Calendar­ism to communism and identifying it with pan-Slavism, Archbishop Spyridon was playing on the fears of communist takeover and bitter and fresh memories of the Civil War of 1945-1949.

As of 10 October 1950, the Theological Academy of the University of Athens was closed to Old Calendarist applicants. On 3 January 1951, the Cabinet of Ministers of the Greek government enacted a decree (No. 45) of persecution of the Old Calendarists by the State. Many priests were arrested and taken to the basement of the offices of the Archbishop of Athens and there forcibly stripped of their clerical attire and shaven. Holy Tables were overturned. In Desphine of Phocis, the New Calendar Metropolitan of Phocis, Athanasios, entered an Old Calendar church during the Liturgy, struck the priest, overturned the Chalice, and trampled on the sacred vessels. Monasteries were dissolved, priests were beaten. In Patras, one priest was beaten to death by the police and secretly buried to hide the crime.

On 1 February 1951, Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina was arrested and imprisoned in the Monastery of St. John the Theologian in Ypsilos on the island of Mytilene at 82 years of age. He endured the time of his imprisonment with gentle patience and prayer and earned the good will of his guards and the monks.

On 24 March 1951, Germanos of the Cyclades died in hiding of a broken heart. The civil and ecclesiastical authorities refused permission for a Church burial or to allow a priest to serve the funeral, so he was buried by laymen. Many Old Calendar clergy who came to attend the funeral were arrested.

Eventually it became evident to the civil authorities that the persecution was detrimental to the State, and on 16 July 1952 at the request of Members of Parliament, Messrs. Zorbas, Gorgias, [32] and Skouteris, Metropolitan Chrysostomos’ sentence of exile was commuted and on 18 July he returned to Athens. Prime Minister Nicholas Plastiras decreed an end to the persecutions.

On 6 November 1952 Metropolitans Chrysostomos of Florina, Polycarp of Diavleia, and Christopher of Christianoupolis resigned their pastoral duties, but Chrysostomos immediately rescinded his resignation and again took up his duties as president of the Synod of the GOC. The other two bishops held no administrative powers. In February of 1954, Polycarp of Diavleia and Christopher of Christianoupolis returned to the Official Church where they were received as bishops, the first as Bishop of Sisanion and Siatiste, and the latter as Bishop of Dryinoupolis. They returned apparently after having given up hope for the future of the GOC in Greece.

Thus Chrysostomos remained alone as head of the larger group of Old Calendarists until his death on 7 September 1955, after which his followers no longer had a hierarchy. Before his death several candidates for the episcopacy were presented to him, and Bishop Nikolaj (Velimirovic) of the Serbian Church offered to help him consecrate new bishops, but apparently he felt that none of his archimandrites were ready for it. [24]

Meanwhile in 1953 and again in 1956 the Matthewites consecrated new bishops, among whom was Epiphanios of Kition (Cyprus).

On 16 September 1955, the First Clerical Assembly (Ἱερατικὸν Συνέδριον) of Chrysostomos’ group was held. It appointed a twelve-member Ecclesiastical Commission to administer the daily affairs of the Community and to investigate means whereby to fill the void in the church admin­istration in accordance with the Holy Canons. The Second Clerical Assembly was held on 10 January 1957. It lasted three days and was attended by nearly all the clergy of the Chrysostomos group as well as by representatives of the Zealot Monks. A new 12-member commission was appointed and three archimandrites [33] were elected by the General Assembly as candidates for the episcopacy: Akakios Papas (Sr.), Chrostomos Kiousis, and Chrysostomos Naslimis. A Third Clerical Assmbly was held on 27 October 1958, where a leader or spokesman was chosen for the whole movement “by force of circumstances.”

From the beginning, the Clerical Assembly sought to find a bishop to take up the pastoral care of the Old Calendar faithful. Some bishops of the State Church were interested and sympathetic, but nothing came of efforts in that direction. The Assembly also sought ties with other traditionalist jurisdictions. On 20 November 1958, Patriarch Christopher of Alexandria (formerly Metropolitan of Leontopolis) interceded for the Old Calendarists before the Greek government and the Official Church, but to no result.

Chapter IX. Involvement of the Russian Church Abroad

[34] Since its earliest existence, the Old Calendar Church of Greece has sought ties with the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. [25] In its Communique No. 785/11 October 1934, the Adminis­trative Council of the E0KTOX appealed to Metropolitan Antony in Karlovac, Serbia, to consecrate bishops for the Church of the GOC of Greece. [26] The appeal was signed by G. Paraschos, President, and B. Stamatoulis, General Secretary. The appeal met with sympathy on the part of Metropolitan Antony, but did not bring any result. It was to this same Synod that the Clerical Assembly turned again in this new period of no hierarchy. In 1960, while in Jerusalem, a layman of Chrysostomos’ group contacted Archimandrite Antony of Mar Savvas Lavra under the Russian Church Abroad. Fr. Antony promised to write to the Synod of Bishops in New York.

In December 1960, Archimandrite Akakios Papas (Sr.) with assistance from his nephew Ar­chimandrite Akakios Papas (Jr.) undertook a trip to America. Having petitioned the Synod of Bish­ops of the Russian Church Abroad, they received a negative reply. Apparently Metropolitan Anastasy wished to be cautious in this matter and saw no need for haste. However, Archbishop Sera­phim of Chicago and Bishop Theophilus Ionescu of Detroit agreed. Akakios Papas (Sr.) was consecrated Bishop of Talantion in Bishop Theophilus’ Holy Trinity Cathedral in Detroit. [27] That Bishop Theophilus, a Romanian bishop of the Russian Church Abroad, served by the New Calen­dar, and that many of his parishes, including his cathedral in Detroit were New Calendar, was a fact used by the Matthewites against Akakios, as they consider the consecration and all the subsequent hierarchy of the Akakian synod to be invalid on that point alone. Moreover, the consecration was performed secretly without the knowledge or blessing of the Synod of the Russian Church Abroad or of [35] Metropolitan Anastasy. This last point was cause for no little embarrassment to the Metropolitan, since he had insisted that no bishop of the Russian Church Abroad had taken part in the consecration. Akakios, on the other hand, kept the names of those bishops who had consecrated him secret for over two years.

In 1962, Archbishop Leonty of Chile and Peru (of the Russian Church Abroad) undertook a trip to Greece, where in May of that year, at the Monastery of St. Nicholas at Paeonia in Attica, with Bishop Akakios, he consecrated Archimandrites Parthenios Skourlis Bishop of the Cyclades, Auxentios Pastras Bishop of Gardikion, and Chrysostomos Naslimis Bishop of Magnesia. Subsequently Akakios Papas (Jr.) was made Bishop of Diavleia, and Gerontios Margiolis Bishop of Salamis. There were now six members of the Synod of the GOC with Akakios Papas of Talantion as president.

The Church of Greece did not take these new consecrations lightly. In 1960, when he heard about Akakios’ consecration as bishop, Archbishop Theocletos of Athens ordered a new persecution of the GOC, and Akakios went into hiding for six months until, through the intervention of certain politicians, he was left in peace. In 1962, the authorities tried to take Archbishop Leonty into custody, but by mistake they detained a retired Greek bishop of the same name who was staying in the same hotel at the time.

Archbishop Leonty’s involvement with the Old Calendarists did not end there. Together with Bishop Seraphim of Caracas (of the Russian Church Abroad), he secretly consecrated Archimandrite Petros Astyfides as Bishop of Astoria, New York. This, too, was done without the knowledge or consent of either the Synod of Bishops or Metropolitan Anastasy. Later, Archbishop Leonty ordained Akakios Mouskou a priest in New York City. This Akakios was a subdeacon of Arch­bishop Vitaly of Montreal, and he was ordained without his bishop’s consent. Later, he returned to Montreal where he set up a Greek Old Calendar parish independent of Archbishop Vitaly. [28] [36] On 6 December 1962, Parthenios of the Cyclades died, followed soon after by Akakios of Talantion on 1 December 1963. Later, Auxentios of Gardikion was elected president of the synod.

In 1964, a commission under the direction of Chrysostomos of Magnesia composed a provisional charter, “The Administrative Regulations of the Church of the GOC of Greece,” but it was not ratified by the General Assembly held in November of that year under Archbishop Auxentios.

In 1966, the Ministry of Justice published a decision, No. 132010, guaranteeing religious free­dom to the Old Calendarists.

When the parties involved in the consecration of Akakios of Talantion and Petros of Astoria became known, it brought no little embarrassment to Metropolitan Anastasy and the Synod, and to the end, Metropolitan Anastasy refused to recognize the validity of these consecrations. However, after Metropolitan Anastasy’s repose, matters changed. in a letter dated 18/31 December 1969, the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad informed Archbishop Auxentios that the Synod recognized the consecration of his predecessor, Archbishop Akakios, and the entire Synod of the Old Calendar Church of Greece under Archbishop Auxentios as a sister Church, and that ecclesiastical communion would be established. The letter was signed by Metropolitan Philaret and the entire Synod of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad. [29]

The matter of Akakios Papas’ consecration did not end there, however. In 1971, Bishop The­ophilus Ionescu, now in Paris, wrote a letter (undated) to Metropolitan Philaret in which he denied having any part in the consecration. [30] In the same letter, he admitted to having commemorated the Pope of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople along with Metropolitan Philaret at a pontifical Liturgy on 6 September 1970, but pleaded extenuating circumstances. Nevertheless, this gave the Matthewites cause for criticizing both the Russian Church Abroad and the Auxentian synod at a later time. Archbishop Seraphim of Chicago, however, affirmed that Bishop Theophilus had indeed consecrated Akakios Papas with him. [31] [37] Meanwhile, Bishop Petros applied to join the Synod of the GOC under Akakios, but was refused, since he had no certificate of consecration to the episcopacy. He obtained this certificate on 12/25 November 1968, a full six years after the fact. [32] The document was signed by Metropol­itan Philaret and Archbishop Nikodim and Bishop Laurus. With this, Petros was admitted as Auxentios’ representative in America.

In 1971, new bishops were consecrated: Paisios Evthymiadis of Evripos, Chrysostomos Kiousis of Thessalonica, Callinicos of Thavmakos, and Akakios Mouskou of Montreal and Canada. This last consecration was most unfortunate for relations with the Russian Church Abroad, since there was already a bishop of that title, Archbishop Vitaly. What was worse was the fact that Aka­kios tried to recruit a following among the Greeks under Archbishop Vitaly in Montreal and To­ronto. Also unfortunate was the consecration of a bishop for Thessalonica, since the Matthewites already had a bishop of that title for over twenty years. this made the possibility of reunion more remote.

In 1972, a new attempt was made to ratify a charter, but this, too, failed. That same year, Archbishop Hieronymos of Athens (State Church) issued a decree, published in the Government Journal, No. 103/30-71, that all Old Calendar monasteries and hermitages be given over to the State Church, but this met with resistance all over Greece, so President George Papadopoulos nullified it.

In 1973, Gabriel Kalamisakis was consecrated Bishop of the Cyclades and Antonios Thanasis Bishop of Christianoupolis (later of Megaris). On 13 July 1973, Bishop Chrysostomos of Magnesia reposed.

As of 1973, this Synod of the GOC consisted of the following members:

1. Archbishop Auxentios Pastras, President
2. Akakios Papas (Jr.) of Attica and Diavleia
3. Gerontios Margiolis of Piraeus and Salamis
4. [38] Petros Astafides of Astoria (USA)
5. Paisios Evthymiadis of Euripos
6. Chrysostomos Kiousis of Thessalonica
7. Callinicos of Thavmakos
8. Akakios Mouskou of Montreal and Canada
9. Gabriel Kalamisakis of the Cyclades, and
10. Antonios Thanasis of Megaris

The Auxentian synod had at that time 123 churches in Greece, 39 monasteries and convents, several charitable organizations including an orphanage, several periodicals, and most of the Old Calendar faithful in Greece.

Chapter X. Recent History

[39] In 1969, two bishops of the Matthewite group, Callistos of Corinth and Epiphanios of Kition (Cyprus), came to America as guests of the Holy Transfiguration Monastery in Boston. While there, they visited various establishments of the Russian Church Abroad, including Holy Trinity Monastery in Jordanville, where they met with Archbishop Averky. Bishops Callistos and Epiphanios returned again to America in 1971 when they petitioned the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad to regularize their consecrations. The Synod agreed to do this on the con­dition that Bishops Callistos and Epiphanios read the prayer of consecration over the other bishops of the Matthewite synod and they in turn over their clergy. In addition, they were to make peace and establish communion with the synod of Auxentios. Having agreed to these conditions, Callis­tos and Epiphanios were received by the Russian Synod. On 17/30 September 1971, the prayer of consecration was read over Bishop Callistos with the laying-on of hands (cheirothesia) by Arch­bishop Philotheos of Berlin and Germany and Bishop Constantine of Brisbane at Holy Transfig­uration Monastery. The next day, 18 September/1 October, the same was done to Bishop Epiphanios, and the four bishops concelebrated the Divine Liturgy. This was sa simple cheirothe­sia, and not the full rite of consecration. [33]

When Metropolitans Callistos and Epiphanios returned to Greece, they tried to comply with these conditions, but too many obstacles were raised by both sides, and nothing came of attempts at union. Meanwhile, dissatisfaction grew on the Matthewite side with the stand of the Russian Church Abroad. The Matthewites sought a “statement of faith” from the Russian Synod whereby the New Calendar Church would be considered to be in schism and separate from the Orthodox Church. Moreover, the fact that the Russian clergy had once concelebrated with the New Calendarists and the fact that the Russian Church Abroad still had a few [40] New Calendar (Romanian) parishes was objectionable to the Matthewites. That it was the policy of the ROCA to draw these parishes away from the New Calendar gradually seemed not to outweigh the mere fact of their existence. This and other economies of the Russian Church Abroad led the Matthewites to doubt the firmness of the former’s Orthodoxy, and finally on 20 February 1976, in Protocols No. 1158 and 1159, they officially severed ties with the Russian Church Abroad. This decision was signed by Archbishop Andrew and his entire Synod, including Callistos of Corinth and Epiphanios of Cyprus. [34]

Metropolitan Callistos left the Matthewite jurisdiction for the jurisdiction of Auxentios soon after, and it appears that his signature had been reluctantly affixed to that decision, for from that point on, he has considered relations with the Russian Church Abroad to be of paramount importance.

Things were not going well in the synod of Auxentios, however. For reasons not given in the available sources, Archbishop Auxentios excluded several members of his synod from the church administration and consecrated new bishops without their consent. Among those excluded were: Akakios of Diavleia, Chrysostomos of Thessalonica, and Gabriel of the Cyclades. Other points of contention were allegations that Auxentios accepted without investigations some clergy fleeing from the State Church not for reasons of calendar, but for moral and canonical offenses, [35] and that he also tolerated a certain prominent abbess’s publications denouncing St. Nectarios as a heretic.

One of the more controversial ordinations was the consecration of John Rosha as bishop of Portugal. This John Rosha was a priest of the Russian Church Abroad under Archbishop Antony of Geneva, and a convert from the Roman Church who had been received by Archbishop Antony through Holy Chrism and subsequently ordained. Archbishop Auxentios received him without a canonical release, had him baptized and re-ordained. Auxentios then [41] consecrated John Rosha as Bishop Gabriel of Portugal without the knowledge of his entire synod. He apparently deceived the co-consecrating bishops, of whom Callistos was one, into thinking that Rosha had obtained a release from Archbishop Antony.

Another controversial ordination was the secret consecration of Bishop Paisios of Astoria in 1979. By this time Petros had been expelled from the synod and no longer represented Auxentios in America. In 1974, as one of the overtures for union with the Matthewites, the Auxentian synod published an Encyclical, No. 1191/5, June 1974, in which the Sacraments of the State Church are declared to be without Grace, thus making their official position identical to that of Matthew’s. Bishop Petros was asked to sign it, but, on advice from the Synod of the Russian Church Abroad, he refused to do it. Petros was then excluded from his synod. He then applied to the Russian Church Abroad, but was refused admission. Since then, he has resided in Astoria as an independent bishop.

Out of growing dissatisfaction with the state of affairs in the Auxentian synod, Metropolitan Callistos of Corinth and Bishop Antony of Megaris secretly consecrated eight bishops at the Monastery of Sts. Cyprian and Justina in Fili, Attica in February 1979. This was done apparently with the hope that Archbishop Auxentios would accept them into his synod, and that they would thus have the majority vote in the greater synod. However, not only did Auxentios reject them, especially after the new bishops at a council of their own deposed Archimandrite Paisios Loulourgas (now bishop in Astoria), but he in turn deposed them and consecrated ten new bishops for his synod, among whom was this same Paisios. [36] Since that time Callistos and Antonios and their eight bishops constitute a new synod separate from that of Auxentios. Archbishop Callistos is most eager to establish ties with the Russian Church Abroad, and his group preents itself as the most moderate of the three major groups in existence now. However, it seems not to have gained the loyalty of [42] the majority of the Old Calendar faithful, who remain with Auxentios.

After the formation of this new synod, both parties in this dispute appealed to the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad seeking recognition and bringing complaints against the other group. In a decision dated 28 April/11 May 1979, the Russian Synod resolved not to involve itself in the internal affairs of a sister church in view of the fact that such a judgement would not be within its competence, and to encourage both sides in the dispute to come to terms. The decision stated that peace could not come about unless all those unwisely consecrated by Auxentios and others were removed, and that these consecrations were directly responsible for harming relations with the Russian Church Abroad (especially that of John Rosha). [37] Since that time, there have been no formal relations between the Russian Church Abroad and any group of the GOC in Greece.

On Holy Thursday, 21 March 1980 (OS), the synod of Callistos consecrated Holy Chrism. [38] This could be considered an expression of the independence of a local church. traditionally, even the autocephalous national churches have obtained their Chrism from one of the patriarchates, usually Constantinople. In 1958, the Matthewites consecrated Chrism, and sometime in the 1950s, the Russian Church Abroad consecrated Holy Chrism at Holy Trinity Monastery in Jordanville. Later, a large bottle of this Chrism was given to the Auxentios group through Archimandrite Cyprianos of the Monastery of Ss. Cyprian and Justina at Fili. Holy Chrism is an interesting aspect of church life and could make an interesting study in itself.

In April of 1980, Bishops Cyprianos of Oropos and Calliopios of Pentapolis of the Callistos synod undertook a journey to Romania where they established official ties with the Romanian Old Calendar Church under Archbishop Glycerius Tänase. [39] The first contacts were [43] made by Bishop Sylvester in October of the previous year when he came to Greece for a visit from Romania.

In the fall of 1981 the synod of Auxentios entered into communion with the Free Serbian Diocese in the United States founded by Bishop Dionisije, now headed by Bishop Irinej. The ar­rangements were made by Bishop Paisios of Astoria acting as Auxentios’ representative (Protocol No. 1529 Athens 11/24 September 1981). [40] The decision is signed by Archbishop Auxentios, Met­ropolitan Paisios of North and South America, and Metropolitan Euthymios of Thessalonica (formerly of Stavroupolis?).

At present, all the groups of the GOC of Greece are represented in this country. The largest concentration of Old Calendarists is in Astoria, New York where in addition to the three main groups found in Greece, and to Petros of Astoria, there are a few independent bishops with one parish each. Of the three main groups, only Auxentios has a bishop in the New World, namely Paisios of Astoria, who is sometimes titled, Of North and South America. His main church is St. Irene Chrysovalantou in Astoria, besides which he has some parishes scattered over the continent.

The Matthewites have not established a bishop in the United States, apparently on the principle of respecting the territory of another church or of not creating a diocese where the number of the faithful do not justify it. Their exarch here was for a while John Lewis whom they received from the Russian Church Abroad without a canonical release, but for various reasons, they have deposed him. They have a small number of faithful here.

The Callistos group has a few parishes and a monastery in the U.S., St. Gregory Palamas, formerly located in Hayesville, Ohio, but now in Etna, California. Its abbot, Archimandrite Chrysostomos has moved his brotherhood there partly to be near the Monastery of St. Herman of Alaska of the Russian Church Abroad, since he has friendly ties with the latter.

Bishop Petros remains independent in Astoria. He has a small number of parishes, and his main church is St. Marcella’s in Astoria. He lost his parish of St. Spyridon in St. Claire Shores, Michigan to Paisios in 1982.

Bishop Akakios also remains independent in Montreal with only one parish there.

In Greece at present, there are close to forty bishops of the Old Calendar of all the groups put together, all of whom have had some relation to the Russian Church Abroad.

Chapter XI. Conclusions

At present, the Old Calendar movement in Greece is divided. These divisions are of long standing, reflecting opposing points of view as to how to deal with the New Calendar church. Is the State Church in potential or actual schism? Are its mysteries valid? How should the New Cal­endar laymen and clergy be received? Is the New Calendar a serious breach of Church order or is it heresy? How should economy be used, and when is the question of economy vs. strictness even applicable? The Matthewite answer to these questions is that the State Church is in fact schsmatic and devoid of Grace, as are all who remain in communion with her directly or indirectly. That Chrysostomos of Florina should see a distinction between actual and potential schism is viewed as a betrayal of the whole point of the movement, for if the State Church is not actually in schism, then there is no justification for separation. Such a view as that expressed by Chrysostomos would therefore be false reasoning with respect to the nature of the Church, i.e. with respect to ecclesiology. This reasoning would be akin to heresy, and so the Matthewites consider Chrysostomos of Florina and Germanos of Demetrias to have lapsed from Grace, and hence, are not true bishops.

There is, however, an inconsistency in this position. From whom did Bishop Matthew receive his episcopal consecration, but from bishops of the New Calendar Church who had returned to the Old Calendar? No bishop applied cheirothesia to them when they returned, nor did they receive anointing with Chrism, nor did they perform any act of public penance. The bishops that consecrated Bishop Matthew must then be valid bishops with the Grace of the All-Holy Spirit. One might then infer that the State Church was not devoid of Grace, at least before 1935.

The position held by Chrysostomos of Florina between 1937 and 1950 is more subtle, namely that a schism develops gradually. It is first local and then as the Church at large has had time to consider and judge the matter, the fact of schism becomes confirmed. However in 1950, Metropolitan Chrysostomos officially abandoned this position and never returned to it. This is a fact that the moderates of the Old Calenarist movement must deal with, but no account is ever made of the Encyclical of 1950 either to deny its authenticity or to recognize it as a mistake. It would be more consistent of those who claim descent from Metropolitan Chrysostomos to acknowledge the fact and to disagree with the Encyclical.

Compounding these differences in principle are two tendencies of human nature. The first of these is ambition and the desire to be a leader. In Greek politics, this is manifested as a tendency for political parties to center on strong personalities. In the ecclesiastical realm, ambition appears as an eagerness for the episcopal office, motivated perhaps by a sincere desire for the good of the Church, that is to say a strong conviction on the part of the candidate that he can solve the problems that beset the Church. This may have been a factor in the large number of episcopal ordinations in 1979, and earlier in the 1970s among the Matthewites and the Auxentians, when the possibility of union was being seriously considered. Another motive for the ordinations may have been a larger vote in a combined synod.

Another factor contributing to division is a natural proclivity to identify oneself with principle. Having taken a stand on principle, it becomes hard for someone to consider the possibility of being wrong, or at least not entirely right. This stand on principle can become part of one’s personal being, so that [47] one cannot change one’s stand without violating one’s integrity. Thus the Matthewites have made the exact schismatic nature of the New Calendar Church a matter of principle and have never wavered in their policies. For them to abandon this position in any way would destroy their confession of faith and their raison d’etre.

An aspect of this identification of self with principle is suspicion of the opposing side, that is to say the opposition, having taken what appears to be a stand on false principle, must have done so deliberately, and therefore their motives could not be sincere, but must be self-serving or sinis­ter. Suspicion makes no allowance for repentance in those holding the opposing view, and no room for the application of economy so as to bring about reconciliation and the salvation of souls.

The circumstances of the GOC in Greece have always been difficult. A history of persecution by the State Church makes it difficult for many to take any but the strictest view as to dealings with the New Calendarists. Also, for a long time, the theological schools have been closed to the GOC, so many of their clergy and even of their bishops lack a formal theological education.

The division of the Old Calendar movement is most unfortunate, for it weakens the voice of traditionalist Orthodoxy. Had the GOC spoken with one voice over the course of its history, one might venture to guess that they could have compelled the State Church to return to the traditional calendar. Perhaps the tide of modernism could have been stemmed, perhaps the excesses of Constantinople and others could have been checked, perhaps most of the Orthodox world would [48] have kept the Church calendar unchanged and general disunity could have been avoided. But we cannot know this, for it did not happen that way.

A temporary division of the Orthodox faithful in a local church is not a new phenomenon. A similar situation is seen in the life of St. Meletius, Archbishop of Antioch (359-381 AD). [41] St. Meletius was driven from his see as Bishop of Sebastea in lesser Armenia. While he dwelt in retirement, he was elected Archbishop of Antioch by an assembly comprised mostly of Arian her­etics. He governed the local church in peace, at first avoiding an open statement of his Orthodox faith, but in time he was called upon to take a stand, and he made a clear confession of the faith, whereupon he was banished by the Arians. When he returned from exile, he found that the priest Paulinus had been elected and consecrated bishop by those Orthodox not patient enough to await his return. The Paulinians would not receive Meletius because his election was suspect since it came from the Arians, nor would they receive Arians converted to Orthodoxy through the teachings of Meletius. Two separate Orthodox churches with two separate Orthodox clergy were established in and around Antioch, and both were persecuted by the dominant church at that time, which was Arian. In fact, at one point, St. Jerome mentions three separate Orthodox factions in the Church of Antioch. [42] In time, this schism was healed, but not during the life of Paulinus or St. Meletius.

In spite of its many weaknesses, the witness of the Old Calendar movement in Greece has been valuable in checking innovationism in the Official Church. The piety of the lay people and simple monastics of the GOC is unquestionable, and in all groups there are many that manifest the love of Christ and sincere devotion to His Holy Church. The unity so fervently desired and prayed for by many cannot fail to come about, for “with men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible” (Mt. 19:26). Surely it is not possible that God will not hear the cry of the faithful.

 

References

1. The material in Chapter II is derived from “Зелинский, Конструктивные Принципы Древнерусского Календаря,” in Контекст 1978, and Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. XIV, pp.54-57. 

2. Ibid., pp, 54-55.

3. Πολύκαρπος, Ἐπ. Διαυλείας, Ἡ Ἡμερολογιακὴ Μεταρρύθμισις, pp. 9-10.

4. Sakkas, The Calendar Question, pp. 24-25.

5. Ibid., p. 25.

6. Πολύκαρπος, op. cit., p. 13.

7. The material in Chapter IV is derived from Keefe et al., Area Handbook for Greece, and Kousoulas, Modern Greece, Profile of a Nation.

8. The material in Chapter V is derived from Γκουτζίδης, Ἐκκλησιολογικὰ Θέματα, Vol. 1, pp. 67-105, Ἡ Πραγματικὴ Ἀλήθεια, κτλ., pp. 11-78, and Τσιμηρίκας, Εἰς Ὑπακοὴ Πίστεως, pp. 22-31.

9. Sakkas, op. cit., pp. 11-13.

10. Χριστόδουλος, Μητρ. Δημητριάδος, Ἱστορικὴ καὶ Κανονικὴ Θεώρησις, κτλ., pp. 74-75.

11. Grabbe, “Взаимоотнощенія Зарубежной Русской Церкви, итд.” In Дѣянія Втораго Всѣзарубежнаго Собора, pp. 403-423.

12. Πραγματιὴ Ἀλήθεια, pp. 28-35.

13. The material in Chapter VI is derived from Σύντομος Ἱστορικὴ Περιγραφή, κτλ. (ΣΙΠ), pp. 8-21, and Τσιμηρίκας, op. cit., pp. 31-33.

14. Τὰ Πάτρια, Vol. 1, No. 4, Oct.-Dec. 1976, pp. 124-131. The early history of the Old Calendar movement is recounted in this periodical published by Archim. Calliopios Giannakopoulos, [63] now Metr. of Pentapolis. It includes photographs, biographical sketches, reminisces, and historical accounts, as well as excerpts from contemporary periodicals.

15. The material in Chapter VII is derived from ΣΙΠ, pp. 21-26, and Τσιμηρίκας, op. cit., pp. 33-43.

16. Καραμῆτσος-Γαμβρούλιας, Ἡ Ἀγωνία ἐν τῷ Κήπῳ τῆς Γεθσημανῆς, ππ. 128-130.

17. Ibid., pp. 126-127.

18. The full text of this letter (in Greek) is given in Ἀγγελόπουλος, κ. ἄ., Μητροπολίτης Πρ. Φλωρίνης Χρυσόστομος Καβουρίδης, pp. 76-84.

19. Τσιμηρίκας, op. cit., p. 39.

20. Private communication. Names supplied by Holy Transfiguration Monastery, Brookline, Massachusetts.

21. Καραμῆτσος-Γαμβρούλιας, op. cit., p. 57.

22. The material in Chapter VIII is derived from ΣΙΠ, pp. 26-37, and Τσιμηρίκας, op. cit., pp. 42-52.

23. The full text of this encyclical is found in Πολὐκαρπος (Κληματιανός), Σωσίβιον Ναυαγῶν Ψυχῶν, pp. 154-156.

24. Private communication, Archim. Panteleimon.

25. The material in Chapter IX is derived from ΣΙΠ, pp. 37-43, and Τσιμηρίκας, op. cit., pp. 52-56.

26. Καραμῆτσος-Γαμβρούλιας, op. cit., pp. 111-112.

27. Unpublished letter of Abp. Seraphim of Chicago and Detroit to Abp. Auxentios, 26 Oct. 1972 (OS). In English.

28. Private communication, Archim. Panteleimon.

29. Τσιμηρίκας, op. cit., pp. 108-109.

30. Unpublished letter of Bp. Theophilus Ionescu to Metr. Philaret. No date, but evidently written in 1971. In French.

31. Unpublished letter of Abp. Seraphim of Chicago and Detroit to the Hierarchs of the True Orthodox Church of Greece, 12 Dec. 1972. In English.

32. Certificate of consecration of Bp. Petros, 12/25 Nov. 1968.

33. Unpublished Act, 18 Sep. 1971 (OS), Holy Transfiguration Monastery.

34. The full text (in Greek) of both the Encyclical (No. 1159) and the Letter (No. 1158) to Metr. Philaret are found in Κῦρυξ Γνησίων Ὀρθοδόξων, Vol. 21, No. 2, Feb. 1976, pp. 3-12.

35. Unpublished manuscript, Karanitsos-Ga[m]vroulias, et al., “The Ordinations of the Genuine Orthodox Christians, etc.”

36. Ἔλεγχος καὶ Ἀνατροπή, κτλ., p. 14.

37. Unpublished resolution of the Synod of Bishops, ROCA 28 Apr./11 May 1979. In English.

38. Τὰ Πάτρια, Vol. 5, pp. 1-31 of supplement (pp. 147 ff.).

39. Κυπριανὸς Μητρ. Ὠρόπου καὶ Φυλῆς, Ἡ Μαρτυρικὴ Ἐκκλησία τῶν ΓΟΧ τῆς Ρουμανίας.

40. The English text of this decision is given in The Diocesan Observer, Vol. 17, No. 683, 31 Oct. 1981, p. 5.

41. “The Life of our Holy Father Meletius, Archbishop of Antioch,” in Orthodox Life, Vol 31, No. 1 Jan.-Feb. 1981, pp. 3-10.

42. “Letter of Jerome to Pope Damasus, Inter AD 374/379,” in The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 2, p. 184.

[Additional tables included in source link – with some incorrect data.]

 

Source (some minor typos corrected):

https://www.rocorstudies.org/2025/11/28/the-old-calendar-movement-in-greece-an-historical-survey/

Original: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wCs4TnByA3i4tbjKZuEYhUqCq4Vyocol/view?usp=sharing