"The Doctrinal Dimension of the New Calendar"

The Doctrinal Dimension of the New Calendar

Dimitris Hatzinikolaou, Assistant Professor of Economics at the University of Ioannina

 

It has been said and written many times, but inaccurately, that in 1924 Orthodox Christians supposedly did not know that the reason for the introduction of the new calendar was the promotion of the pan-heresy of Ecumenism. Consequently, those who use this argument conclude that those who then separated from the innovating Church, invoking the 15th Canon of the First-Second Synod and, more generally, Patristic Teaching and Tradition, were wrong, because there supposedly was no doctrinal reason to justify the walling-off, while those who accepted the new calendar did not fall into doctrinal error.

The purpose of this article is to demonstrate that the above assertion is incorrect by presenting texts that came to light before 1924 and demonstrate that from 1582 onward, it has been known that the Papists and the unionist "Orthodox" (i.e., today's Ecumenists) sought to impose the new calendar on the Orthodox Church as the "first step" towards its submission to Papism, which has always been considered the first stage of Ecumenism. The evidence presented below, a small sample from the many that exist (see, for example, the reputable blogs "ΚΡΥΦΟ ΣΧΟΛΕΙΟ" [Secret School] and "ΕΝ ΤΟΥΤῼ ΝΙΚΑ" [In This, Conquer]), also shows that the imposition of the new calendar was expected to cause a schism in the Orthodox Church, thus affecting the doctrine of its unity. Moreover, it reveals that not only the change of the Paschalion is condemnable, as many erroneously claim even today, but also the "correction" of the Julian calendar.

First, in the well-known letter of Patriarch Jeremias II the Illustrious to the prince of Venice, Nicolò da Ponte, in the year 1583, we see that the Orthodox Church refused to yield to the demands of the "pope" for the acceptance of the new calendar, foreseeing the "many scandals that will arise from these new clocks," as well as the confusion and "the worldwide scandal of the omitted ten days" (Ioannis Veloudos, Chrysobulls and Letters of the Ecumenical Patriarchs, Phoenix, Venice, 1893, pp. 12-19). It is worth noting that what is characterized in the letter as a "worldwide scandal" is not only the change of the Paschalion that the adoption of the Gregorian calendar entails, but also the removal of the ten days from the Julian calendar.

Second, in the Ecclesiastical History of Metropolitan Meletios of Athens, Volume III, Vienna 1784, p. 402 (http://invenio.lib.auth.gr/record/125916), we read the following: "During the patriarchate of Jeremias, a synod of Metropolitans was convened in Constantinople in the year 1583, with the attendance of Silvester of Alexandria, which, condemning the calendar innovated by Gregory of Rome, did not accept it, according to the request of the Latins." It is again worth noting that the Pan-Orthodox Synod of 1583 rejected not only the change of the Paschalion but the entire "calendar" of the "pope."

Third, in the book by the activist Kosmas Flamiatos, An Orthodox and Important Voice in the Revelation of the Plot Against the Orthodox, Athens, 1849, p. 100, we read the following about Papism: "For the abolition of our festive and celebratory days, except for Sunday, it has devised and is carrying out many other scandals. First, it acts in many ways to introduce by law into the Orthodox States the so-called new year of the West, in which they are ahead by 12 days, so that when we have the first of the month, they count the 13th. Through this innovation, it hopes to confuse and overturn the festive days and introduce other novelties." We see again that not only the change of the Paschalion but also any correction of the Julian calendar was condemnable. It should be noted that Kosmas Flamiatos did not only write books,  but was a public teacher of the nation and traveled throughout Greece, teaching the people to guard against foreign doctrines and customs (http://www.inkefalonia.gr/koinonia/51088-kosmas-flamiatos-enas-dimodidaskalos- tou-genous-apo-ta-poulata). This means that at least from the 19th century, even simple Greek peasants knew that the purpose of introducing the new calendar was their "Latinization"!

Fourth, in the journalistic organ of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, Ecclesiastical Truth, of November 24, 1895 (pp. 312-314), we read the following: "Therefore, the abrupt change of the calendar would be tantamount in the eyes of the people to an attempt to alter the faith of their Fathers, to outright Latinization!" Here we see the official testimony that in 1895 the people knew that the purpose of the new calendar was the "Latinization" of the Orthodox!

Fifth, in the newspaper Empros of March 15, 1899, Meletios A. Chrysochoidis writes: "The issue of the assimilation of the Julian and Gregorian calendars, which is being discussed these days, is equivalent to the issue of the union of the two Churches" (see N. Mannis, Greek Shield Against the Gregorian Calendar: The Calendar Issue in the Orthodox East during the Years 1581-1901, Athens, 2016, pp. 257-263). That is, the introduction of the new calendar was pursued for the sake of Ecumenism, as the "Constitution of Ecumenism," namely the Encyclical of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of 1920, officially assures us.

Sixth, the Encyclical of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of 1902 raised the issue of the new calendar to the other Orthodox Churches, in order to seek rapprochement with "the two great branches of Christianity, Catholicism and Protestantism." Once again, Ecumenism was the aim! Of course, the negative responses of many Orthodox Churches to this Encyclical resulted in the Patriarchal Encyclical of 1904, in which the removal of 13 days from the Julian calendar was characterized as "foolish and pointless," imposed for no reason, neither Ecclesiastical nor Scientific! Again, not only was the change of the Paschalion rejected as "foolish and pointless," but also the correction of the Julian calendar by removing 13 days. Unfortunately, this correct position of the 1904 Encyclical was completely overturned by the extremely ecumenical Encyclical of 1920, which, however, was initially kept secret from the people.

Seventh, in an article by the Professor of Theology at the University of Athens, Grigorios Papamichael, titled "On the Calendar Reform," we read the following important points: "The calendar reform introduced by Pope Gregory XIII in 1582 was always, or rather immediately, considered in the Orthodox East as an ecclesiastical and religious innovation and as one of the usual tendencies of the prevailing ecclesiastical autocracy in the West, the dream of which was and is and will be the extension of its influence over the Orthodox East. It was considered, in other words, a new papal crusade against Orthodoxy in the East. Being thus regarded and evaluated, this innovation was immediately condemned by the Church of Constantinople... The essence of this issue lies in the acceptance or rejection of 'the single source of ecclesiastical jurisdiction,' in other words, in the acceptance or rejection of the papal primacy in the Church of Christ. Therefore, the Church of Jerusalem rightly decided against the innovation on purely doctrinal grounds [note: let this be heard by those who continue to write that the issue is not doctrinal]. ... From all these official opinions and decisions of the Orthodox Churches, Mr. Sokolov concludes that they spoke out not only against the Gregorian calendar but also against any neutral or generally corrected calendar" (emphasis in the original, Pantainos, 1910, no. 39, pp. 624-628, http://digital.lib.auth.gr/record/146308/files/5471_1.pdf). It is also worth noting here that the Orthodox Churches rejected not only the change of the Paschalion but also any correction of the Julian calendar, which would essentially mean that the Orthodox Church was following the papal heresy. It must be emphasized that the information contained in the aforementioned text by Professor G. Papamichael indicates that the Patriarchate of Jerusalem rejected the new calendar "on the basis of purely doctrinal reasons"!

Eighth, in the book by Metropolitan Anthimos of Vizyi, entitled The Calendar Issue, which was published in 1922, two years before the change, we read the following (see p. 141 and elsewhere): "that through the issue of the Calendar, by achieving its unification, the first significant step will undoubtedly be taken towards the accomplishment of the studied and by circumstances imperatively imposed Communion of the Churches." This text, especially when combined with the recognition of Anglican ordinations by the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the same year (1922) (V. Stefanides, Ecclesiastical History: From the Beginning to the Present, Papadimitriou Publications, 2nd Edition, Athens, 1959, p. 711), revealed to every interested party what was diligently concealed by the non-dissemination of the 1920 Encyclical, namely, the ecumenical fervor that prevailed at the highest levels of the Hierarchy shortly before the calendar reform, which the defenders of Ecumenism always wanted to present as an astronomical issue, supposedly not touching upon doctrine and allegedly unknown to the pious people!

The provided evidence explains the fact that immediately after the coup-like imposition of the new calendar, the pious people cried out: "They have Latinized us!" The well-known but inaccurate argument of the defenders of Ecumenism, that the people supposedly did not know the aforementioned doctrinal reasons hidden behind the introduction of the new calendar, because only a few had read such books and articles until 1924, is not scientifically sound. Because, first, according to the prevailing theory of expectation formation, the "theory of rational expectations," it is sufficient for only a very few experts to know certain information. They will disseminate it to the laypeople, usually for a reward, although in this case, the expected reward was not monetary and was not expected from humans, but from God. Therefore, many Athonite Fathers then left Mount Athos and taught the people, celebrated liturgies, etc. Secondly, as previously mentioned, Kosmas Flamiatos and other activists had long since warned the Greek people about the deceitful purpose of introducing the new calendar into the Orthodox Church. The aforementioned inaccurate argument is still extensively used today by Ecumenists and crypto-Ecumenists, in order to claim that in 1924 there was supposedly no reason for separation and consequently to slander the Orthodox of the Patristic Calendar as schismatics.

In conclusion, the new calendar is heresy, firstly because it was introduced into the Orthodox Church for the sake of its non-doctrinal union with the Papists and Protestants, meaning for the sake of the abolition of Orthodoxy, and secondly because it was expected to affect the doctrine of the Church's unity, as it indeed did. This would not have happened if, instead of the aforementioned ecumenical fervor, prudence had prevailed at that time. As several Hierarchs testified at the Synod of 24-12-1923, the pious people strongly resisted the introduction of the new calendar and with tears pleaded with their bishops not to proceed with it (Archimandrite Theoklitos Strangas, History of the Church of Greece from Unerring Sources: 1817-1967, Vol. 2, pp. 1194-96). I assume that these bishops, disregarding the above-mentioned evidence, said, "It doesn't matter, the issue is not doctrinal!" Today, 94 years later, when the events themselves have confirmed beyond any doubt that the issue IS INDEED DOCTRINAL, being inseparably linked with the preaching and prevalence of the heresy of Ecumenism, and as the cause of the 1924 schism, many still insist that it is not doctrinal, uphold the new calendar, and direct the severe slander of "schismatic" towards the Orthodox of the Patristic calendar. What a distortion of the truth!

 

Translated from the original Greek source: https://koukfamily.blogspot.com/2017/09/blog-post_16.html