The Festal Calendar Innovation: Its Political Roots and Message of Apostasy

A. D. Delembases

The following comments are taken from Professor Delembases' monumental Greek tome, Pascha Kyriou (Athens, 1985), comprising one of the most exhaustive treatments of the precipitous moves toward innovation begun in the Church of Greece in 1924 with its abandonment of the traditional Festal Calendar (calculated according to the Julian Calendar) and the adoption of the Papal (or Gregorian) Calendar. His is one of the few objective considerations of the resistance movement among the pious clergy and laity of Greece (the so-called Old Calen- darists) against the calendar innovation, for which they suffered condemnation and persecution at the hands of the State Church Hierarchs. For any who maintain the shallow view that the calendar change was an innocent move and that the persecution of traditionalists in Greece is nothing more than the "polemical fantasy" of a few fanatics, Professor Delembases' work is a disturbing journey into historical reality. He argues that the calendar innovation was an insidious program of ecumenical betrayal introduced into the Greek Church by way of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, introducing division into the Church of Greece and the whole Orthodox world.

 

In 1919, on January 10 (Old Style), the Synod of the Church of Constantinople debated the question of ecumenical union. In that assembly, the locum tenens of the Patriarchal throne, Dorotheos, commented that: "The time has come for the Orthodox Church, too, to reflect seriously on the matter of the union of the separated churches," that is, the union of the local Orthodox Churches with the heterodox. [1] Just as the initiative for the League of Nations had come from America, so the initiative for ecumenical union "with regard to the framing of a League of Churches" was to come forth "from the Great Church of Constantinople." This vainglorious and un-Orthodox "proposal was accepted by the Holy Synod and a committee was appointed to prepare a statement on the subject." Metropolitan Anthimos was appointed President of the committee. [2]

Aside from diplomatic efforts, "it became evident that there must be," with regard to the matter of ecumenical dialogue, "some personal contact between Constantinople and Paris," so that the "Patriarchal delegate, Metropolitan Dorotheos of Prusa [Brusa], visited the French capital in April of 1919 to present the view of the Patriarchate" to the Paris Alliance for Peace, then active there, [3] where the League of Nations was born. In Paris, "on January 25, 1919 (New Style), the Alliance for Peace decided to establish a special committee for the preparation of a founding charter for the League of Nations." The resultant statement by the committee was adopted "by the Alliance for Peace on April 29, 1919 (n.s.) and the League of Nations came into being on January 10, 1920 (n.s.) [formally, in Geneva — translator's note]." [4] It was also in April of 1919 that a Protestant "representative from the Episcopalian Church in America" visited Constantinople to discuss the convocation of a world council on the ecumenical subject of "Faith and Order," the Patriarchate then informing the representative that the proposal of the committee appointed to form the League of Churches was ready. So, in January of 1920 the "Encyclical" of the Oecumenical Patriarchate on ecumenism "was released." [5]

Thus, the ecumenical Encyclical of 1920 was formulated and promulgated simultaneously with the foundation of the League of Nations. In January of 1919, the formation of a founding charter for the League of Nations was placed in the hands of a committee appointed by by the Paris Alliance for Peace. And in January of 1919, a committee was appointed by the Synod of Constantinople to draft its Encyclical. And just as the League of Nations was bom the next year, in January of 1920, so the Encyclical of 1920 was issued the same month and year. [6] The relationship between the Orthodox framers of this ecumenical encyclical and religious, diplomatic and political personalities in the apostate West —not to mention the fact that the publication of the Encyclical coincided with the formation of the League of Nations— shows, indeed, that these undertakings were directed and manipulated by some unseen collaborative principals. Obviously, the "pride of life" (I John 2:16) had led the Orthodox clergy of the Oecumenical Patriarchate to succumb to the third temptation [that of worldly power (See St. Matthew 4:8-11)]. [7]

While the Encyclical of 1920 was ecumenical, it was not Orthodox. It consists of a betrayal of Orthodoxy and preaches supreme apostasy. It does not proclaim the Orthodox Faith, Christian hope, love of the truth, and union in Christ, but rather abrogates such faith and hope and love and union under the pretext of an Orthodox voice. It ignores Holy Scripture, the Oecumenical Synods, and the Holy Fathers as wellsprings of truth and defames the Saints as purveyors of so-called "impediments, ways," and "demands" from which resulted "obstacles" "that so much frustrated the work of union in the past." [The foregoing and subsequent words and phrases in quotation marks are directly from the Encyclical itself, unless a separate reference is noted.] That is, the Encyclical declares the Orthodox confession and the Holy Canons antiquated, discarding them for the sake of communion and union in the present world. It discards the Patristic tradition of "unity in the Faith" (Ephesians 3:13) and maintains, contrary to Orthodox teaching, that a supposed union between Orthodox and heretics is "not impeded by the secondary question of dogmatic differences between them," as in the notorious "un-dogmatic" union put forth by the heresy of ecumenism. The Encyclical lays aside the "confession of hope" (Hebrews 10:23) in our Lord Jesus Christ and places its hope in the united powers of this world. It does not confess "the love of truth" (II Thessalonians 2:10), but teaches love and indiscriminate relations outside of truth —that is, falsehood in the name of love and love in the name of falsehood. It casts the One Orthodox Church into oblivion and erroneously accepts heresies as part of the Church, in keeping with the ecumenical "Branch Theory" of the Church. The Encyclical contends that it is necessary to think of Orthodoxy and that which She considers heretical as "one and the same thing," not as "things alien one to the other and estranged, but as related one to the other and of the same household in Christ." It departs from the communion of God and the Holy Fathers in Orthodoxy, suggesting the formation of a "League of Churches," that is, of Orthodox and heterodox Churches, consistent with the prototype of the League of Nations. ...Towards this end, the Encyclical enumerates eleven practical measures to be undertaken in this union of supreme apostasy. It launches these measures with the iniquitous proposal for the common celebration of Feasts by an innovation in the Orthodox Calendar, working up to the point of "supporting" things considered heretical by the Orthodox Church Herself —which is certainly none other than a work of Antichrist. [8]

In the Encyclical of 1920, "the Ecumenical Patriarch proclaimed, with uncovered and naked head, the heresy of ecumenism." [9] "The Encyclical of 1920 and its proclamation of the pan-heresy of ecumenism gives voice to the deception of Antichrist, teaches an anti-ecclesiastical lawlessness, and is part of a process directed" [10] towards the appearance of Antichrist": towards Antichrist and eternal destruction. The Encyclical is symptomatic of the first signs in our times of a great decline in faith. The Second Oecumenical Synod, convened in Constantinople, bids that "all heresies be anathematized" (First Canon of the Second Oecumenical Synod). Contrarily, the ecumenist Synod [Council, more appropriately —translator's note] which produced the Encyclical of 1920 impiously advocates communion with "all heresies." [11] The Seventh Oecumenical Synod condemns and excommunicates those who have "communion" with any "daring to teach or advocate doctrines differing with the Church, or with those accursed heretics who violate ecclesiastical traditions and concoct various innovations" (Manse, XIII, 380). Yet the Encyclical of 1920, teaching strange doctrines, contends that Orthodox traditions are compatible with accursed heresies..., concocting and setting up every kind of innovation, to the end of obliterating and destroying Orthodoxy, while calling ...the ecumenists to "communion." Indeed, through the innovation of 1920, many of the holy ones —that is, many Orthodox— were brought to a great fall, having tumbled into the heresy —or pan-heresy— of ecumenism.

General Ecumenical Apostasy. With the conquest of Russia by communism and the spiritual fall of Constantinople with the Encyclical of 1920, ecumenism came under the direction of dark forces. Just as the devil had of old sown the seeds of heresy in the East and from there spread them to all of the world (St. Basil the Great, P.G., XXXII, 908), so today. While loudly preaching ecumenical apostasy in the Encyclical of 1920, these forces began organizing and implanting ecumenism throughout the world, toward the end of accomplishing their anti-Christian goal. Thus, two separate ecumenical movements, the so-called "World Movement for Life and Labor" and the "World Movement for Faith and Order," formed in Geneva, Switzerland in 1920. [12] The first congresses sponsored by these two ecumenical movements took place in Stockholm, Sweden in 1925 and in Lausanne, Switzerland in 1927, respectively. [13] In the 1948, these two movements joined and formed the "World Council of Churches" (WCC). [14] In the meetings of the first two ecumenical movements, Orthodox representatives took part. After the founding of the WCC, however, the Oecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras, in his ecumenical Encyclical of 1952, called upon all local Orthodox Churches to become members of the WCC. [15] The result of this encyclical was that "today almost all of the autocephalous and autonomous Orthodox Churches, seventeen in total" are members of the WCC, "the only Church not taking part up to now being the autocephalous Church of Albania, which suffers under severe persecution," as Archimandrite Spyridon Bilales wrote in 1969. [16] [Let us note that Old Calendarist Orthodox, "underground" Orthodox in communist-dominated countries, and Orthodox generally of a non-ecumenist bent are simply disenfranchised by the WCC, which will not allow them to speak or participate in its proceedings —ecumenical leanings being a prerequisite for membership. Thus the strange tyranny of religious relativists who will not tolerate deviation from their relativistic ecclesiology, even in the name of the historical primacy benignly put forth by Orthodox traditionalists.]

Following the emergence and organization of what was largely an ecumenical movement among Protestants and Orthodox, ecumenism directed by the Papacy made its appearance. The Papacy is in and of itself ecumenical in character. However, it did not become a member of the WCC, but rather began its own ecumenical movement, with the Vatican as its Center of activities and the ...Pope as its leader. This was accomplished in the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), [17] which characterized itself as an ecumenical synod. The Papacy had two specific aims in its own ecumenical movement. First, to bring the ecumenical leadership under its control and, two, to subjugate under itself those among the Orthodox of an ecumenical bent. The Orthodox ecumenists responded to this pursuit by the Papacy with its own appropriate actions, that is, by participating in meetings and joint prayer, to the point of even having common worship services in which the only thing missing was official communion from the same cup. ...Ecumenism is consolidating, forming a strong central base, with the intention of making itself the leading religious force of this world and of the universe. Therefore, ecumenism constitutes a powerful politico-religious, deceptive force for the support of the coming Antichrist —a force, however, which will "go to perdition" along with those who follow it (Revelation 17:11).

As we have noted, one of the first practical measures for the attainment of ecumenical union put forth by the Encyclical of 1920 was that of the uncanonical concelebration of Feasts by the Orthodox and heterodox. According to the Encyclical, this ill-conceived union was to be given great impetus by the "adoption of a uniform calendar for the simultaneous celebration of the great Christian feasts by all of the Churches." [18] This measure, a measure supported by ecumenical apostasy, was implemented by the calendar change in 1924.

 

NOTES

1. Ekklesiastike Aletheia [official organ of the Church of Greece, in contemporary times vehemently opposed to the Old Calendar movement and unbelievably polemical in its statements about the same], 1919. Also, Monk Paul, New Calendar Ecumenism (Athens, 1982), p. 26.

2. Episkepsis, March 15, 1983, p. 8. Also, Metropolitan Anthimos, The Calendar Question (Constantinople, 1922), p. 41.

3. Episkepsis, op. cit., p. 10.

4. Ibid.

5. Ibid., pp. 8-9.

6. Ibid., pp. 9-10.

7. The Encyclical was signed by Metropolitan Dorotheos and eleven other Metropolitans of the Oecumenical Throne.

8. B. T. Stavrides, History of the Ecumenical Movement (Athens, 1964), pp. 127-131. The other proposals set forth in the Encyclical of 1920 are listed here [from the text of the Encyclical itself]: 2) "the exchange of brotherly letters on the occasion of great Feasts in the Church year, according to the prevailing customs, and on other occasions;" 3) "...increased brotherly relations between the representatives of the various Churches;" 4) "...the establishment of exchanges between theological seminaries and representatives in the science of theology, as well as the exchange of theological and Church publications and works published by each Church;" 5) "sending the young students of one Church to the schools of the other Churches for study;" 6) "the convocation of pan-Christian conferences for the examination of matters of common interest to all of the Churches;" 7) "the objective and more accurate historical examination of dogmatic differences at their rudimentary level, along with the publication of such examinations;" 8) "mutual respect of the diverse customs and practices of the various Churches;" 9) "agreements to share houses of prayer and cemeteries for the funeral services and burial of those of other confessions who might repose in a foreign land;" 10) "the adoption of mutually acceptable rules for the various faiths with regard to the question of mixed marriage;" 11) "a mutual and willing support by the Churches of one another for the strengthening of religious belief, philanthropy, and similar efforts."

9. A.D. Delembases, The Heresy of Ecumenism (Athens, 1972), p. 232.

10. Phone ton Pateron, August-September, 1984, p. 4.

11. See the encyclical itself (note 8).

12. Stavrides, op. cit., pp. 42-44.

13. Ibid., 45, 59.

14. Delembases, op. cit., pp. 135-139.

15. Ibid., pp. 240-251.

16. S.S. Bilales, Orthodoxy and Papism, Vol. I, p. 337.

17. Delembases, op. cit., pp. 148-159; Bilales, op. cit., pp. 304-305.

18. Encyclical of 1920 (note 8).

 

Source: Orthodox Tradition, Vol. 4 (1987), No. 2, pp. 23-28.