When the Watchmen Betray: Why I am an Old Calendarist (Fr. Theodoretos Mavros)

 Hieromonk Theodoretos (Mavros) the Athonite (+2007)

When the Watchmen Betray: Why I am an Old Calendarist

Response to a related publication by the Holy Monastery of Gregoriou, Mount Athos

Source: Orthodoxos Typos, February 2, 2001.

Seventy-six years have passed since the uncanonical change of the calendar, and the defenders of the innovation do not cease accusing the Zealots of the patristic traditions. They accuse and slander them at every opportunity, calling them schismatics, heretics, and Protestants—terms that so fittingly describe the protagonists and allies of the innovation! Recently, the Monastery of Gregoriou of Mount Athos once again accused them with great hostility, attempting with all manner of sophistry not only to exonerate the guilty parties of the schism of 1924 but also their equally heretical successors of today! It is the stance of the guilty, or rather the accomplice, trying to justify the continual betrayals of faith by their superior. It is a desperate effort without hope of justification, as it is allied with falsehood... And all this because they lack the heroism and humility to renounce the guilty parties and acknowledge the commendable struggle of the Zealot Fathers. With sophistry that even their teacher, Fr. Epiphanios Theodoropoulos, would envy, they tried to prove Fr. N[ikolaos] Demaras a slanderer and anti-traditionalist, precisely because he exposed their anti-patristic stance by refuting their positions! In this article, we will only respond to the first and main accusation of the Monastery of Gregoriou. If we prove it to be false and anti-patristic, then all the other accusations will collapse, having no foundation... As for the other points, we believe that Fr. Nikolaos is capable of providing the appropriate response. We quote the main accusation of the Monastery: "The first fundamental heresy of the Zealots is the theory that it is permissible to break ecclesiastical communion even for non-dogmatic reasons. This anti-patristic theory, which disregards the First-Second Council of Saint Photius (861), literally blows up the ecclesiastical foundations of the Body of Christ and leads directly to pure Protestantism."

Indeed, grand and striking expressions, if they are true. However, since it is often the guilty who shout louder than the innocent, let us examine the nature of this schism, who caused it, and whether those who did not follow it reacted in a patristic manner.

Curable matters of the Church.

Examining more deeply and carefully the definition of schisms by St. Basil: "We call schisms those who, for certain ecclesiastical reasons and for curable matters, have separated from one another" (Canon 1), we observe the following.

A. The curable matters can arise from those who separate, as occurred in the cases of the Eustathians and the Novatians. In this case, the curable matter was purely caused by them alone, due to misinterpretation and disobedience to the teaching of the Church. The bishop (or synod) bears no responsibility for either the origin of the issue or the subsequent separation from the unity of the Church because of it. This is because some rejected marriage and the eating of meat as sin, while others rejected the repentance of those who denied Christ during the persecutions. The stance of both is un-evangelical and therefore condemnable.

However, there is also a case where the curable matter is caused by the bishop (or synod), not acting recklessly or uncanonically. In such instances, some faithful, misinterpreting his action, separate from communion with him. Such is the case of the schism of the Old Believers in Russia (17th century). The Church rightly proceeded at that time with necessary and proper liturgical corrections, but pastorally it erred, for it had not adequately prepared its flock to accept them.

There is also a case where the curable matter is again caused by the bishop, but it is minor and can be easily remedied. This refers to his personal sins and transgressions, for which the faithful are not permitted to separate from his communion. Instead, they should act modestly and hierarchically to prevent a greater scandal. In this instance, although the bishop is the source and cause of the curable matter, due to the private nature of the transgression, the one who separates from him is judged guilty of creating a schism.

Based on the above, in order to correctly classify the schism created between Old Calendarists and New Calendarists, it is necessary to understand the relevant teaching on schisms from the sacred Canons and the Fathers of the Church, so that our final judgment is in accordance with the venerable tradition of Orthodoxy.

Necessary and commendable divisions

Following the points mentioned above, the question arises: Can a bishop, synod, etc., cause only curable matters? Certainly not, just as the faithful themselves do not always cause merely curable matters but sometimes even dreadful heresies. So, how can a bishop become the creator of an incurable issue within the Church? Quite simply, when he publicly preaches or acts in a way that gravely offends the faith and justice, according to the 31st Apostolic Canon, which states: "If any presbyter, disregarding his own bishop, assembles a separate group and establishes another altar, without having condemned the bishop in matters of faith and justice" ("that is to say, without knowing him to be manifestly heretical or unjust," according to the expression in the Pedalion), "he shall be deposed as one who loves power..."

Interpreting the term "justice," Zonaras writes: "contrary to duty and righteousness" (Pedalion, B, 40); and Blastares considers characteristics of justice to be: "living decently and not harming others" (Pedalion, ST, 213). Therefore, not only for heresy but also for any action of the bishop "contrary to duty and righteousness," the clergy and laity under him can cease communion with him, according to the aforementioned Canon.

Any violation of Apostolic or Ecclesiastical Tradition by the bishop should be considered contrary to duty and entirely unjust, according to the Apostolic command: "Stand firm and hold fast to the traditions." The Church later affirmed this by proclaiming: "If anyone rejects any ecclesiastical tradition, written or unwritten, let him be anathema."

The same principle found in the 31st Apostolic Canon is also reflected in the 13th and 14th Canons of the First-Second Council of 861. According to these Canons, any cessation of communion by a lower-ranking cleric with their superior is severely punished, provided that the superiors are not "impious or unjust," as stated in the 31st Apostolic Canon, and that the walling-off of the subordinates did not occur "merely for something perhaps criminal being spoken against them" (Balsamon, Pedalion, B, 690). Zonaras and Balsamon both consider "criminal accusations" or charges to include "sacrilege, simony, fornication," and more generally, violations of the Canons, which should always be understood as personal transgressions and not as actions against the Church or as contempt for the Canonical Regulations and Traditions of the Church.

Based on the above, it is absolutely clear that any violation by the bishop of the monastic life, the fasts, the veneration of the Holy Cross and the holy relics, the uniform and simultaneous celebration of the Divine Liturgy, and anything related to the holy feasts provides grounds for his rejection by the flock. This is because the aforementioned matters are part of the written and unwritten tradition of the Church.

A few years before the First-Second Council, the Seventh Ecumenical Council declared in its dogmatic decree: "Therefore, we command that those who dare to think or teach otherwise, or, like the accursed heretics, reject the ecclesiastical traditions and devise some innovation, or remove anything that has been entrusted to the Church, whether it be the Gospel, the sign of the cross, the sacred image, or a holy relic of a martyr, or to cunningly and deceitfully attempt to overthrow any of the lawful traditions of the Catholic Church, or even to misuse sacred relics or pious monasteries—if they are bishops or clerics, let them be deposed, and if they are monks or laypeople, let them be excommunicated." (I. Karmiris, Monuments, vol. 1, p. 241).

Saint Theodore the Studite, a few decades later, summarizing the above, declared: "For we have a command from the Apostle himself: if anyone teaches or commands us to do anything contrary to what we have received, contrary to what the Canons of the various Councils, both Ecumenical and Local, have decreed, we are to reject him and not even consider him among the lot of the saints." (P.G. 99, 988 A).

What could be clearer than this? Unacceptable and to be rejected is anyone who acts contrary to tradition and canon law, moving and abolishing the "boundaries of the Fathers." Is the calendar an ecclesiastical tradition or not? How then can one person change it unilaterally, against the opinion of the other Churches, thereby destroying the liturgical unity of all Orthodoxy? How can obedience be due to such a criminal act, when Saint Theodore cut off all ecclesiastical communion with his bishop (Patriarch Nikephoros), after he, in a synod in 809, acquitted the priest who had blessed the unlawful marriage of the emperor?

The above event is vividly described in his letter to Theophilos, urging him "to react with boldness by cutting off all personal ecclesiastical communion with the heretics, as well as by not commemorating the name of anyone involved in the adulterous synod or those who agree with it." (P.G. 1048-9). In contrast, the Monastery of Gregoriou presents the saint as never having ceased the commemoration of his bishop, thus distorting history.

The above reaction of the Saint indeed led to his exile and many sufferings, thus fulfilling the words of Saint Nicodemus the Hagiorite: "Time would not suffice for me to recount the countless examples of so many saints who suffered and died for the sake of the ecclesiastical institutions and Canons."

If such a reaction and courageous protest were made by Saint Theodore, "the fearless confessor of the divine-human Orthodox truths" according to Popovich, for the sake of an unlawful marriage, how is it possible to commemorate the one who destroyed the liturgical unity of the entire Orthodox Church in order to celebrate together with the heretics of the West?

Final judgments

After the above, the question arises: Can the consequences caused by the calendar innovation be considered a curable issue, and therefore not justify the separation of the flock from its creators, or, on the contrary, was this walling-off required according to what has been mentioned?

Certainly, it was required, since the "boundaries of the Fathers" were disregarded, as evidenced by the protests of the other Orthodox Churches, which were not heeded! The result was the disruption of the liturgical unity of the Church, now displaying an image of disorder and confusion, which is not from God. Therefore, it is neither pleasing to Him nor to the Church Triumphant, which, through many struggles, established and lived out the aforementioned unity for centuries.

For this very reason, the calendar innovation of 1924 is an action closely related to the iconoclastic reform, which, under the pretext of a purer and more spiritual worship, sought to abolish what had been handed down! Similarly, in this case, under the pretext of greater chronological accuracy, but in reality from a heretical inclination toward union with the heretics of the West, while the Greek world was mourning the Asia Minor catastrophe, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, with the cooperation of the Church of Greece, overthrew a centuries-old order in the sacred institution of worship on a pan-Orthodox level!

The reaction, on the other hand, of the other Orthodox Churches, expressed by their adherence to the old calendar, serves as yet another proof that they did not desire the change.

Therefore, while the change or correction of the calendar is permissible, provided that there is a pastoral reason necessitating it, due to the absence of such a pastoral reason, everything concerning that correction was done improperly. This is why the Church of Greece, in its submission on the Calendar issue to the relevant committee of the forthcoming Pan-Orthodox Council in 1971, emphasized the following important points, among others: "Between those who follow the old calendar and those who follow the new, there is a permanent difference of 13 days in the celebration of all fixed feasts. This is an unprecedented event in the history of the Church, for despite the variety of calendars and the undefined nature of the liturgical calendar in the early years, there has never been a time difference in the celebration of the same event (e.g., the Dormition of a saint), as happens today. This disagreement becomes more pronounced during the major feasts of Christmas, Theophany, and the Dormition of the Theotokos. Some fast while others celebrate. This disagreement leads to the question: 'Who is celebrating, us or the Church?' The answer 'us' removes the sacredness of the feasts, making them an individual matter for each person. The answer 'the Church' requires a unified celebration, as the Church is one!" (p. 10). Even though the Ecumenical Patriarch Joachim in 1901 characterized the 13-day correction as "foolish and pointless"—despite recognizing that it was unanimously rejected by the Orthodox Churches—it was nonetheless implemented unilaterally, leading to the tragic consequences described above. The submission by the Church of Greece, evaluating Joachim's words, wrote: "Unfortunately, this voice of reason was ignored, and without any ecclesiastical justification, the Julian Calendar was corrected, and the Church was divided into those accepting and those rejecting the correction!" After some reflections on how the Church has the authority to regulate certain irregularities regarding the commemoration of saints "for the benefit of the Church's fullness," it concludes: "However, nothing can be said to be beneficial if it is accompanied by the scandalization of the conscience of the faithful!" (p. 32).

Therefore, everything testifies that the change of the calendar was carried out in a coup-like and uncanonical manner. And yet! Archbishop Christodoulos, as early as 1982, dared to exonerate these innovators and schismatics of the Church through a lengthy publication and to condemn the faithful who reacted by ceasing their commemoration! He even posted his conclusions on the Internet for... global dissemination! The only weapon left for the Orthodox is the cessation of ecclesiastical communion with them. Only in this way does the faithful both preserve the truth and protect his soul from the deadly contamination of heresy, counting himself among the blessed according to Saint Theodore: "Truly, the whole world is not worth one soul that keeps itself untainted by heretical communion and all evil." (99, 1205B).

Concluding Remarks

We would have reached this conclusion with just a few lines if we were referring to the heretical Encyclical of the Ecumenical Patriarchate (1920), as well as the proceedings of the "unorthodox" Congress of 1923. (However, we did not do this to demonstrate that the mere violation of Tradition was sufficient to reject the authors of the innovation).

Through the above-mentioned Encyclical, an unprecedented ecclesiological heresy is proclaimed, which is why it is considered by Greek Ecumenists as "the great Charter of Ecumenism for Orthodoxy"! (Eirenopoioi, p. 25). This is because it acknowledges the existence of Churches outside of Orthodoxy, and thus it sought the adoption of a unified calendar in order for the Orthodox to celebrate together with them.

The new calendar thus constitutes the introduction of what followed, with the well-known consequences: the lifting of anathemas, concelebrations with the Papists and Monophysites, joint prayers with every heretic and non-believer, led by the Ecumenical Patriarchate! Moreover, to operate more freely, the Phanariote authors of the Encyclical and their followers kept its existence in absolute secrecy! It was enough for them that it was known by the primates of the autocephalous Churches and their Western friends... It only became publicly known in the 1960s!

However, this did not prevent the Orthodox religious conscience from fully recognizing the uncanonical nature of the change and the deceitfulness of its creators. This is because truly Orthodox Christians live and breathe the Apostolic command: "Stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15). That is precisely why they resisted, and that is why they cried out, "They have made us into Franks," when they began their reaction against the innovation in March 1924, applying the words of Saint John Chrysostom: "It is good to be divided."

Since then, 76 years have passed, and the innovation has resulted in the pan-heresy of Ecumenism. Yet, there are still clergymen, including monks from Athonite monasteries, who attempt to justify the innovators, condemning and insulting the Orthodox who resisted! They also try to minimize and excuse the heresies of the patriarch and his collaborators, so as to "not give the Zealots any encouragement!" As for the distortion of the truth, they say, "It doesn't matter, this has always happened in the Church," as a way to justify it. However, the great Maximus the Confessor holds a completely different view: "No one is permitted to falsify the word of God out of negligence, but rather to confess their weakness without hiding the truth of God, lest they become liable both for the violation of the commandments and for the distortion of the word of God."

In the last 35 years, the heresies of the Phanar have exceeded all previous ones. Patriarch Bartholomew recently even referred to the holy Fathers as "victims of the primeval serpent," because they resisted the Luciferian papacy!! (Eccl. Aletheia, 16.12.1998). And when the Athonite fathers belatedly sought explanations, he scolded them, and... they remained silent! What a shame and insult to the monastic order!

Recently, they even wish to implement a system of Uniatism following the papal model! That is, in regions where the Old Calendarists are present, they plan to have one or two New Calendarist priests who will celebrate the feasts according to the old calendar! In this way, they hope to deceive some of the simple-minded, thus weakening the front of the anti-unionist resistance.

Shameful things... "They are kicking against the pricks," and they will realize it very soon.

Hieromonk Theodoretos
Monastery of the Annunciation - Paros

Original Greek: https://alavastron.blogspot.com/2017/01/Patrio-Imerologio.html