100 YEARS OF WITNESS AND REFLECTION

100 Years of Witness and Reflection

Address by His Eminence, Metropolitan Gregory of Thessaloniki, at the Synodal Event of St. Demetrios in 2024

 

We offer thanksgiving to the All-Good God, who has deemed us worthy to be here, to share in the joy of the meeting in Christ, and to confirm, through the witness of our lives, that the Church of Christ is expressed through human relationships, the reconciliation of forgiveness and pardon. The Eucharistic gathering, human interaction with understanding, mutual indwelling, and respect for the other constitutes a fundamental and primary element of spiritual progress and development, and not merely a social skill.

First of all, I would like to thank His Beatitude the Archbishop of Athens and All Greece, kyr Kallinikos, and the Holy Synod for assigning me to deliver this brief address. Additionally, I extend my gratitude to Their Eminences, the Holy Hierarchs, one by one: His Eminence Gerontios of Piraeus and Salamis, His Eminence Chrysostomos of Attica and Boeotia, His Eminence Ambrosios of Philippi and Maroneia, His Eminence Klemens of Larissa and Platamon, and His Grace Kallinikos of Talantion for their honored presence.

Our Church, in a festive atmosphere, celebrated on Friday the commemoration of the Patron Saint of Thessaloniki, Saint Demetrios, with a Hierarchical Concelebration and, subsequently, with the procession of the Holy Icon of the Saint for the sanctification of our city. The following day, Saturday, it celebrated the commemoration of Saint Nestor with a Hierarchical Concelebration at the Church of Saint Nestor, located near the site of the martyrdom of Saint Demetrios. Today, Sunday, once again with a Hierarchical Concelebration at the Cathedral of the Holy Three Hierarchs, all the Saints of Thessaloniki were honored. Additionally, our Church commemorated those who heroically fell for our faith and our homeland, on the occasion of the anniversary of the liberation of the city of Thessaloniki in 1912 from the Turkish yoke.

Saint Demetrios serves as an intangible beacon for Romiosyne and the entire world. He is a figure who unites the Orthodox Faith with our history. He connects the life of the Orthodox Christian with true Life, Truth, and Light. The Christian is united with Saint Demetrios, insofar as he believes in his intercession and in the light of our True Faith. All of us here at this gathering, if we were to say that we are children of Saint Demetrios, we would not be exaggerating at all. On the contrary, it is precisely what we could say. For us to be here means we believe in Saint Demetrios, in the intercession of the Saint, which, just as in 1912 when it liberated our city, Thessaloniki, so even now is capable of performing miracles and liberating the modern Romios from anything that binds him.

Saint Demetrios always speaks to the heart of the free person, to that heart which has not been enslaved and confronts its sinfulness with honesty, and to that heart which has not submitted to the numbing effect of peace without freedom. Just as the free spirit of the Romios did not submit for 500 years here in Macedonia and brought freedom to our Thessaloniki, so too do we, living with this spirit, refuse to submit. Only in this way does our history continue. Only in this way is the past connected to the present of history. Today, through our lives, we embody the present in living faith, transforming our daily life, our family, and our society into a resurrection of life and a hope for the future.

The Orthodox Faith and "Romiosyne" are two identical concepts that have preserved our self-identification as Greeks to this day. They constitute our historical consciousness and the reason for our existence. Without them, we would not exist today. For example, we would not know our patron Saint Demetrios, nor would we have even the recent glorious and heroic moments of our modern history, such as those of the epic of 1940. Essentially, they are components of survival and function as a unified whole of national self-awareness, which has flourished and continues to flourish under extreme conditions, as our history self-evidently testifies.

For example, the Roman Empire, commonly referred to as Byzantine, is the only empire in world history that lasted over 1,100 years. The Revolution of 1821 envisioned the liberation not only of present-day Greece but also of Constantinople and even Romania, meaning almost all of the Balkans. What was it, then, that kept the hope of the liberation of the Queen of Cities alive for 400 years—and in our Macedonia for 500 years—without fading? What is it that makes us feel as though not a single day has passed, as if the fall of Constantinople happened only yesterday?

What was it, then, that enabled Hellenism to endure during the period of World War II under three different occupations—the German, and the two worse ones, the Italian and the Bulgarian?

And I say "worse" because these imposed the requirement for Greek populations to speak the language of the occupiers within Greek public services—in the Ionian Islands, Italian, and in Eastern Macedonia, Bulgarian.

What was it, then, that once again sustained Hellenism? The City may have fallen, but the spirit of the Romios still survives and endures. I would describe this, if I may, as the "Romios software": it is an activated software that self-regulates with the life of each one of us; a software that orients and charts a course even in difficult or extreme environmental conditions; a software that operates solely with the heart and conscience of the Romios, meaning only if I, as a Romios, believe in the True God.

Tell me, please, what is it that sustains the crypto-Christians in Asia Minor today? Earlier, I spoke of 500 years of survival, and we call this—and it truly is—marvelous. It seems to me that the history of the survival of Romiosyne has not ended. It continues under extreme conditions of occupation and survival for crypto-Christians. The history of Romiosyne is still being written in the farthest reaches of Asia Minor and beyond. There are people there who await us with the torch of freedom still burning. They still maintain the undaunted free spirit of Romiosyne, as expressed by our last emperor, Constantine Palaiologos. How, then, do they preserve the hope of freedom? What is it that keeps the struggle for survival unyielding?

It is our Orthodox Faith. It is the Truth, it is the Light. The Romios has never ceased to contemplate and live the Truth, to combine theory and practice. He carries within himself the "Software of Romiosyne," and this software operates as follows: whoever engages with the Truth, whoever lives the Truth, whoever is ready to sacrifice himself for the Truth, signifies that he is in communion with the True God, regardless of origin, color, or language. This is the authentic Christian; this is also the Romios. Whatever challenges he faces, he always emerges victorious with the light that he carries within his heart, with True Faith. He transforms the difficult into the simple, the impasse into direction, and death into resurrection.

At this moment, I cannot but bow before history, and especially before those Christians who to this day uphold our Orthodox Faith and our Romiosyne, both within and beyond the current borders of Greece. They are the ones who, for all of us here, in the quiet and comfort of our civilization—one generously offered to us by the West, along with the decay of spiritual death—carry us high upon their shoulders, and for this, we thank them.

The Orthodox Faith and the Romiosyne spirit continue to be tested in our times. This year marks 100 years since the change of the ecclesiastical calendar, an event that has undoubtedly inflicted an internal wound on Romiosyne. In an era such as that of 1924, just two years after the Asia Minor Catastrophe, the change came to wound the Romiosyne spirit, a change which, as it was said, aimed at the common celebration of Christian feasts with the West. This calendrical change, following such a tragic national humiliation, appeared to be the anticipated opportunity for certain external centers that sought to implement plans of division and further humiliation of the Romiosyne spirit. Ultimately, the proponents of that time spoke of progress—the progress of unity between East and West—which, even to this day, despite the signing of agreements, has not been achieved. This is because Romios cannot spiritually align with the Latin, and the Orthodox Church cannot be identified with the Latins of the West. This could not even be achieved with the Latins when the possibility existed during the so-called Byzantine Empire. Today, from a practical standpoint, it is naturally impossible, especially in our era, as the gap has widened even further, and the differences are now distinct and form an obstacle to basic communication. The only thing that could bring about unity between East and West is either for the Latins to repent or for us to change internally and believe in a Christ who does not exist.

This change of the calendar, with its many promises, ultimately brought Romiosyne face-to-face with a calendrical division, which divides more than it unites, disorients more than it resolves, and adds problems rather than healing them. The arguments such as "we are the same," "we are Orthodox Christians," and "the new calendar is a correction of the old" are logical arguments that may temporarily convince, yet they carry a double contradictory message.

The first message is logical; it conveys information and convinces the ordinary Christian with arguments, namely that the change of the calendar is a scientific issue and not a theological one. The second message concerns unity, which, however, is undermined because a second festal calendar is introduced—the festal calendar of the new calendar. [1] The contradiction lies in the two messages moving in different directions. Science is a strong message and is easily accepted by common reason, but on the other hand, unity is undermined, and the introduction of two different festal calendars, new and old, at the very least causes disorientation. It creates practical problems, generates conflicts, and activates resistance to the extent that it justifies the current state of division between the new and old calendars.

In other words, if there had been one calendar and one festal calendar, there would have been no problem. [2] The problem arose because the message of the change was contradictory. Modern systemic science explains: when a message is contradictory, it means two different messages are moving in opposite directions. This, in itself, generates a problem. People become confused because they desire unity and simplicity. A contradictory message, by its very nature, can create a problem in any human function. In other words, if we were to describe this in medical terms, the change of the calendar and the introduction of a second festal calendar caused a psychosomatic illness in the body of the Church. [3] This psychosomatic illness hurts one part of the body, but the discomfort is such that it causes pain throughout the rest of the Church's body. In other words, it functions like multiple sclerosis, which reduces the function of walking or vision. The damage is localized to one part of the body, but that damage is sufficient for the entire body to suffer.

If the 1924 calendar change had a clear message, it would have spoken of a single calendar connected to a common festal calendar, which would have strengthened unity. Unfortunately, this did not happen. What was initially proposed [4] during the 1924 reform was to change the calendar while keeping the festal calendar aligned with the standards of the change, as was done in Russia and the overwhelming majority of Orthodox Christians who today follow the old festal calendar connected to the new calendar. That is, Christians who follow the old festal calendar in other Orthodox countries know that Christmas falls on January 7 and not on December 25. [5] They know that the Feast of Saint Basil the Great is on January 14 and not on January 1. In other words, they changed the civil calendar but retained the same festal calendar.

In contrast, in Greece, the change of the calendar resulted in the creation of two festal calendars. [6] For example, in the Official Church, the festal calendar is followed according to the civil calendar, while at the same time, the old festal calendar remained in use, which is followed today by Mount Athos, Orthodox countries, and the Old Calendarists both within and outside of Greece. If the original plan had been maintained in Greece, as in most Orthodox countries, today we would not be speaking of new and old or of New Calendarists and Old Calendarists. We would not be considering that the Official Church of Greece is a minority in global numbers because it follows the new festal calendar.

The change of the calendar is understood and accepted by all of us. [7] However, the introduction of a second festal calendar is the issue, and I insist that it is a very serious matter because this change is contradictory and affects Greece socially as well as on many other levels of communication—a topic which in itself would require a special lecture for thorough analysis, though this is not the occasion for it. The Church unites, the Church guides, and even in times of slavery, the Church shaped and defined our history as a nation. This is self-evident, and we all believe it. The change could indeed have been implemented in 1924 without issue if all the Orthodox Patriarchates and Orthodox Churches had jointly decided to celebrate according to a common festal calendar [8] with the introduction of the civil calendar. However, this did not happen. In the 1920 encyclical of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, the need [9] for a common celebration between the Orthodox and the Latins was expressed. This automatically led to disagreements, confrontations, and Romiosyne was once again tested. Today, however, no one speaks of the fact that the purpose of the change was the common celebration with the Latins; instead, emphasis is placed on the astronomical difference of 13 days. The focus is placed on the level of time rather than on the level of unity.

Nothing resembles the era of Saint Constantine the Great, who united all Christians of his time under a common Paschalion, a single calendar, and a single festal calendar. Unity is the characteristic that should have been prioritized above time. Ultimately, the opposite was chosen—that is, unity was sacrificed for the sake of the calendrical difference, with the argument of scientific precision.

Today, we observe discussions about a common celebration of Pascha with the Latins. It is proposed in such a way that the Latins would change their Paschalion. If we assume that all Latins celebrate according to the Orthodox Pascha, will anything change regarding the heresies they express, or will we, in the end, to demonstrate how much love we have, as Orthodox Christians, turn to celebrating Pascha according to the Latins? What remains to be seen is where this discussion will lead. I hope that Romiosyne will not be wounded once again and that there will not be a division into "Old-Paschalians" and "New-Paschalians."

It is striking that there is discussion about having a common temporal celebration of Pascha with the Latins, but there is no mention of a common celebration of Christmas among the Orthodox. While there is sensitivity toward aligning the timing of Pascha with the Latins, priority is given only to that, without addressing the need for us, the Orthodox, to celebrate Christmas together without the chronological division between the new and old festal calendars. Is it, then, easier to achieve temporal festal unity between Orthodox and Latins than among the Orthodox themselves? The spirit of the First Ecumenical Council was the unity among the Orthodox, something that today is not given priority. Is unity being sought, or is it something else under the pretext of unity?

This, perhaps, is ultimately a continuation of a strategy—the strategy of ecumenism. The logic of ecumenism, which claims that all religions possess a part of the truth or that all believe in the same God but in different ways, is contrary to the spirit of the Holy Fathers and of Romiosyne. The calendar change, in the end, added a new problem: ecumenism, which today perceives unity more with the West than among the Orthodox themselves. Today, ecumenism is presented as an ingenious solution, as the unity of all religions, but the Orthodox Faith is vindicated through the struggles of the few and the least, who bear the courageous spirit of Romiosyne. The miracle of survival still operates in their consciences, as they have resisted from 1924 to the present day.

Here, allow me to point out that it is easier to engage in discussions and dialogue with the Latins and with all kinds of heterodox than among ourselves, that is, between representatives of the new and the old festal calendars. This indeed shows that we are all doing something wrong, and here we all bear personal responsibility—not for the 100 years that have passed, but for the ones that will come. My personal thought is that Romiosyne requires communication in Christ [10] between the new and the old in a framework that heals rather than wounds, that provides direction rather than confusion, and that restores order where the Grace of the Holy Spirit operates and not human will—within a common festal calendar, as defined by our Tradition, the old, which today is followed by the vast majority of Orthodox Christians.

Our existence as the Church of the Old Calendar in Greece, within this change of the festal calendar and in the 100-year history, holds a confessional significance. I will repeat the words of His Beatitude, Archbishop of Athens and All Greece, kyr Kallinikos, and the unanimous stance of our Holy Synod, saying the following: We exist to bear witness to the Truth, not to replace the Official Church. Our Apostolic Succession stands as a banner of the self-evident Presence of God throughout these 100 years. There is no need for me to elaborate on our Apostolic Succession, as it would be tiresome, but any reader can investigate the matter further in a lengthy book available for free on the website of our Church. There are also other books that are quite enlightening on this subject.

We do not wish to be, nor are we, a copy or competitors of the Official Church. We have raised the banner of truth to show the direction and the cross-bearing and resurrectional path of Romiosyne as an intangible guidepost. This is what we express and project—nothing more—and at the same time, without seeking titles or positions. [11] Our recent history has proven this, even with the Presence of God. During the persecutions, the state with its police force and the Official Church through its decisions persecuted and imprisoned the Old Calendarists. However, God manifested Himself and offered comfort. In 1925, on Mount Hymettus in Attica, the miracle of the appearance of the Precious Cross in the sky to the persecuted Christians of that time brought consolation and strength. The holy relics of our contemporary Saints, which emit fragrance and work miracles, are signs of God, intangible compasses, foundations, and pillars for the present liturgical life. The persecution from 1950 to 1954 resulted in the confiscation of Old Calendarist churches. Yet, on the other hand, the resolute resistance of clergy and laity led to the creation of a vast number of privately-owned churches and monasteries in Greece, some of which are jewels and points of reference for the local community.

Nevertheless, Romiosyne was once again wounded by those who pretended to be Romios. Just as Ephialtes weakened the defense of the heroes at Thermopylae, in the same way, the image of the Old Calendarists was undermined. They betrayed their cause, tarnished their image, and their struggle and sacrifice were transformed into selfishness and opportunism. This was not accidental. They convinced others with their noise, a noise that resonates like an empty barrel. Weak personalities, smaller than the circumstances required, lost their way, became entangled in the scene of Golgotha, and instead of carrying the cross of sacrifice and confession, they carried the cross of denial. They deceived themselves with the cross of denial, and afterward, it became easier for them to deceive the simple people who followed them.

Ultimately, they brought the Mother Church into turmoil. They divided the Old Calendarist community, but Romiosyne knows how to survive. The light is not overshadowed; it appears, it is revealed, and the true fighters are exalted by God. We need the Church of Christ; the Church does not need us. The Church desires servants of Christ, not saviors with followers lacking awareness. We, with the conscience of a Romios who serves the truth, have hope for salvation. We place our face, our entire life, in the Embrace of the Church, which we serve. We ask for the mercy of God, and may He raise up good workers, comfort the faint-hearted, and enlighten the deniers of the truth. This is our reason for existence: to serve the Church and to walk in accordance with the Will of God, despite our omissions and human weaknesses. We continue with pain in our souls and say, "Thus far!"

"Let us stand aright, let us stand with fear!" Let us take heed and put an end to our internal conflict over the calendar. Romiosyne is in pain, and its role is diminished as long as we persist with two different festal calendars, which from one side create confusion and division, and from the other, obstinacy and extremism. [12] Clearly, human thoughts and proposals will fall into the void. Human reasoning is neither needed nor helpful. Moreover, let us not expect God in the sense of a Deus ex machina. What is required here is the Theanthropic presence. This means that every person needs to move forward with orientation toward the Will of God, and only then will God speak through His Saints. This is the Theanthropic presence.

In other words, repentance and prayer are needed. Since 1924, the way the serious issue of the addition of a second festal calendar—or, alternatively, the introduction of the civil calendar with the second festal calendar—was handled was to present the change as a solution, whereas, on the contrary, the reform created a problem. This, in turn, brought forth additional issues, such as ecumenism, which complicate the equation of the problem but, on the other hand, intensify the need for prayer, repentance, and Theanthropic initiative. Let us all pray in repentance, draw closer to our fellow human beings, share our common concerns, and admit our mistakes. Let us strive to heal the mistakes of others. Only through a Theanthropic approach will we change, for our destiny is to be Romios, and Romiosyne survives and is revealed in Christ.

In conclusion, Romiosyne is being tested once again, and immediate initiatives are required. Initiative means, first of all, repentance and prayer. Following that, we must consider how we can speak in a healing manner, without sacrificing unity for the sake of days and time, as has been the case so far. The Truth must be proclaimed. We must focus on a common festal calendar, as the overwhelming majority of Orthodox Christians have done thus far, adhering to the calendar of our Fathers—the old calendar. We must focus on unity, not on time. We must focus on the liturgical time of unity, not the scientific time of division. God will not ask us whether we upheld scientific precision but whether we lived in unity within liturgical time. The progress of science has never been an obstacle to the unity of the Church. Why, then, do we choose the minority of cleverness and not the majority of love and unity?

This is what we are all called, as Romios, to answer, and if we do not answer it, then it will come to confront us.

Be vigilant! One hundred years have passed. How many more do we need to pass before we experience unity in Christ within the liturgical time that remains for us?

Many years! May Saint Demetrios and the Theotokos protect each of us, our city, Thessaloniki, our nation, and all Romiosyne throughout the world.

Thank you very much for your attention.

 

Notes:

1. By the term second calendar, I refer to what the innovators call the revised, new calendar.

2. When you shift a festal calendar forward by 13 days and aim to abolish the old one—which you have no right to abolish, as it was established by the Fathers and the Ecumenical Council and is part of our Sacred Tradition—you are, in effect, creating a second festal calendar, especially when you make changes such as shifting the Feast of Saint George or occasionally abolishing an entire fasting period (e.g., the Apostles' Fast).

3. I use the term psychosomatic illness because, just as when the soul suffers, the body also becomes ill, so too in the Church, which suffers from innovation, its body—the flock—experiences various societal issues due to the change, without referencing the theological interpretation of the "ailing members of the Mother Church."

4. What was initially proposed and implemented by the Greek state through the legislative decree of January 18, 1923, published on January 23, was the replacement of the Julian Calendar with the Gregorian Calendar. It was decreed that the legislative change would take effect on February 16, 1923, which was renamed March 1, while the Church was to continue following the Julian Calendar for ecclesiastical and national celebrations.

5. Christians who today follow the old festal calendar in other Orthodox countries are aware of the "new" dates not because they have changed the feasts, but because they have come to understand them this way for their personal convenience.

6. See note no. 2.

7. The change of the civil calendar is understood and accepted by everyone. The state has the authority to choose whichever calendar it wishes; however, the Church is bound by Sacred Tradition and does not have the authority to choose which festal calendar it will follow.

8. By the term a common festal calendar, it does not mean that even if everyone agreed to adopt the Gregorian Calendar, the proposal would be valid. Rather, the common festal calendar upon which all would agree should be the one handed down by our Fathers and established by the First Ecumenical Council—the Julian Calendar.

9. This so-called need was artificial and malicious. The purpose of the calendar change was for the Orthodox to celebrate Christmas and other feasts simultaneously with the heretics of the West, so as to create the appearance of a common faith and to obscure the chasm created by their heresies.

10. Communication in Christ refers to human-level communication, not ecclesiastical communion.

11. We did not take the lead in preserving the Patristic Tradition out of ambition to acquire episcopal thrones but to serve Orthodoxy and Sacred Tradition, which the innovators sought to attack.

12. We uphold Sacred Tradition. We have remained faithful to what we received. However, as long as the innovators persist in their "second calendar," they create ambiguity and division, even to the point of heresy, while their persecutions and undermining have driven those who have faithfully adhered to the Patristic ways into obstinacy and extremes.

Greek source: https://www.ecclesiagoc.gr/index.php/%CE%B5%CE%BD%CE%B7%CE%BC%CE%B5%CF%81%CF%89%CF%83%CE%B7/%CE%BD%CE%AD%CE%B1/2303-omilia-thessalonikis-grigoriou-sinodiki-ekdilosi-2024