Elder Theodosius of Karoulia on the Calendar Reform and Standing Firm in the True Faith

The Word of Elder Theodosios of Karoulia on the Calendar Reform and on Standing Firm in the True Faith

Hieroschemamonk Theodosios of Karoulia (†1937)

 

"One must not close their eyes to the truth of the strictness of the rules, for they are the expression of the holy will of God."

 

"Whoever defends the rules and decrees of the Holy Fathers of the Seven Ecumenical Councils defends a dogma. If anyone must suffer for the truth, this will be counted to them as martyrdom by the Lord God. Let us strictly preserve the commandments of the Holy Fathers, helping one another to safeguard our Orthodox faith and, with God's help, repel the godless innovations of the Living Church adherents and other schismatic apostates.

"Let no one lead us away from the paths of the Lord! Leave those who have separated from the Church, daring to violate the decree of the Holy Great Council held in Nicaea regarding the Holy Feast of Pascha and the calendar. 'Such persons,' the Holy Council declares, 'are henceforth condemned to be estranged from the Church. And not only does the Council depose such persons from priestly service, but also all those who dare to have communion with them.'"

The Third Homily of St. John Chrysostom, pointing to the important and unalterable significance of the decree on Pascha by the Holy Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council, associated with the Old Style, equally condemns both the ancient violators of this decree and the modern new-calendarists. For, according to the ancient and infallible interpretation of this decree, preserved in the letter of the Equal-to-the-Apostles Emperor Constantine, it is clearly stated: "Rejecting their [the Jews'] customs, it is far better to continue in that true order which we have observed from the very time of Christ's Passion and until now for future ages as well."

We are living in an extraordinary time when the truly faithful constitute a minority, as in the days of the Iconoclasts and Monothelites. At the same time, the new-calendar innovation is being implemented among the Orthodox with haste and violence.

However, it is not by the current, abnormal ecclesiastical state that one should determine who is right, who is in the Church, and who is outside of it. Rather, the present ecclesiastical state, troubled by the innovation of the new calendar, must be examined in the light of the Divine laws, which we, the Orthodox, preserve after the Holy Scriptures in Holy Tradition—both written in the conciliar canons and unwritten in ecclesiastical practice—having equal authority between them. [1]

We must now determine Catholic truth not by the universal ecclesial consciousness, which is currently lacking, but by the universal ecclesial Tradition, consistent with the ancient Church, when there was no division regarding the modern issue of the Church calendar, but rather complete unanimity among all, affirmed repeatedly by Local Councils and regional Synods.

Guided primarily by this principle as the criterion of Catholic ecclesial truth, St. Maximus the Confessor rejected the Monothelite heresy as an innovation and resolutely refused to commune with the Monothelite patriarch, even if the entire universe were to commune with him [2]. Likewise, many confessors and martyrs who suffered for the holy icons immediately opposed iconoclasm as soon as it was proclaimed, without waiting for a Council.

Holy Tradition is a simple, clear, and accessible criterion of Catholic ecclesial truth, even for simple believers. According to the Holy Martyr Cyprian of Carthage, "For pious and simple souls, it is easy to avoid error and find the truth, for as soon as they turn to the source of Divine Tradition, error disappears." Or, in the words of St. John Chrysostom, "There is Tradition; seek nothing more."

Holy Tradition, like Holy Scripture, must be believed and interpreted according to Tradition itself—according to the understanding of the Church that preceded us, not according to one's own reasoning or the current abnormal ecclesiastical state. By Tradition, we must determine who is now a true son of the Church and who is a schismatic. In this sense, St. Maximus the Confessor said, "Christ called the Catholic Church the right and salvific confession of faith."

"The preservation of Holy Tradition," says Patriarch Joachim III, "is a sign of Orthodoxy." And this, above all, is the most reliable criterion in examining the current ecclesiastical turmoil and in determining who is Orthodox and who is a schismatic.

The Fathers of the Council under Patriarch Jeremias considered the old calendar, together with the Paschalion, not only to be based on ecclesiastical custom but also sanctioned by the Seven Ecumenical Councils, and those adhering to the new calendar to be opponents of the decrees of all the Councils, and therefore subject to the conciliar anathemas. In other words, the Fathers of the Council regarded the calendar issue as canonical.

The Fathers of the Council were correct in referring in their decision to all the Ecumenical Councils, just as the defenders of the veneration of holy icons were correct when they declared at the Seventh Ecumenical Council that they "follow the God-inspired teaching of the Holy Fathers and the Tradition of the Catholic Church." To the objection of the Iconoclasts that the Ecumenical Councils had not legislated anything about icons, they replied that the Ecumenical Councils, which were held mostly in holy churches adorned with holy icons, by their silent preservation of this custom from ancient times no less than by any canon established the veneration of icons. In this sense, the [Local] Council under Patriarch Jeremias II, in confirming the canonical binding force of its decision on the Church calendar, likewise referred—similar to the Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council—to custom, the ecclesiastical practice known and observed by all the Ecumenical Councils, as to "the teaching of the Holy Fathers and the Tradition of the Catholic Church."

Therefore, just as before the Seventh Ecumenical Council, which legislated the veneration of icons and anathematized Iconoclasm, the anathemas lay upon the iconoclasts as despisers of ecclesiastical custom—the unwritten ecclesiastical Tradition concerning holy icons—so too does the same anathema lie upon the despisers of another custom, namely the unwritten Tradition concerning the Church calendar.

The Council under Patriarch Jeremias II rightly confirmed the anathema upon both the old and new calendar innovators, an anathema already upon them by the authority of the unwritten Tradition known and preserved by all the Ecumenical Councils. Moreover, the 300-year antiquity of the Council under Patriarch Jeremias not only does not diminish its authority but, on the contrary, increases it, as is the case with all things sanctified by ecclesiastical antiquity [3].

The issue of the Church calendar was regarded as canonical not only by the Council under Patriarch Jeremias but also by the succeeding Ecumenical Patriarchs and other primates of the Churches with their Synods. Over the subsequent three centuries, a number of Ecumenical Patriarchs spoke decisively against the Gregorian calendar, assessing it in the spirit of the conciliar decree of Patriarch Jeremias and exhorting the Orthodox to avoid it as a betrayal of Orthodoxy and a departure from Patristic traditions.

Similar to the sigillion of Patriarch Jeremias, but with even greater prohibitions, another sigillion was issued in 1756—the Encyclical Letter of Patriarch Cyril V of Constantinople—in which the innovators are anathematized by God with the terrifying eternal curses of all the Patriarchs and Councils. In another similar Encyclical Letter of the one Catholic and Apostolic Church, addressed to all Orthodox Christians, Patriarchs Anthimus, Hierotheos, Methodius, and Cyril testified: "Neither Patriarchs nor Councils among us have ever been able to introduce anything new... Therefore, all innovators... have voluntarily clothed themselves in a curse as in a garment" (Ps. 108:18).

In accordance with the actions of the Ecumenical Patriarchs regarding the new style, the Patriarchs of Palestine, Syria, Egypt, and the Archbishops of Cyprus, safeguarding their flocks, issued letters and decrees explaining the true significance of the Gregorian calendar, highlighting its connection, as noted in the conciliar decree under Patriarch Jeremias, with a series of innovative fabrications of papalism.

In recent times, in the years 1902–1904, the primates of all the Orthodox Autocephalous Churches officially expressed their views on the question of reforming the Church calendar. The outcome of their assessment leaned toward rejecting the calendar reform for reasons of faith and out of fear of ecclesiastical turmoil.

Similarly, the Russian Orthodox Church, at the Council of 1917–1918, decided, for ecclesiastical and canonical reasons, to retain the old style.

In 1923, it reaffirmed the Council's decision on the calendar and refused to adopt the Gregorian calendar into ecclesiastical practice, despite pressure from the Bolshevik godless authorities.

Finally, four Councils of Orthodox hierarchs abroad unanimously and concordantly rejected the new style [4], deeming it entirely inadmissible based on the canons and ecclesiastical practice, as well as due to the anathemas placed upon it by all the Eastern Patriarchs.

Such is the canonical and universal truth regarding the Church calendar.

After this, let us say, in the words of Blessed Augustine regarding the Pelagian heresy: "Is it truly necessary to convene a Council to refute such an obvious destruction? As though no heresy has ever been condemned without the convocation of a Council, whereas, on the contrary, there are very few heresies for which such a necessity arose, and many, indeed the greater number, were justly refuted in the very places where they appeared, and from there the warning was communicated to all other churches for their protection."

What the blessed father said about the Pelagian heresy, condemned only at the Local Council of Carthage yet rejected by the entire Orthodox Church, is also applicable to the new style, which has been condemned not at one but at many Councils-Synods, not rejected but accepted by all Orthodox Churches after prior notification about it.

The ancient universal ecclesiastical practice regarding the Church calendar is equivalent to the canons. Similarly, the modern Latin heresy was not condemned at any Ecumenical Council, as it arose after them, except by the same Local Councils of Constantinople. However, by virtue of the established universal ecclesiastical practice, all Orthodox regard the Latins as heretics. In the same way, by the force of such ecclesiastical practice, we must regard our new-calendarists as schismatics.

In conclusion, let us summarize all such judgments concerning the reckoning of time and derive a consistent conclusion from them:

1. The question of the Church calendar is a matter of faith and canon law.

2. The old Julian calendar (by origin), ecclesiastical (by usage), is canonically obligatory, especially in connection with the Paschalion and the liturgical Typikon.

3. The new Gregorian calendar, which necessarily leads to the violation of the Paschalion and the liturgical Typikon, is, on the contrary, canonically prohibited both by the general canonical rules requiring adherence, under threat of anathema for violating the unwritten ecclesiastical Tradition and practice [5], and specifically by the conciliar decree under Patriarch Jeremias, accepted by universal ecclesial consciousness and repeatedly affirmed at Local Councils and by private defenders of Orthodoxy.

The consistent conclusion from this summary:

4. The new-calendarists, by their arbitrary and lawless innovation, which, as proven, violates both the written and unwritten Tradition, have voluntarily clothed themselves in a curse as in a garment (Ps. 108:18), according to the expression of the Encyclical Letter of 1848, signed by four Patriarchs and numerous Fathers of the Council.

5. With such persons, by the force of ecclesiastical rules prohibiting prayerful communion with the excommunicated, ecclesiastical communion is shameful and incurs the same punishment as them [6]. Separation from them, however, is commendable even before any formal judgment is passed upon them [7].

Guided by these convictions and striving to remain faithful to Tradition, the truly faithful, by the mercy of God, are not troubled in conscience, no matter how prematurely those who are not of one mind with them may judge them.

Having behind them such testimony from the Holy Fathers of the invisible, triumphant Church, they are also not deprived of words of encouragement from the visible, militant Church, from contemporary pastors and zealous defenders of the Church of their homeland, in the hope that sooner or later the voice of ecclesiastical truth will prevail. Amen.

Holy Mount Athos, 1934.

 

NOTES:

[1] Canon 91 of St. Basil the Great, p. 477.

[2] Menaion, January 21.

[3] Canon 91 of St. Basil the Great, p. 477.

[4] Four overseas Councils in 1923, 1924, 1926, and 1931.

[5] Acts of the Sixth Ecumenical Council.

[6] Apostolic Canon 10; Canon 2 of the Council of Antioch; Canon 33 of the Council of Laodicea.

[7] Canon 1 of the Council of Antioch; Canon 15 of the First-Second Council.

 

Russian source: https://alexgapn.livejournal.com/4775.html