by Nikolaos Mannis
During the five-year period
1947–1952, an unofficial dialogue on the calendar issue was conducted in print,
between Metropolitan Dorotheos Kottaras of Larissa (later Archbishop of Athens,
+1957), [1] as a representative of the official Church, and the Old Calendarist
Hierarchs, former Metropolitan of Florina, Saint Chrysostomos Kavourides
(+1955), [2] and Bishop Polykarpos Liosis of Diavleia (+1996, later
Metropolitan of Sisanion and Siatista). [3]
The beginning was initiated with
the publication of an article by Dorotheos of Larissa titled “The
Canonical-Legal Status of the Greek Old Calendarist Issue” in a reputable
scientific journal of the time. [4] In this article, the author attempts to
demonstrate that the calendar is an astronomical and not a dogmatic matter,
that the depositions of Old Calendarist clergy are valid and that if they
persist in celebrating services, they are subject to criminal prosecution for
“usurpation of authority,” that the Old Calendarists are neither heretics nor
schismatics and therefore fall under the jurisdiction of the official Church to
which they are obliged to be obedient, that they are not entitled to constitute
a separate religious community so that there may not be two Churches in the
same country, and finally, that in 1924 the Gregorian calendar was not adopted,
but simply 13 days were added to restore the date of the vernal equinox.
An immediate response to
Dorotheos of Larissa was composed by the Leader of the Old Calendarists, Saint
Chrysostomos, formerly of Florina, also of high theological education, [5] with
his work titled Refutation of the Calendar Treatise of His Eminence
Metropolitan Dorotheos Kottaras Published in the Monthly Journal “Archive of
Canon and Ecclesiastical Law.” [6]
Responding, Chrysostomos of
Florina first points out that the calendar would indeed be an astronomical and
not a dogmatic issue only if it were examined from an astronomical and not from
an ecclesiastical perspective. The Church, however, has many times in the past
rejected the change of the calendar precisely because it examined the issue
from an ecclesiastical point of view and deemed that it would serve purposes
foreign to Orthodoxy, such as the disruption of ecclesiastical unity,
proselytism on the part of the Papists, confusion in the Typikon, and
the uniformity of feasts and fasts. He then proves that the deposition of an
Old Calendarist clergyman has no canonical basis, but even if it is
hypothetically assumed to have some validity, it is nevertheless not final,
because such a decision must pass through all levels of legal recourse, being
subject to appeal before a Great Local or even Ecumenical Council, due to the
nature of the matter, which does not concern a personal or moral transgression
but an ecclesiastical disagreement. At the same time, he demonstrates why the
refusal of the Old Calendarist clergy to accept their “deposition” does not
constitute “usurpation of authority,” while noting that those truly deserving
of deposition are those who “proceed with light conscience to reforms of
ecclesiastical institutions of pan-Orthodox authority and significance without
a pan-Orthodox Council, giving no regard to the division of the Churches and
the scandalizing of Orthodox Christians.” [7] Continuing, he thanks Dorotheos
of Larissa for confirming that the Old Calendarists are neither heretics nor
schismatics, but explains that the latter are not obliged to obey the decisions
of the ruling [i.e., official] Hierarchy, so as not to become co-responsible
with it for the arbitrary and uncanonical calendar innovation. He also agrees
with him on the issue of the indelibility of the Priesthood and defends the
validity of the Mysteries performed by the Old Calendarists. He does not fail
to address the matter of religious freedom of conscience, denouncing the
prolonged persecutions of the Old Calendarists, and refuting the argument
concerning two Churches in the same country, he proceeds to a crystal-clear
declaration of ecclesiological self-consciousness, writing that “until the
valid and canonical resolution of the calendar issue, which is indeed a
disputed one, as I hasten to say before the future pan-Orthodox Council, a
Second Church is not being created, but a minority of the Church dissenting
from the majority of the Hierarchy and continuing the historical Greek Church,
which was ravaged by the unrestrained innovation of the calendar.” [8] Finally,
referring to the argument that the Hierarchy did not adopt the Gregorian
calendar, but corrected the Julian calendar, he notes that there is an
admission from official lips to the contrary (he refers to a statement of
Patriarch Gregory VII of Constantinople). In closing, he assures Dorotheos of
Larissa of his brotherly sentiments of love and esteem toward him, offering a
lesson in virtue and a model of conduct for every participant in dialogue.
The development of this informal
dialogue continued the following year (1948), through the columns of the
Athenian newspapers Empros and Kathimerini.
The newspaper Empros, [9]
in an article titled “The Church Issues an Ultimatum,” featured
interviews with Hierarchs on the Calendar Issue, among whom were Dorotheos of
Larissa and Saint Chrysostomos of Florina. The former repeated once again that
the Church of Greece did not adopt the Gregorian calendar, but corrected the
Julian one; that the calendar is not a dogmatic issue; that the Old
Calendarists are neither heretics nor schismatics (and for that reason are
obliged to obey the decisions of the Hierarchy); and that Old Calendarism is
“Orthodox Religion itself” (!), and therefore is not constitutionally protected
as a separate religion, and thus the State must suppress the rebellion of the
insubordinate Old Calendarists!
Saint Chrysostomos, on the other
hand, emphasized that the introduction of the new calendar may indeed be a
matter of indifference regarding time for the State and Society, but for the
Church it is a matter of agreement and unity among the Orthodox Local Churches
in Divine Worship. For this reason, and also in order to resist Papal
proselytism, the Orthodox Church rejected the new calendar for centuries.
Additionally, he points out that the division of Orthodox unity caused by the
calendar innovation stands in opposition to the 9th article of the Symbol of
Faith. To support this, he also appeals to the opinion of expert Professors
(both in Law and Theology, among whom was also Archbishop Chrysostomos
Papadopoulos, who a few years later introduced the new calendar after having
previously opposed it), who referred to the unity of the Church. Finally, he
rejects the accusation that the then approximately one million Old Calendarists
are rebels, asserting rather that they are the very pillars of Orthodoxy.
A few days later, Saint
Chrysostomos of Florina composed a text which was signed by the Synod of the
Genuine Orthodox (Old Calendarist) Church, then consisting of himself as
President, Christophoros Chatzis of Megara (+1973, later Metropolitan of
Dryinoupolis, Pogoniani and Konitsa), and Polykarpos of Diavleia, under the
title “Comments on the Interviews of His Beatitude the Archbishop of Athens
and of the Eminent Metropolitans of Ioannina and Larissa Regarding Old
Calendarism,” which was published in the newspaper Kathimerini. [10]
In this text, initially (and prompted by the admission of the New Calendarist
Hierarchs that the new calendar was introduced under pressure from the then
Government), the Old Calendarist Hierarchs observe that the Hierarchy is not
absolved of its responsibilities, since it is obliged to be the guardian and
custodian of the traditions and not to yield to any governmental pressure, so
as not to cause scandal to the flock of Orthodoxy by such a stance. [11] They
go on to reject the seriousness of the familiar argument that since the
calendar is not a Dogma, its change is permissible—even in a manner that causes
disorder in the Church. Proceeding, they praise the Metropolitans for the
truthfulness of their confession that the Old Calendarists are neither heretics
nor schismatics, but Orthodox, who broke communion with the Innovators “so that
they too might not share in the responsibility before the whole Church for this
innovation”; therefore, they are not the ones who should be labeled as rebels… The
text concludes with observations and a heartfelt appeal for the restoration of
the Julian calendar in the Church of Greece for ecclesiastical as well as
national reasons. Unfortunately, this voice once again went unheard, while two
years later terrible persecutions against the Old Calendarists began, carried
out by the Church and the then Government of the …Liberals.
Dorotheos of Larissa returned to
the issue after three years with his article “Observations on the Opinion of
the Professors Regarding the Old Calendarist Issue.” [12] The occasion was
prompted by the Opinion published by the Professors of Law Georgios Rammos,
Christos Sgouritsas, and Konstantinos Tsatsos, commissioned by the official
Church, in which it was acknowledged that the Church of Greece adopted the
Gregorian calendar, and also expressed the position that deposition removes the
Priesthood, and therefore Old Calendarist clergy, in order to be received into
the official Church, must be re-ordained. Dorotheos of Larissa once again
reiterated the view that the Church of Greece did not adopt the Gregorian
calendar, since it did not alter Pascha, but simply corrected the Julian
calendar by eliminating thirteen days. Regarding the issue of re-ordination
after deposition, he condemns the untheological opinion of the above-mentioned
legal experts and demonstrates, with arguments based on the Holy Canons as well
as the practice of the Church, the indelibility of the Priesthood and,
consequently, the unlawfulness of re-ordination. [13]
On the occasion of the new text
by Dorotheos of Larissa, the Hierarchs Saint Chrysostomos of Florina and
Polykarpos of Diavleia composed special responses. Saint Chrysostomos, who at
that time was in exile due to his struggle on behalf of the Old Calendar,
authored and sent a reply entitled “Response to a Dissertation on the
Ecclesiastical Calendar by His Eminence Metropolitan Dorotheos of Larissa,”
which was published simultaneously in Athens and Larissa. [14] In this work,
Saint Chrysostomos, on the one hand, refutes once again the claim of an alleged
difference between the Gregorian and the so-called “Revised Julian” calendars;
[15] on the other hand, he praises Dorotheos of Larissa for his scholarly
qualifications and declares himself in full agreement with his views regarding
the indelibility of the Priesthood and the canonicity of the Old Calendarist
clergy.
Regarding the first point, Saint
Chrysostomos of Florina observes that the word “correction” does not correspond
to reality, since both calendars are astronomically flawed; therefore, with the
addition of thirteen days, there was no “correction” but rather assimilation to
the Gregorian calendar, given that its dates now completely coincide with those
of the so-called “Revised Julian” calendar! Additionally, the use of two
calendars (the Gregorian for fixed feasts, and the Julian for movable feasts
dependent on the Paschalion) creates serious problems in the Typikon.
This will eventually force the Church of Greece either to adapt the Paschalion
to the Gregorian calendar (thus violating the Holy Canons concerning the
determination of Pascha) or to return to the Julian calendar. He also notes
that the so-called “Pan-Orthodox Congress” of 1923 even foresaw a change of the
Paschalion, clearly indicating that the aim of the innovation was not
supposedly correction, but rather the rapprochement of the Orthodox with the
heterodox of the West, as confessed by its very initiator (and President of the
so-called “Pan-Orthodox” Congress of 1923), the infamous Meletios Metaxakis.
Moreover, Saint Chrysostomos of Florina continues, if one also takes into
account the opinions of many scholars that the Julian calendar ultimately has
fewer errors than the Gregorian, then perhaps the word “correction” should be
replaced with the word “worsening” [16]… Regarding the second part, Saint
Chrysostomos of Florina warmly praises Dorotheos of Larissa, writing among
other things the following: “We owe much gratitude to the Most Reverend author,
who, through what he very rightly and convincingly developed in the second part
of his dissertation, has rendered full justice to the supposedly deposed Old
Calendarist clergy, who maintain that their ordinations and sacramental acts
retain their full validity; for they proceed, as His Eminence rightly writes,
from the Mystery of the Priesthood, which they fully bear.” [17] It is worth
noting that the above treatise was composed by Saint Chrysostomos on December
10, 1951, in the place of his exile, the Monastery of Ypsilos in Mytilene, to
which he had been sent by the persecutory rage of the official Church under
Archbishop of Athens Spyridon Vlachos.
During the same period,
Polykarpos of Diavleia also composed a response titled “Remarks on the First
Observation Made by His Eminence Metropolitan Dorotheos of Larissa on the
Opinion of Professors G. Rammos, Ch. Sgouritsas, and K. Tsatsos Regarding the
Old Calendarist Issue.” [18] In it, he proceeds with a more thorough
refutation of the views of Dorotheos of Larissa, although he clarifies that “we
do not seek to call into question the scholarly credibility of His Eminence the
Holy Metropolitan of Larissa, whom we sincerely esteem for both his outstanding
academic training and his personal simplicity and kindness.” [19] Beginning his
treatise, Polykarpos of Diavleia emphasizes that the Orthodox Church, through
the Pan-Orthodox Councils of the 16th century, condemned not only the Paschalion
devised according to the Gregorian calendar, but also the Gregorian calendar
itself—how much more so when it was used as a tool of proselytism by the Papal
Church. Concerning the claim that the Gregorian calendar is different from the
“Revised Julian,” he notes on the one hand that the two calendars are
identical, and on the other, he cites excerpts from official documents that
explicitly refer to the unification of the civil (i.e., Gregorian) and
ecclesiastical calendars. Thus, he concludes that “your assertion that the
Church of Greece did not introduce the Gregorian calendar into its sacred
worship, but simply corrected the Julian calendar in use by adding thirteen
days, is comparable to the reasoning of those who claim that the name Yannis or
Giannakis is different from Ioannis.” [20] He goes on to cite a multitude of
ecclesiastical decisions from 1583 to 1923 by which the Orthodox Church
rejected the calendar reform for numerous reasons. Concluding, he points out
that although the Church of Greece may not have altered the celebration of
Pascha, it nevertheless violated the Paschal Canon, creating “irregularities in
its calendar, especially with regard to feasts and fasts connected to the Paschalion,
insofar as the festal calendar is based on one rule, and the Paschalion
on another.” [21]
Both Old Calendarist Hierarchs
conclude their texts with prayers and an exhortation to repentance. Shortly
afterward, Saint Chrysostomos of Florina returned from exile and fell asleep in
the Lord, struggling alone upon the “adamantine ramparts” of Orthodoxy;
Polykarpos of Diavleia joined (for reasons not pertinent here and without
abandoning his convictions) the official Church—without even being re-ordained—while
Dorotheos of Larissa became the next Archbishop of Athens, succeeding his
persecutor Spyridon Vlachos and inaugurating a new period of greater moderation
toward Old Calendarism, which, however, proved to be short-lived due to his
sudden death just one year after assuming office.
NOTES
[1] For information on his person, see Konstantinos
Mourtzanos (now Archimandrite Ignatios), Dorotheos Kottaras. From Larissa,
Archbishop of Athens:
http://ikee.lib.auth.gr/record/134329/files/GRI-2014-12354.pdf.
[2] For information on his person, see Elias
Angelopoulos–Dionysios Batistatos, Former Metropolitan of Florina
Chrysostomos Kavourides—Struggler for Orthodoxy and the Nation, Athens,
1981; Stavros Karamitsos, The Contemporary Confessor of Orthodoxy,
Athens, 1990; Nikolaos Mannis, The Last Greek Metropolitan of Northern
Macedonia: https://poimin.gr/o-telefteos-ellinas-mitropolitis-tis-vorias-makedonias
[3] For information on his person, see Dionysios N. M.
(Anatolikiotis), The Hierarch of Love, Piraeus, 2002.
[4] Archive of Ecclesiastical and Canon Law, Year II
[1947].
[5] Dorotheos was a graduate of the Theological School of
Athens, while Chrysostomos was a graduate of the Theological School of Halki.
[6] Athens, December 1947.
[7] Ibid., p. 15.
[8] Ibid., pp. 25–26.
[9] 19-6-1948.
[10] 27-6-1948.
[11] How timely an observation!
[12] Archive of Ecclesiastical and Canon Law, Year VI
[1951].
[13] By presenting these views, Dorotheos of Larissa
vindicated the Synod of the Old Calendarists, which in August 1948 issued the
document “Complaint Against Metropolitan Panteleimon Fostinis of Chios for
the Re-ordination of Priests.”
[14] The title of the edition published in Larissa is
slightly modified as follows: “Response to the Dissertation of His Eminence
Metropolitan Dorotheos Kottaras of Larissa on the Old Calendarist Issue.”
[15] After all, this is exactly what the proposer of the
Gregorian calendar claimed it to be: the Julian calendar “corrected”!
[16] For more evidence supporting the position of Saint
Chrysostomos of Florina, see Nikolaos Mannis, Revised Julian or Flawed
Gregorian?
http://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2012/12/blog-post_9496.html
[17] Athens ed., p. 13; Larissa ed., p. 12.
[18] Volos, 1952.
[19] Ibid., p. 4. Like Saint Chrysostomos of Florina,
Polykarpos of Diavleia offers lessons in virtue and courtesy, precious for
their successors and a reproach to their persecutors.
[20] Ibid., p. 8.
[21] Ibid., p. 18.
Greek source:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.