Metropolitan Klemes of Larissa and Platamon | June 26, 2023
As is well known, the holy Ecumenical and Local Councils of our Orthodox Church were always Councils of Tradition; for this reason, they had the blessing of God and the seal of the Holy Spirit. This constituted the safeguard against deviation and falling into the manifold delusion of apostasy.
However, at the beginning of the 20th century, a dreadful storm struck the divine vessel of the Holy Church and continues to afflict it grievously. This refers to the anti-ecclesiastical heresy of Ecumenism, which, in its evident anti-traditional character, directly opposes the Uniqueness and the Soteriological Exclusivity of the True Christian Church of God on earth, namely, the Orthodox Church, this true God-founded “laboratory of holiness” for mankind.
The new innovators and heretical Ecumenists strike at the holy Tradition through their attack against the Ecclesiastical Calendar and Paschalion, as the starting point of their broader reformist and fundamentally anti-ecclesiastical plan for a secularization and a “modernization,” so that the “transformed” church may be adapted to the syncretistic pan-religion and be handed over without resistance to the lawless dominion of the Antichrist.
The imposition of Ecumenism upon the Orthodox Church began with the stirring up of the issue of changing the Patristic Ecclesiastical Calendar and Paschalion. The Ecumenists invoked as a pretext that it was merely a correction of an astronomical error, but their real aim was the achievement of a common celebration with the heterodox. This first significant step would open the way for a gradual ecumenistic erosion—something that has been taking place for a century now.
The Patristic, or Julian, or Old Calendar was always used by the Orthodox Church, not because it was the best or most astronomically and scientifically accurate. This calendar was found by the Church in use within the Roman State, and on its basis, she regulated her Paschalion and her Liturgical Calendar. Thus, it became intertwined with her liturgical life, “interwoven and sanctified,” [2] and became part of her Tradition, henceforth being called Ecclesiastical. [2]
When in the 16th century the heretical Papists attempted to persuade the Orthodox to accept their newly-invented Gregorian or Papal Calendar and Paschalion, the Primates of the Orthodox Patriarchates repudiated and synodally condemned the Western Calendar three times in great Pan-Orthodox Councils: in 1583, in 1587, and in 1593. [3]
The Holy Fathers, distinguished by wisdom and breadth of spirit, were not opposed to scientific correctness, but in the matter of the Calendar they set as a principle the agreement and unity of the Church, and not the precision of the equinox. [4] For this reason, already from the 6th century, when the unified calendar/paschalion system for the ecclesiastical Feasts was established once and for all, there was no divergence in the time of celebrating the same Feast in the liturgical and spiritual life of the Church. [5] All the Local Churches fasted and celebrated in common, as a means of manifesting the uniqueness, agreement, and unity in the Faith, in the Mysteries, and in the sanctifying life of Grace in Christ.
The pursuit of a scientifically precise calendar for use in the Church is a great delusion, both because it renders the Church's festal cycle dependent on each era’s scientific discoveries and developments, and also because—and this is the most important point—it would become impossible to fulfill the Canonical requirements of the Church (see Holy Canons: Apostolic Canon VII, as well as the Definition of the First Ecumenical Council confirmed by Canon I of the Council of Antioch), namely that the Christian Pascha must never coincide with the Jewish, nor of course precede it, but must always follow it.
As has rightly been observed, the prohibition of celebrating Pascha together with the Jews by the First Ecumenical Council also carries the meaning of a prohibition against celebrating together with the heterodox. [6] Common celebration presupposes identity and unity of Faith; therefore, the rejection of a common calendar with the heterodox is not due to untimely and irrational obstinacy in refusing scientific accuracy and Christian love, but purely to reasons of Orthodox ecclesiological self-awareness, which emphasize the absolute impossibility of common celebration as long as there exists an essential difference in Faith.
The heresy of Ecumenism, which began to be imposed gradually and methodically within the realm of Orthodoxy, had as a significant and decisive milestone in its establishment the infamous so-called Pan-Orthodox Congress of Constantinople in 1923, the sorrowful centenary of which we count in the present year. This Congress of deplorable memory was not “unto edification,” but “unto demolition”! It shook the holy edifice of the Church and struck a mighty blow against the holy and venerable Traditions of our holy Faith, in order to facilitate the slippery path of rapprochement with the heterodox and common celebration with them—not for the sake of the “unity of the Faith” in Truth, [7] but of falsehood in delusion.
B. The Fateful Figure of Meletios Metaxakis
In order for innovations to be carried out in the Church and for tumult and division to be provoked, the “suitable” persons are needed—those who possess the audacity and impiety to accomplish a destructive work. One such fateful figure proved to be Meletios Metaxakis, a native of Crete—an unsettled, impetuous, and daring spirit, with undeniably great and impressive abilities. In his youth, he joined the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, from there he went to Damascus, and then again to Jerusalem, where he rose to the position of Chief Secretary before being expelled from there as well. Afterwards, he was elected Metropolitan of Kition in Cyprus (1910), and from there, in 1918, he was called to assume the position of Metropolitan of Athens, due to political changes.
As Archbishop of Athens, Meletios Metaxakis raised in 1919 the issue of changing the Ecclesiastical Calendar, at the request of the State, in order for Church and State to coincide calendrically on the basis of the European, that is, the Gregorian Papal Calendar, invoking reasons purely of practical and social convenience, [8] without any traditional, theological, liturgical, canonical, or pastoral reference or justification whatsoever.
The Innovators–Reformers, of the type of Meletios Metaxakis and his followers, both old and contemporary, approaching the calendar issue in a worldly, superficial, and thus erroneous manner, persist in asserting that the change of the Ecclesiastical Calendar “does not conflict with dogmatic or canonical reasons.” Yet the very facts themselves refute them miserably!
In January of 1920, the heretical Encyclical of the Patriarchate of Constantinople “To the Churches of Christ Everywhere” was published—this Constitutional Charter of Ecumenism—which foresaw, among other things, the adoption of a “common calendar for the simultaneous celebration of the great Christian feasts by all the Churches.” [9] This confession is so clear as to admit of no misinterpretation. The claims concerning “astronomical accuracy,” about the “necessary correction of an error,” etc., as well as those regarding a supposedly entirely innocent and harmless calendar change, are sorrowful inventions of foolish deception.
At the end of 1920, Meletios Metaxakis was forced to resign due to a new change in the political regime and went to America, where he engaged in significant ecumenistic activity with the Anglicans. With them in particular he always maintained the warmest relations—not only in America, but also in England and in Greece [10]—and in the year 1922 he proceeded to recognize the validity of their ordinations. At the beginning of 1922, he was elected Patriarch of Constantinople, and from the beginning of 1923 he began preparing the adoption, promotion, and implementation of the Innovations, which proved to be extremely detrimental to the Orthodox Church, the first of which was the change of the Ecclesiastical Calendar.
Meletios’ zeal in promoting Innovations is explained not only by his reformist and anti-traditional character, but also due to his Masonic affiliation, which is indisputable. [11] Since he was a member of the antichristian Freemasonry from 1909—a dark philosophical-religious organization entirely incompatible with the Christian identity, which Meletios studied passionately and made his way of life—his path and activity as a destroyer of Orthodoxy is entirely explicable.
Having coveted the glory of a reformer and a subverter of the Order and Tradition of the Orthodox Church, for the sake of satisfying worldly, political, social, and heresy-supporting aims, Metaxakis convened the so-called “Pan-Orthodox Congress” in Constantinople from May 10 to June 8, 1923.
The moment and the circumstances were entirely unsuitable for such an undertaking. It had been preceded by the collapse of the Asia Minor front in the previous year, 1922, with its tragic consequences of the uprooting of the Greek population from its ancestral homes; political division prevailed in Greece, with ecclesiastical repercussions; the Patriarchs of the East were estranged from one another due to internal disputes; the Church in Russia was being persecuted by the atheists; the Church of Bulgaria was cut off from communion with the rest of the Orthodox due to ethnophyletism, etc. Therefore, the conditions were not favorable, but rather entirely discouraging. [12]
C. The “Pan-Orthodox Congress” of 1923 and Its Bitter Fruits
Meletios, by his letter of February 3, 1923, invited representatives of the Local Churches for a thorough study of the calendar issue and other matters of pan-Orthodox interest, which he even considered urgent. Constantinople and Athens had already set the Calendar Innovation in motion, and Meletios, in order to promote it, invoked practical reasons of social convenience, “but also for the facilitation… of pan-Christian unity, that all who call upon the name of the Lord may celebrate on the same day His Nativity and His Resurrection.” Here again appears the clear and undisguised real ecumenistic aim and orientation! Mention is also made of the supposed facilitation, through the calendar reform, of emigrants from Orthodox countries to Europe and America, so that their “material interests” may supposedly not suffer harm! [13]
However, the Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem did not participate in the “Congress,” but only the Churches of Constantinople, Serbia, Romania, Greece, and Cyprus, and indeed the last two not with their own representatives, but with “appointed” representation. Two hierarchs of the Church of Russia happened simply to be in Constantinople—one residing among the émigrés in Serbia and one from America—and were invited “on the Patriarchate’s own initiative” by the Ecumenical Patriarchate, without, of course, being true representatives of the persecuted Russian Church. In total, ten individuals participated [14] under the presidency of Meletios: six hierarchs (three from the jurisdiction of Constantinople, of whom two are also said to have been Masons), one Archimandrite (also a Mason), and three laymen (a theology professor, a senator, and an engineer!).
Therefore, the title of “Pan-Orthodox” Congress does not correspond to reality, and keeping this in mind, the Confessor-Hierarch Saint Chrysostomos of Florina (Kavouridis) rightly observed that it was indeed “wrongly called Pan-Orthodox,” [15] since it was no such thing, and in fact did not receive such acceptance, but rather a pan-Orthodox rejection!
Moreover, the title “Congress” itself is also problematic. Initially, Meletios even referred to it as an “Inter-Orthodox Committee,” since such a novel body was unheard of in the history of the Orthodox Church—an institution which clearly took as its model the pan-Anglican assemblies and also political conferences, [16] types of bodies particularly dear to Metaxakis.
According to the Holy Canons and the Tradition of the Orthodox Church, ecclesiastical matters of local and broader significance are resolved exclusively and solely by a Synod of the shepherding Bishops (see Apostolic Canon 67, Canon 5 of the First Ecumenical Council, Canon 19 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, and Canon 6 of the Seventh Ecumenical Council). The so-called “Congresses,” “Assemblies,” “Symposia,” etc., are gatherings of a different character, which cannot in any way substitute for the Synodal system of governance of the Church. [17]
Furthermore, it must be emphasized that the few members of the “Congress,” since the Churches they represented did not have a formed understanding or Synodal position on most—or even all—of the matters raised therein, were essentially expressing personal opinions of their own or at most of their Synods; they could not, however, make decisions for the entire Church on Canonical and Dogmatic issues. It was, in other words, a private gathering of a few individuals with personal views on various matters and nothing more. They in no way constituted a Committee, let alone a Synod of the whole Church. [18]
For all these reasons, the “Congress” was an Uncanonical body, a novel gathering, without any authority before the Conscience of the Church and Her Plenitude.
The content of its decisions—or even its proposals—was entirely contrary to the letter and spirit of the Holy Canons and the Sacred Tradition of the Orthodox Church, a fact which renders the “Congress” truly “Anti-Orthodox,” according to Ierotheos of Kassandreia. [19]
The agenda set forth in it clearly revealed the spirit of innovation by which it was inspired, and the intent to adapt the Orthodox Church to the “demands” of the world, as will be seen from the other decisions mentioned below.
The “Congress” held eleven sessions from May 10 to June 8, and on the 5th and 6th of June it issued seven decisions, which were signed by eight or nine representatives (Archbishop Anastasy of Kishinev from the Russian Church Abroad had withdrawn), all of which were full of unorthodoxy and anti-traditionalism—except perhaps the seventh and final one, concerning the expression of sympathy for the persecuted Patriarch of Russia, Tikhon. [20] All the aforementioned matters were approved, in clear violation of the Holy Canons and the Tradition and Praxis of the Church.
Specifically regarding the Calendar issue, which concerns us most, already from the first session Meletios characterized it as “paramount” and “vital,” with the central reasoning being the facilitation of the social life of the faithful. He also remarked that the unilateral decision of one “Christian Church” to change the Calendar—namely, that of the Papists in the 16th century—had caused a festal division, and he expressed the conviction that “the time has come for the reestablishment of the unity of Christians, at least in this matter.” [21] Meletios’ reasoning is paradoxical and in any case entirely unorthodox, but it is explained by the fact that he approached the issue “as a member of the pan-Christian brotherhood.” [22]
The one regarded as representative of the Church of Greece, Metropolitan of Dyrrachium Iakovos, submitted a ready-made proposal from that Church for the regulation of the Calendar, involving the removal of 13 days from the Julian Calendar without altering the Paschalion, along with the clarification that the Church of Greece was also prepared to accept a new solution for the celebration of Pascha, provided that it conformed to Synodal decision, the Canons, and the Tradition of the Church. [23] This was essentially the same proposal as that of the theorist of the calendar change, Metropolitan Anthimos of Bizye, which was promoted by the then newly appointed Metropolitan of Athens, Chrysostomos Papadopoulos—the very same who would become the Calendar Reformer in the Church of Greece in 1924. [24]
For the study of the Calendar, three Sub-committees were established by the “Pan-Orthodox Congress” to examine it from a dogmatic-canonical, practical, and scientific standpoint. [25]
The first [Sub-committee] found nothing objectionable in the reform and deemed that the Equinox should be restored chronologically to March 21, as supposedly defined by the First Ecumenical Council; it also expressed support for the possibility of permanently fixing the date of Pascha. How erroneous and contradictory these positions are, needs no elaboration! The First Ecumenical Council set the March Equinox not naturally, but by convention, [26] precisely in order to avoid dependence on astronomy and to ensure that the “prescriptions” of Pascha would always be observed immovably. As for the proposal to fix the celebration of Pascha, it constitutes an undisguised betrayal of the First Ecumenical Council on this very point and a subversion of the entire liturgical life and praxis of the Church.
The second Sub-committee, the practical one, proposed a method for implementing the calendar change, as well as the corresponding adjustment of the Paschalion “for reasons of unity among the Orthodox, their practical benefit, expediency, and good impression.” [27] It is unbelievable that the dissolution of the unity of the Orthodox in the Holy Spirit is stated to serve precisely unity! But what kind of unity is meant?...
The third Sub-committee, the scientific one, dealt with the proposed designs for new calendars by Professors Milanković (a Serb) and Draghiț (a Romanian), and expressed support for their gradual adoption. It is noteworthy that Draghiț’s calendar was scientifically more accurate than Milanković’s, which merely proposed a slight modification of the Gregorian; yet it was not that one which was immediately introduced, simply because it did not serve the aim of the desired change—which was none other than common celebration with the heterodox! [28]
That the “Congress” clearly had an Ecumenistic orientation and that the calendar matters were prearranged and predetermined is made plainly evident by the supposedly coincidental (!) presence and participation in it, during its fifth session, of the Anglican bishop, former of Oxford, Gore, together with a cleric. He sat officially to the right of Meletios, was informed about the promotion of the calendar innovation, and considered the common celebration through the adoption of a shared calendar as a step toward union and as a cause of great spiritual satisfaction for the heterodox of the West. [29]
Although the “Congress” received a telegram from the Patriarchate of Jerusalem urging it not to proceed with a change of the calendar, it ultimately decided to abolish the distinction between the religious and civil calendar, as an “unavoidable necessity,” since it saw no impediment to this, through the so-called correction of the Julian Calendar and not through the acceptance of the Gregorian. However, the so-called “New Julian,” which was considered more accurate than the Gregorian by 24 or 26 seconds (!), will coincide chronologically with the Papal calendar until the year 2800, and thereafter they will differ by one day!!… [30]
Those of the “Congress,” feigning concern for pan-Christian unity on the calendar issue, were aware that the proposed Calendar Innovation would not be easily or gladly accepted by all the Local Churches; already, the telegram from Jerusalem clearly stated that the Patriarchate there would not proceed with a calendar change in view of the prevailing status of relations with the heterodox in the Holy Places. For this reason, the “Congress” took care to make clear that if certain Local Churches did not accept the Reform, this should not result in any rupture in relations with those that did accept it. [31] Therefore, the festal division of the Orthodox was foreseen and simply deemed necessary to “cover the backs” of the Innovators, so as to avoid being officially declared schismatics by those who would remain steadfast in the Tradition of the Church.
The “Congress,” therefore, decided upon the reform of the Ecclesiastical Calendar and accepted that the determination of the Paschal full moon (Pascha) should be made on the basis of astronomical calculations. This Innovation was regarded as provisional, since there was also an expressed willingness to accept another—more perfect—calendar in a later modification of it, with the necessary, of course, ecumenistic agreement of “all the Christian Churches.”
Furthermore, it was in favor of the permanent fixing of the feast of Pascha, to be determined “by scientific method,” so that it might supposedly correspond “to the actual Sunday of the Lord’s Resurrection.” [32]
The “Congress” proceeded also to broader reforms: it uncanonically decided to permit the marriage of priests and deacons even after their ordination; it allowed the contracting of a second marriage by those among them who had become widowed; it accepted the cutting of their hair and their dressing in accordance with laymen—that is, the abandonment of the honored cassock; it reduced the age limit for the ordination of deacons and priests; it accepted the obligatory monastic tonsure only if it took place after the 25th year of age; it permitted the transfer of weekday feasts to Sunday; it accepted the shortening of the sacred services and the easing and reduction of the fasts; it limited the impediments to marriage and accepted the participation of heterodox in a Pan-Orthodox Council. [33]
It is noteworthy that just a few days before the conclusion of the “Congress,” on June 1, 1923, a group of enraged laypeople stormed into the Patriarchate and attacked Meletios in order to force him to flee—primarily for political reasons and perhaps also due to his Innovations. As a result, Meletios, just two days after the end of his “Congress,” on June 10, hastily departed from Constantinople and never returned, formally submitting his resignation a few months later. [34]
Based on the unlawful decisions of the “Congress” of 1923, only a few Local Churches proceeded with the implementation of the Calendar Innovation, without altering the Paschalion, so as to celebrate the immovable feasts together with the heterodox, but the movable ones according to the “erroneous,” as they claim, Ecclesiastical Calendar. Activity toward the achievement of a Common Paschalion has been ongoing for decades within the Ecumenical Movement, with the active participation of Orthodox Ecumenists as well. Only the autonomous Church of Finland has adopted the Western Paschalion—something which the autonomous Church of Estonia under Constantinople has also done—thus creating the comically tragic phenomenon of a threefold division among the Orthodox in the name of unity with the heterodox, something truly unprecedented in Ecclesiastical History! In practice, the New Calendarists clumsily stitch together the Ecclesiastical Calendar (for the Paschalion) with their so-called New Julian (for the immovable feasts), using both simultaneously and adding confusion to the liturgical life of the Church, [35] while at the same time tolerating the Neo-Paschalian Finns and Estonians!…
Behold the most bitter fruit of the Calendar Innovation: the division within Orthodoxy itself, for the sake of supposed scientism—and indeed for the sake of common celebration and rapprochement with the heterodox!
D. The Reaction Against the “Congress” of 1923
The foolish Innovators had indeed foreseen the possible non-acceptance of the Calendar Innovation by certain Local Churches; however, carried away by the frenzy of their “love” for the heterodox, they failed to take into account the dynamic reaction of the Orthodox within those very Local Churches that would dare to implement the Innovation, even though they assured that they would take care not to provoke reactions!
The usual justification of the Innovators is that the Calendar is not a dogmatic issue and that the introduction of the New Calendar should not have provoked reaction and division, which they claim are the results of ignorance and fanaticism. We who, by the grace of God, uphold the Tradition of the Ecclesiastical Calendar unaltered and oppose the heresy of Ecumenism—which gave rise to the Innovation—respond with the words of Saint John of Damascus: “For the gradual removal of what has been handed down, like stones from a building, sooner brings down the entire structure!” [36]
Already immediately after the “Congress” of 1923, there arose intense reactions against its decisions, primarily from the Patriarchs of the East. The other Local Orthodox Churches expressed skepticism, and only the Church of Romania received the “Congress” favorably. [37]
Metropolitan Ierotheos of Kassandreia wrote in 1929 that Meletios Metaxakis, “in satisfying sinful wills and self-interested desires of heterodox churches and secret societies,” acted uncanonically and to the detriment of the Orthodox Church. Through his “Congress,” he trampled upon the Holy Canons and brought about the division of the Orthodox. For he invalidated improperly and arbitrarily the decisions of the Pan-Orthodox Synods of the 16th century regarding the issue of the Calendar and the Paschalion, and essentially “threw wide open the gates to every innovation.” [38]
Metropolitan Anthony of Kiev, First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, considered the calendar reform unacceptable, as it contradicted the Holy Canons and the ancient ecclesiastical practice handed down from the Fathers. He characterized the change as dangerous and untimely, and he also discerned Papal and Masonic influence. [39]
The eminent Serbian Hierarch Nikolai Velimirovich, in 1930, spoke out against the “Congress” of 1923, considering that it had created “a kind of schism.” [40]
Saint John Maximovitch, Archbishop of Shanghai and San Francisco, the modern Wonderworker, declared in a Report to the Synod of the Russian Church Abroad in 1938 that the decision of Meletios Metaxakis’ “Congress” to adopt the New Calendar “introduced a dreadful schism among Orthodox Christians… [The Ecumenical Patriarchate], having lost its significance as a pillar of the truth and having become a source of division, while simultaneously being possessed by an excessive love for power, presents a pitiful spectacle…” [41]
Saint Metropolitan Philaret, also First Hierarch of the then-confessing Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, wrote the following characteristically in 1972:
“The Innovation of the New Calendar caused schism in all the Local Churches which adopted it. Thus, Greece, Cyprus, Romania, and now Bulgaria have tasted the fruit of disobedience. It is grievous that the Orthodox people of the aforementioned Churches were not able to rise up as one body and, like a great wave, prevail and suppress the tide of Innovations… Our Russian Church, in the person of the ever-memorable then Archbishop, and later Metropolitan and First Hierarch of our Synod, Anastasy, protested strongly and decisively against the Innovations of the New Calendar and other modernist changes of the sorrowfully-remembered Patriarch Meletios Metaxakis at the assembly in Constantinople in 1923, which is mistakenly referred to as Pan-Orthodox, since the Patriarchates of the East and certain Churches were not represented. Most of the Hierarchs of the Church of Constantinople refused to attend, thereby protesting against the uncanonical nature of Meletios’ forced political elevation to the position of Ecumenical Patriarch.” [42]
The followers of the Patristic Calendar in Greece rightly called, from the very beginning in their writings, the “Congress” of 1923 “un-Orthodox,” “heretical,” “robber,” “lawless,” “apostate,” etc., because it constituted the beginning of countless tribulations for the Orthodox Church for now a full century.
E. In Conclusion
In light of all the above, it becomes clear that our primary calling is Prophetic: the faithful and consistent proclamation and right division of the word of Truth and of the Love of Christ, and the readiness to endure all the consequences thereof—not only those that are hopeful and pleasant, but also those that are dangerous and unpleasant.
The heretical Ecumenists, along with those who follow them and are in communion with them, through their participation in pan-heretical organizations such as the “World Council of Churches,” and through their various activities, proceed into ever closer relations and communion with heretics of every kind—so much so that they collaborate without hesitation, pray together unceasingly, concelebrate without discernment, co-sign objectionable texts, and proclaim heretical views. Indeed, they have gone so far as to form relations of cooperation and joint prayer even with non-Christians, pagans, and agnostics!
The “line” drawn by the heretical Meletios Metaxakis—that the Orthodox are members of a Pan-Christian Brotherhood and ought to celebrate together and collaborate with the heterodox—is being faithfully and consistently followed by his adherents and supporters. They believe that the Apostolic Faith must be applied in our contemporary historical context jointly with the other Christian bodies, even if full unity does not exist.
This syncretistic doctrine is proclaimed at every opportunity by the current head of the Ecumenists, Bartholomew of Constantinople, who in actual fact proves to be a worthy successor of his predecessor, Meletios Metaxakis.
His pseudo-synod at Kolymbari in Crete in 2016, and all that has followed up to the present—especially in view of the impending imposition of a Common Paschalion with heretics of every kind in the year 2025—prove that the unprecedented Apostasy of the Faith is being brought to completion before our very eyes.
For this reason, we, as faithful children of our Orthodoxy who uphold the Patristic Tradition with steadfastness, a martyric mindset, and extreme sacrifices in the midst of a “crooked generation” (perverse), [43] let us heed the exhortation of Saint John of Damascus to rekindle our patience and resolve:
“Therefore, brethren, let us stand upon the rock of faith and upon the Tradition of the Church, not shifting the boundaries set by our Holy Fathers; nor giving place to those who wish to innovate and to destroy the structure of the holy catholic and apostolic Church of God. For if license is given to each one who wishes, little by little the entire body of the Church will be overthrown… Let us then receive the Tradition of the Church with uprightness of heart, and not with many reasonings; for God made man upright… Let us not consent to learn a new faith, as if the Tradition of the holy Fathers were condemned…”! [44]
REFERENCES
1. Metropolitan of Leontopolis Christophoros, Calendar Issues, Athens 1925, pp. 19–20.
2. See Metropolitan of Kassandreia Ierotheos, Memorandum to the Holy Synod of Greece, convened on June 14, 1929, Athens 1929, p. 19.
3. See A. D. Delimbasis, The Pascha of the Lord: Creation – Renewal and Apostasy, Athens 1985, pp. 571–576.
4. See Saint Nikodemos the Hagiorite, The Rudder, p. 9, footnote (commentary on the 7th Apostolic Holy Canon).
5. See Bishop Photios of Triaditsa, “The Patristic Ecclesiastical Calendar – An Inseparable Element of Ecclesiastical Tradition,” in the periodical Saint Cyprian, no. 259 / March–April 1994, p. 221.
6. See Protopresbyter George Metallinos, “The Difference Is Not Merely About the Calendar. The Oppositions Leading to a Separate Pascha Are Dogmatic and Theological,” in the newspaper Kathimerini, April 14, 1996, p. 7.
7. Ephesians 4:13.
8. See A. D. Delimbasis, op. cit., pp. 650–652; Emmanouil Karageorgoudis, Meletios Metaxakis as Metropolitan of Athens, publ. “P. Pournaras,” Thessaloniki 2008, pp. 137–139.
9. V. Th. Stavridou and E. A. Varella, History of the Ecumenical Movement, publ. Patriarchal Foundation for Patristic Studies, Thessaloniki 1996, p. 334.
10. Emmanouil Karageorgoudis, op. cit., pp. 113–121.
11. See the dedicatory article by the Freemason Alex. I. Zervoudakis on the “Illustrious Freemason” Meletios Metaxakis in Tectonic Bulletin, no. 71 / Jan.–Feb. 1967, pp. 25–50.
12. Proceedings and Decisions of the Pan-Orthodox Congress in Constantinople, May 10 – June 8, 1923, Athens 1982, p. 6 of the “Introduction” by the editor of the reprint Dionysios M. Batistatos; Christodoulos K. Paraskevaïdis, Metropolitan of Demetrias, Historical and Canonical Consideration of the Old Calendar Issue in its Origin and Development in Greece, doctoral dissertation, Athens 1982, pp. 77–78, footnote 31.
13. See Proceedings and Decisions…, op. cit., p. 6; Christodoulos K. Paraskevaïdis, op. cit., pp. 67–68.
14. See Proceedings and Decisions…, op. cit., pp. 11–12.
15. Former Metropolitan of Florina Chrysostomos, The Ecclesiastical Calendar as a Criterion of Orthodoxy, p. 14, publ. “Herald of the Orthodox,” Athens 1935. The “Congress” was finally called “Pan-Orthodox” at the proposal of Jacob of Dyrrachium, as written in the Introduction of the 2015 reprint of the Proceedings by the editor Archimandrite Eudokimos Karakoulakis.
16. Bishop Photius of Triaditsa, “The 70th Anniversary of the Pan-Orthodox Congress in Constantinople – A Major Step on the Path Towards Apostasy,” in Orthodox Life, No. 2 / 1994, p. 39.
17. See Proceedings and Decisions…, op. cit., p. 7 “Introduction”; Bishop Photius of Triaditsa, op. cit., p. 39; see also Christodoulos K. Paraskevaïdis, op. cit., pp. 77–82, where the author raises the issue of the identity and competence of this “Pan-Orthodox Congress” based on the opinions expressed concerning it.
18. Bishop Photius of Triaditsa, op. cit., pp. 38–39 (according to Prof. S. Troitsky).
19. See Memorandum to the Holy Synod of Greece…, op. cit., p. 19.
20. Proceedings and Decisions…, op. cit., pp. 211–222.
21. Ibid., pp. 13–14.
22. Ibid., p. 72.
23. Ibid., pp. 17–18; Christodoulos K. Paraskevaïdis, op. cit., pp. 70–71.
24. A. D. Delimbasis, op. cit., pp. 654–658, 665–666.
25. Proceedings and Decisions…, op. cit., p. 23 (the three reports of the sub-committees on pp. 50–64).
26. A. D. Delimbasis, op. cit., pp. 418, 576.
27. Christodoulos K. Paraskevaïdis, op. cit., p. 73.
28. Alexandros Kalomoiros, The Summary, Thessaloniki 1976, p. 11.
29. Proceedings and Decisions…, op. cit., pp. 84–89; A. D. Delimbasis, op. cit., p. 668; see also “The ‘Pan-Orthodox Congress in Constantinople’ of 1923,” in the periodical Saint Cyprian, no. 314 / May–June 2003, p. 239.
30. Proceedings and Decisions…, op. cit., pp. 212–213; Christodoulos K. Paraskevaïdis, op. cit., p. 75.
31. Proceedings and Decisions…, op. cit., p. 69; Christodoulos K. Paraskevaïdis, op. cit., p. 82.
32. Proceedings and Decisions…, op. cit., pp. 214–215; A. D. Delimbasis, op. cit., p. 669.
33. Proceedings and Decisions…, op. cit., pp. 215–221; A. D. Delimbasis, op. cit., pp. 669–670.
34. Ibid., p. e΄ of “Introduction.”
35. Bishop Photius of Triaditsa, “The Patristic Ecclesiastical Calendar…,” op. cit., p. 222.
36. Saint John of Damascus, First Apologetic Discourse Against Those Who Slander the Holy Icons, PG vol. 94, col. 1284A.
37. A. D. Delimbasis, op. cit., pp. 672–674.
38. Memorandum to the Holy Synod of Greece…, op. cit., pp. 19–20.
39. A. D. Delimbasis, op. cit., p. 672; Christodoulos K. Paraskevaïdis, op. cit., p. 77.
40. Christodoulos K. Paraskevaïdis, op. cit., p. 80.
41. Periodical The Orthodox Word, No. 4 (45) / July–August 1972, p. 177.
42. See “The Illegal Congress of 1923,” in Refutation and Overthrow of the New Calendarist New Ecclesiology, Larnaca, Cyprus 1995. Saint Metropolitan Philaret also refers critically to the “Pan-Orthodox Congress” of 1923 in the “Second Sorrowful Epistle” to the “Primates of the Orthodox Churches” in Great Lent of the year 1972 (see Orthodox Testimony – Anti-Ecumenist Texts… by Metropolitan Philaret, ed. Hieromonk Kallinikos of the Holy Mountain, Mount Athos – Athens 1985, p. 44). We also republished this text in our work: Saint Philaret of the Russian Diaspora – A Contemporary Ascetic and Confessor Hierarch (1903–1985), Phyle, Attica 2015, pp. 163–197.
43. Acts ii. 40.
44. Saint John of Damascus, Third Apologetic Discourse Against Those Who Slander the Holy Icons, 41, PG vol. 94, cols. 1356, 1357.
Greek source:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.