Metropolitan of Kyprianos [II] Oropos and Phyle
A. It is well known, and
much has been written—reliable and unquestionable—concerning this, that from
1920 onward, Orthodoxy has not primarily been facing a Calendar Issue, but
primarily an Issue of Ecumenism.
The indissoluble relation between
the Ecumenical Movement and the Calendar Reform is absolutely documented, from
both a historical and theological point of view. [1]
The year 1924 constitutes a
landmark in the historical expression—first stage and development—of the aims
of the Ecumenical Movement, foreign to the Patristic Tradition, in the form of
Inter-Christian and, further, Interreligious Syncretism.
It is recalled that preceding the
Calendar Reform were the Encyclical of 1920 by the Patriarchate of
Constantinople, as well as the so-called Pan-Orthodox Congress of
Constantinople in 1923, both of a non-ecclesiastical and non-patristic
perspective.
These highly official activities,
which openly aimed at the promotion of an initially Inter-Christian Federation,
had as their foundations three unorthodox and anti-ecclesiastical theories,
namely:
a. so-called
Baptismal Theology,
b. Dogmatic
Syncretism, and
c. a Secularist
Perspective.
Within this
historical-theological framework, the Calendar Reform was implemented in 1924,
and it is now time, after one hundred years, to deeply realize that with the
rejection of Ecumenism, as an ecclesiological deviation, the Calendar
Innovation is also simultaneously rejected, which is inherently connected and
of the same root with Ecumenism: these two issues—the Ecumenical Movement and the
Calendar Reform—cannot be separated.
***
B. However, the causal
connection between the Ecumenical Movement and the Calendar Reform does not
permit the forgetting of the prior and age-long causal relation between Papal
Proselytism and the Gregorian Reform, from the 16th century onward (1582 A.D.).
After the multiple condemnations
of the Papal Calendar Innovation by the Orthodox Church (1583, 1587, 1593), the
waves of confusion from the "Worldwide Scandal" [2] of the Gregorian
Calendar did not cease to strike the Divine Ark of Orthodoxy, through the
intensified papal propaganda in the East.
Professor I. Sokolov, of the
Theological Academy of Petrograd, wrote in 1910:
"But also
in later years, the Greek hierarchs repeatedly advised the Orthodox to avoid
even this new weapon of Latin propaganda, such as Cyril Loukaris, Parthenios I,
Paisios II, Cyril V, Gregory VI, and Anthimos VI. Likewise, the Patriarchs of
the other Churches demonstrated the same concern on this matter, on account of
which, in Palestine, Syria, Egypt, and Cyprus, patriarchal and pastoral
Encyclicals were issued to both clergy and laity, in which the nature and
purpose of this calendar reform were emphasized, and it was linked with the
other well-known series of various innovations of the papal Church," insofar
as "the calendar reform introduced by Pope Gregory XIII in 1582 was
always—or rather immediately—regarded in the Orthodox East as an ecclesiastical
and religious innovation, and as one of the usual tendencies of the prevailing
ecclesiastical absolutism in the West, whose dream was and is and shall be the
expansion of its influence over the Orthodox East. In other words, it was
regarded as a new papal campaign against Orthodoxy in the East. Being so
regarded and appraised, this innovation was immediately condemned by Orthodoxy
in Councils.” [3]
It is extremely significant, but also indicative in relation
to the above, that even during the period of the well-known two Encyclicals of
Patriarch Joachim III, in 1902 and 1904—admittedly forerunners of the
Encyclical of 1920—the papal Cardinal P. Tondini (Tondini de Quarenghi)
appeared on the scene, who “having moved every stone in the Orthodox East with
fanaticism in favor of the acceptance of this reform (the papal calendar),”
ultimately declared in the year 1905:
“that this entails
ecclesiastical and religious importance and is in fact one of the fundamental
and most essential issues on account of which the division among the Churches
exists. And the essence of this matter in question lies in the acceptance or not
of ‘the one source of ecclesiastical jurisdiction,’ in other words, in the
acceptance or rejection of the papal primacy in the Church of Christ.” [4]
***
C.
The careful and unbiased study of the sources referring to the Calendar
Question, from the 16th century until our days, places it within a very broad
historical perspective, which it is impossible to ignore or to pass over
lightly.
The Calendar Issue, based on the testimonies, is shown not
to be approached nor treated autonomously, as if it were a neutral and
non-dogmatic matter.
a. In the early phase of the Calendar Issue, Papism
“intended to use the Calendar
Question as a propagandistic means of misleading and dividing the Orthodox,
attributing to its acceptance by them the significance of a recognition of the
Primacy of the Pope.” [5]
b. In the later phase of the Calendar Issue, Ecumenism
aimed, through the adoption of a Common Calendar, at the
“rapprochement of the two
Christian worlds of East and West in the celebration of the great Christian
feasts,” considering this as “the first stone for the building of the union of
all the Churches of God.” [6]
Ultimately, the steadfast adherence of the Genuine Orthodox
Christians to the age-old Patristic Ecclesiastical Calendar finds its full
justification today, insofar as—being consistent Anti-Ecumenists—they fulfill
the golden rule that
“in all things one must follow
the Fathers,” “it is more pious to hold to the traditions of the Fathers”
[7]; “everything
distinguished by antiquity is venerable.” [8]
And even before 1924, the “age-old Julian calendar
prevailing in the Orthodox Church” was upheld
“as the only one befitting the
Church,” “because it is handed down from the Fathers and has always been
ecclesiastically sanctioned.” [9]
This steadfastness of the pious in the Ecclesiastical
Tradition keeps them in the blessed communion “With All the Saints,” [10]
within the bounds of Orthodox Catholicity.
And behold, in conclusion, the critical question is raised:
If even the Angels, should they “shake” the things
Delivered, are to be “anathema,” [11]
“how shall any man, being in the flesh, who shakes and innovates—and especially
such innovations—not be alien to God?” [12]
References
1. Archimandrite
Kyprianos and Hieromonk Klement of Holy Kyprianos Monastery (now
Metropolitans), The Ecumenical Movement and Orthodox Anti-Ecumenism: The
Critical Confrontation of a Century, Athens 2001.
2. Patriarch Jeremias
II of Constantinople (1572–1594), Letter to the Doge of Venice, Mr. Nicolaus
Daponte. ● See K. N. Sathas, Biographical Sketch concerning Patriarch
Jeremias II, p. 28, Athens 1870.
3. I. Sokolov, The
Question of the Calendar Reform Judged by the Orthodox Churches of the East,
Petrograd 1910. ● See Grigorios Papamichael, On the Calendar Reform,
periodical Panteinos of Alexandria, no. 39/10.6.1910, pp. 624–628.
4. Ibid.
5. Metropolitan
Kallinikos of Cyzicus, Pascha. ● See periodical Orthodoxia of
Constantinople, no. 12/1927, p. 509.
6. Dionysios M.
Batistatos (ed.), Proceedings and Decisions of the Pan-Orthodox Congress in
Constantinople (10 May – 8 June 1923), pp. 57 and 189, Athens 1982.
7. Hieromonk Meletios
Pegas, Alexandrian Volume on the Paschalion, pp. 145 and 153. ● See Lettres
de Meletius Pigas antérieures à sa promotion au Patriarcat, by Emile
Legrand, Paris 1902.
8. Seventh Holy
Ecumenical Council, Mansi vol. 13, cols. 252B and 328E, Act VI, Volumes III and
VI.
9. Encyclical of 1902
by Patriarch Joachim III. ● See Vasileios Th. Stavridis – Evangelia A. Varella,
History of the Ecumenical Movement, p. 325, “P.I.P.M.” Publications,
Analekta Vlatadon -47, Thessaloniki 1996.
10. Ephesians 3:18.
11. Galatians 1:8–9.
12. St. Theodore the
Studite, PG vol. 99, col. 1033D, Epistle 56, To Euprepianos and those with
him, E.L.I.
Greek source:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.