The Inspirers and Pioneers of the Innovation: “These two Luthers of the Orthodox Church” [1]

By St. Chrysostomos the New, Confessor and Hierarch († 1955)

 

The issue of the Ecclesiastical Calendar has deeper causes and motives.

The inspirers and pioneers of this matter, such as Patriarch Meletios of Alexandria [2] and Archbishop Chrysostomos of Athens, [3] lacking, unfortunately, a deep Orthodox spirit, became—knowingly or unknowingly—tools of foreign desires and aims, through which the unity of the Orthodox Churches and the Greek ideology’s bond with Orthodoxy are sought to be broken.

 

 

These two Leaders of the Orthodox Churches of the Patriarchate of Alexandria and of Greece, vying for the glory of being seen as reformist and modernized clerics, [4] lightly raised the banner of Ecclesiastical reforms, beginning with the alteration of the Ecclesiastical Calendar, which constitutes one of the unifying links of the Orthodox Churches and the compass of Divine worship and the works of the Patristic Faith and piety.

 

 

***

The idea of introducing the Gregorian calendar also into the Orthodox Church, as supposedly more perfect, was discussed some years ago even at the Ecclesiastical Congress, [5] which was convened in Constantinople by the then Ecumenical Patriarch Meletios, and which was wrongly called pan-Orthodox, [6] since only three autocephalous Orthodox Churches were represented therein—namely, those of Greece, Serbia, and Romania, the latter two even being represented not by clergy, but by lay delegates. [7]

At this Congress, in which the other Orthodox Churches—and in particular the three Eastern Patriarchates, namely those of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem [8]—shone by their absence, the introduction of the Gregorian calendar into Orthodox divine worship was initially approved in a wholly unstudied manner.

I say unstudied, because had they properly studied the issue, they would have seen that it had been condemned as un-Orthodox by Pan-Orthodox Synods convened in Constantinople in the years 1583, 1587, and 1593, [9] under Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremias II, [10] who characterized it—as we stated in our preface—as an innovation of Elder Rome, as a worldwide scandal, and as an arbitrary trampling of the Divine and Sacred Canons. [11]

Also, had they properly studied this ecclesiastical matter, they would have seen that the Gregorian calendar had also been condemned by all the Synods of the Orthodox Churches when the matter was reopened, and by Ecumenical Patriarch Joachim III, [12] whose responses to the Ecumenical Patriarchate we presented in our printed “Protest” to the Orthodox Churches. [13]

If, we say, the delegates of that Congress had studied all these things, they would not have dared to unilaterally make a contrary decision regarding the Ecclesiastical Calendar.

***

What renders the convocation of this Ecclesiastical Congress suspect is the fact that two clergymen of a heterodox church [14] also sat therein, and—as we have extrajudicial information—so too its un-Orthodox and Protestant-scented decision: that the acceptance of the Gregorian calendar by some Churches should not be considered by the others, who remain steadfast in the Patristic Julian Calendar, as a cause of Schism. [15]

Now, we have stated that this principle is un-Orthodox and Protestant, because in granting freedom to the individual Orthodox Churches to regulate matters of general Ecclesiastical nature and significance according to what seems good to them, it fosters the fragmentation of the Orthodox Churches and the division of Christians. [16]

For how, indeed, can the unity of the Orthodox Churches be preserved in this particular case, when some of them celebrate the feast of the Nativity and of Theophany at a time when others are still traversing the period of repentance and the forty-day fast, through which they prepare for the celebration of these great feasts?

Moreover, how can this Ecclesiastical innovation not constitute a cause of Schism, since it in fact severs the innovating Churches from the others and causes them to celebrate and to fast not together with the Orthodox Churches, but with the heterodox and heretical Western Churches? [17]

Precisely in order to avoid the fragmentation of the unity of the Orthodox Churches, the Holy and God-bearing Fathers, just as they prescribed by the Divine and Sacred Canons [18] the regulations concerning feasts and fasts to be held in reverence by all the Churches, so also they ordained by Canons [19] that the same order should prevail concerning the timing of the feasts and fasts for all the Churches—under threat, indeed, of the deposition of the clergy and the excommunication and anathematization of the laity.

And these things the Fathers of the Church established, in accordance with the command of the heavenly Teacher, who prayed to His heavenly Father for the unity of His disciples, [20] and with the exhortation of the Apostle Paul, who commands the following: “Fulfill ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind,” [21] “endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” [22]

***

Is it then possible to suppose that the then Ecumenical Patriarch Meletios and Archbishop Chrysostomos of Athens were ignorant of these Divine and Sacred Canons, which, under penalty of deposition, excommunication, and anathema, establish the simultaneous celebration of the feasts and the simultaneous observance of the fasts by all the Orthodox Churches, for the sake of the unity of the Christian spirit and the bond of peace among the faithful?

Behold where lies the foreign Achilles' heel of Patriarch Meletios and Archbishop Chrysostomos: introducing a Protestant principle into the Orthodox Church, they lead Her onto the path of Protestantism, which grants full freedom to its adherents not only in the outward ordinances of worship, but also in the very faith and understanding of the Dogmas, having no Ecclesiastical Criterion for their interpretation. [23]

Such indeed did Patriarch Meletios Metaxakis and Archbishop Chrysostomos Papadopoulos dare to do—these two Luthers [24] of the Orthodox Church—who, under the pretext of modernization, did not hesitate nor shrink [25] from trampling upon decisions of Pan-Orthodox Synods and Apostolic and Synodal Canons, in order to draw near to the churches of the West through the calendar innovation, [26] thereby dividing Orthodoxy and annulling the centuries-old practice of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

In the face of their arbitrariness, we three Hierarchs rose up—namely, Germanos of Demetrias, [27] the undersigned Chrysostomos, formerly of Florina, [28] and Chrysostomos of Zakynthos [29]—being filled with a deep ecclesiastical spirit and perceiving the unbreakable bond between Orthodoxy and the Greek Church, we boldly and magnanimously raised—not the banner of rebellion against Orthodoxy and of the division of Christians, as they did—but the glorious and honored standard of the union of divided Orthodoxy and the restoration of peace to the Church on the foundation of the venerable Traditions and the Divine and Sacred Canons. [30]

In the face of their arbitrariness, we three Hierarchs stood upright—namely, Germanos of Demetrias, [27] the undersigned, Chrysostomos formerly of Florina, [28] and Chrysostomos of Zakynthos [29]—being filled with a deep ecclesiastical spirit and perceiving the unbreakable bond between Orthodoxy and the Greek Church, we boldly and magnanimously raised—not the banner of rebellion against Orthodoxy and the division of Christians, as they did—but the glorious and honored standard of the union of divided Orthodoxy and of the restoration of peace to the Church upon the foundation of the venerable Traditions and the Divine and Sacred Canons. [30]

Wherefore, through our renunciatory document [31] addressed to the Governing Synod, we called upon it to return to the ground of Orthodoxy by restoring the Orthodox Festal Calendar in Divine Worship.

 

NOTES

1. This text is a portion of the admirable work of the late Metropolitan Chrysostomos Kavourides, formerly of Florina (†1955), titled The Ecclesiastical Calendar as a Criterion of Orthodoxy.

This treatise of 87 densely printed pages was completed on 1/14 July 1935 by the Confessor Hierarch at the Holy Monastery of Saint Dionysios of Olympus, where he had been exiled by the innovators for his joining the Uninnovated Plērōma of the Patristic Ecclesiastical Calendar.

This enlightened and highly revealing work constitutes, according to the Martyred Hierarch, an “Apology,” in which “the deeper motives of this ecclesiastical issue” are investigated, and it is shown “what meaning and significance it holds for the entire Orthodox Church and how much harm it has caused the Orthodox Church” (p. 14).

The excerpted text is found on pages 14–17 of the first edition of the book, and the… comments, explanations, and general editorial work are ours.

2. Meletios Metaxakis (1871–1935). From the village of Parsas, Lasithi, Crete. A meddlesome, turbulent, great innovator and indisputably a Freemason, he served as Metropolitan of Kition in Cyprus (1910–1918), of Athens (1918–1920), of Constantinople (1921–1923), and of Alexandria (1926–1935). In the year 1908, he was expelled from the Holy Places by Patriarch Damianos of Jerusalem, together with Archimandrite Chrysostomos Papadopoulos, for anti-Hagiotaphite activity.

Methodios Kontostanos, Metropolitan of Corfu (1942–1967), had written of him:

“But the fugitive from the Holy Places, Meletios Metaxakis, formerly of Kition, of Athens, of Constantinople, and then of Alexandria—a restless and unsteady spirit of ambition, an evil genius—even from Alexandria did not shrink from attempting to impose himself as Patriarch of Jerusalem.”

(See: Dionysios M. Batistatos – Reprint, Editing, Introduction: Acts and Decisions of the Pan-Orthodox Congress in Constantinople, 10 May – 5 June 1923, pp. δ΄ and ε΄, Athens 1982. See also: Monk Pavlos of Cyprus, New Calendarism–Ecumenism, pp. 48–59, Athens 1982).

3. Chrysostomos Papadopoulos (1868–1938). From Madytos of Eastern Thrace. Professor at the University of Athens (1914–1923), having previously served as Director of the School of the Holy Cross in Jerusalem, as well as of the Rizareios School in Athens. A friend and collaborator of Meletios Metaxakis, he actively participated from the outset in the so-called Ecumenical Movement.

(See: Monk Pavlos of Cyprus, op. cit., pp. 59–63. See also at the conclusion of footnote no. 17 of the present article.)

4. The following statements by the same Hierarch-author in another part of his revealing treatise are quite interesting and illuminating:

“Indeed, had Patriarch Meletios and Archbishop Chrysostomos of Athens, while touring America to spread their modernist principles among the Orthodox populations, not been photographed in lay attire, Kemal’s Turkey would not have dared to abolish the modest and honored cassock of the clergy and replace it with the lay ‘rétincôte’ in which Meletios and Chrysostomos appear in the said photograph.”

(See The Ecclesiastical Calendar as a Criterion of Orthodoxy, p. 57. “Rétincôte” (riding coat): a garment, jacket, or overcoat for horseback riding.)

5. This concerns the self-proclaimed (Third Session, 18 May 1923) “Pan-Orthodox Congress,” which convened in the year 1923 (10 May – 8 June); see Dionysios M. Batistatos, op. cit.

For a good and concise critical position regarding the “Pan-Orthodox Congress,” see Grigorios Efstratiades, The Real Truth about the Ecclesiastical Calendar, pp. 5–10, Athens 1929.

6. Even the innovating New Calendar Church of Greece, in its “Report” to the Pan-Orthodox Great Council, acknowledges that:

“Although a discussion on the possibility of a change had previously taken place, and many Orthodox Churches had reached conclusions and decisions—of doubtful authority—unfortunately, however, the change was not made with study and preparation, but under the influence mainly of external factors”;

and “we characterized these conferences as of doubtful authority:

a) due to the percentage of participation by the Orthodox Churches—usually only two or three participated!

b) due to the status and competency of the representatives who took part in them (senators, astronomy professors, etc.),

c) due to the ease of their decisions (breaking the continuity of the week, acceptance of a fixed Sunday in April for the common celebration of Pascha, etc.).”

(See: Church of Greece, The Calendar Issue, pp. 7–8, Athens 1971, our underlining.)

Paradoxically, Professor Antonios Papadopoulos writes: “For the first time in our century, the Orthodox Churches gathered in Constantinople and the First Pan-Orthodox Congress was held.”

(See: Ant. Papadopoulos, Witness and Ministry of Orthodoxy Today, Ecumenical Studies I, p. 27, Thessaloniki 1983.)

We refer Professor Papadopoulos and all who are interested in the historical truth to the very enlightening—indeed, literally devastating as regards the un-Orthodox character of it—report and critique of the so-called self-proclaimed “Pan-Orthodox Congress”: in Monk Pavlos of Cyprus, op. cit., pp. 68–82.

We also refer to Aristotelis D. Delēmbasis, The Pascha of the Lord, pp. 667–674, Athens 1985, where it is written by way of conclusion: “Thus, the implementation of the festal innovation of the ‘Congress’ was not only not Pan-Orthodox, but was in fact opposed almost at a Pan-Orthodox level.”

We further refer to Metropolitan Irenaios of Kassandreia (†1945), Memorandum to the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy of Greece, convened on 14 June 1929..., pp. 19–21, § D, and subsequently §§ E–F.

A particularly devastating testimony regarding the non-existent authority of the so-called Pan-Orthodox Congress of 1923 is preserved in the Acts of the 17th Session of the Hierarchy of the Church of Greece (1 October 1937), where Metropolitan Irenaios of Kassandreia, in defense of the Patristic Ecclesiastical Calendar, is recorded as saying, among other things, that at the “Inter-Orthodox Synod” on the Holy Mountain (1930), the representative of the Serbian Church, Bishop Nicholas of Ohrid, “only then consented for the delegation of the Church of Serbia to sit in the Synod, when it was declared that the Inter-Orthodox Synod of the Holy Mountain had no relation whatsoever to the Pan-Orthodox Congress of Constantinople, which had made a definitive pronouncement concerning the correction of the calendar. Otherwise, the Serbs would have condemned the Ecumenical Patriarchate.”

(See Archimandrite Theokletos Strangas, E.E.I., vol. 3, p. 2.140. The “Inter-Orthodox Synod” refers to the well-known “Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission,” which was held on the Holy Mountain, at the Holy Monastery of Vatopedi, 8–23 June 1930, for the preparation of the convocation of a Pan-Orthodox Pre-Synod on the Holy Mountain on 19 June 1932, the Sunday of Pentecost. See also Ioannis N. Karmiris, D.S.M., vol. B, 2nd ed., pp. 979–980.)

This testimony is indeed devastating, for Bishop Nicholas of Ohrid (†1956), from Žiča, was distinguished for his high sanctity, learning, and social activity, and he undoubtedly expressed the Orthodox imperative.

(See: Archimandrite Elias Mastroyannopoulos, Theological Presentations, pp. 68–72, Athens 1986. Nicholas of Ohrid was proclaimed a Saint by the Serbian Church in 2003; see periodical Saint Cyprian, no. 314 / May–June 2003, pp. 227–229.)

The Confessor Hierarch, formerly of Florina, Chrysostomos, referring to this event on the Holy Mountain, preserves the very enlightening testimony that: “The representatives of the Orthodox Churches of Serbia and Poland, firmly adhering to the Patristic Ecclesiastical Calendar, regarding as essentially schismatic the representatives of the Churches that had innovated in the matter of the calendar, refrained, under the strict understanding of their Orthodox identity, from praying together with schismatics; and under the pretext of the language barrier, requested from the Holy Monastery of Vatopedi the Chapel of Paramythia for their private prayer!”

(See the booklet: Of Their Eminences the Metropolitans of the Autocephalous Orthodox Church of Greece—Germanos of Demetrias, Chrysostomos formerly of Florina, and Chrysostomos of Zakynthos, CLARIFICATION concerning the Issue of the Ecclesiastical Calendar, p. 6, Athens 1935).

7. Precisely, the composition of the “Committee of the Orthodox Churches” was as follows:

a) Representatives of the Church of Constantinople: Metropolitan Callinicus of Cyzicus and Professor of Theology at Halki, Mr. Vasileios Antoniades.

b) Church of Russia: The hierarchs residing in Constantinople—Archbishop Anastasius of Kishinev and Khotin (Gribanovsky, belonging to the Synod of Karlovci of the Russian émigré Church and later becoming its second Metropolitan, 1934–1964, successor to Anthony Khrapovitsky of Kiev, †1936), and Archbishop Alexander of the Aleutian Islands and North America (Nemorovsky, later Archbishop of Brussels and Belgium, 1936–1960).
(These participated “at the spontaneous invitation of the Church of Constantinople,” i.e., “not directly,” and therefore were not in essence official representatives of Russia.)

c) Church of Serbia: Metropolitan Gabriel of Montenegro and the Littoral (later Patriarch of Serbia, †1952), and Professor of Mathematics and Engineering in Belgrade, Dr. Milutin Milankovitch.

d) Church of Cyprus: Metropolitan Vasileios of Nicaea (later Ecumenical Patriarch, 1925–1929).

e) Church of Greece: Metropolitan Iakovos of Dyrrachium (Nikolaou, of Dyrrachium from 1911, later of Mytilene, 1925–1958).

f) Church of Romania: Archimandrite Iuliu Scriban and Senator Mr. Petru Drăghici.

(See Dionysios M. Batistatos, op. cit., pp. 11–12.)

8. At that time, the Patriarch of Alexandria was the renowned Photius (Peroglou, 1835–1925); of Antioch, Gregory IV (Haddad, 1906–1928: “After prolonged vacillation, in his final days he introduced the new calendar,” see Theological Encyclopedia of the Church [Θ.Η.Ε.], vol. 4, col. 751).

Damianos of Jerusalem (1897–1931) sent a telegram to the “Pan-Orthodox Congress” in which he declared: “...the replacement of the Calendar-Festal Calendar of the Church is in no way beneficial nor will it be accepted by our Patriarchate, inasmuch as it places us in a highly disadvantageous position in the Holy Shrines in relation to the Latins.”

(See Dionysios M. Batistatos, op. cit., p. 69.)

As for the absent schismatic Church of Bulgaria, a “lesson” on “ecclesiastical communion and unity above nationalism, supra-national,” was delivered to the delegates during the Fifth Session (23 May 1923) of the “Pan-Orthodox Congress” by “the wise hierarch of the Anglican Church, the bishop formerly of Oxford, the Most Reverend Gore”—according to Patriarch Meletios!...

(See Dionysios M. Batistatos, op. cit., pp. 66, 86, our emphasis.)

9. See Athanasios Komninos Hypsilantis, After the Fall, pp. 111, 113, 114, Constantinople 1870;
Dositheos of Jerusalem, Dodekabiblos, Book XI, Chapter VIII, p. 57, B. Rigopoulos, Thessaloniki 1983; Meletios of Athens, Ecclesiastical History, vol. III, pp. 402, 408, Vienna 1784; Philaretos Vafeidis of Didymoteicho, Ecclesiastical History, vol. III, Part I, pp. 124–125, Constantinople 1912; K.N. Sathas, Biographical Sketch of Patriarch Jeremias II, pp. 91–92, Athens 1870.

10. Jeremias II Tranos, Patriarch of Constantinople (1536–1595). He was born in Anchialos. One of the greatest Ecumenical Patriarchs after the Fall. Under him, the Russian Patriarchate was established (1589, 1593). He is considered as one who “most excellently represented the Orthodox Catholic Church before the heterodox,” and is especially known for his most important dogmatic correspondence with the Lutheran theologians of Württemberg at the University of Tübingen.

During his patriarchate, he rejected the Gregorian calendar, “repeatedly condemning the Gregorian reform, particularly through the synodical encyclical of 28 November 1583 together with Patriarch Sylvester (of Alexandria), and another addressed to Konstantinos Ostrogski, by his letter of February 1583 to the Doge of Venice, Nikolaos Daponte, by his letter to the Protestants in Tübingen from September 1589 from Moldovlachia, by another to the Metropolitan of Philadelphia in Venice, Gabriel Seviros, from 7 July 1590, as well as by the decision of the Synod convened in Constantinople in 1593.”

(See Ioannis Karmiris, Theological Encyclopedic Dictionary, vol. 6, col. 781).

11. At that time, the Archimandrite Chrysostomos Papadopoulos, judging favorably the Letter of Jeremias II of Constantinople to the Doge of Venice, Mr. Nikolaos Daponte, writes the following: “This letter of the Patriarch excellently characterizes the position which the Orthodox Church immediately assumed regarding the Gregorian modification of the calendar. It is regarded by her as one of the many innovations of elder Rome, a ‘global scandal,’ and an arbitrary trampling of ecclesiastical traditions.”

(See Archimandrite Chrysostomos Papadopoulos, The Gregorian Calendar in the East, in Ecclesiastical Herald, no. 145/31.3.1918, p. 135. For the Letter of Patriarch Jeremias II to the Doge, see in K. N. Sathas, op. cit., pp. 26–28).

12. Joachim III of Demitrias. He was born in Constantinople in the year 1834. The greatest of the Ecumenical Patriarchs after the Fall. He served as Patriarch first from 1878–1884, and again from 1901–1912. His Encyclicals of the years 1902 and 1904 constitute clear examples of ecumenistic influence for the first time in such an official manner and are forerunners of the 1920 Encyclical.

(See Very Reverend Protopresbyter Georgios Tsetsis, The Contribution of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to the Founding of the World Council of Churches, pp. 31 ff., 51, Katerini 1988).

13. The Confessor Hierarch refers to the following 32-page booklet: By the Most Reverend Metropolitans of the Autocephalous Orthodox Church of Greece, Germanos of Demetrias, the former Chrysostomos of Florina, and Chrysostomos of Zakynthos, A PROTEST to the Orthodox Churches regarding the unilateral and uncanonical introduction of the new calendar, Athens 1935.

On pages 10–13, there are excerpts from the responses of the Orthodox Churches of Jerusalem, Romania, Serbia, Montenegro, and Russia.

Strangely, the reference to the response of the Church of Greece is omitted, which, with Theocletos of Athens as President of the Holy Synod, wrote that the calendar “maintained for centuries in our Orthodox Church” participates in “religious and theological importance only to the extent that the Church’s festal calendar is connected with it,” and accepts the “reform of the calendar” “if all the local Orthodox Churches of the East are persuaded,” and “without disturbing the religious consciences of the simpler [faithful],” and “in mutual agreement with one another.”

(See the complete Responses of the above-mentioned Churches in Antonios Papadopoulos, Texts on Inter-Orthodox and Inter-Christian Relations, Oikoumenika II, pp. 17–74. The material from the Church of Greece is on p. 43).

See also portions of all the responses and the related critique in Gregorios Eustratiades, The Real Truth Concerning the Ecclesiastical Calendar, pp. 132–138, Athens 1929, where it is mentioned that the following Churches did not respond to the Patriarchal Encyclical of 1920:

“1) Alexandria, because at that time Patriarch Photios had no correspondence with Patriarch Joachim due to personal reasons;

2) Antioch, because relations were then severed (1897–1907, intervention of the Russian government, the ‘Arab question,’ effort to Arabize the Patriarchates of Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria [note by the editor]);

3) Cyprus, because it lacked a President; and

4) Karlovci, because the Encyclical had not been sent to it.”

The Church of Bulgaria, we remind, had been declared and condemned as schismatic since 1872 (with this lifted in 1945).

Worthy of mention is the following opinion of Manouel Gedeon concerning the response of the Church of Greece: “The Church of Greece apparently did not understand why or what it was being asked, and uttered certain incoherent statements, whereas it should have said: either ‘I condemn the so-called Julian [calendar],’ or ‘I accept the Gregorian,’ or ‘I construct a new one.’”

(See: The Blessed Meletios Pegas, Patriarch of Alexandria, Letter to Silvester, Patriarch, Concerning the Paschalion, edition of Hieromonk Savvas, Prologue, p. 15, Athens 1924).

14. In the Fourth Session (21 May 1923), Patriarch Mr. Meletios proposed the presentation before the Congress of the Anglican bishop Gore, but ultimately, in the Fifth Session (23 May 1923): “His Eminence Bishop—former of Oxford—Mr. Gore enters, accompanied also by the accompanying priest Baxton, and takes a seat to the right of the Patriarch.” Subsequently, a very illuminating dialogue took place between the Patriarch and Gore, concerning the calendar, the joint celebration, the movement for union, the conditions of union, etc.

(See: Dionysios M. Batistatos, op. cit., pp. 66, 84–88).

15. Such a decision was indeed taken, unquestionably unorthodox, proposed in fact by Patriarch Mr. Meletios, with the support also of the Committee on the dogmatic-canonical aspect of the matter under Professor Mr. V. Antoniadis.

(See: Dionysios M. Batistatos, op. cit., p. 24, §7, and pp. 68–69).

Perhaps for this reason, Mr. Chrysostomos Papadopoulos of Athens was emboldened one year later and proceeded unilaterally with the change of the calendar, his prior hesitations having been dispelled—despite what he had upheld as Archimandrite in the well-known “Report” of the five-member “Committee on the Reform of the Calendar” of January 1923 to the Government: “None of these (the Orthodox Churches) is able to separate itself from the others and accept a new calendar without becoming schismatic in relation to the others.”

(See the “Report” in Government Gazette of the Kingdom of Greece, First Issue, No. 24/25.1.1923, § 8).

16. “For thus indeed is the Ecclesiastical law divinely commanded from above: that matters doubtful and contentious within the Church of God are to be resolved and determined by Ecumenical Synods, in agreement and with the judgment of the bishops who shine forth upon the Apostolic Thrones.” (St. Nikephoros of Constantinople, PG vol. 100, col. 597C).

The “First” of a Holy Synod is obliged “to do nothing without the unanimous opinion and consent of the whole body of bishops or of the Synod around him, or, in the case of the Ecumenical Patriarch and concerning general ecclesiastical matters, only after consultation and agreement with the primates of the Autocephalous Churches or by decision of Pan-Orthodox Conferences and Synods.”

(See Ioannis N. Karmiris, Orthodox Ecclesiology, p. 527, Athens 1973).

17. “Many Orthodox Churches did not accept the change of the ecclesiastical calendar (see Θ.Η.Ε., vol. 6, col. 49). In this way, Orthodoxy was divided. Anglicanism succeeded in dividing Orthodoxy twice: first, on the matter of the recognition of Anglican ordinations, and second—more evidently—on the calendar issue. The Ecumenism that makes much ado about ‘unity’ is, in fact, destroying even the existing unity of the Orthodox for the sake of union with the heterodox.”

(See Aristotelēs D. Delēmbasis, The Heresy of Ecumenism, p. 237, Athens 1972).

“This joint celebrating and joint fasting of the Orthodox together with the heterodox and the heretics of the West—despite the explicit holy-canonical prohibitions (see Canons 10, 45, and 65 of the Holy Apostles; 6, 9, 32, 33, 34, and 37 of Laodicea; 9 of Timothy of Alexandria)—was the aim of the so-called Ecumenical Movement from the very beginning.”

This was advocated in the unorthodox Patriarchal Encyclical of 1920: “By the adoption of a unified calendar for the simultaneous celebration of the great Christian feasts by all the Churches” (referring to both Orthodox and heterodox).

This was also declared by Meletios Metaxakis in his enthronement speech as Patriarch of Constantinople in 1922: “Let me place myself in the service of the Church from her first Throne, for the cultivation—as far as possible—of closer relations of friendship with all non-Orthodox Christian Churches of the East and West; and for the promotion of the work of union with those among them who...”

This was also proclaimed by Chrysostomos Papadopoulos of Athens at his enthronement: “For such cooperation and solidarity, the difficult—unfortunately—dogmatic union is not a necessary prerequisite, for the union of Christian love is sufficient…”

This was the aim of the "Pan-Orthodox Congress" of Constantinople in 1923:

“to serve, in this regard (a common calendar), pan-Christian unity,”

“the drawing together of the two Christian worlds of East and West in the common celebration of the great Christian feasts,”

“this point will concern us as members of the pan-Christian brotherhood,”

and the Anglican bishop Gore declared at the fifth session: “The second step will be taken by the calendar question, which will bring us to the common celebration of the feasts,” because “for us in the West, it would be a great spiritual joy to be in a position to celebrate together the great Christian feasts of the Nativity, the Resurrection, and Pentecost.”

(See: Ioannis Karmiris, D.S.M., vol. II, pp. 957–960; Vasileios Th. Stavridis, The Ecumenical Patriarchs, 1860–present, vol. I, pp. 467–478, Thessaloniki 1977; Monk Pavlos of Cyprus, loc. cit., pp. 53 and 60; Dionysios M. Batistatos, loc. cit., pp. 6, 57, 72, 87, 86, etc.)

Noteworthy: In the funeral oration on the death of Chrysostomos Papadopoulos, delivered by Chrysostomos of Zakynthos, the late hierarch was praised as: “having worked beyond human strength” for the forthcoming union “of all Christian Churches, for which” “he exerted so many efforts.”

(See: Archimandrite Theokletos A. Strangas, E.E.I., vol. III, p. 2160. In a footnote, the author notes: “That is, after Meletios, he too was a pro-ecumenist, and even pro-unionist.”)

18. See Holy Apostolic Canon 63; 52, 56, 79 of the Holy Sixth Ecumenical Council; 19, 20 of the Holy Local Council in Gangra; 37, 51 of the Holy Local Council in Laodicea.

(Note by us: The sacred author refers only to these Holy Canons.)

19. See Holy Canon 56 of the Holy Sixth Ecumenical Council; 19 of the Holy Local Council in Gangra:

"...that the Church of God throughout the whole world should perform the fasts in the same manner and order..." (Canon 56).

"If anyone... abolishes the traditional fasts which are observed in common and kept by the Church... let him be anathema" (Canon 19).

20. “(I ask)... for those who will believe in Me through their (the Apostles') word, that they all may be one, just as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be one in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.”
(John 17:20–21)

21. Philippians 2:2.

22. Ephesians 4:3.

23. "Protestantism, having limited the subjective appropriation of salvation solely to faith, having denied the Holy Tradition, and having inscribed only Holy Scripture and faith upon its banner (sola scriptura – sola fide), and on the other hand having disputed the authority of the historic Church and nearly rejected it along with every ecclesiastical authority—such as Holy Tradition, the Ecumenical Council, or the Pope—reserving only Holy Scripture, was consequently and fatally swept into unrestrained individualism and subjectivism, and went astray in many respects concerning the definition of dogmatic teaching, worship, and the ecclesiastical administration of the Protestants, thus becoming distanced not only from the Roman Catholic Church, but also from the Orthodox Catholic Church."

(See Ioannis N. Karmiris, Martin Luther, in Theological Encyclopedia, vol. 8, col. 363.)

24. Martin Luther (1483–1546). German Professor of Theology, from Eisleben in Saxony. Leader of the Reformation (October 31, 1517, Wittenberg, 95 Theses). He was excommunicated by the Pope (1521). The result of the struggles for the predominance of the Reformation in Central and Western Europe was the Protest—Protestantism (1529, Protestation Record, Speyer, Bavaria, Diet).

25. Ἀπορριγῶ (-έω): I am wholly seized by shuddering; I shiver, tremble, am terrified, afraid, hesitant, I dread to do something.

26. See footnote no. 17.

27. Metropolitan of Demetrias Germanos (Mavrommatis). From Psara. He served as Metropolitan of Demetrias from 14 July 1907. He was endowed with exceptional administrative gifts, rare spiritual strength, and virtues. In the year 1935, he was exiled to the Holy Monastery of Chozoviotissa in Amorgos. He fell asleep in the Lord on 20 March 1944.

28. Metropolitan Chrysostomos (formerly) of Florina (Kavouridis). From Madytos in Eastern Thrace (13 November 1870). A great ecclesiastical and national figure. He studied at the Theological School of Halki. An exceptionally eloquent orator and prolific author. He successively served as Metropolitan of Imbros, Pelagonia (Monastir), and Florina. He opposed the election of Meletios Metaxakis as Ecumenical Patriarch and was therefore persecuted. He undertook the pastoral care of those adhering to the Patristic Calendar (1935). He was exiled twice by the innovators. He fell asleep in the Lord in 1955.

29. Metropolitan of Zakynthos Chrysostomos (Dimitriou). From Piraeus (25 March 1890). A man of vast learning, multilingual, extremely prolific writer, and most knowledgeable in musicology. He served as Metropolitan of Zakynthos from 1934 and, by transfer, of Trifylia and Olympia from 1957. He reposed on 22 October 1958. In the year 1935, having joined the Patristic Calendar, he was exiled to the Holy Monastery of Rombos in Aetolia-Acarnania, where he remained for a short period; having repented, however, he returned to the innovation.

(See former Metropolitan of Lemnos Vasileios, Concise Episcopal History of the Church of Greece from 1833 to the Present, vol. B, pp. 195–196, 177–178, Athens 1953).

30. From this God-pleasing vision “of the union of fragmented Orthodoxy and the pacification of the Church” the sacred struggle of the Confessor Hierarch was inspired, and he frequently expressed this sincere longing.

Later, the blessed Leader would write: “Therefore, we have from the Canons the full right to temporarily, and prior to a Synodal decision, interrupt ecclesiastical communion with the Hierarchy and to temporarily form our own religious Community, until the valid and final resolution of the calendar issue by a pan-Orthodox Council”; and elsewhere: “We entered the struggle under the banner of the restoration of the Patristic Calendar in the Church, setting as our primary aim not the perpetuation and eternalization of the ecclesiastical division, but the peace of the Church and the union of Christians in the celebration of the feasts.”

(See Metropolitan of former Florina Chrysostomos, Refutation of the Calendar Treatise of His Eminence Metropolitan Dorotheos Kottaras..., p. 18, December 1947).

See also the admirable and deeply theological Encyclical of 18 January 1945 entitled: “Clarification of the Pastoral Encyclical of His Eminence, former Florina Chrysostomos,” a separate booklet of 15 pages. Likewise, the epilogue of the letter of the Confessor Hierarch to Bishop Germanos Varykopoulos of the Cyclades (9 November 1937), in: Ilias Angelopoulos – Dionysios Batistatos, Metropolitan of former Florina Chrysostomos Kavourides – Fighter for Orthodoxy and the Nation, pp. 83–84, Athens 1981.

Even in the Holy Seventh Ecumenical Council, it is repeatedly stated that it was convened “for the union and concord of the Church,” and: “that we might transform the disagreement of those who are separated into agreement,” and: “that, casting off the division of the Churches, we might draw the separated ones toward union.”

Finally, St. Tarasios himself, in his Apologetic to the People..., before his consecration, declared: “I see and behold the Church of our God, founded upon the rock, Christ, now torn apart and divided…”

(See Mansi, vol. II, pp. 758b, 881b, 880a, 724a).

31. The “Renunciatory Document” addressed “to the Governing Synod” of the “Church of Greece,” bearing the title “Protest and Declaration,” was delivered on May 14/27, 1935 by a Court Bailiff, while the Holy Synod of the innovators was occupied with resolving the issue that had arisen concerning the three Confessor Hierarchs—of Demetrias, former Florina, and Zakynthos.

(See the “Renunciatory Document” in the present work of former Florina Chrysostomos, pp. 11–13. See also Archimandrite Theocletos A. Strangas, E.E.I., vol. III, pp. 2036–2037).

 

Greek source: ᾿Ορθόδοξος ῎Ενστασις καὶ Μαρτυρία, no. 17 / October–December 1989, pp. 67–78.

Online: https://www.imoph.org/Theology_el/3a4008Empneustai.pdf