Address: “1924–2024: The Calendar Reform and Ecumenism,” Part 1

 Metropolitan Kyprianos II of Oropos and Phyle | May 13/26, 2024 | Phyle

 

The pious Orthodox Anti-Ecumenists of the Patristic Calendar this year, on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the Calendar Reform, although they face many difficulties, obstacles, and afflictions in their course and Witness, rejoice

“at the same time, because by the Grace and the power of God and the intercessions of the Saints, in whose path we have sought to walk, we have succeeded, despite our weaknesses and our smallness, in maintaining for one century an unwavering Orthodox course, within a syncretistic and ecumenistic environment, being persecuted, slandered, and despised, chiefly by those enlisted in the pan-heresy of Ecumenism, who have greatly multiplied. We glorify and give thanks to the Triune God, because He strengthened us not to deviate from this narrow and afflicted way and to reach this milestone of 100 years of Struggles and Confession.” [1]

***

A. It is known, and much has been written—reliable and indisputable—concerning this, that since 1920 Orthodoxy has not chiefly faced a Calendar Issue, but primarily and above all an Ecumenism Issue.

It is highly indicative in this regard what the well-known Professor of Theology of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Mr. Dimitrios Tselengidis, points out:

“…The most destructive work upon the dogmatic conscience of the fullness of the Orthodox Church has been done, and continues to be done, by Ecumenism. Ecumenism today constitutes the foul-smelling bearer of inter-Christian and inter-religious syncretism and consequently the most official bearer of the most dangerous pan-heresy of all ages, because it contributes decisively to the blunting of the Orthodox criterion and of Orthodox self-consciousness. Specifically, through its representatives, locally and internationally, it continually and gradually attempts ever greater ‘concessions’ in the ecclesiological-dogmatic consciousness of spiritually unsuspecting Orthodox faithful. And this it achieves in particular through the relativization or even the practical annulment of the authority of the teaching of the holy Fathers, and especially of their collective decisions within the framework of the Ecumenical Councils. See, for example, the blatant and continual, for years now, violation of the Second Canon of the Quinisext Ecumenical Council, which explicitly forbids common prayer with those not in communion and with heterodox, with the clear threat of deposition of clergy and excommunication of laypeople who violate it.” [2]

***

The inseparable relationship between the Ecumenical Movement and the Calendar Reform is fully documented, from both a historical and theological standpoint. [3]

The year 1924 constitutes a landmark in the historical manifestation — the first stage and development of the aims of the Ecumenical Movement, foreign to the Patristic Tradition, in the form of inter-Christian and subsequently inter-religious Syncretism. [4]

It is recalled that the Calendar Reform had been preceded by the Encyclical of 1920 issued by the Patriarchate of Constantinople, as well as by the so-called Pan-Orthodox Congress of Constantinople (1923), both lacking an ecclesio-patristic perspective.

The Ecumenical Movement, [5] understood as the cooperation of the various Christian Confessions for the service of the world with the ultimate aim of their union, first appeared in the mid-nineteenth century within the Protestant world: various tendencies, efforts, and movements, although initially having different aims, assumed the form of worldwide unions and spread internationally, preparing the ground for an ecumenical cooperation of all Christians. [6]

Thus, quite naturally, the idea arose very early for the establishment of an organization which would include within its ranks the various Protestant movements, so that the Ecumenical Movement might be institutionalized in the most official manner and indeed on a pan-Christian level.

The establishment of the “League of Nations” promoted the vision of a “League of Churches,” that is, an Inter-Christian Federation, despite the unbridgeable dogmatic differences.

Precisely at this critical point, the Patriarchate of Constantinople entered most officially into the ecumenical developments and undertook initiatives which constituted Innovations and a complete overturning of the exact rule and definition of the pious teaching, of the Apostolic “Type of Teaching.” [7]

***

In January 1920, Constantinople, through the Patriarchal Encyclical, in an unprecedented manner, proposed — as was very rightly observed — something “without precedent in the history of the Church”; [8] it proposed, for the benefit “of the whole body of the Church,” within which “body” both Orthodox and heterodox are understood, that a “League of Churches” be established!...

At the foundations of this Inter-Christian Federation, which was embodied in 1948 with the establishment of the “World Council of Churches” (W.C.C.), lie three doctrinal errors, which constitute a “great blow against Orthodox ‘perfected piety’,” and these are the following:

a) Baptismal Theology; according to this, “all Christians” [“regardless of which Confession they belong to”] are sacramentally and mysteriously united with Christ and with one another through the sacramental grace of holy Baptism. [9]

b) Dogmatic Syncretism; according to this, the various “Christian Churches,” despite the doctrinal differences existing among them, are able to implement “rapprochement,” “friendship,” and “cooperation,” as well as “association” and “communion.” [10]

This “phenomenon” of Dogmatic Syncretism, that is, inter-Christian cooperation, “while both sides (Orthodox and heretics) nevertheless remain within their own doctrinal spheres,” is “unknown and inconceivable in the history of the Church,” bears the odor of an “abhorrent religious syncretism,” and tends “toward the establishment of a harmonious and undisturbed coexistence of truth and error, light and darkness”; this — according to the opinion of a prominent cleric of the Innovation — “can only be interpreted as a ‘sign of the times.’” [11]

c) The Secularizing Perspective; according to this, the “association” and “cooperation” of Orthodox and heterodox are considered necessary in order to confront a world-centered problematic; pan-Christian unity aims at a secularizing vision: we are threatened by social scourges (alcoholism, luxury, love of pleasure, sensual indulgence, etc.), and therefore must cooperate.

The Secularizing Perspective gives the impression that it forgets from what the Truth of the Church truly saves us, since it entirely passes over in silence that “even the elimination of all these social scourges does not save man,” [12] because what is sought is not merely moral improvement through an ideological Christianity, but the deification of man through his incorporation into the Body of the God-Man, the Living Christ.

***

The proposals of the “Encyclical” of 1920 were not only adopted, [13] but were fully implemented in the course of the Ecumenical Movement, [14] and were even expanded, so that today all of them together are characterized as “Steps toward the Stabilization of a Common Christian Mindset.” [15]

We refer to them briefly, for economy of time:

1. “Creation of a common calendar”;
2. “More intensive communication through correspondence”;
3. “Closer relations among representatives of the Churches”;
4. “Communication and ‘fraternization’ of Theological Schools”;
5. “Promotion of ecumenical studies”;
6. “Ecumenical spirit in education as a whole”;
7. “Theological dialogues and conferences”;
8. “Ecumenical formation of the fullness of all confessions”;
9. “‘Fraternization’ of Bishoprics and Metropolises of different confessions”;
10. “Common celebration of enthronement feasts and patron saints”;
11. “Resolution of dogmatic problems”;
12. “Mutual respect for customs and traditions”;
13. “Avoidance of the creation of new problems”;
14. “Granting of houses of worship”;
15. “Mixed marriages”; and finally,
16. “Cooperation on the broadest level regarding contemporary issues.” [15]

It is entirely evident that we have before us a planned and progressively developing intermingling of Orthodox and heterodox, which certainly is anything but a Theological Dialogue, and which moreover led to further anti-Orthodox deviations.

Within the “World Council of Churches” (W.C.C.), according to the admission of a Romanian ecumenist metropolitan,

“despite the protests of the Orthodox, moral norms were approved which oppose Holy Scripture: homosexuality, lesbianism, abortions, and in general the entire Christian biblical and traditional morality was overturned.” [16]

***

Within this historical-theological framework, the Calendar Reform was implemented in 1924, and it is now time, after one hundred years, to realize deeply that, once Ecumenism is rejected as an ecclesiological deviation, the Calendar Innovation is likewise rejected together with it, since it is connatural with and shares the same root as 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 earlier — and long-standing — causal relationship between Papal Proselytism and the Gregorian Reform, from the sixteenth century onward (1582 ff.), to be forgotten.

After the repeated condemnation of the papal Calendar Innovation by the Orthodox Church (1583, 1587, 1593), the waves of confusion arising from the “World Scandal” [17] of the Gregorian Calendar did not cease to strike the Divine Vessel of Orthodoxy, through intensified papal propaganda in the East.

Professor I. Sokolov, of the Theological Academy of Petrograd, wrote in 1910:

“But also in later times the Greek hierarchs repeatedly recommended to the Orthodox the avoidance even of 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 showed the same concern in this matter, for which reason in Palestine, in Syria, in Egypt, and in Cyprus patriarchal and pastoral Encyclicals were issued both to the clergy and to the people, in which the character and purpose of this calendar reform were emphasized and it was connected with the rest of the well-known series of the various innovations of the papal Church,” since “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 customary tendencies of the ecclesiastical absolutism prevailing in the West, whose dream was, and is, and will be, the extension of its influence over the Orthodox East. It was regarded, in other words, as a new papal campaign against Orthodoxy in the East. Having been thus regarded and evaluated, this innovation was immediately condemned” [18] by Orthodoxy in Synods.

It is exceedingly important, and 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 upon the scene, who, “having moved every stone in the Orthodox East with zeal in favor of the acceptance of this reform (the papal calendar),” ultimately declared in the year 1905

“that this bears ecclesiastical and religious significance and indeed constitutes one of the fundamental and most essential questions on account of which the division between the Churches exists. The very essence of this question lies in the acceptance or non-acceptance of ‘the one source of ecclesiastical jurisdiction,’ that is to say, in the acceptance or rejection of the papal primacy in the Church of Christ.” [19]

***

C. The careful, unbiased, and objective study of the sources referring to the Calendar Question, from the sixteenth century up to our own days, places it within a very broad historical perspective, which it is impossible either to ignore or to pass over superficially.

The Calendar Question, on the basis of the testimonies, is shown not to be approached or treated independently, as though it were supposedly a neutral and non-dogmatic matter.

a. In the early phase of the Calendar Question, Papism “intended to use the question of the Calendar as a propagandistic means of deception and of causing conflict among the Orthodox, attributing to its acceptance by them the significance of recognition of the Primacy of the Pope.” [20]

b. In the later phase of the Calendar Question, Ecumenism aimed, through the adoption of a Common Calendar, at the

“approximation of the two Christian worlds of East and West in the celebration of the great Christian feasts,”

regarding this as

“the first stone for the construction of the edifice of the union of all the Churches of God.” [21]

In the end, the persistence of the pious Orthodox of the Patristic Calendar in the age-old, Patristically-transmitted Ecclesiastical Calendar finds its full vindication today, insofar as — as consistent Anti-ecumenists — they realize the golden rule that

“one must in all things follow the Fathers,”

“and it is more pious to adhere to the ancestral traditions”; [22]

“everything distinguished by antiquity is venerable.” [23]

Even before 1924, the “Julian calendar which from ancient times prevailed in the Orthodox Church” was upheld

“as the only one suitable for the Church,”

“because it is Patristically transmitted and has always been ecclesiastically ratified.” [24]

This steadfast adherence of the pious to Ecclesiastical Tradition preserves them within the blessed communion “together with all the Saints,” [25] within the bounds of Orthodox Catholicity.

And behold, in conclusion, the critical question arises:

If even the Angels, should they “disturb” what has been handed down, are “anathematized,” [26] then how can any man, being in the flesh, who disturbs and introduces innovations — and indeed such innovations — not be estranged from God? … [27]

***

D. However, as the point of reference of our present subject, we have set hope — hope in Christ; and with this we would like to conclude.

A small portion of the Orthodox, the pious Anti-ecumenists of the Patristic Calendar, by the Grace of God undertook the immense burden of resistance to the newly-appeared heresy, as well as the responsibility to labor with perseverance and hope for the awakening of Orthodox Anti-ecumenism.

These, constituting the “Little Flock” [28] and having continually before their eyes the eternal proclamation of the heaven-revealed Basil:

“placing nothing as preferable to the truth and to their own security” [29]

[we consider nothing more preferable than the Truth and our steadfastness in the right Faith],

remained firm, unshaken, and consistent with the demands of the “Orthodox and God-pleasing Resistance.” [30]

Has this perseverance of theirs borne fruit?

Certainly, for despite the violent reactions of the Innovators and the various prejudices of those who are ignorant, the resistance bore abundant fruits and is already bearing even richer ones.

The findings and predictions of the Orthodox Anti-Ecumenists were unfortunately fully confirmed; the inter-Christian and inter-religious opening of the Ecumenical Movement brought about such an alteration in the ecclesiological consciousness of the Orthodox Ecumenists that sincere and weighty confessions are now being made even by clergy of the Innovation, such as the following:

“Ecumenism, the greatest heresy of the twentieth century, proclaiming doctrinal and religious syncretism and tending toward a form of pan-religion through the equalization of Christian confessions and religions, constitutes the most deadly threat to Orthodoxy.” [31]

Confessions of a similar nature continually come to light ever more frequently and with greater force, and they vindicate the hope for the full and dynamic awakening of Orthodox Anti-Ecumenism, by the grace and assistance of the divine Founder of the Church.

“Hope,” according to the Holy Apostle Paul, “does not disappoint.” [32]

We conclude with a very characteristic text of the ever-memorable Protopresbyter Father Michael Pomazansky (Dogmatic Theologian, Philosopher, Professor of the Russian, Greek, and Latin languages, of the Russian Diaspora); this text fully expresses the hopeful perspective of our Holy Synod and constitutes a kind of “symbol” thereof:

“At this critical historical moment,” said the ever-memorable Dogmatic Theologian, “much courage, steadfastness, conscientiousness, readiness for sacrifice, and strong faith in the words of the Savior concerning the unshakable nature of the Church are required from all those who faithfully remain in Orthodoxy.

There is no doubt that in the depths of every local Orthodox Church there exists a true understanding of Orthodoxy and a readiness to rise up for Its defense.

These voices must arise and be heard.

We must not be discouraged by the apparent weakness and obscurity of these voices.” [33]

Already these “voices” are awakening, overcoming weakness and obscurity, and are being added to the front of Orthodox Anti-Ecumenism.

***

Appendix

The term Syncretism [4]

First of all, the term Syncretism is not related to the word comparison or to the verb to compare, since it originated from the Cretans, that is, the inhabitants of Crete.

The Cretans, as Plutarch informs us, [34] in times of external danger, forgot their internal divisions and disputes among themselves and thus united, so that, being joined together, they might confront the common enemy that threatened them. [35]

Syncretism, therefore, primarily means union and association despite differences, for the purpose of confronting a threat.

Furthermore, by the same term is characterized, in general terms, the phenomenon and the tendencies toward reconciliation, mixture, unification, and fusion of languages, philosophical ideas, cultures, and religions. [36]

What is particularly noteworthy during the process of this secondary Syncretism is that “possible differences are overlooked and significant similarities or even coincidences are emphasized” [37] between the parties that stand in relation and interaction with one another.

It should also be noted that the phenomenon of Syncretism is extremely ancient and worldwide, and even in our own days “there exist tendencies of religious syncretism which seek a pan-religious unity,” [37] such as, for example, those expressed through the multifaceted movement of the “New Age.”

 

References

1. Cf. Protopresbyter Fr. Theodoros Zisis, “We cease the publication of Theodromia,” journal Theodromia, Oct.–Dec. 2023, p. 487, §2. Due use and grateful reference, with corresponding adaptation, of a recent text of the Emeritus Professor Fr. Th. Z.

2. Professor of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Mr. Demetrios Tselengidis, newspaper Orthodoxos Typos, issue no. 2,489/29.3.2024, p. 2.

3. See Archimandrite Cyprian and Hieromonk Clement Agiokyprianites (now Metropolitans), Ecumenical Movement and Orthodox Anti-Ecumenism: The Critical Confrontation of One Century, Athens 2001.

4. See in detail: Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Phyle († 2013), The Patristic Stance toward Interreligious Syncretism – Saint Chrysostom and the Jews, Athens 2004, 150 pages.

https://www.imoph.org/Publications_el/BookB-9.pdf

See the Appendix, at the end of the present Text, where “the term Syncretism” is analyzed.

5. The first who used the term “Ecumenical Movement” in its modern sense is considered to be the French pastor Adolphe Monod in 1846, and from that time the term has been used periodically. “However, chiefly from the Oxford Conference (1937) onward, this term received its now customary and commonly established meaning and usage” (B. Th. Stavridis and E. A. Varella, History of the Ecumenical Movement, p. 30, publications “P.I.P.M.”, Analekta Vlatadon – 47, Thessaloniki 1996).

6. See B. Th. Stavridis and E. A. Varella, ibid., pp. 59 ff., 65 ff., 73 ff., 81 ff., 93 ff. Indicatively: 1844 (“Young Men’s Christian Association” / YMCA); 1855 (“Young Women’s Christian Association” / YWCA); 1854 ff. (convocation of various conferences of international missionary organizations); 1910 (First World Missionary Conference); 1914 (“World Alliance for Promoting International Friendship through the Churches”); 1921 (International Missionary Council); 1925 (First World Conference of “Life and Work”); 1927 (First World Conference of “Faith and Order”). The last two World Movements, “Life and Work” and “Faith and Order,” constituted chiefly the nucleus and infrastructure for the establishment of the “World Council of Churches.”

7. Cf. Rom. 6:17.

8. “Without precedent in Church history.” The statement belongs to the first General Secretary of the “W.C.C.,” Dr. Visser ’t Hooft. See George Tsetsis, The Meaning of the Orthodox Presence in the Ecumenical Movement, in the collective volume: Orthodox Visions of Ecumenism, Gennadios Limouris (ed.), WCC Publications, Geneva 1994, p. 172, § The history of Orthodox presence.

9. John N. Karmiris, Dogmatics, Vol. V, Orthodox Ecclesiology, p. 243 and note (see also pp. 241–242, 271–272), Athens 1973. For the sake of “the whole body of the Church,” the “entire Christian body,” it is deemed necessary that there be established among the Churches: “rapprochement” (5 times), “communion” (twice), “connection” (4 times), “friendship” (once), and “co-operation” (once).

10. B. Th. Stavridis and E. A. Varella, op. cit., pp. 332–336 (Encyclical of 1920).

11. Archimandrite Epiphanios I. Theodoropoulos, “The Joint Celebration of Pascha,” journal Enoria, no. 549 / 10.5.1974, p. 112, emphasis ours.

12. Christos Yannaras, Truth and the Unity of the Church, pp. 197–198, Grigoris Publications, Athens 1977.

13. The Churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Serbia, and Romania replied to the Church of Constantinople by letters and praised it for the initiative of the “Encyclical.” See M. P. G. Tsetsis, The Contribution of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to the Establishment of the World Council of Churches, pp. 82–86, op. cit.

14. The “Encyclical” of 1920 was accepted pan-Orthodoxly by the “First Pan-Orthodox Conference of Rhodes” (1961), which, in the “List of the subjects of the forthcoming Pan-Orthodox Pre-Council,” and more specifically in the subdivision “V. Relations of the Orthodox Church with the rest of the Christian world” and in the topic “VI. Orthodoxy and the Ecumenical Movement,” provides for “the presence and participation of the Orthodox Church in the Ecumenical Movement in the spirit of the Patriarchal Encyclical of 1920” (see Ioannes Karmiris, D.S.M., pp. 984 [1082]–985 [1083], op. cit.).

15. Gregory Larentzakis, “Basic principles for the preservation and restoration of Christian unity — Orthodox views,” E.P.E.TH.CH., vol. Aʹ, p. 351, ch. III, Athens 1987.

By the same author, ibid., pp. 352–365, where the “Steps” are analyzed, which — according to the Ecumenists — “can immediately and without dogmatic or canonical impediments be implemented, or where they are already implemented, be strengthened and intensified” (p. 351).

16. Metropolitan Antonie (Plămădeală) of Transylvania, “Contemporary Orthodoxy — Contemporary World. Problems of contemporary Orthodoxy and especially its relations with the Ecumenical Movement,” journal Ekklesia, no. 13/1–15.9.1994, p. 501a, emphasis ours.

17. Patriarch Jeremias II of Constantinople (1572–1594), Letter to the Doge of Venice, Mr. Nikolaos Daponte. See K. N. Sathas, Biographical Sketch concerning Patriarch Jeremias II, p. 28, Athens 1870.

18. I. Sokolov, The Question concerning the Reform of the Calendar as judged by the Orthodox Churches of the East, Petrograd 1910. See Gregorios Papamichael, On the Calendar Reform, journal Pantainos of Alexandria, no. 39 / 10.6.1910, pp. 624–628.

19. Ibid.

20. Metropolitan Kallinikos of Kyzikos, Pascha. See journal Orthodoxia of Constantinople, no. 12/1927, p. 509.

21. Dionysios M. Batistatos (ed.), Proceedings and Decisions of the Pan-Orthodox Congress in Constantinople (10.5–8.6.1923), pp. 57 and 189, Athens 1982.

22. Hieromonk Meletios Pegas, Alexandrian Tome concerning the Paschalion, pp. 145 and 153. See Lettres de Meletius Pigas antérieures à sa promotion au Patriarcat, by Emile Legrand, Paris 1902.

23. Seventh Holy Ecumenical Council, Mansi, vol. 13, col. 252B and col. 328E, Act VI, Volumes III and VI.

24. Encyclical of 1902, Patriarch Joachim III. See Vasileios Th. Stavridis – Evangelia A. Varella, op. cit., p. 325.

25. Eph. 3:18.

26. Gal. 1:8–9.

27. St. Theodore the Studite, PG, vol. 99, col. 1033D, Epistle 36, to Euprepianos and those with him, E.L.I.

28. Luke 12:32.

29. St. Basil the Great, PG, vol. 32, col. 925BC, Epistle 245, to Bishop Theophilos, E.L.II.

30. St. Theodore the Studite, PG, vol. 99, col. 1045D, Epistle 39, to Abbot Theophilos, E.L.I.

31. Archimandrite Spyridon Sp. Bilalis, Orthodoxy and Papism, vol. II, p. 598, 1st edition, “Orthodoxos Typos” Publications, Athens 1969.

32. Rom. 5:5.

33. Protopresbyter Fr. Michael Pomazansky (1888–1988), The Church of Christ and the Contemporary Movement for Unity in Christianity, in the collected volume of his articles in English Selected Essays, p. 230, Holy Trinity Monastery, Jordanville, New York, USA, 1996.

34. Plutarch, Moralia, 490AB: “Furthermore, it is fitting to recall that practice of the Cretans, who, although often engaging in factional strife and warfare among themselves, whenever external enemies attacked, ceased their conflicts and united; and this was what they called ‘syncretism.’”

35. “The Cretans say ‘to syncretize’ when war arises against them after they have united; for they were continually in factional conflict” (Etymologicum Magnum, 732, 54, ed. T. Gaisford, Oxford 1848). From this also derives the verb: syn-kritizō — syncretizō.

37. N. I. Louvareos, “Syncretism,” in M.E.E. – Pyrsós, vol. 22, p. 487bc, Athens 1933; P. K. Pallis, “Syncretism,” in Th.H.E., vol. 11, cols. 512–513, Athens 1967; I. S. Alexakis, “Syncretism,” in N.E.L. Helios, vol. 17, p. 348b; N. Makris, “Syncretism,” in Introductory Dictionary of Political Terms and Philosophy, pp. 372–373, Athens 1990; E. N. Roussos, “Syncretism,” in E.E.E., vol. 21, Religions, p. 376cd, Ekdotiki Athinon, Athens 1992; Stratis Psaltos, “Syncretism,” in Dictionary of Religious Studies, pp. 508–509, “Ellinika Grammata” Publications, Athens 2000.

37. Nikos Makris, op. cit., p. 373.

 

Greek source:

https://www.imoph.org/pdfs/2024/06/07/20240607b1924-2024-omilia.pdf