Greek source: The Voice of Orthodoxy, No. 289, June 30, 1958 (O.S.), pp. 1-2.
Your Eminences,
From the program of the
proceedings of the Hierarchy to be convoked in October, published in Ekklisia,
the official organ of the Autocephalous Greek Church, we read that the disputed
Old Calendar question will also be examined, for which Your Eminences have been
appointed as rapporteurs. Although we intend to set forth our views clearly and
concretely in a memorandum, we wish by the present letter to emphasize the
seriousness of the matter, which you yourselves also know, so that your report
may prove to be a useful basis for the proceedings of the Hierarchy and that a
good result may come forth.
First of all, you must take note
of the occasion which provoked the Old Calendar question. The reform of the
calendar, against which the Old Calendarists reacted, was audaciously
undertaken at the Conference convened in Constantinople in 1923 under the aegis
of the then Patriarch Meletios Metaxakis. This conference was of the clearest
Protestant deviation and sought the “readjustment” of Orthodoxy to the
contemporary European spirit. And in the program of this “readjustment” it
reformed the calendar, so that all Christians might celebrate together the
great feasts of Christendom. The intentions of Protestantization, or at least
of the rapprochement of Orthodoxy toward the worldly spirit of the Protestants,
are proved by: a) the presence at the conference of Anglican clerics, b) the
express assurance of the Patriarch to the Anglican Archbishop that he would
carry out whatever was necessary for the rapprochement of the two Churches, c)
the discussion of matters explicitly and categorically resolved by Orthodox
tradition, such as the marriage of clerics after ordination, etc. (see the book
Proceedings and Decisions of the Pan-Orthodox Conference in Constantinople,
May 10—June 8, 1923).
Consequently, the sole motive of
the calendar reform was flirtation with Protestantism, the adversary and enemy
of Orthodoxy. But the question also arises: did the conference in question have
the competence to undertake such a reform?
We shall quote words of Patriarch
Meletios on this: “We are not constituted as a Synod, whose decisions would
claim to be applied as canonical ordinances” (ibid., p. 36). Thus the
calendar reform, from the standpoint of motives and intentions, constitutes a
tendency and movement toward the Protestantization and Westernization of the
Orthodox Church; and again, from the standpoint of canonicity, it constitutes a
coup and arbitrariness!
How, then, could these two
elements not stir up the reaction of the Orthodox pleroma, which by
intuition knows the boundaries and the depth of Orthodoxy? The calendar
question is well and rightly limited only to the time of the determination of
the feasts. This time, in and of itself, for the celebration of the feasts is
indifferent for Orthodoxy; however, insofar as the calendar, as a means of
Orthodox worship, assumed the form of an institution, most closely connected
with the festal calendar, then every reform of it far from and outside the
canonical path, that of the Synod, constitutes a deviation and a provocation
against the Orthodox mind of the people, but also a transgression subject to
punishment.
Your Eminences,
You have visited, as
representatives of the Autocephalous Greek Church, other Orthodox Churches
which follow the old Calendar. Consider, then, in drafting your report, in
accordance with Archpastoral conscientiousness, why indeed these Churches did
not follow the calendar innovation; likewise, in what respect they fall short
from the standpoint of zeal and ecclesiastical activity, while celebrating
according to the old calendar; finally, how they judge the adherence of
Orthodox Greece to the reform, and how they intend to confront it when a
Pan-Orthodox Synod is convened.
Moreover, consider that the unity
of the Orthodox East has been ruptured, and that Orthodoxy is an
ecclesiastical, supranational reality, so that an individual line of course for
the separate autocephalous Churches is not permissible, until God is well pleased
and Orthodoxy recovers its cohesion, which was broken apart by the agent of
Protestantism, Theoklitos Pharmakidis.
But also, the situation in
Greece, from the ecclesiastical standpoint, is tragic, on account of the
calendar innovation introduced without discernment and uncanonically.
Conservative elements, professing Orthodoxy with anguished devotion, remain far
from the Church, elements which, if enlisted, would become the counterweight to
the raging propaganda of the Chiliasts, Protestants, etc. The Church has
abandoned her defense to para-ecclesiastical organizations, which lead her this
way and that, but also despoil the Orthodox character of many of her
manifestations. The strength of the Church is the people, the flock. Therefore,
a fairly significant part of this flock is far from her, reviled and
persecuted. On the other hand, individuals who make piety a means of gain
invade the Old Calendar movement and pursue their own benefits, trampling down
ecclesiastical institutions and offices, such as the uncanonical ordinations of
Keratea [i.e., the Matthewites].
Your Eminences,
You have undertaken a heavy
responsibility; you are called in October to indicate solutions and measures
for the grave ecclesiastical tragedy of recent years. Before your venerable
hands draw up the report, let your Archpastoral conscience judge the matter
with impartiality. We provide grounds for such thoughts. You have an obligation
to seek also the opinion of those who remain steadfast and, despite pressure
and persecutions, proclaim that the highest interest of the Church is the unity
of the Orthodox from every standpoint, on the basis of the unaltered
institutions and canons of Orthodoxy.
The police sword and the
ministerial seal worsen the problem and inflame the contending parties.
Take heed.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.