Bishop Klemes of Gardikion | December 12/25, 2017
In the very interesting book The
Real Truth Concerning the Ecclesiastical Calendar, written by the champion
of the Patristic Calendar Gregorios Efstratiadis (+1950), lawyer, publisher,
and politician, and published in Athens in 1929, with the aim, among other
things, of refuting the unsound arguments of the New Calendarists that their
Innovation neither conflicts with the Dogma and Tradition of the Church nor
harms Her Unity, the great truth is also emphasized that the Holy Synods of
the Church had as their aim the Unity in Truth of the local Churches, and
that this is their greatest Dogma and their most imperative Condition and
Canon, as well as the principal reason for their convocation.
And indeed, not only with regard
to the Feast of Feasts, Holy Pascha, but also with regard to the other Feasts,
the Fasts, and generally all that has been handed down by the Apostles and the
Holy Fathers, all the Synods aimed at these being observed in common by
all the Local Churches. For this reason, the unilateral change of the
Ecclesiastical Calendar in 1924 by the Church of Greece and the Ecumenical
Patriarchate of Constantinople ran counter to this purpose of the unity of the
local Churches and violated the Canons and the Definitions of the Ecumenical
Councils, which were enacted precisely for the Unity of the One, Holy,
Catholic, and Apostolic Church (see p. 89 of the work in question).
The concern and purpose of the
Synods, Efstratiadis emphasizes, was not only the common celebration of the
Feast of Pascha, but also all the Feasts connected with it, as well as the
so-called immovable Feasts—and especially Christmas—and also the Fasts of the
ecclesiastical year. The reference to Pascha pertains not only, in a narrow
sense, to what is directly related to it, but to the entire Typikon
order, which depends upon it and has as its basis the Calendar of the Church,
since to this Calendar are adapted the Paschalion of the Church, the
Festal Calendar, the Fasts, and the cycle of Sunday Gospel readings. For
this reason, whoever disturbs this Typikon order of the Church—which is
fundamentally disrupted by the change of the Calendar—inevitably violates the
Canons of the Church, whose purpose is to safeguard the Unity of the Church
(see pp. 89–90).
As for what was laid down
concerning Pascha, especially by the First Ecumenical Council and by the
Tradition of the Church, its purpose was not to determine the exact
astronomical equinox at a particular time, but rather to ensure that Pascha
would be celebrated by all Orthodox Christians throughout the world on one and
the same Sunday, so that the one Faith and unanimity in piety might be
preserved, [that celebrating together with the Jews or with the heterodox might
be avoided, we would also add], and that there might be no disagreement
concerning this Feast, since there is one Catholic Church of Christ the
Saviour, and it is therefore entirely improper that on the very same days some
should fast while others should celebrate with rejoicing (see p. 95).
Building upon this noteworthy
line of reasoning, the ever-memorable Gregorios Efstratiadis continues his work
with the skill and depth that distinguished this outstanding apologist of
Genuine Orthodoxy, enlightening us as well today, in a timely manner, in
confronting the unacceptable sophistries of the Innovating New
Calendarist-Ecumenists, and writing the following important observations:
“But [the
decision of the First Ecumenical Council] concerns the Feast of Pascha, the
Innovators together with the Archbishop of Athens [Chrysostomos Papadopoulos]
will reply to us, and we have introduced no innovation concerning Pascha. No,
we answer. This is Pharisaism and sophistry. When an Ecumenical Council decrees
that the purpose of determining Pascha is that the various Churches should not
disagree and that, while some of us are celebrating, others should not be
fasting; when, that is, the Ecumenical Council establishes the Unity of the
One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and enjoins unanimity within Her;
when it declares that such was the purpose of the Canons of the Ecumenical
Council, this same purpose applies to every common Feast and to every common
Fast. Nor could it be conceived that the First Ecumenical Council restricted
the necessity of the unity of the Church solely to the Feast of Pascha, and
that it was indifferent to disagreement concerning other Feasts and other
Fasts. Therefore, if there would be a violation of the decisions and Canons of
the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea if the Feast of Pascha were altered and
division and disagreement arose among the Churches concerning the day of
Pascha, the same violation of the provisions of that same Ecumenical Council
also exists when, through the change of the Ecclesiastical Calendar,
disagreement and division arise among the Churches concerning the celebration
of any other Feast as well, and particularly the Feast of the Nativity of
Christ, the Feast of Theophany, the Feast of the Dormition of the Theotokos,
the Feast of the Holy Apostles, etc. In such a case, too, the unity of the
Churches is violated; and it was precisely for this unity that the Fathers of
the Church took care—a unity which is disrupted and shattered by the unilateral
change of the Ecclesiastical Calendar, decided upon with such superficiality
and such lack of ecclesiastical consciousness.”
And that the
Ecumenical Councils did not have in view exclusively the Feast of Pascha, but
had regard to all the Feasts and Fasts and required unity and unanimity with
respect to them all, is demonstrated, besides the aforementioned Synodal
decision and the letter of Emperor Constantine [these are texts which the
author had cited earlier], also by the following:
From the letter
of Saint Athanasius the Great, who—then a Deacon—participated in the Council of
Nicaea, which letter he addressed to the African Bishops, and in which he says:
“…For it [the
First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea] was convened because of the Arian heresy
and because of Pascha. For those in Syria, Cilicia, and Mesopotamia were at
variance with us, and they also celebrated it at the time when the Jews did.
But thanks be to the Lord, just as agreement was reached concerning the Faith,
so too agreement was reached concerning the holy Feast. And this was the
cause of the Council of Nicaea.”
Thus, according
to Saint Athanasius the Great as well, the agreement of the Church was the
reason for the Council of Nicaea. And if disagreement had arisen concerning any
other Feast, as it had concerning Pascha, an Ecumenical Council would likewise
have been convened concerning that Feast. It was chiefly for this reason that
the Councils and their enactments sought to safeguard ecclesiastical unity
through common agreement. That the Fathers regarded the other Feasts of the
Lord in the same way as the Feast of Pascha was stated by [Saint] John
Chrysostom.
From the
Discourse of John Chrysostom On the Blessed Philogonius (Discourse III),
speaking concerning the Feast of the Nativity, which he calls the “Metropolis
of all the Feasts,” and says concerning it: “For from this Feast the Theophany,
holy Pascha, the Ascension, and Pentecost received their beginning and
foundation. For if Christ had not been born according to the flesh, He would
not have been baptized, which is the Theophany; He would not have been crucified,
which is Pascha; He would not have sent down the Spirit, which is Pentecost.
Thus, from this Feast, as though from a certain fountain, various rivers flowed
forth, and these Feasts were appointed for us.”
If such is the
nature of the Feast of the Nativity, and such is how it is regarded by the
Fathers of the Church, how could disagreement among the Churches concerning it
be permitted, and how could the Ecumenical Councils have been convened only on
account of Pascha? And since their enactments were made in order to safeguard
unity with regard to the Feasts, how is it that, in the case of the Feast of
Pascha, we regard a change as prohibited by the Canons, whereas in the case of
the Feast of the Nativity and the other Feasts, which the change of the
Calendar shifted by thirteen days, we regard such a change as not conflicting
with the Canons of the Councils? Since the spirit of the Canons concerning the
Feast of Pascha is that there should be unanimity among the Churches regarding
the day of all the Feasts, how is the Calendar change not uncanonical, when by
means of it some Churches celebrate the Feasts of the Nativity, Theophany,
etc., on one day, while other Churches celebrate them on another?
Thus, the
Fathers of the Church attributed the highest importance to Her Unity and
proclaimed, as a foremost Dogma, the agreement of all the Churches in
matters concerning the celebration of outward Worship” (pp. 95–98).
As is immediately evident and
readily understood, the Calendar Innovation conflicts with the letter, and even
more so with the spirit, of the sacred Canons of the Church concerning
unanimity and agreement in the celebration of the entire festal cycle of the
Church, as the Confessor of the Faith Gregorios Efstratiadis demonstrates with
such clarity, thereby showing the enormous error and responsibility of the
Innovators, who gravely impaired the outward expression of the Dogma of the
Unity of the Church. The fact that they dare to celebrate Christmas together
with the heterodox, separating themselves from the Festal Tradition of the
Church—which provides for the celebration of Saint Spyridon on that day and the
continuation of the blessed period of Fasting in preparation for the great
Feast of the Nativity of the Orthodox—manifests the chasm that separates them
from Orthodoxy, as well as their continuing preference and sin of apostatizing
by rejoicing together, in an Ecumenistic manner, with the enemies of God in a
far country! May God grant them repentance and return!
Greek source:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.