GOC History: On the State of the Old Calendar Church in 1980

Greek source: Ὁ Ἁγιορείτης, Issue No. 13, December 1980, pp. 1-5. Published by Fr. Kallinikos (Persides) of Kapsala, Mount Athos, edited by Fr. Theodoretos (Mavros).

 

 

RECOUNTING THESE THINGS BRINGS ONE TO TEARS...

The thoughts that follow have been written with much sorrow and sincerity, with objectivity and genuine concern, and above all with love and selflessness, so that God may bless them and they may share the fate of the seed in the Gospel passage that fell upon “good and honest ground.” It is true that the subject they examine is very great and serious, just as great and serious are all those matters that concern man's proper course upon earth, his virtuous and God-pleasing way of life, in complete accordance with the Gospel and the teachings of the Holy Fathers.

Although we know that every criticism is a difficult and laborious undertaking, because it requires precise knowledge of the matters being examined, sincere love of the truth, and sobriety of judgment—virtues that are neither small nor easily acquired—nevertheless, we have ventured upon this undertaking, mindful of the words of the Fathers, who, in cases such as the present one, consider “failing to condemn (= rebuke) evil to be equivalent to committing it.”

Only those who were removed from the origins and spread of the Old Calendarist movement—because they were not alive in those days—who were likewise removed from its division and the passions that followed, but who, by the grace of God, have nevertheless followed the course of this sacred movement for many years with consistency, love, and sacrifice (though without its excesses and shortcomings), and who bear with serenity and godly pride the reproach of being called “backward and fanatical Old Calendarists,” “schismatics and ignoramuses”—only such people, we say, can speak, moved by a sense of duty and love, a word of truth and sorrow concerning the crisis through which this sacred struggle is passing today, without anyone being able to reproach them as unqualified or as acting out of self-interest or personal favoritism.

The God-Pleasing Beginning

If anyone reads the periodical TA PATRIA, which describes so vividly and beautifully, through historical texts and actual events, the first steps of the sacred struggle of the Old Calendarists, he will certainly be deeply moved, even if he does not follow the Old Calendar, even if he has been indifferent or hostile toward these people, who, amid the apostasy of our century, revived the glorious days of Studite confession and patristic boldness. If, moreover, he has a pure heart and a simple and guileless soul, he will also experience an inner assurance that the struggle of these faithful, most of whom are genuine children of the common people, without pride or titles of honor, had the approval of heaven, the “confirmation from God,” as was strikingly demonstrated at their vigil on the very feast of the Exaltation of the Precious Cross, September 14, 1925, at the well-known little monastery in Cholargos.

More than fifty years have passed since then! Who is capable of describing, or even enumerating, the sorrows, sacrifices, hardships, and family tragedies of the followers of the “Julian Calendar”? The vigils of monks and laymen, their meetings “in secret places,” in order to confront their various and ruthless persecutors? The efforts of the priests—most of whom in the beginning were Athonite monks—as well as those of the committee of laymen who always stood by their side, until they managed to establish a “branch,” that is, a small church, or even a warehouse, as was usually the case, where they could gather and worship God freely, without innovations and modernism, without ulterior aims such as “the union of Christians everywhere” and so many other demonic fruits of the sinful West, which, unfortunately, even our own people so greatly admire and follow?

What enthusiasm there was, O my God, in those early years, and what joy and blessing in 1935, a significant year in the history of the Old Calendarist movement, since for the first time they were acquiring bishops, who would undoubtedly lend greater authority to their struggle, provide priests for the sanctification of the people and the continuation of their sacred resistance, and, above all, establish discipline, a virtue so indispensable to movements of this kind.

They were all so joyful amid their poverty—which, after all, was widespread at that time—so loving and united, drawing strength daily from divine worship, their only consolation amid the countless enemies who surrounded them.

But the glory of those days did not last long! Just as every good thing in this world will eventually face the moment when it is tested “by fire and sword,” so too that struggle was not destined to be an exception to the rule. Not that they had not been tested in the preceding years; whoever says that would be a great liar. They had been imprisoned, had suffered numerous beatings, and their clergy had been subjected to forcible shaving by their “civilized and nonfanatical” New Calendarist colleagues. Nevertheless, the zeal and peace bestowed upon them by the bond of love and their common faith made them seem as though they were made of iron, and they endured everything with patience and equanimity, so that, once the storm had passed, they could carry on, stronger and in better spirits than before.

The First Trial

Then came the rupture from within! It was September 1937 when one of the newly consecrated bishops decided to follow his own path, stricter and more “Orthodox,” as he claimed, than that of his fellow bishops and the faithful, resulting in the emergence of the well-known Matthewite schism, the first great wound inflicted upon the sacred struggle of these people.

Who can describe what followed without shedding tears, without feeling sorrow in his soul over the tragedy of this division? Brothers fighting against brothers and reviling them as traitors; former companions in exile and good confessors no longer wishing even to see one another; love having become almost unknown to them, as had humility—those two great virtues whose absence turns every “good” thing into evil and every “beautiful” thing into something ugly. And all this under the pretext of stricter Orthodoxy and better preservation of the sacred traditions! Meanwhile, the Devil rejoiced and the innovators rubbed their hands together, for at last they saw the “genuine” in a condition that was anything but genuine or in accordance with the Gospel. And indeed! Who could have imagined that those who, united as brothers, had endured the harsh winter of persecution and suffering, those who had preferred every sacrifice and hardship rather than cause their brother to stumble, would now be unable even to pray together! No one could comprehend it: estranged from communion and divided, those who had spent entire nights keeping vigil together in their choir stalls, singing a new song unto the Lord!

Meanwhile, the New Calendarists promptly sent one of their own men into the ranks of the “strict,” pretending to be a genuine Orthodox Christian and an ardent zealot, in order to perpetuate the schism. [This refers to an old rumor regarding the Matthewite Fr. Eugenios Tombros. – Blog Admin.] He accomplished this with consummate skill, for to this day the wound remains open and the scandal of the division cries out...

The Unfortunate Sequel

But the evil did not stop there! Everything that had happened before was merely its first phase, to be followed over the years by other failings, equally serious when one considers the damage they caused and continue to cause to this day to the Church of the Old Calendarists. By the foregoing we mean:

A) The ill-advised acts of economia undertaken by the first leader of the moderate faction, Chrysostomos of blessed memory (through the issuance of unsound encyclicals concerning the Mysteries of the innovators), in his attempt to prevent the disintegration of the movement because of the Matthewite schism;

B) The establishment and operation of dozens of monasteries in which monks and nuns lived together, resulting in the moral downfall of many hieromonks and nuns and the scandalization of the flock;

C) The largely uncanonical consecrations and administration of the successors of Chrysostomos of blessed memory († 1955), accompanied by constant disputes and factionalism, and the complete disregard of the laity in their consecrations and in the resolution of the major issues concerning the struggle. Thus, in our own days, we have reached the point of having a new standing [New Calendarist] Synod of the Seraphim type in operation, continually removing hierarchs, with its first victim being His Grace Petros of Astoria, followed by His Eminence Akakios of Attica and His Eminence Chrysostomos of Thessaloniki, while anyone who might dare to recommend a little prudence and respect for the Sacred Canons to the “holy Synod members” is a potential victim! In any case, Mr. Auxentios should boast that he has proved bolder than his colleague Mr. Seraphim, since he has managed to put 35% of the episcopate of the G.O.C. “out of action,” compared with Mr. Seraphim's 18%;

D) The publication of the most unfortunate and theologically unsound Encyclical No. 1191 of June 5, 1974, through which the errors of the past resurfaced as the official teaching of the G.O.C., and, what is even worse, the proclamation through The Voice of Orthodoxy (issue 709, p. 9) that: “Whoever does not accept this Encyclical is not an Old Calendarist, but deceives and exploits the Old Calendarists”! And when was all this taking place? At a time when those responsible were in communion with, and literally “yearned” to have communion with, the Russian Church Abroad, which to this day has made no declaration that it is not in communion with the other Orthodox Churches!! (For evidence to the contrary, see ORTHODOX WORD, April 1980, p. 62 [Not to be confused with the English publication of the same name – Blog Admin.]).

This practice of turning to the Russians whenever and however it suits us, in order to regularize our unlawful actions, must finally come to an end. The Russians, for their part, respond whenever and however it suits them, thus perpetuating the vicious cycle of uncanonical practices within the Church of the G.O.C. of Greece. Matters must finally be clarified, and the faithful must know whether they are governed by the Russians or by the Greeks. This practice of playing both sides to justify unlawful conduct must end, so that each side may put its own house in order. For, after all, what use are such shepherds to the faithful, when they are incapable of shepherding them but are exceedingly adept at fleecing them?...

Two things could bring some order to this Babylon: first, a declaration by the Russian Church Abroad that it is not in communion with the other Orthodox Churches, so that it might justifiably be called a sister Church of the G.O.C. of Greece; and second, that the bishops of the G.O.C. here finally understand that the Russian Church Abroad has neither the right nor the authority, even if it wished, to act on every occasion as judge of their unlawful actions. And on both these matters, a negative answer has repeatedly been given. That is, neither does [St.] Philaret [of New York] make any declaration that he is not in communion with the other Orthodox Churches, nor does he wish to play the role of judge in the disputes among the Greek bishops, as he clearly stated in his latest letter to Bishops Akakios and Chrysostomos. Why, then, does everyone run after a Church that regards them as poor relations and a rabble of fanatics with unworthy leaders? Is it perhaps because, in 1960, it consecrated the leadership at 32 Kaningos Street? It would have been better had it not done so, as events have demonstrated countless times. But even the fact that it did so does not mean that it will henceforth govern those whom it consecrated, much less that those consecrated are necessarily obliged to remain in communion with it, regardless of the course it follows.

For just as the Russian Church Abroad, after all, has its reasons for maintaining its present position, believing that in this way it better protects itself and its flock from the attacks of Moscow, etc.—and no one can forbid it to do so—so too must the leadership of the G.O.C. of Greece understand that far more compelling and more ecclesiastically grounded reasons oblige it not to remain in communion with the Russian Church Abroad, in order to prove faithful to what it has received and to the very purpose of its existence, provided, of course, that it is concerned with protecting its authority and its flock from the ridicule and mockery of every enemy and critic;

E) The unjustified and inappropriate consecrations of numerous bishops for Greece and abroad, resulting in increased factionalism and the degradation of the episcopal office;

F) The scandalous defense by the leadership at 32 Kaningos Street of discredited clergymen against whom the faithful have protested in vain for years—and not only the faithful, but also some of the bishops, whose written protests are in our possession, so that we are fully aware of the tragic nature of this enormous problem.

And while we were all expecting a reaction from below, an uprising by all those clergymen who had not yet been corrupted by money or glory, so as to stem the tide of corruption that was ruining everything, we instead see the emergence of a new, ill-defined movement, with Mr. Kallistos [of Corinth] as its virtually Matthewite president (for no one has been informed that he himself desired what he ultimately did; he received his orders from elsewhere), and with almost exclusively the newly consecrated bishops as its clerical members, as though they could not have reacted while still priests and abbots! What is most distressing, however, is the diversity of their... beliefs concerning the crucial and vital problems of the Church of the G.O.C. For this reason, they have so far accomplished nothing noteworthy of what was required for the comprehensive, and above all ecclesiological, regeneration of their Church. They too await their... vindication from Philaret alone, the architect of and person responsible for the present tragedy, on account of his recognition of Mr. Kallistos and his fellow bishops of Konstantinoupoleos Street. Of course, we must note here that accomplices, and indeed the principal instigators, of the aforementioned interventions by the Russian Synod are the Greek-American elements operating behind the scenes [the “Panteleimonites” – Blog Admin.], well known to many, about whom we have written extensively in the past. (See Monk Theodoretos Refutation of Uncanonical Actions and Practices, Mount Athos, 1973, 32 pp.) Thus, the coup of 1979 merely added confusion to confusion, since it lacked ecclesiological foundations and self-awareness.

All these things, and many others that are by no means minor details, now clearly demonstrate that the traditional Old Calendarist movement is undergoing in our days precisely the same crisis as the Church of Mr. Seraphim (with Mr. Auxentios and Mr. Gerontios bearing the principal responsibility), at a time when it ought to constitute the sole hope of refuge for souls seeking to live the holy traditions of Orthodoxy in their unadulterated form. Thus, as events have demonstrated, the episcopate of the G.O.C. has failed completely in its mission, a fact that Their Eminences Bishops Akakios and Chrysostomos had the courage and sincerity to acknowledge publicly, and nothing is now capable of setting it on the right course except the intervention of the laity, who themselves bear considerable responsibility for the present state of affairs in their Church. For when, over so many years, the faithful tolerate without protest the operation of monasteries in which monks and nuns live together (although the Sacred Canons forbid the faithful to receive even antidoron from the hands of a bishop or priest who cohabits with women), and not only this, but applaud and admire these nuns during their procession through the streets of Piraeus at Theophany, contrary to tradition—these nuns, approximately 75% of whom, perhaps even more, approve of the cohabitation of hieromonks and bishops in their monasteries, these nuns whom The Voice of Orthodoxy regards and presents as “the pride of the sacred struggle,” instead of writing that they are rather the principal cause of its disintegration (with the exception, of course, of those sisters who do not engage in such cohabitation, who, even more than the others, ought to refuse to parade through the streets)—when the faithful look on as indifferent spectators at the unjust persecution of their priest or bishop and, at the same time, at the scandalous favoritism shown by a clique of bishops toward morally discredited individuals, then how can they themselves not be ACCOMPLICES in the present moral, ecclesiological, and administrative impasse of their Church? For when, in New York and Thessaloniki, the faithful shower with roses the uncanonical bishops of Mr. Auxentios, who ought to be too ashamed even to appear in public, then how can this flock not be worse than an unreasoning herd of beasts, since an ox, as [Carl] Linnaeus writes, eats 276 kinds of grasses but avoids another 218 that are harmful to its health?

Of course, the Zealot Athonite Fathers bear even greater responsibility than the faithful, for they never stood united in order to denounce impartially every uncanonical practice, but preferred to see venerable clergymen persecuted and the parishes established by their elders dissolved rather than take a stand against the favorite of their hearts...

Secondly, however, responsibility also rests with all the clergy “in the world,” who obediently follow their bishops in their various unlawful actions in order to remain undisturbed in their own parishes, failing to realize that the fire consuming their neighbor's house will soon consume their own as well...

And all this has happened, is happening, and will continue to happen because the entire attention of the clergy has been devoted to the outward forms of piety and the purely legal aspect of the Sacred Canons, while it is doubtful whether even a few of them have experienced the essence of religious life and spirituality. Most of them, when they have not remained indifferent, have taken a hostile stance toward every effort at spiritual renewal aimed at correcting what is amiss. The question of [frequent] participation in the most divine Mystery of the Holy Eucharist alone is sufficient to demonstrate the truth of our words. For despite the abundant patristic literature on the subject, the priests of the G.O.C. fiercely oppose such participation, refusing to allow their faithful to approach the Holy Eucharist freely, especially on Sundays and feast days, thus becoming responsible, through their gross ignorance, for the spiritual starvation of their flock. All the foregoing does not remain unknown to the New Calendarists, who themselves find some consolation—and rightly so—when they see how much the two hierarchies have in common, as well as the people who follow the New Calendar and those who adhere to the Old Calendar and the traditions! And not only this, but lately they have provocatively described the Church of the G.O.C. as “a breeding ground for every kind of ecclesiastical lawlessness and anarchism, as well as a refuge for their former clergymen who have been deposed.” Unfortunately, this last accusation has also been confirmed by official documents written by Old Calendarist bishops.

Ways of Remedying the Evil

In view of all this, the enormous question arises: What is to be done? How can this noble struggle, which has yet to find its worthy chronicler, regain its former glory and return to its traditional course, so that it may withstand the trials of our times that threaten the spiritual values of the world and especially the Orthodox Faith? We firmly believe that just as, at the beginning of its difficult and uphill course, its principal strength was the piety and faith of the laity, so now only the pious faithful will be able to revive it, provided, of course, that they are willing to struggle for this.

And for this effort to succeed and proceed in an orderly manner, a handful of people with courage and knowledge must be found to come together and draw up a document in which they will condemn all the aforementioned uncanonical practices, past and present, and then call upon the faithful and the clergy (of whatever faction) to embrace it. Those parishes and clergymen who accept it will constitute the new leaven, pure and unadulterated, which will be able to become bread to nourish all those who seek, and will continue to seek in the future, truth and genuineness in practice, and not in the seals and documents of Synodal offices... THIS IS THE FIRST AND MOST IMPORTANT THING. Those who reject or oppose this document will be branded as the old leaven, bearing all the symptoms and characteristics of the rotten establishment. They will have lost even their last opportunity to repent of their past and become the architects of a better tomorrow. Those who agree will inaugurate a new period in the Old Calendarist movement and a new spiritual baptismal font, in which they themselves will be baptized anew and in which those who come to them in the future, all lovers of the truth and the Sacred Traditions, will also be baptized. Here it will become evident to what extent the faithful desire something better and healthier, through the support and interest they show in the recommendations of the Committee, as well as through the initiative they undertake to ensure the greater success of its great mission. The example of the Coordinating Committee should encourage everyone, for only recently three or four people accomplished so much and exposed so many uncanonical actions of their leadership, regardless of our disagreement with the position they took regarding Encyclical No. 1191 [of 1974].

Any bishops or priests who remain indifferent or oppose this sacred effort must certainly be isolated and branded as enemies of the truth, underminers and destroyers of this sacred struggle. No faithful person should henceforth attend their churches or patronal feasts, thus expressing disapproval and sorrow over the crime these individuals are committing against the pleroma of the Church of the G.O.C., even if they wear mitres or boast of works of charity and love. For when their way of life does not accord with the faith they profess, they become an obstacle to the sacred cause of this sacred struggle, according to the words of Saint John Chrysostom: “Bringing disgrace upon the doctrines through the wickedness of his deeds.”

And what if not a single bishop agrees with the work of this Committee? So much the worse for them! The faithful must then, without any hesitation, follow those priests who will embrace them in this sacred endeavor of theirs. Did the first priests and founders of this sacred struggle have bishops during its first decade (1924–1935)? And if this Committee is not established and the priests remain divided as they are, each following the bishop of his own choosing, what then will happen? This will mean, first of all, that “such a people deserve such shepherds”! It will also mean that, whereas until now the faithful have been the victims of various unscrupulous individuals, this time they have become accomplices and supporters of their unworthy shepherds, immature and indifferent to what is great and true, led about by their spiritual fathers and their own weaknesses... They must realize, however, that by such conduct they will add yet another mortal sin to their sins, for they will allow certain profiteers who exploit what they hold sacred to destroy a struggle in which thousands of their brethren labored for years in order to bequeath to them an altar untouched by innovation.

Personally, however, we believe that there will certainly be some priests with a conscience and fear of God who will break communion with all those who bring disgrace upon their struggle, so that those faithful who yearn for genuineness and truth may find consolation and peace of soul in their company. As for the others, who will continue to spread confusion through their various uncanonical practices and unlawful actions, there is a just God who, however long He may delay, does not forget. History is full of such examples. And we are certain that the same will happen in the case of these gentlemen.