On the day when Christians of the
Western tradition, as well as some Orthodox Christians under their influence,
celebrate the Nativity of Christ on December 12/25 according to the Gregorian
calendar, introduced by Pope Gregory XIII in 1582 to replace the earlier Julian
calendar, we present to readers of the Russian Athos website an article
by the Athonite Elder Theodosios (Kharitonov, 1869–1937) of Karoulia concerning
the attitude of the ascetics of Mount Athos toward the New and Old Calendars in
the Church’s liturgical tradition.
The Athonite Elder Theodosios (in
the world, Vasily Vasilyevich Kharitonov) [1] was an outstanding Russian
Athonite ascetic, hesychast, and hermit of Karoulia. He was born in 1869 in
Saratov Province. After graduating from the Kazan Theological Academy with a
master’s degree in theology, he served for a time as a supervisor at the Simferopol
Theological Seminary, and subsequently for five years as an inspector at the
Vologda Theological Seminary. At the beginning of the twentieth century, he
departed for the Holy Mountain of Athos. There he participated in demonstrating
the erroneous nature of the teaching of Name-Worshipping (Imiaslavie),
for which he received high praise from many prominent Orthodox hierarchs. His
writings were commended by Emperor Nicholas II, while the Most Holy Synod
awarded him a certificate of commendation and presented him with an icon of the
All-Merciful Savior as a blessing.
Elder Theodosios composed a
substantial work in defense of the Orthodox Julian calendar. He corresponded
with many prominent hierarchs, particularly Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky)
and others. In 1915, with the blessing of Abbot Misail (Sapegin) of the
Athonite Monastery of St. Panteleimon, he settled in the most austere region of
Mount Athos—Karoulia—where he established a small monastic hermitage with a
church dedicated to the Holy Trinity. He had many disciples. He reposed in
1938, in the seventieth year of his life.
* * *
THE VOICE OF HOLY
MOUNT ATHOS
He who defends the canons and
decrees of the Holy Fathers of the Seven Ecumenical Councils is, in effect,
defending dogma itself. If anyone is called upon to suffer for the truth, this
shall be accounted to him by the Lord God as martyrdom. Let us faithfully
preserve the precepts of the Holy Fathers, helping one another to safeguard our
Orthodox Faith and, with God's help, to repel the impious innovations of the
Living Church reformers and other renegades and schismatics.
Let no one turn us aside from the
ways of the Lord! Have nothing to do with those who have separated themselves
from the Church, having dared to violate the decree of the Holy and Great
Council held at Nicaea concerning the holy feast of Pascha and the ecclesiastical
calendar. “The Holy Council henceforth condemns such persons as being outside
the Church. And not only does the Council depose such persons from the sacred
ministry, but also all who dare to remain in communion with them.”
The Third Discourse of St. John
Chrysostom, which emphasizes the great importance and irrevocable authority of
the decree concerning Pascha established by the Holy Fathers of the First
Ecumenical Council, and connected with the Old Calendar, equally condemns both
the ancient violators of this decree and the modern New Calendarists. For, in
the ancient and trustworthy explanation of this decree preserved in the epistle
of the Holy Emperor Constantine, Equal-to-the-Apostles, it is clearly stated:
“Having rejected their customs, that is, those of the Jews, it would be far
better to continue for all generations to come that true order which we have
observed from the very time of Christ’s Passion until the present day.”
We are living through an
extraordinary time, when those who truly believe constitute a minority, as in
the days of the Iconoclasts and Monothelites. At the same time, the innovation
of the New Calendar is being imposed upon the Orthodox with haste and coercion.
However, we must not judge who is
right, who is within the Church, and who is outside her on the basis of the
present abnormal state of ecclesiastical affairs. Rather, the present state of
the Church, disturbed by the New Calendarist innovation, must itself be
examined in the light of the divine laws preserved among us Orthodox, after the
Holy Scriptures, in Holy Tradition—both written, in the canons of the Councils,
and unwritten, in the practice of the Church—both of which possess equal authority.
[2]
We must now determine catholic
truth not by the consciousness of the Church as a whole, which is lacking among
us at the present time, but by the Tradition of the whole Church, in agreement
with the ancient Church, when, concerning the present painful question of the
ecclesiastical calendar, there was no division whatsoever, but, on the
contrary, complete unanimity among all, confirmed by repeated Local Councils
and regional Synods.
Guided above all by this
principle as the criterion of catholic ecclesiastical truth, St. Maximus the
Confessor rejected the Monothelite heresy as an innovation and resolutely
refused to receive Communion with the Monothelite Patriarch, even if the entire
world were to receive Communion with him. [3] Likewise, many confessors and
martyrs who suffered for the holy icons rose up against Iconoclasm immediately
upon its proclamation, without waiting for a Council.
Holy Tradition is a simple,
clear, and accessible criterion of catholic ecclesiastical truth, even for
ordinary believers. As the Hieromartyr Cyprian of Carthage says: “It is easy
for devout and simple souls to avoid error and find the truth, for as soon as
they turn to the source of Divine Tradition, error disappears.” Or, in the
words of St. John Chrysostom: “It is Tradition; seek nothing further.”
We must believe in Holy
Tradition, just as in Holy Scripture, and interpret it according to Tradition itself—that
is, according to the mind of the Church that preceded us, and not according to
our own judgment or the present abnormal state of ecclesiastical affairs. It is
likewise by Tradition that we must determine who is now a true son of the
Church and who is a schismatic. In this sense, St. Maximus the Confessor
declared: “Christ called the right and saving confession of faith the Catholic
Church.”
“The preservation of Holy
Tradition,” says Patriarch Joachim III, “is a mark of Orthodoxy.” And this is,
above all, the most reliable criterion for examining the present troubled state
of ecclesiastical affairs and determining who is Orthodox and who is a
schismatic.
The Fathers of the Council held
under Patriarch Jeremias regarded the Old Calendar, together with the Paschalion,
as not only founded upon ecclesiastical custom but also sanctioned by the Seven
Ecumenical Councils. They regarded those who followed the New Calendar as
opponents of the decrees of all the Councils and, consequently, as subject to
the conciliar anathemas. In other words, the Fathers of the Council considered
the calendar question itself to be a canonical matter.
The Fathers of the Council were
right to appeal in their decision to all the Ecumenical Councils, just as the
defenders of the veneration of the holy icons were right when they confessed at
the Seventh Ecumenical Council that they “follow the divinely inspired teaching
of the Holy Fathers and the Tradition of the Catholic Church.” And when the
Iconoclasts objected that the Ecumenical Councils had enacted no decree
concerning icons, they replied that the Ecumenical Councils, which had for the
most part been held in holy churches adorned with holy icons, had, by their
tacit preservation of a custom dating from the earliest times, sanctioned the
veneration of icons no less than they would have done by any explicit canon.
In this same sense, the [Local]
Council held under Patriarch Jeremias II, in confirmation of the canonical
obligation to observe its decision concerning the ecclesiastical calendar,
appeals, like the Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, to custom—that is,
to the ecclesiastical practice known and observed by all the Ecumenical
Councils—as constituting “the teaching of the Holy Fathers and the Tradition of
the Catholic Church.”
Therefore, just as even before
the Seventh Ecumenical Council, which formally sanctioned the veneration of
icons and anathematized Iconoclasm, the anathemas already rested upon the
Iconoclasts as despisers of ecclesiastical custom—that is, of the unwritten
Tradition of the Church concerning the holy icons—so too does the same anathema
rest upon those who despise another ecclesiastical custom, likewise
constituting unwritten Tradition, concerning the ecclesiastical calendar.
And the Council held under Patriarch
Jeremias II rightly reaffirmed the anathema against both the old and the new
proponents of the New Calendar, an anathema already resting upon them by virtue
of the unwritten Tradition known and preserved by all the Ecumenical Councils.
Moreover, the fact that the Council held under Patriarch Jeremias took place
300 years ago not only does not diminish the force of its anathema but, on the
contrary, strengthens it, as is the case with everything sanctified by the
antiquity of ecclesiastical tradition. [4]
The question of the
ecclesiastical calendar was regarded as a canonical matter not only by the
Council held under Patriarch Jeremias, but also by the succeeding Ecumenical
Patriarchs and other Primates of the Churches, together with their Synods. Over
the course of the following three centuries, a whole succession of Ecumenical
Patriarchs spoke out resolutely against the Gregorian calendar, judging it in
the spirit of the conciliar decree issued under Patriarch Jeremias and
exhorting the Orthodox to avoid it [the Gregorian calendar] as a betrayal of
Orthodoxy and a departure from the precepts of the Holy Fathers.
Similar to the Sigillion
of Patriarch Jeremias, but containing even more severe prohibitions, another Sigillion
was issued in 1756—the Encyclical of Patriarch Cyril V of Constantinople—in
which those introducing innovations are declared excommunicated from God under
the terrible and eternal anathemas of all the Patriarchs and Councils. In
another similar Encyclical of the One Catholic and Apostolic Church, addressed
to all Orthodox Christians, Patriarchs Anthimos, Hierotheos, Methodios, and
Cyril testify: “Among us, neither Patriarchs nor Councils have ever been able
to introduce anything new... Therefore, all who introduce innovations... have
willingly clothed themselves with cursing as with a garment” (Ps. 108:18).
In accordance with the actions of
the Ecumenical Patriarchs regarding the New Calendar, the Patriarchs of
Palestine, Syria, and Egypt, as well as the Archbishops of Cyprus, likewise
sought to safeguard their flocks by issuing epistles and official letters
explaining the true significance of the Gregorian calendar, emphasizing its
connection, as had the conciliar decree issued under Patriarch Jeremias, with a
whole series of innovations devised by the Papacy.
In more recent times, in
1902–1904, the Primates of all the Autocephalous Orthodox Churches officially
expressed their views on the question of reforming the ecclesiastical calendar.
Their assessment of the question resulted in a rejection of calendar reform on
grounds of faith and out of concern that it would provoke ecclesiastical
turmoil.
Likewise, the Russian Orthodox
Church, at its Council of 1917–1918, resolved to retain the Old Calendar on
ecclesiastical and canonical grounds.
In 1923, it once again reaffirmed
the Council’s decision concerning the calendar and refused to introduce the
Gregorian calendar into ecclesiastical practice, despite the coercion of the
godless Bolshevik authorities.
Finally, four Councils of
Orthodox hierarchs abroad unanimously and in complete agreement rejected the
New Calendar, [5] regarding it as wholly inadmissible on the basis of the
canons and ecclesiastical practice, and because it had been placed under the
anathemas of all the Eastern Patriarchs.
Such is the universal canonical
truth concerning the ecclesiastical calendar.
After this, let us say, in the
words of Blessed Augustine concerning the Pelagian heresy: “Is it really
necessary to convene a Council in order to expose so manifest a cause of
perdition? As though no heresy had ever been condemned without the convocation
of a Council, whereas, on the contrary, very few heresies are known for whose
condemnation such a necessity arose. Many heresies, indeed the greater number,
were justly condemned in the very places where they appeared, and from there
news of their condemnation was communicated to all the other Churches as a
warning.”
What the Blessed Father said
concerning the Pelagian heresy, which was condemned only by the Local Council
of Carthage and yet was thereby rejected by the entire Orthodox Church, applies
equally to the New Calendar, which has been condemned not by one Council alone,
but by numerous Councils and Synods, whose decisions were not rejected but
accepted by all the Orthodox Churches, after they had been duly informed of
them.
The ancient practice of the
Church as a whole concerning the ecclesiastical calendar has the same authority
as the canons. Likewise, the modern Latin heresy has not been condemned by any
Ecumenical Council, since it arose after them, but only by those same Local
Councils of Constantinople. Nevertheless, by virtue of the established
universal practice of the Church, all Orthodox regard the Latins as heretics.
In the same way, by virtue of this same ecclesiastical practice, we must regard
our own New Calendarists as schismatics.
In conclusion, let us summarize
all such considerations concerning the calendar and draw their logical
conclusion.
1. The question of the
ecclesiastical calendar is a matter of faith and canonical order.
2. The Old Calendar, Julian in
origin and ecclesiastical in its usage, is canonically obligatory, especially
in connection with the Paschalion and the liturgical Typikon.
3. The New Gregorian [Calendar],
on the other hand, which inevitably leads to violations of the Paschalion
and the liturgical Typikon, is, by contrast, canonically prohibited,
both by virtue of the general canonical rules requiring the observance of the
unwritten Tradition of the Church—that is, ecclesiastical practice—under pain
of anathema for its violation [6], and, in particular, by virtue of the
specific conciliar decree on this matter issued under Patriarch Jeremias, which
was accepted by the consciousness of the Church as a whole, as repeatedly
expressed at Local Councils and by individual zealots of Orthodoxy.
The logical conclusion to be
drawn from this summary is as follows:
4. The New Calendarists, who
through their self-willed and disorderly innovation violate, as has been
demonstrated, both written and unwritten Tradition, have willingly clothed
themselves with cursing as with a garment (Ps. 108:18), to use the expression
of the Encyclical of 1848, signed by four Patriarchs and numerous Fathers of
the Council.
5. In accordance with the canons
of the Church, which prohibit prayerful communion with those who have been
excommunicated, ecclesiastical communion with such persons is reprehensible and
entails the threat of the same punishment as theirs. [7] Separation from them,
on the other hand, is praiseworthy even before any judgment has been pronounced
against them. [8]
Guided by these convictions and
striving to remain faithful to Tradition, the true believers, by the mercy of
God, are not troubled in conscience, whatever premature judgments may be passed
upon them by those who do not share their convictions.
Having in their favor such
testimony from the Holy Fathers of the invisible, triumphant Church, they are
at the same time not deprived of a voice of encouragement from the visible,
militant Church—from contemporary pastors, zealots of the Church of their
homeland—in the hope that, sooner or later, the voice of ecclesiastical truth
will prevail. Amen.
Holy Mountain of Athos, 1934
NOTES
1. The Athonite Elder and hermit, Hieroschemamonk Theodosios
of Karoulia (1869–1937). He graduated from the Kazan Theological Academy and
became a professor of theology. Having renounced the world, he withdrew to
Mount Athos, from where he wrote polemical letters to Metropolitan Anthony
(Khrapovitsky) and Professor N. N. Glubokovsky. He stood firmly for the purity
of True Orthodoxy. A week before his repose, the Elder said to his disciple
Alypios: “I shall die on the Feast of the Protection of the Most Holy
Theotokos, and you will die on the third day after me.” And so it came to pass.
2. Canon 91 of St. Basil the Great, p. 477.
3. Lives of the Saints (Chetii-Minei), January 21.
4. Canon 91 of St. Basil the Great, p. 477.
5. The four Councils held abroad in 1923, 1924, 1926, and
1931.
6. Acts of the Sixth Ecumenical Council.
7. Apostolic Canon 10; Canon 2 of the Council of Antioch;
Canon 33 of the Council of Laodicea.
8. Canon 1 of the Council of Antioch; Canon 15 of the
First-Second Council.
Russian source:
https://afonit.info/biblioteka/nasledie-svyatoj-gory/o-novom-i-starom-stile
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.