1935 Declaration of Faith

Patristic theology, and traditional teachings of Orthodoxy from the Church fathers of apostolic times to the present. All forum Rules apply. No polemics. No heated discussions. No name-calling.


User avatar
Seraphim Reeves
Member
Posts: 493
Joined: Sun 27 October 2002 2:10 pm
Location: Canada

1935 Declaration of Faith

Post by Seraphim Reeves »

Since the foundational documents of the Old Calendarist movement are so important before one can intelligently discuss them, I'm going to post a link here (hosted by the GOC of Greece - Kiousis website) to the "1935 Declaration of Faith", which was authored and signed by the three founding heirarchs of the Old Calendarist Synod of Greece.

1935 Declaration of Faith

Points to Consider:

  • the document is addressed "To the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church of Greece"; doesn't seem to indicate that these three heirarchs understood themselves as the replacement for a Synod which had utterly fallen and ceased to have any claim whatsoever to being a part of the Orthodox Church.

  • The document continuously refers to the Synod of the State Church as the "ruling Synod";

For these reasons, in submitting to the Ruling Synod our annotated protest we make known that from henceforth, we sever all relations and ecclesiastical communion with the [Ruling Hierarchy] for as long as it maintains the calendar innovation, taking up the Ecclesiastical pastorship of the section of the Orthodox Greek people, organized in numerous communities, that renounced the State Church and remained faithful to the Patristic and Orthodox Julian calendar.

  • The document also envisions this break between the Old Calendarists and the State Church as being temporary - "we sever all relations and ecclesiastical communion with the [Ruling Hierarchy] for as long as it maintainst he calendar innovation...".

  • The same document refers to those who have gone into resistance/protest against the new calendar and severed ties with the "Ruling Synod" of the Church of Greece as "the section of the Orthodox Greek people, organized in numerous communities".

  • Equally interesting is the line most quoted which typically is interpreted as a sentence by the three Old Calendar Heirarchs against the State Church...

Because, last of all among the above listed reasons, the Ruling Hierarchy of Greece cut and walled itself off from the catholic body of Orthodoxy, according to the spirit of the Holy Canons, effectively declaring itself schismatic, as argued the special committee of National University legal scholars and theologians appointed to examine the calendar question, a member of which His Beatitude happened to be, serving then as a university professor;

Thus, while the document's words are grave, they are not unequivocal; "effectively" doesn't strike me as a sentence, but an appraisal/interpretation of the implicit import of so violently disrupting the liturgical unity of the Orthodox Church.

While none of the above demonstrates that the situation of the ecumenists has not worsened since 1935, or that they have not since then done other things to cease to be parts of the Church in any sense, I think citing the 1935 Declaration as proof of this (at least against the Church of Greece) is overstepping what the document actually says. Reading the text carefully (and observing it is not the most unequivocal document in the world), I can 100% understand why at least Metropolitan Chrysostmos (of Florina) understood the situation as one of "potential schism", and why there is no clear evidence that he ever wholeheartedly changed this position (but like so many people, perhaps waivered, pondered, and doubted about the increasingly stubborn and ecumenistic State Church).

Seraphim

OrthodoxyOrDeath

Post by OrthodoxyOrDeath »

I have most often heard that this document in fact does not make any firm declaration with regard to the status of the State Church, but is considered a warning shot over the bow with a near miss.

Unlike most other heresies, the calendar change was condemned by the fathers of the church for specific reasons which were not ecumenism. The eventual calendar change was an instrument of another heresy and because of the shear diabolical nature of its perpetrators, the change was only partial. These factors brought great confusion which were not completley clear until the endeavors of the ecumenists, which were delayed by WWII and immediatley followed by the Greek civil war, were reinforced in the 60's.

The Mathewite position, which was later shown to be justified, was not seen as completley pastoral at the time.

That's all I have time for.

User avatar
Seraphim Reeves
Member
Posts: 493
Joined: Sun 27 October 2002 2:10 pm
Location: Canada

Post by Seraphim Reeves »

Dear OOD,

I have most often heard that this document in fact does not make any firm declaration with regard to the status of the State Church, but is considered a warning shot over the bow with a near miss.

That is more or less what I get out of a close reading of the document. Bearing this in mind (and comparing it with Rdr.Vladimir's interpretation, which was recently discussed on another thread), I find it to be a little bit of a stretch for the Matthewites to have taken Metropolitan Chrysostmos' later "hesistancy" in utterly denouncing the new-calendarists as being somehow inconsistant, at least if this declaration is what they were judging him by. I also find Rdr.Vladimir's understanding that this document constituted a sentence (by what remained of the Ruling Synod of the Church of Greece) against the new calendarists to be equally "off."

Unlike most other heresies, the calendar change was condemned by the fathers of the church for specific reasons which were not ecumenism. The eventual calendar change was an instrument of another heresy and because of the shear diabolical nature of its perpetrators, the change was only partial. These factors brought great confusion which were not completley clear until the endeavors of the ecumenists, which were delayed by WWII and immediatley followed by the Greek civil war, were reinforced in the 60's.

This would seem to further re-enforce the understanding that the declaration of 1935 was not in itself a sentence, but a serious warning; and a declaration that at least those who had signed the document (and the clergy and laity they represented) were getting on the "life boats", so to speak.

The Mathewite position, which was later shown to be justified, was not seen as completley pastoral at the time.

While I can see how this could be argued, hindsight is always 20/20 is it not? IMHO, it seems unfair for them to have made such harsh judgements as soon as they did on the basis of a document which did not in fact endorse the view they subscribed to; hence making the accusation that Metropolitan Chrysostmos "flip flopped" inaccurate.

It would have been one thing had they simply been arguing a different judgement on the topic, that grew out of a different interpretation of subequent events. But this doesn't seem to be what the Matthewites claimed - rather they claimed that their is the "original position" that the "Florinites" subsequently renegged on.

From this p.o.v., I think it can be seen why the GOC of Greece (leaving out Metropolitan Cyprian's Synod of Resistance for a moment) was saying that it was not interested in discussing the intermediate period, between 1935 and it's own eventual coming to adopt the same view as the Matthewites of the new calendarists (that they have departed from the Church.) I see this is often written off by Matthewites as a shameless attempt (by the GOC of Greece) to save face and not "own up" to it's "mistakes" and (alleged) responsibility in creating a schism. However, I don't think that's the case at all - it simply seems to be a recognition that in bad situations, it's not always immediately apparent "how bad" things really are, or going to become; and that pious men can only do the "best they can". (of course, I'm discussing this all from the paradigm that it necessarily is true that so called "world Orthodoxy" is "graceless" and cut off)

With this whole Matthewite-Florinite situation in mind, I cannot help but move the analogy and examine the rift between those Florinites who now adopt what is essentially a "Matthewite position", and those Greek Old Calendarists who are currently led by Metropolitan Cyprian. I do not perceive any difference in faith; but what I do see is a different judgement and interpretation of where the new-calendarists and those with them are at...which was basically what divided the Matthewites from other Greek Old Calendarists to begin with.

While I could understand how one could argue that the "Cyprianites" are incorrect in their interpretation of just how "bad things are" and the consequences of that, I don't see how they can be judged as representing some kind of betrayal to the mind of the Florinites of old, let alone the 1935 Declaration which announced the separation of those first three heirarchs from the State Church to begin with.

Seraphim

OrthodoxyOrDeath

Post by OrthodoxyOrDeath »

With this whole Matthewite-Florinite situation in mind, I cannot help but move the analogy and examine the rift between those Florinites who now adopt what is essentially a "Matthewite position", and those Greek Old Calendarists who are currently led by Metropolitan Cyprian. I do not perceive any difference in faith

Seraphim,

Prior to the 1960's, there were no clear indication of the ecumenist heresy. Of course you can point to the encylical of 1920, which was indeed heretical, but this document was not well known, and was the work of one man (of sorry memory) who reposed.

After having manifested themselves in clear terms, the ecumenists have shwon themsevles for everything they are.

The difference betweem the Florenites of the time between 1935 and the 50's and the Cyprianites today is that the ecumenists were not seen as heretics in that time by the Florenites. The Cyprianites today indeed acknowledge the heretics, and to them, they are "Holy".

A big difference in my opinion.

Etienne
Member
Posts: 168
Joined: Wed 21 April 2004 5:26 am

Post by Etienne »

OOD,

I might be failing to understand, but exactly who are the "Cyprianites" - (I dislike this tendency to label people as if they are of Apollo, or..... ) - perceiving as Holy heretics.

According to the most recent letter I have seen of Metropolitan Cyprian to Metropolitan Laurus appears to be a warning, a indication of the his Synods uneasiness about ROCOR seeming readiness to abandon its' 80 faithful witness.

As an aside, I dislike and fail to understand the Church calendarists in Greece distinct prediliction to split. It diminishes their witness and hands to their critics and those who are indifferent an easy way out of any meaningful debate remaining faithful to the fulness of Orthodoxy.

OrthodoxyOrDeath

Post by OrthodoxyOrDeath »

Stephen,

The Cyprianites consider ecumenist heretics as being true Orthodox bishops. Never has the Church considered heretics (and those knwoingly in communion with them) as anything but outside the Church and quite fallen.

User avatar
George Australia
Sr Member
Posts: 671
Joined: Sat 17 January 2004 9:26 am
Location: Down Under (Australia, not Hades)

Post by George Australia »

OrthodoxyOrDeath wrote:

The Cyprianites consider ecumenist heretics as being true Orthodox bishops.

Dear in Christ OOD,
I think that's a bit broard. Another way to put it might be "The 'Cyprianites' consider that some Orthodox Bishops are dangerously dallying with the heresy of Ecumenism."
George

Post Reply