The Future of the ROCOR

[schetsmark]

The Iconoclast heretics were not nearly as bad as we have today. It is not as though they would not allow Icons - they certainly did allow icons. It was just that they demanded the icons be hung a little higher is all, so that they could not be venerated. And to think the Church "condemned" them for something so "trivial".

This is not to argue the main point in this topic, but in what I have read about the iconoclast period in Byzantine history, icons were removed from churches and destoyed, icon writers had their hands amputated, monks were forced to marry nuns, and monestaries had their lands conficated by the state. It was a difficult period for Orthodoxy, especially since the heresy was sponsored by the state. One could say it was almost as bad as the actions of the militant atheist communists.

Is this kind of overt agression against Orthodoxy better or worse than a secretative subversion over a lengthened period of time? The former tends to create martyrs and is often overthrown in a dramatic way, while the in the latter, the hearts and minds are changed so that violence is less likely to spring up, but so is resistance.

I consider both eqaully bad.

[John Haluska]

With respect to the “new” calendar:

The following quotes are from The Calendar Question, by Reverend Basile Sakkas, Translated by Holy Transfiguration Monastery.

QUOTE:

“OUR ADVERSARIES pretend that the calendar “is not a dogma”, thus leaving it to be understood that one can do with it what one pleases. Is the question of the calendar truly one of dogma? (The Calendar Question, by Reverend Basile Sakkas, p. 10, Published by Holy Trinity Monastery, Jordanville, new York.)

Does the wearing of a beard, or a rassa (garment) denote a dogmatical action? The Theotokos and Ever Virgin Mary gave birth in time to the Timeless One, our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ. That is an established dogma. It would seem appropriate that the entire Orthodox Church (since it is one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic) would celebrate the Birth of our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ – ON THE SAME DAY.

Sadly, this does not happen. Why does this not happen one may ask? After all, this is a most important Feast of the Orthodox Church.

The “reason” that all who call themselves Orthodox do not celebrate this most joyous Feast, which has a 40-day fast prescribe prior to the Feast itself, is that a “new” calendar has been, for lack of a more polite term, “introduced”.

In 1582, Pope Gregory XIII the reform of the calendar was passed. This act made October 4th now October 14th. Thus Gregorian calendar was initiated. The calendar used up until that time was known as the Julian calendar, named after Julius Caesar.

In 1924, the then Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople instituted the “new” calendar in Greece (quite forcefully one may add) so that the difference now measured 13 days as opposed to just 10 with Pope Gregory’s calendar.

“THE HOLY APOSTLE commands us saying, “Hold fast the traditions which ye have received, whether by word of mouth or through an epistle of ours.” (2 Thes. 11:15). These words were the exact words used by the Blessed Metropolitan Philaret, in the introduction of the book The Calendar Question. He goes on to state, “These condemnations (three condemnations of the Gregorian Calendar enacted by Pan-Orthodox councils in the 16th century and the Pan-Orthodox condemnation of modernism last century presided over by Patriarch Anthemus) were never lifted by any later council –they still stand and are binding for all Orthodox Christians. (Ibid, p, 5)

It would seem proper that if an Apostle actually commands something, then it should be obeyed. This is obviously not the case; at least in this case. Consider the following:

A. The Condemnation of the Papal New Calendar in 1583
In the work Ecclesiastical History, written by Metropolitan Meletius of Athens (published in Austria, 1784. Ch. XI, p. 402) we read:

Council of Jerusalem convoked because of the New Calendar. During the reign of the same Patriarch Jeremy, a Council of Metropolitans was convoked in Constantinople in 1583, with Sylvester, Patriarch of Alexandria, also being in attendance. This Council condemned the calendar which had been introduced by Gregory of Rome, and did not accept it, as the Latins had requested.

According to the Codex Manuscript (#772) of the Russian Monastery of St. Panteleimon on Mount Athos, we learn of the sigillium (an official synodical decree, bearing the Patriarchal seals) issued by this council:

The sigillium of the Patriarchal Encyclical to the Orthodox Christians in every land commands them under the punishment and anathema not to accept the new Paschalion (the system of reckoning the date of Pascha) or the new calendar but to remain with that which was well defined once and for all by the 318 Holy and God-bearing Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council.

In the year of the God-Man, 1583.

12th Indiction. November 20
The Patriarch of Constantinople Jeremy II
The Patriarch of Alexandria Sylvester
The Patriarch of Jerusalem Sophronius
And the other hierarchs of the Council who were present.

1. The Second Condemnation of the New Calendar in 1587.

In the Ecclesiastical History (Constantinople 1912. Vol. III., p. 125), written by Philaret Baphides, Metropolitan Of Didymotichon, we read a confirmation of the condemnation of 1583 and moreover: “Likewise in 1587, a council at Constantinople was convoked where, in the presence of Jeremy II, Meletius Pegas and Sophronius of Jerusalem, the correction of the calendar was condemned as being perilous and unnecessary and as being, rather, the cause of many dangers.”

3. The Third Condemnation of the New Calendar in 1593.

This Council took place in February, 1593, in the Holy Church of the Mother of God of Consolation. In its Eighth Canon, it prescribes the following concerning the change of the calendar:

Concerning the rejection of the new calendar, that is, the innovation of the Latins regarding the celebration of Pascha. We wish that that which has been decreed by the Fathers concerning Holy and Salutary Pascha remain unshaken … Let all those who have dared to transgress the definitions regarding the Holy Feast of the Salutary Pascha be excommunicated and rejected from the Church of Christ.

According to Polycarp, Bishop of Diaulia (Cf. The Change of the Calendar. Athens, 1947 p. 13) “…in 1593, a Council of the Orthodox Churches was convoked where the four patriarchs, the plenipotentiary of the Russian Church and many other Orthodox hierarchs representing the Orthodox churches participated. This Council reiterated the excommunication of the Most Holy Patriarch Jeremy II and issued an encyclical which, among other things, stated the following:

He that does not follow the customs of the Church which were decreed by the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils which have ordained well that we observe the Holy Pascha and the Menologion,(the calendar of the moveable feasts) and wishes to follow the new Paschalia and Menologion of the Pope’s astronomers, and, opposing himself to all these things, wishes to overturn and destroy them, let him be anathema and outside of the Church of Christ and the assembly of the faithful…”

D. The Requirements of Sacred Tradition.

“Let him that transgresses the ecclesiastical traditions be deposed” (Canon No. 7 of the Seventh Ecumenical Council).

Of the doctrine and preaching which are preserved in the Church, some we possess derived from written doctrine, others we have received delivered to us “in secret” (en mysterio) by the tradition of the Apostles; and both of these have the same validity and force as regards piety. And these no one contradicts – no one, at all events, who is even moderately no written authority, on the ground that the importance that they possess is small, we would unintentionally harm the Gospel in its vitals; or, rather, would make our preaching mere words and nothing more (St. Basil, On the Holy Spirit 27:66; also Canon 91 of St. Basil the Great).

It should be required reading of all Orthodox Christians to learn this entire Canon by heart. The 92nd Canon of the same Saint confirms the above and also recalls the words of the divine Apostle: “Hold fast the traditions which ye have received, whether by word of mouth or through an epistle of ours” (2 Thes. 2:15).

Behold, therefore, why we adhere to the calendar of the Fathers:
Not because it is “Julian”, but because it has become “Ecclesiastical” and has always been the pulse of the Body of our most Holy Church. We keep this calendar because it is the one which we have received from the Fathers. The calendar of the West has been transmitted to us by no one. We keep this calendar because it was with this one that the Martyrs shed their blood, and our Fathers and Mothers in the Faith burned like living candles in their ascetical discipline. We keep this calendar of our Fathers because, according to the principle stated by St. Vincent of Lerins, it is the only one which has been used “always, everywhere, by all.” We keep this calendar because, if our Fathers were not upset by its inaccuracies, why should we become upset? We keep this calendar because, even if it is “erroneous, irregular, obsolete and antiquated,” yet it is also patristic, orthodox, sanctified, ecclesiastical, lived and celebrated at the same time by the whole Church, both in heaven and on earth.”

ENQUOTE

John

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

This is not to argue the main point in this topic, but in what I have read about the iconoclast period in Byzantine history, icons were removed from churches and destoyed, icon writers had their hands amputated, monks were forced to marry nuns, and monestaries had their lands conficated by the state.

paleocon,

This is true, but it was not a scene of people running down smoke filled streets with blood everywhere. It was an orderly persecution which was not entirely against icons, it had more to do with venerating icons. So in order to win over the resisters, the Orthodox, the "ecumenical council" of 754 made some provisions. First, they condemned the Orthodox then as fanatics, and said that they paid inordinate attention to insignificant matters, as icons supposedly were, and that they perpetuated schisms in the Church by not commemorating and communicating with the innovating bishops. Some of the scholarly among them made proposals to the Orthodox: “Do you wish to venerate icons? We will not hinder you, as long as you hang them a little higher. One thing alone do we ask, that you commemorate the bishops of the Official Church, and then I too will put icons in the Church where I serve; because, even in my diocese, there are many who are nostalgic for this custom of having icons, which is so meaningful, but they certainly do not want to create schism in the Church.”

There was a saint that wrote about this at the time and I cannot remember his name – I don’t think it was St. John.

[paleocon]

OoD,
All this still does not answer the question. Should one or several clergy who deviate from Tradition poison the entire juristiction?
You, nor anyone else, can convince me that communing with any other Orthodox Christian is heresy. If they are not Orthodox, now that is something different altogether. Are those who you are not 'in communion' with non-Orthodox? If your answer is 'yes', then we have a whole new topic. Arian and Iconoclasts were not Orthodox; they left the Faith.
Again, I am not a apologist for the New Calendar; I believe it is damaging and it tends to open the door for lax theology, but not heresy.
You mention fasting and the OCA and the GOA; so what? That is between them and God, and if their priest or bishop does not shepard the flock like they have been called, that is their problem. It does not condemn the entire juristiction or make them heretics. Even if a priest communes Latins and Monophysites, that is his error, not the Church. I personally would not attend or commune at a parish where that was a practice, but again, what they do 'down the road' does not affect me.
A priest may be heretical, a parish, and so also a bishop, but I have yet to see any Orthodox Church issue a statement that says, 'Latins, protestants, masons, wiccans, etc. are the same as us, you may not turn them away at the Chalice, and you must use the Latin creed at Liturgy.' Even if one did, if a parish priest were to adhere to traditional Orthodoxy, then they would be acceptable.
I know you will not change your views, nor will you change mine. It is obvious (more so lately) that roac and others like them seem to be cute, romantic, and 'cool', but nothing else.

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

All this still does not answer the question. Should one or several clergy who deviate from Tradition poison the entire juristiction?

Perhaps you missed my post before last?

[Seraphim Reeves]

Some observations/thoughts on the calendar issue, largely to give the "other side" which otherwise is probably not going to get any representation in this forum.

1) The 19]1935 Declaration of Faith by the three founding Greek Old Calenar heirarchs, does not once mention ecumenism. Nor, interestingly enough, is the Sigillion of 1583 ever cited as a basis for condemnning the Ruling Synod of Greece ("State Church").

2) On it's face, some of the reasons cited in the 1935 declaration have not born themselves out - the claim that the introduction of the new calendar created "two factions" did not happen, since Old and New Calendar Churches are still in communion with one another. You can attribute this to ill motives on the part of the so called "world Orthodox" observers of the Old Calendar, but the fact remains it ultimatly did not become a big issue for them (nor was it such for decades, if ever, for ROCOR - whose problem came later, and was connected only indirectly to the calendar...namely, ecumenism.)

3) The 1935 Declaration cites the scandal caused by this change in praxis as part of it's reasoning for viewing the State Church as being "essentially" schismatic (though without going so far as to conclude it had removed itself from the Church), of a divisive and schismatical spirit. This may be (that it was a divisive and highly imprudent move), but one could argue the same thing about another great disaster in liturgical reforms (which took centuries to iron out), the changes in Russia under Patriarch Nikon. This was not an "essential" change, and in most respects was simply the result of Nikon's Byzantophilia. Yet, history and the Church's consensus on the matter has viewed those who opposed Nikon of going into schism.

4) Often the un-Christ-like persecutions and use of force by the Greek Church in imposing it's reforms is cited as grounds for it's invalidity - or at least an indicator of it. Yet, the same (if not worse) things also happened during the time of the Nikonian reforms. Obviously then, sins do not automatically invalidate or point to the invalidity of ecclessiastical acts.

5) While it is really a doctrinairre distinction, the fact remains that STRICTLY speaking, the new calendar is a "revised" form of the Julian Calendar, and not exactly the Gregorian calendar. I agree that practically speaking, on a day to day basis, this matters very little. But it is a point worth keeping in mind.

6) None of what I write here really addresses the ecumenism issue, which really only started sprouting wings decades after the calendar reform was introduced. Perhaps I'll post some thoughts on that later today, or some other time this weekend.

Seraphim

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

5) While it is really a doctrinairre distinction, the fact remains that STRICTLY speaking, the new calendar is a "revised" form of the Julian Calendar, and not exactly the Gregorian calendar. I agree that practically speaking, on a day to day basis, this matters very little. But it is a point worth keeping in mind.

The so-called "revised Julian" calendar is, without exploring a few ineffectual details, identical to the Gregorian. Consider too that there were other calendars presented at the “pan-orthodox” synod, which used 20th century science and were far more accurate; they of course were rejected. Someone very ignorant of the motives these men carried may wonder why, especially since “astronomical accuracy” is the only defense ecumenists use to explain this change. But we know that the "Revised Julian" only exists because of and to be identical to the Gregorian, which is the pope's "revised Julian".

While I realize you acknowledged this, I want to make a point that to try to draw a distinction between the two calendars only further highlights the real motives for the change - IMHO.

6) None of what I write here really addresses the ecumenism issue, which really only started sprouting wings decades after the calendar reform was introduced. Perhaps I'll post some thoughts on that later today, or some other time this weekend.

The calendar change was the first act of ecumenism as stated in the Encyclical of 1920. I will grant you that in an age and place of little means of communication and a disrupting war, this encyclical was probably not very well known – its first fruits only being realized with a substantial change in practice and even then, not really known “why”. So at that time “the calendar change”, while very important by itself, was treated as nothing more than that. We on the other hand, after decades of witnessing the most despicable acts and having available the words of those people who confessed why they changed the calendar, we can call it heresy.