Schismatic Old Calendarism is an Anti-Patristic Stance

Sean · Post by **Sean** » Sat 10 March 2007 1:22 am

THE ANATHEMA OF 1054 by Dr. Alexander Kalomiros

Anathema means anything that has been separated from God and the Church of the Christians and has been dedicated to the devil. It is of great importance that one understand that it is not the Church that separates someone from God by some official act, it is not the hierarchs who make him anathema, nor yet is it God Who banishes a man from Him; it is man himself who makes himself anathema, who dismisses the Grace of God and the Gift of the Holy Spirit from within himself and flees far from God. It is only after this that the Church steps in to certify and to proclaim this fact, with the purpose of protecting first the Divine Gifts from any contact with the blasphemous, and second the faithful from pollution. The anathema is the formal proclamation of the Church that such-and-such a man or group of men have ceased to be Christians, have lost the Grace of God and the Gift of the Holy Spirit, and in conscience are outside the Church, enslaved of their own will to the Prince of this world. The bishops have no right to excommunicate a person on their own. St. Maximus tells us, "If a bishop excommunicates someone against the Will of God, the Divine Wrath does not fall upon this person." An unjust anathema of a bishop cannot force God to withdraw His Grace from a man or Church, nor is it possible for the opposite to occur; that is, for an unjust lifting of an anathema to force God to enter the hearts of men who reject Him, or to turn a group of heterodox into a Church of God. "Thus the hierarchs have the power of excommunication as expressors of the divine statutes. This is not to say that the All-Wise Godhead slavishly follows their irrational whims, but that they are guided by the Spirit regarding those worthy of excommunication" (St. Dionysius the Areopagite: On Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, Chapter 7).

What happened then with Athenagoras? (Athenagoras was Ecumenical Patriarch from 1948 to 1972) Why did he raise the anathema against papacy which was in force for centuries without its being challenged by any Orthodox, and which had not only been accepted unanimously as true by the Church through official documents and proclamations by all the Patriarchates and local Churches, but also had become a deeply embedded matter of ecclesiastical conscience, having been upheld by all the Saints after the Schism and renewed by the decisions of so many Great Orthodox Synods (1485, 1583, 1593, 1727, 1838, 1895)? Two things may have happened: either Athenagoras does not know what an anathema is and considers it a barbaric and insulting action unworthy of a Christian, as many laymen and newspaper reporters seem to feel, and thus naturally wants to seek forgiveness and erase the memory of such an act; or he does know what it means, and his actions may be explained in two ways: he either believes that as Patriarch he has jurisdiction over the Grace of God and may force God to return His Grace from whence He has withdrawn it, or he believes that the Orthodox Church has been in error for these nine centuries and that, at last, only he and his followers have seen the light of truth after all this time of darkness.

But whichever of these may have occurred, one thing is certain: Athenagoras and his followers are at this moment at odds with the Orthodox Church and in opposition to the judgement and will of God, which for nine centuries has been expressed and is being expressed "by the guidance of the Spirit" in His Church.

By the Anathema against Papism the Church proclaimed that the Pope and his followers abandoned the Church, lost the truth (which is Christ), and were submerged in the depths of error from which Christ came to free them. Their teachings were declared a delusion of the evil one, and a poison to the souls of men, and any communication with them makes us like them by cutting us off from the Grace of God, from His Church, and estranges us from the path of salvation, placing us rather on the road to perdition.

But Athenagoras, by raising this Anathema, announced that all this is false, that the Pope and his followers were unjustly excommunicated, that the Church wrongly held the doctrines of Papism to be false, and that, in truth, Papism is as much a Church of God as is Orthodoxy. What separates us? We are already united; we are already one Church; the Schism has already ceased to exist. Since the Grace of God works through their sacraments as well as ours, and since the Faith is the same for them as well as for us, what separates us? Ecclesiastical jurisdiction? But this separates the Greeks from the Bulgarians, and the Russians from the Ukrainians without their being separated from the One Church.

From this, we may conclude that, in fact, the antagonism between Athenagoras and the Church is dogmatic in nature. The Church proclaims that the teachings of Papism are falsehoods; Athenagoras comes today to proclaim that they are truths. This is the meaning of the raising of the Anathema. Athenagoras sides with Papism, and-together with all his followers, together with all who even commemorate him, together with all who have whatever ecclesiastical communion with him-rejects the Faith of the Church.

It is impossible for the Church to raise an anathema which she herself leveled on a heretical system or a heresiarch. To do this would be a denial of herself. The anti-christian and blasphemous papal system has been condemned once and for all by the Church and not even an Ecumenical Synod can raise it, because should it do so, it would be at odds with the Church and Holy Tradition, and therefore would not be a genuine Synod. Even if Papism were to cease to exist, the anathema against the pope and his followers would remain within the memory of the Church, as has the anathema against Arius and the Arians. Nor yet is it possible for us to speak of the repentance and return of Papism, for Papism is in itself a gross sin against the Spirit-and sin cannot repent-it either exists or it does not. Man must abandon sin if he is to be free of it. In order for the westerners to return to the Church, they must purge themselves from Papism, Protestantism, and all the other errors of the west. Let not those who continue to bear these errors delude themselves into thinking that they may become Orthodox Christians.

The Pope and Athenagoras contend that the Anathema of 1054 "related only to the persons involved, and not to the Churches."

It is possible that these two who seek to fool the faithful do not know that within the Church there is no such thing as a personal quarrel, that no anathema is ever leveled for personal reasons, and that when a hierarch is condemned, all who agree with him or succeed him are anathematized also? Even if it were true that the Anathema of 1054 was of limited significance then-when we note the many added heresies of the Latins, when we take into account that the whole Church has supported the Anathema formally many times in Pan-Orthodox Synods, when we consider that the signatures of all the hierarchs of the Church after 1054 have been added to it, that it has been broadened and strengthened, sealed with the life and blood of the martyrs, with the teachings and precepts of all the Saints, even with miracles, that it has become part of the conscience of all genuine children of the Faith throughout the world where the Orthodox Church exists-then we may understand that this which Athenagoras sought to eradicate was not just a simple document, but the very Faith and Life of the Church.

Athenagoras and those who continue to have ecclesiastical communion with him may believe that they have voided the Anathema of the Church against Papism, but in actuality, they themselves have fallen under the Church's awful anathema.

Solemn Anathema Against Ecumenism 
 Pronouncement of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, 1983, signed by all the Bishops, to be permanently added at the end of the Anathemas listed in the "Rite of Orthodoxy," celebrated on the First Sunday of the Great Fast, the Sunday of Orthodoxy: 
 "To those who attack the Church of Christ by teaching that Christ's Church is divided into so-called "branches" which differ in doctrine and way of life, or that the Church does not exist visibly, but will be formed in the future when all "branches" or sects or denominations, and even religions will be united into one body; and who do not distinguish the Priesthood and Mysteries of the Church from those of the heretics, but say that the baptism and Eucharist of heretics is effectual for salvation; therefore, to those who knowingly have communion with these aforementioned heretics or who advocate, disseminate, or defend their heresy of ecumenism under the pretext of brotherly love or the supposed unification of separated Christians, Anathema!"

All that was innovated and enacted, or that after this shall be enacted, outside
of Church tradition and the teaching and institution of the holy and
ever-memorable fathers,
Anathema (3)

These acclamations, like blessings of fathers, are inherited by us, their sons,
who zealously emulate their piety; but likewise do the curses seize upon
those parricides and disdainers of the Master's commandments. Wherefore, we
in unison, since we constitute the plenitude of piety, lay upon the impious the
curse which they have put upon themselves.
To them who do not correctly understand the divine voices of the holy teachers
of the Church of God and who attempt to misinterpret and pervert
those things clearly and manifestly spoken in them by the grace of the Holy
Spirit,
Anathema (3)

Dear Sean,

Greetings in the Lord.

I am extremely pressed for time, but my short answer is that the paragraph quoted from his letter (below) demonstrates this man's disingenuousness. The intent of the act of lifting of the anathemas of 1054 was to lift the existing schism. For him to say it wasn't is either simple minded or dishonest on his part. One must remember that the false Union of Florence has always been considered a union by Church historians and theologians --despite the fact that the formerly Orthodox refused to concelebrate openly with the Latins.
Our position is that of St. Mark of Ephesus. When he was threatened with being condemned as a heretic because he refused to be in communion with Rome after the false union of Florence, he said:
The Councils sentenced those who would not obey the Church, and upheld opinions contrary to her doctrine. I express not my own opinions, I introduce nothing new into the Church, neither do I defend any errors. But I steadfastly preserve the doctrine which the Church, having received from Christ the Saviour, has kept and keeps . . . . Who can slander or put down this doctrine? If I stand steadfast in this doctrine, and do not wish to reject it, who dares to judge me as a heretic? You must first judge the doctrine I defend; but if that is received unanimously [by the Holy Ecumenical and Local Councils] as being holy and orthodox, how is it, then, that I merit judgment?

At present there have been many joint prayers with the heretical papists.
Take a look at the letter below regarding "concelebrations."

That is all I have time for now.

In Christ,

+Metropolitan Moses

The following official statement from World Council of Churches formulated by twenty-one Or thodox, Protestant and Roman Catholic representatives stated:

"…that in Jesus Christ, the incarnate Word, the entire human family has been united to God in an irrevocable bond and covenant. The saving presence of God's activity in all creation and human history comes to its focal point in the event of Christ." But, they add, "because we have seen and experienced goodness, truth and holiness among followers of other paths and ways than that of Jesus Christ . . . , we find ourselves recognizing a need to move beyond a theology which confines salvation to the explicit personal commitment to Jesus Christ." (From: Religious Plurality: Theological Perspectives and Affirmations, Ecumenical Press Service, 16-31, Jan., 1990)

This is only one of many examples underlying the fact that all of the self-styled orthodox members of the World and National Councils of Churches have agreed to set aside the fundamental Orthodox Christian dogma of Christ's saving Incarnation. How else is it possible to understand the plain meaning of the astonishing departure from the faith of the Church asserted in the ecumenist document just quoted?

Michael · Post by **Michael** » Sat 10 March 2007 9:44 am

One of the most profound problems with the status of the Old Calendarists is that they use unforeseen events of the 1960's and onward to justify a division that occured in 1924 and was solidified in 1935. Contrary to their apologists today, the original Old Calendarists were entirely calendar-centered; they considered it to have "dogmatic significance," in the words of Fr. Basil Sakkas' work, "The Calendar Question" (Jordanville, 1973). For the original Old Calendarists in pre-1960, it was the calendar per se, as opposed to their current mantra "it's not the calendar, it's Ecumenism." Read the confessions of 1935, 1950 or 1974, or any of the various encyclicals issued before the death of Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina, and you will see no discussion whatsoever of Ecumenism, despite the well-published Patriarchal Encyclical of 1920 that everyone today says is clearly and blatantly heretical.

The original Old Calendarists justification for walling off (read any of the various documents translated in the five books in English on TOC history) was based on three points, and if these are, by themselves, non-dogmatic and thus insufficent, then they are in schism, and no future uncanonical or heretical acts by others can justify their existence:

1) The calendar is part of the immutable Holy Tradition, and the Seventh Ecumenical Synod anathematizes those who alter Holy Tradition.

2) The New Calendarists fall under the Pan-Orthodox anathemas of the 16th century against the New Calendar.

3) Those who follow the New Calendar are schismatic in relation to those who follow the Old Calendar.

The first is easily dismissed, in that the festal calendar itself has been altered numerous times in history; it is only the Paschalion that cannot be changed, set as it was by the 1st Oecumenical Synod. Outside of the Paschalion, the general calendar cannot be considered part of the unchangeable, dogmatic Holy Tradition of the Church.

On the second point, the consciousness of the Church is expressed by no less an authority than the "father" of the Old Calendarists, the late Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina, in a letter to Bishop Germanos of the Cylcades in 1937:

"Likewise, Your Grace, you dissemble and utter outright falsehoods when you assert that it is unnecessary and superfluous to convene a Pan-Orthodox Synod or a major local Synod for the authoritative and definitive condemnation of the calendar innovation by the Archbishop, since the Pan-Orthodox Synods of 1583, 1587, and 1593 condemned the Gregorian Calendar.

"And this is so, because you know fully well that the aforementioned Synods condemned the Gregorian Calendar, but that this condemnation concerns the Latins, who implemented this calendar in its entirety, whereas the Archbishop adopted half of it, applying it to the fixed Feasts and retaining the Old Calendar for Pascha and the moveable Feasts, precisely in order to bypass the obstacle of this condemnation.

"In view of this, the innovation of the Archbishop in applying the Gregorian Calendar only to the fixed Feasts and not to Pascha, which was the main reason why the Gregorian Calendar was condemned as conflicting with the Seventh Apostolic Canon, is an issue that appears for the first time in the history of the Orthodox Church.

"Consequently, the convocation of a Pan-Orthodox Synod is not only not superfluous, as Your Grace declares ex cathedra, like another Pope, but is actually required for the canonical and authoritative adjudication of this issue.

"This is precisely why the other Orthodox Churches which stand on the ground of the traditional calendar have not broken off ecclesiastical communion with the innovating Archbishop, waiting to express their opinion and judgment until a Pan-Orthodox Synod should convene in the future, which alone has the right to try and condemn them, if he adheres obstinately to his innovation."

On the third point, even Metropolitan Chrysosotmos discovered this to be untrue when he visited various Local Churches which continued to use the Old Calendar in order to gain support for the fledgling TOC in Greece. While based on sound theologumenon expressed prior to the change, no schism actually occured.

What's my point in all of this?

Ecumenism and the calendar are genuine issues, but the Old Calendarists are not the solution.

In the words of Blessed Metropolitan Anthony of Kiev to the Old Calendarist-supporting Fr. Theododius of Mt. Athos in 1930:

"Of course, I do not agree with your conclusion at all. The question remains that while recognizing holy tradition and witnessing their violation, in this case by the Greeks, one must still pose the following question: does such violation justify ecclesiastical separation or only reproof? You, Father, are one step away from falling into prelest. May the Mother of God preserve you from the next step. I write to you as a benevolent friend: do not destroy your 40-year podvig by a judgment of the Church on the basis of your relative formalism - relative and also arbitrary. The new calendar is no less distasteful to me than it is to you, but even worse is a break from Orthodoxy and its hierarchy..."

[/i]

Anastasios · Post by **Anastasios** » Sat 10 March 2007 10:34 am

You'll have to forgive me for writing an off the top of my head response but I have a full plate today.

The Calendar is a doctrinal issue as it is part of holy tradition. The Calendar change took part in a context. That context was the patriarchal locum tenens' encyclical of 1920 "to the Churches of Christ wherever they may be." The letters of Metaxakis provide more context: changing the calendar for the purpose of union with the West. The bigger issue now is ecumenism, but the Calendar was and is significant. The Calendar was the first point of conflict, the first inkling to the faithful that something wrong was happening.

Point one is not so easily dismissed; the calendar developed over time, but it did not radically change especially in relation to union with other false churches, and the manner of the calendar change being a crude hacking away of days with no accounting for proleptic conversion and things like that make its argument that it is more "accurate" a joke. "A Scientific Examination of the Orthodox Church Calendar" can provide a much better explanation than I. At any rate, the Romanian Church adopted the Gregorian Paschalion two times, so was it ok in your view for an Old Calendar Church to be formed? Finland and Estonia and parts of Slovakia are on the New Pachalion. Is it ok to have Old Calendar Churches there?

Attempts to say point two is invalid are based in legalism: "oh but they were not concerned with the Menaion, as such a situation never could be imagined!" What was the intent of those decisions? It was against altering the liturgical harmony of the Church, not legalistically trying to say the Paschalion is superior to the Menaion. Those who argue point two invalid are just appealing to legalism and not the spirit and context of the decisions.

As to point three, it's pretty difficult to disprove it by appealing to some visits of Met Chrysostom and finding that "schisms did not actually occur." Schisms develop over time, especially when communication at that time were very slow. It's sad that a majority of the world's Orthodox stayed in communion with the schismatic New Calendarists, but that is reality. The same is true during Iconoclasm. Time will tell.

Finally, your appeal to Met Anthony is neither here nor there. Some ROCOR bishops supported us and some did not. That St John was in the former category makes me happy but my ecclesiology is not ultimately based on the opinions of ROCOR bishops, especially when there is an official ROCOR position on us, the one made in 1969 when they recognized our hierarchy and entered into communion with us.

I can see that it is perhaps time that I write a response to that article. (sigh--that is going to take a lot of time.)

Yours in Christ,

Anastasios

Michael · Post by **Michael** » Sat 10 March 2007 4:38 pm

I would be interested to see if anyone - ANYONE - can find a single encyclical, published letter, confession, etc., published before 1960 in which the Old Calendarists declare that the state Church of Greece and the Ecumenical Patriarchate are heretical due to acceptance of Ecumenism. You simply won't find it. You can argue about "context" all you like, but all of our conjecture is based on knowledge of events which occured several decades after the Old Calendarist schism occured - events which no one predicted.

I'm curious... What if the Russian Old Believers produced a case that the ill-advised 17th century reforms of Patriarch Nikon was a precurser to Renovationism in the 20th century, with its willingness to depart from established traditions without the organic participation of the whole Body of Christ and charismatic enlightenment given by the Holy Spirit, which in turn led to the rise of Sergianism, which explains why the Old Believer's were right to "wall themselves off" from the Patriarchate in the 17th century... Explaining events from the 1600's with unforeseen knowledge of events in the 1900's. It's the same logic, and it's just as faulty.

Anastasios · Post by **Anastasios** » Sat 10 March 2007 5:12 pm

mlillios wrote:
I would be interested to see if anyone - ANYONE - can find a single encyclical, published letter, confession, etc., published before 1960 in which the Old Calendarists declare that the state Church of Greece and the Ecumenical Patriarchate are heretical due to acceptance of Ecumenism. You simply won't find it. You can argue about "context" all you like, but all of our conjecture is based on knowledge of events which occured several decades after the Old Calendarist schism occured - events which no one predicted.

Ecclesiastical events often happen retrospectively--for instance, the apostles only knew that Christ was God after the passion, and iconoclasm was only proved wrong by theology 75 years after it was started, before that there were no arguments that it was theologically correct to venerate icons, it just was done. Our understanding grows with time and often we see the significance of events after the fact retrospectively. The Calendar change happened in a context that is obvious even to those around at the time--it was to unite with the Churches of the West. The word ecumenism as it later came to be was not coined at the time but the movement to unite with heresy is something very old. Just because there was no word for it, does not mean it did not exist. As time progressed as we were able to look back at things, it became more and more obvious what had happened. This is the way our understanding develops--retrospectively. The seed and the clues were there though, and like I said, the calendar itself is a part of tradition and doctrinal.

I'm curious... What if the Russian Old Believers produced a case that the ill-advised 17th century reforms of Patriarch Nikon was a precurser to Renovationism in the 20th century, with its willingness to depart from established traditions without the organic participation of the whole Body of Christ and charismatic enlightenment given by the Holy Spirit, which in turn led to the rise of Sergianism, which explains why the Old Believer's were right to "wall themselves off" from the Patriarchate in the 17th century... Explaining events from the 1600's with unforeseen knowledge of events in the 1900's. It's the same logic, and it's just as faulty.

It's not even the same thing. If the two were directly related, it would be fine to link them even if we judged the past with future knowledge (which again is how things work all the time in reality), which is why it is fine to show that Roman Catholicism produced Protestantism, as Justin Popovich argued in his work "Papism is the first Protestantism." But the Nikonian reforms were blessed by God because their point was to unite the Church in its liturgical practice, not divide the Church* as the New Calendar did. Old Believerism is quite different from Old Calendarism.

Anastasios

(* when I speak of unite and divide I obviously mean in a human sense as the Church cannot by definition be divided).

Michael · Post by **Michael** » Sat 10 March 2007 5:54 pm

"The Calendar change happened in a context that is obvious even to those around at the time--it was to unite with the Churches of the West."

Actually, you're quite wrong. The very reason why the 1920 Encyclical was not instantly rejected by the Church as a whole is because it had no real theological intent behind it. It was produced by a persecuted Constantinople in a feeble attempt to improve the socio-political situation of Orthodox Christians in the wake World War I. Mount Athos didn't erupt in universal protest, and neither did any other ecclesiastical center, because they saw it for what it was. Today, it is not-so-cleverly used to justify a "walling off."

As Metropolitan Philaret of blessed memory rightly states in his first Sorowful Epistle, when looking at the subject from a theological (as opposed to socio-political) point of view:

"When the first steps were taken in the organization of the Ecumenical Movement, many of the Orthodox Churches, following the initiative of the Patriarch of Constantinople, began to participate in its conferences. At the time such participation did not cause any worry even among the most zealous Orthodox. They thought that the Church would suffer no injury if her representatives appeared among various truth-seeking Protestants with the aim of presenting Orthodoxy in the face of their various errors. Such a participation in inter-faith conferences could be thought of as having a missionary character."

This was what Orthodox Christians thought "at the time," as you put it.

"This is the way our understanding develops--retrospectively. The seed and the clues were there though, and like I said, the calendar itself is a part of tradition and doctrinal."

This is what makes the Old Calendarists sectarian, and why they are viewed a "fanatical" by so many, and why their voice is rendered silent, as opposed to individuals such as Blessed Philotheos Zervakos, Blessed Ephiphanios Theodoropoulos, Blessed Augustinos of Florina, and so many others who remained under new calendar hierarchs, yet fought Ecumenism publicly and courageously.

"But the Nikonian reforms were blessed by God because their point was to unite the Church in its liturgical practice, not divide the Church as the New Calendar did. Old Believerism is quite different from Old Calendarism."

You are parroting the old MP polemic, which modern scholarship - traditional and otherwise - has proven to be false. Nikon had motives and his reforms had consequences which would cause this discussion to drift in a direction too far from the original topic, so I will leave it alone. But I will observe that, regardless of the intent, it did produce a division, and a division which was much larger than that produced by the calendar change. And just like they Old Calendarists, they have drifted beyond Orthodoxy and into the realm of sectarianism.

Sean · Post by **Sean** » Sat 10 March 2007 9:34 pm

The entire point I made in posting the above references was to show the utter nonsense behind the notion that the Ecumenists are somehow Orthodox, and haven't really betrayed the faith. You now seem to be sidestepping this issue by postulating that the Old Calendarists weren't correct in their stance because they didn't oppose heresy before the 1960's.

You then go on to call St. Philaret "of blessed memory," and quote a reference from the Sorrowful Epistles, which indicated an Orthodox attitude towards ecumenism prior to the 1960's. However, this does not prove that the Patriarchal Encyclical of 1920 wasn't really heretical.

Orthodox participation in the Ecumenical movement affirmed the truth of Orthodoxy up to the 1960's precisely because it was heavily influenced by Fr. Georges Florovsky, who was a staunch confessor of the truth of Orthodoxy and a member of the WCC's Faith and Order Commission for decades. The Masons who had infiltrated the Phanar in the 1920's had finally become exasperated with him, and Athenagoras sent Abp. Iakovos to silence him at the Faith and Order Commission at New Delhi in 1961. Since then, not a single statement published by the "Orthodox" participants have asserted the truth of the Faith over heterodoxy.

It is true that the situation after the blessed repose of Met. Chrysostomos of Florina was irregular in the sense of how new bishops were consecrated for the GOC by bishops of ROCOR, without the blessing of the Synod. This is why St. Philaret himself corrected these irregularities in the early 70's by performing the rite of chierothesia over the TOC bishops, thus correcting their orders, and that's nothing to sneeze at. He then established full ecclesiastical communion with the Florinite Synod of Blessed Abp. Auxentios, and broke communion with the Ecumenists (an act which the Sergianist turncoats who have hijacked ROCOR have been undoing in stages ever since the saint's repose). It was also St. Philaret who anathematized your bishops and all who commune with them as heretical in 1983.

Splitting hairs over some point in time that the Old Calendarists were uncanonical is nothing but a red herring to distract attention from the fact that "World Orthodoxy" is an apostate religion, and is utterly anathema.