Old Calendar Ecumenism?

[JHunt777]

Perhaps, since the subject is "Old Calendar Ecumenism," it might be helpful to post the 1983 Encyclical Against "Old Calendarist Ecumenism" that was written under the presidency of the same Abp Andrew that Goutzides says had "fallen as far as possible with the abomination of his resignation in favour of Mr. Nicholas Messiakaris of the Piraeus". You will note that Met Kyrikos was a hieromonk at this council, acting as the secretary.

As an aside, and with no intention of changing the subject or taking attention away from Vladimir's article, it may be of interest if someone could describe the historical circumstances surrounding this 1983 Encyclical. For instance, when did it appear relative to ROCOR's 1983 Anathema (before, after, in response to)? Why did this Synod under Abp Andrew first condemn "Old Calendar Ecumenism" as "a fruit and product of antichristian Ecumenism" in 1983, but only anathematized "Ecumenism" proper in 1985?

Reading this encyclical, it is hard to understand how Met Kyrikos could use this to argue against Met Epiphanius or the Synod of Abp Nicholas in general. This Encyclical basically condemns the teaching that "all the groups and factions that follow the old calendar together consist and belong to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ," which probably has never been taught so explicitly or in such a simplistic manner as this condemnation is phrased; and condemns all who have departed from the "Orthodox Confession – Ecclesiology [that] was printed and preached since 1924, and was Synodically preached in the historic year of 1935," essentially stating that the Florinites are schismatics. Met Epiphanios and Abp Nicholas cannot be considered to have fallen under any of these accusations, for they still hold to the 1935 "Orthodox Faith - Ecclesiology," the were not proclaiming others to be part of the Church merely for remaining on the Old Calendar, nor were they uniting with Florinites. However, if Met Kyrikos is making this accusation, one does wonder whether the "Old Calendar Ecumenist" condemnation applies to his union with the Romanian bishops who were in succession to Bp Victor (Leu), as Fr. Dcn. Joseph pointed out, or to his attempted union with the Novozybkov Old-Believers under "Patriarch Alexander of Moscow."

Unfortunately, there is a common "boogey man" technique that seems to be employed not only in this situation between Met Kyrikos and Met Epiphanios, but which may be employed by other TOC/GOC Synods as well. This is to take a scary label like "Old Calendar Ecumenist," "Ecumenist," "Sergianist," "Mason," "KGB," etc., and anytime someone does or says something you disagree with, and especially if they break communion with you, to reach into one's arsenal of "boogey-man" phrases and apply the most appropriate or damaging label, no questions asked and no proof required. Such things as KGB, Ecumenists, Sergianists, and Masons do exist and have existed, but that does not justify their very liberal application which has become such a fashionable tool for self-justification in our times.

---

Encyclical of 1983 Against "Old Calendarist Ecumenism"
ACT OF THE HOLY AND SACRED COUNCIL OF THE GENUINE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF GREECE

Protocol Number: 6/13-7-1983

Theme: Condemnation of the so-called "Old Calendarist Ecumenism."

The Holy Synod of Bishops of the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece in its session of July 13, 1983, addressed the theme of the so-called "Old Calendarist Ecumenism", and took into account:

a) That the so-called "Old Calendarist Ecumenism" teaches an entirely heretical teaching, to wit, that all the groups and factions that follow the old calendar together consist and belong to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ, and it proposes a union of these [factions] according to an ecumenistic perception and not according to the Orthodox Confession and Ecclesiology.

b) That "Old Calendarist Ecumenism" is a fruit and product of antichristian Ecumenism, the pan-heresy of our age, which seeks, through the fractions and divisions and the ecclesiological confusion, to distort the Orthodox Confession – Ecclesiology and to introduce this heretical teaching into the Uninnovated Church, in order to thereby suffocate it.

c) That the age, in which we are going through, is an age of general apostasy and ecclesiological confusion, which was caused by antichristian Ecumenism. Thus, the criticality of these times requires [from us] especially, a continuous way of life in the pure Confession of the Orthodox Faith and in the teachings of the Church of Christ.

d) That "the chosen vessel," the divine Apostle Paul, commands us all: "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Spirit hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood," and continues: "grievous wolves shall enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them." (Acts 20:28-30)

e) That many have arisen, speaking perversely, for the purpose of setting aside the Confession and Ecclesiology of the Holy Church of Christ, and turn against the divine and Sacred Canons and generally against the Holy and Sacred Tradition, by preaching "Old Calendarist Ecumenism" with bared head, and disturbing the assembly of the faithful.

Since "Old Calendarist Ecumenism" is condemned by the consensus of the divine and Sacred Canons and is something foreign and polemical against the Orthodox Confession and Ecclesiology of the Church of Christ, for this reason, together with our Holy and God-bearing Fathers, holding the divine and Sacred Canons in embrace, in the Holy Spirit we decide:

1. We judge and condemn the so-called “Old Calendarist Ecumenism,” as something foreign to, and incompatible with, the Orthodox Confession and Ecclesiology of the Holy Church of Christ.

2. With one mouth and one heart we confess and preach that the Genuine Orthodox Church, which for reasons of discernment is called "uninnovated" or "Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians," is the continuation of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ, from which [the following] were torn off: firstly, the innovated new calendarist church, through the introduction of the condemned papist innovation [of the calendar], by which Ecumenism entered in 1924; and secondly, the various old calendarist schisms, which were created by their distortion of the Confession – Ecclesiology of the uninnovated Holy Church of Christ.

3. This Orthodox Confession – Ecclesiology was printed and preached since 1924, and was Synodically preached in the historic year of 1935. We also keep it, preach it and confess it.

4. With one voice we disapprove and remove any expressions or publications which, regardless of what context or by whom they were written, are unacceptable from an Orthodox perspective and are foreign to the Orthodox Confession and Ecclesiology, and we order that from now on, anything contradictory, whether it be due to carelessness or through human weakness, we regard it as having not been written.

In the year of salvation 1983, on July the 13th (old calendar).

The President:

• ANDREW of Athens and all Greece

The Members:

• GREGORY of Messenia
• MATTHEW of Megaris
• LAZARUS of Bresthena
• PACHOMIUS of Argolis
• THEODOSIUS of Phthiotis
• TITUS of Kozane

The Chief Secretary

• Hieromonk Kirykos (Kontogiannis)

[The above decision was not signed by Bishop Nicholas of Piraeus, as he did not arrive at the council for "unknown reasons." It may or may not be a coincidence that Bishop Nicholas of Piraeus later became the leader of the cause of "Old Calendarist Ecumenism" from within the Holy Synod, and created a schism.]

From: http://www.genuineorthodoxchurch.com/19 ... menism.htm

[jgress]

Thank you, Jason. Of course, this document is most relevant when discussing the alleged phenomenon of Old Calendarist Ecumenism.

There are several intersecting questions here, and I'm going to try to tease them apart:

Does every doctrinal error entail a heresy?
When does heresy result in loss of grace?
Does every break in communion indicate a schism and loss of grace?

My understanding is that the Kirykites would answer to the first one "yes", to the second one "immediately", and to the last one "yes". Moss, on the other hand, would answer to the first one "not necessarily", to the second one "an uncertain amount of time, but certainly by the time a lawful Orthodox council, local or ecumenical, has condemned it", and to the last one "no".

[Mark Templet]

Does every doctrinal error entail a heresy?

If we are using the term "doctrinal" as that which is essential belief as defined by the Church to be a Christian, then, YES. But again, this is if there is a choice between knowing what is established by the Church and refusing to confirm it.

When does heresy result in loss of grace?

Absolutely, it is immediate when it meets the definition I have given for heresy.

Does every break in communion indicate a schism and loss of grace?

Now, here I can see the gray areas. A break in communion is not automatically a schism much less a loss of grace. Obviously, if the schism is due to heresy then the above applies, but if the schism is not centered around doctrine then it is sinful to break communion but, sin does not put one outside of the Church, heresy does.

[jgress]

Thank you, Father, for drawing attention to the use of 'doctrinal error'. To distinguish it from heresy could be taken as oxymoronic, unless one were drawing a distinction between dogmas and theologoumena. The latter I am unsure as to precise definition, and would appreciate it if anyone had some knowledge of the accepted uses of the term. Moss doesn't use the term 'theologoumena' much, if at all (I don't remember coming across it in his writings). His original argument for why Cyprianism was not a heresy was that you could interpret their position as simply a refusal to heed the 46th Apostolic Canon, which forbids recognition of heretical baptism and other sacraments. So the Cyprianites would be guilty of a canonical, rather than a dogmatic error. But as you can see, in recent critiques of their position he has started to accuse them of actual heresy, although even now he appears unsure whether they are in fact heretics.

This brings up another point, which is that it may not always be apparent to everyone at first whether a given teaching really is heretical or not. We are assuming everyone is sincerely seeking the Truth, by the way; conscious opponents of the Truth are another matter. What implications does that have for the question of sacramental grace: if a bishop or priest preaches something which turns out to be heresy, but it took time for other to realize that heresy, when did grace leave him, if, as you claim, grace leaves immediately upon the proclamation of the heresy? Depending on how strict your ecclesiology is, this may or may not be an idle question.

This in turns brings up another question. We speak of having or lacking the grace of sacraments. But we also speak of receiving the mysteries to salvation or to condemnation, the latter if we are receiving while conscious of unrepented sin, such as awareness of the heresy of the priest or bishop you are communing with. If you are receiving the Body and Blood of Christ from a heretic to your condemnation, that implies that the priest in question still possesses priestly grace, since otherwise it wouldn't be the Body and Blood of Christ! I have encountered this paradox in Moss' writings, and it seems relevant for the sake of establishing the implications of Cyprianite as against "strict" TO ecclesiology.

Schisms that don't involve heresy may still lead to separation from the Church and loss of grace, or so Moss claims. What he does not believe is that every break in communion constitutes a true schism. So there mere separations, then there are schisms, then there heresies.

[JHunt777]

There are several intersecting questions here, and I'm going to try to tease them apart:

Does every doctrinal error entail a heresy?
When does heresy result in loss of grace?
Does every break in communion indicate a schism and loss of grace?

Perhaps, Jonathan, we can start with an easier question, the answer to which should help to better clarify the relationship between schism, heresy, and grace.

When exactly did Rome lose the grace of the Holy Spirit in its sacraments?

If we can answer this with confidence, the rest should be very clear indeed.

[jgress]

Good question, Jason. I know from Moss' history that he believes Constantinople's anathemas of 1054 were the final cut-off point for Rome itself, but other Local Churches in the West fell off gradually as they were subsumed into the papal church. I suppose we can start with that.

[Mark Templet]

It sounds so stark to say that a Roman priest went to bed one night and awoke the next morning with no grace anymore. I don't think you can pinpoint the moment that a jurisdiction loses grace. As I have stated many times the essence of heresy is choice; one has to have chosen the error they are in over the truth proclaimed by the Church. Surely there were many in the West that wanted no part of what the Pope was doing in his anathema in 1054. But yes, sooner or later people made a decision and departed into heresies such as the filioque, Papal infallibility, Purgatory, etc. and they surely put themselves outside of the Church lacking grace.

I was reading St. Cyprian of Carthage's treatise "On the Unity of the Church on the Lapsed" today, I though I would share some of the great points he makes:

He [Satan] snatches men from out the Church itself, and while they think themselves come to the light, and escaped from the night of this world, he secretly gathers fresh shadows upon them; so that standing neither with the Gospel of Christ, nor with His ordinances, nor with His law, they yet call themselves Christians, walking among darkness, and thinking that they have light; while the foe flatters and misleads, transforms himself, according to the word of the Apostle, into an Angel of light, and garbs his ministers like ministers of righteousness: these are the maintainers of night for day, of death for salvation, giving despair while they proffer hope, faithlessness clothed in faith, Antichirst under the name of Christ; that by putting false things under an appearance of true, they may with subtlety impede the truth.

God speaks and says, In one house shall ye eat it; ye shall not send its flesh abroad from the house. [Exod. 12:46] The Flesh of Christ, and the Holy Thing of the Lord, cannot be sent abroad; and believers have not any dwelling but the Church only. This dwelling, this hostelry of unanimity, the Holy Spirit designs and betokens in the Psalms, thus saying, God who maketh men to dwell in one mind and in an house. In the house of God, in the Church of Christ, men dwell with one mind, in accord and signleness enduring.

The fact is the WO have broken away from the unanimity of the Fathers and the holy hierarchs who have come before them, this much is not in dispute among us. What we do NEED to do is unify our stance on this. True Orthodox Ecumenism is not only good but compulsory if we are to follow the instructions of the Holy Fathers. We absolutely need to meet together, all of us, Matthewites to HOCNA, Greek to Russian, and get ourselves squared away on a unified position.