Origins of the calendar debate

[Oana Vlad]

Could you please explain me the Calendar issue? It`s just a matter of time calculation and it creates such a gap between different Orthodox churches. Why is it so important? I come from Romania, an Orthodox country which gave up the Julian Calendar almost a century ago. There is still an unsignificant part of the population who follow the Julian calendar; many of them have a Russian descendence.

Thank you,
Oana

[Owen Jones]

There were riots in Britain in the 18th Century when it changed to the new calendar. Traditional Christians have always felt that there was something almost satanic about it. There is a fair amount of superstition lodged in this notion, I'm afraid. Today, traditionalists see the old calendar as a kind of statement against modernism, part of a fear that it's part of a slippery slope into all kinds of theological innovation. It's unfortunate because I think the church ought, ideally, to be on the same calendar as the society. And the old calendar was just inaccurate.

Owen Jones

[Justin]

Oana,

There are a few articles that can be found online on this subject, some of which can be read int this thread: http://www.rocorcafe.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9

There are a number of difficulties with the "new calendar" in the mind of traditionalists (I'll mention two). First, The new calendar is seen as a "modernist" thing, and if you look at which churches use the new calendar and which use the old calendar, this "modernist" assertion seems to be valid, even if some of the polemics on either side do tend to get a bit thick. A second reason is that, from the very beginning of Christianity, it was thought to be a terrible thing (and embarrassment, and just plain wrong) for Christians in one place to be fasting while Christians in another place were celebrating a feast. "Calendar" issues are nothing new, as the debate over the dating of Easter in the early Church demonstrates; but then, this same example also gives support to the idea of strongly supporting one side of the issue (it's not like no one cared about dates until the 20th century)


Owen,

The New calendar is, technically speaking, an "inaccurate" measure (ie. adjustments will still be needed) as well; that isn't, IMO, a valid criterion for choosing which calendar to use. And as one of the Fathers in the link supplied above mentions, they had come up with a "more accurate" calendar decades ago, so if that's the reason for choosing the calendar, maybe we should switch again?

[Owen Jones]

All I'm saying is that I don't think the new calendar in and of itself was some kind of modernist plot. It was instituted because, in an age of science, you had to have a more accurate calendar. I'm not aware of any scientific reason today why now need a more accurate calender. The problem is that when you start mucking around with the liturgy it makes people nervous. Liturgical "reform" has essentially ruined the Anglican and Roman Catholic communions. But it seems to me that the liturigical minimalism in many U.S. Orthodox parishes has nothing whatsoever to do with the new calendar. I am not a "new calendarist" That's just a slogan. But I say fight battles that are worth fighting. I do think it is important for symbolic reasons for Pascha not to fall before Passover. Which, of course, makes for a certain amount of inevitable confusion. One of the problems with liturgical studies and arguments is that the contemporary liturgy took its shape under imperial Christianity when the Church was already 300 years old. If we were really serious about liturgical purity, catechumens would all be asked to leave before the liturgy of the faithful. In fact, I would be in favor of that. It reminds us that there are stages in the spiritual life and we have to make progress in it. But it's never going to happen.

[Justin]

You're right, sorry I was so ignorant in my post.

[sinjin smithe]

One of the problems with liturgical studies and arguments is that the contemporary liturgy took its shape under imperial Christianity when the Church was already 300 years old. If we were really serious about liturgical purity, catechumens would all be asked to leave before the liturgy of the faithful. In fact, I would be in favor of that. It reminds us that there are stages in the spiritual life and we have to make progress in it. But it's never going to happen.

I would like to see the catechumens gone because it would remind everyone, including those in the faith, that the journey of salvation is just that, a journey. I would like to see us return back to the Old calendar but I can understand where Owen is coming from.

[Oana Vlad]

Thank you all for your answers. Justin, I scanned the article you recommended me ( I don`t have too much time) and it seemed interesting that they compared Julian Calendar with the icons - they don`t have to be "realistic" but to point out a divine reality.

A great Romanian Father underlined that calendar is just a tool and it shouldn`t be considered "holy" in itself.

Anyway, I can`t tell the difference between the "old" and "new" calendar churches because, as I have said, there are extremely few "old" calendar churches in Romania and I didn`t have the occasion to visit one. I do imagine, however, that things must be different in other countries. Maybe you could tell me more about this difference between "traditionalist" and "modernist" churches.

Oana

[Richard Leigh]

Just a couple of points on this issue.

First, be aware that everone all the time has wanted an accurate calendar.

The Egyptians had the most accurate one in the western Hemisphere when Julius Ceasar looked to them to reform the Roman calendar. The wise men of Egypt did not give away all their secrets, becuae they had (non-Christian)religious reasons for to allow their peculiar feast day to "move" over the millennia through the civil calendar, so, did not give the final adjustment figures to Ceasar.

Thus it came about that in the fourth century that the vernal equinox had slipped from March 25 to March 21. Since the Vernal equinox is essential in calculating both Passover of the Jews, and the Christian Pesach, both Christianity and Judaism began to "reset" their calendars by formula from that new date. (That is also the reason that the Feast of the Nativity is celebrated on the 25 of December, the earlier Winter Solctice, btw, but, since the reason the Nativity was set on the soltice did not seem as important as the the feast of Pesach being set on the Equinox, the Christmas date was not changed.

Most important of all, the reason the dates had slipped almost 4 days (one for each century that had passed since the original Julian callendar reform) was not understood, the dates kept slipping, approximately one day per century, until in the 16th century,(at about the time of the Protestant Reformation) they had slipped a full 10 days.

Gregory, the Pope of Rome got astronomers and mathematicians on the problem and found out the secret that the Egyptian wise men had withheld, and that is that the year is not exactly 365 1/4 days long, its a bit shorter, such that a leap day is not required on century years, unless they are evenly divisible by 400. This is still too long, by 26.3 seconds, so, if the Lord tarries by the year 4316 the Gregorian callendar will have gained another day on the sun (I calculate that the Julian Callendar will have gained six days).

I think the probelm for Christianity is determining what it actually was that was agreed to regarding the Paschal date at the Nicene Council, for that is the basis for all the argumentation.

I have heard it said that at least some in Orthodoxy Christianize the earlier Egyptian program of allowing their peculiar holy day to eventually "bless" every real day of the Civil callendar over the millenia, the parrticular Christian holy day being the Pascha, of course.
I don't know if this is true, perhaps someone else on this list does?

Richard L.

[Nicholas Stanosheck]

If the Buddhists, Jews and other can keep their religious calendars, why do we have to sell out our? We are not to be of the world anyway! I highly reccomend reading the link that Justin gave above.

The ROCOR Cafe (http://www.ROCORCafe.com)

[Deiniol Clarke]

As one of my friends (who praise God is now going to be a priest!) once said:


"The old calendar is probably the more accurate, however, 13 or so days are not likely to affect our salvation!"

Bare in mind, this person followed the new calendar!

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

Just as a perspective reminder, it is rarely argued that the astrological (a.k.a. technical) accuracy or inaccuracy of a calendar system is the primary reason for its liturgical importance. Both 'sides' in the calendar discussion tend to agree that any calendar is ultimately imperfect in this regard.

INXC, Matthew

[Vicki Dim]

So, my question is then....are the new calendar churches heretical?
Ie. is the communion we take in the church service as blessed as that in the old calendar??
I know that the same grace is in both churches...but that we have strayed from the teachings of the fathers. "The prophets as they prophesized, the fathers as they taught...etc."

[Effie Ganatsios]

"So, my question is then... are the new calendar churches heretical?"

I don't see how you came to this conclusion from the messages that were posted. The Old Calendar and New Calendar issue doesn't have anything to do with heresy. What do the teachings of the Fathers have to do with the fact that the Calendar was changed. As far as I am aware - and please bear in mind that I am in no way an expert on the Orthodox religion - nothing else was changed. I am Greek Orthodox and just the thought that the Greek Orthodox church would be considered "heretical" sounds far fetched. We also have old Calendar churches here and there is no friction between the two. The Old Calendar churches are stricter in adherence to the principles of the Orthodox religion but that's not an ironclad rule either.

To my mind, and again I remind you that I'm no expert, it's all a lot of fuss about nothing. My conclusion from all I have read is that we should not have changed to the New Calendar at all but to wonder if New Calendar churches are heretical is extreme.

Effie

[Fr Averky]

Dear Viki,

In the early 20's of the last century ( 20th), a man occupying the throne of Constantinople whose name, I believe was Mexatksis, a relative or at east a supporter of Venezelos sent out a letter of enquiry to all the other ancient patriarchates proposing that the church changed from the Old, or Julian calendar to the New, or Gregorian calendar. Devised by Julius Caeser. the Julian calendar had the problem of having no leap year, so that every century, it woud lose a day, and by the 20th century, was 13 days behind. When the United States was founded, it was on the Julian calendar, and Russia did not changed until after the revolution of 1917. Mexataksis ( sp) envisoned a more modern Orthodx church, and felt that Orthodx clergy should wear apparel similar to that of Anglican clergy, In the late 19th century, there had actually been the thought of opening negotiations between the Church of Russia and the Church of England with the possibility of recognizing each other's epsicopacy and sacraments, but after closer scrutinity on both sides, they fell through. Some Orthodox Christians, especially those living in Western European counries and the U.S. felt "out of place" because they celebrated Christmas later than fellow Christians, and did not like feeling like "foreigners."

Even though the other patriarchates refused even to consider such a change, that patriarch of Constantinople held a local council and unilaterally went ahead and changed the calendar for the Patriarchate. The church of Greece soon followed suit. As we know from the Early Church Councils, the bishops, the majority of whom were Greeks zeaously guarded the teachings and canons of the Church.

The reaction to the change was immediate and violent in Greece. Thousands of pious Greeks refused to adopt the new calendar, calling it heretical, and accusing those bishops who had, "false" bishops and betrayers of Orthodoxy - now don't yell at me Effie, but Greeks are not a people who are known to sit on the fence about anything- in fact, most Orthodox peoples are the same way. They do not react with indifference!
Unfortunately, The State Church of Greece reacted with a heavy hand, and where love might have won out, divisions arose. A number of bishops, supporting the Old Calendarists, left the State Church and formed their own "Synodia," or synods of bishops. Unfortunatley, because some of them were too zealous, they began to question the Orhodoxy and purity of the confession of faith of each other: they began to split -bishops would leave from one group and consecrate more bishops -then, some of them would have a falling out, and they would depose each other and form another group. One large group founded by a bishop by the name of Matthew, had only him as its bishop, which is totally against the canons of the Church. these people were so extreme, that if one of their clergy would even greet a New Calendar priest, he was considered to have lost grace, even down to his baptism! How sad indeed!

In time several other Churches also adopted the New Calendar, the churches of Romania and Bulgaria and Finland - Finland even celebrates Pascha with the Western confessions. Yet others, the churches of Russia, Serbia, Carpatho-Russia, Georgia, Jerusalem, and St.Catherines on Mt. Sinai are on the Old Calendar. In fact, the calendar has never been an issue in these churches. The Russian church Outside of Russia is also on the Old Cal.endar, and until the early 1960's with the advent of the Ecumenical mkvement, and the fact that several local Orthodox churches joined the WCC, the Church Abroad served with them After that the Synod has kept a prayerful distance and silence on the matter, except for the "Sorrowful Epistles" of Metropolitan Philaret, who sadly pointed out to Patriarch Athenagoras that he did not have the right to lift the Antehema of 1054 without having consulted the haeds of all other Orthodox churches. The Church Abroad in no way feels that the other churches are heretical or devoid of grace -she does not agree with the path they have taken, for she considers the modern ecumenical movement to be the greatest of all heresies in that the WCC says that there is not One Church of christ - but many and now, even non- Christians are part of the this Super Church. Yet, there are many more true, pious and serious Orthodox bishops, priests, and lay people than the small majority who support the idea of one big "Church" made up of every different belief, being thrown into one common pot.

The main problem with the New Calendar, as seen by sincere Traditionalists, is that the Calendar is beyond time and that when different churches are clebrateing the same great feasts, but almost two weeks apart, this disrupts the mystical life and unity of the Orthodox Church. This is a matter that can become quite passionate, so I am simply giveing you an outline history of this. In the end, this is a terrible temptation which the Devil has used to attempt to divide the seamless garment of Christ, but Christ promised that He will be with His Church until the end of time, and as we in this community have shown, we simple folk should let the bishops concern themselves with these great problems -let us live our Orthodox Faith, and help each other to reach our one goal -salvation. There is no question - of course the Orthodx Churches all have grace it is only the madness of fanatics who in their folly make such statements! Do not listen to such people.

Fathr Averky

[George Hawkins]

Father Averky,
I have a question about the Finnish Orthodox Church. Seeing as they celebrate Pascha on the Western Calendar, with none of the other Orthodox Churches, are they still in Communion with the other Orthodox Churches?

Like the Russian Church, the Japanese Orthodox Church also uses the Old Calendar, however for some reason the Nativity is celebrated on the New Calendar (though I think that this could eventually revert back to January 7, as this only happened after WW2 so far as I know)
George

[Effie Ganatsios]

My post no. 41 in reply to Vicki Dim

Vicki, please forgive the blunt tone of my above post to you. I was a little startled that anyone would consider the Greek Orthodox Church to be heretical and wrote a reply that was premature because it could be considered to be uninformed. Some Old Calendarists do consider the Greek Orthodox New Calendarists to be heretics apparently. People are still killing each other over details while, at the same time, ignoring what is real and beautiful in religion. We never learn do we?

Effie

[Effie Ganatsios]

".....X THE REASONS FOR THE CHANGE OF THE PATRISTIC CALENDAR X

The letter below, addressed to the new calendar bishops of Greece, is from Archimandrite Nektarios Moulatsiotis of the new calendar Church of Greece, and needs no commentary.


Your Eminences, bless.

Keeping in mind from the start—in order to remove any misunderstanding—that I, as well as our holy monastery, follow the new calendar, we would like to note some essential points about the calendar problem so that we may contribute to its resolution, as far as possible.

As is known, the venerable, sacred and holy Synod of our Orthodox Church, under the leadership of His Beatitude, Archbishop Seraphim, heard the study on the old calendar issue prepared by His Eminence, Metropolitan Augustine of Florina, and decided that the issue should be considered by the upcoming Ecumenical [sic] Pan-Orthodox Council. We believe that what should be emphasized in this wonderful study by Metropolitan Augustine is that the issue is not about the calendar, that is, the thirteen days; nor is it an issue of salvation or an issue of faith, as Metropolitan Christodoulos of Demetrias stated truthfully. The issue is why we who follow the new calendar changed that which our Orthodox Church had for twenty centuries. It is a delusion to believe that the difference between us and the old calenarists is thirteen days. This is not the issue. The truth of the matter is, unfortunately, to be found in our Ecumenical Patriarchate's Encyclical of 1920.


Our venerable Ecumenical Patriarchate knows, as we do, why we accepted this change. It is therefore necessary to see what the Ecumenical Patriarchate says, and why the change of the calendar was introduced in the first place, followed by the rest of the changes that were proposed by the holy hierarchs of the Ecumenical Throne.

Let us therefore read the Patriarchal Encyclical of 1920, which introduces the calendar change, and its consequences will become apparent immediately and easily.


Encyclical of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, 1920

"To the Churches of Christ Wheresoever They Might Be"

"Love one another earnestly from the heart."(I Peter 1:22)

Our own church believes that rapprochement among the various Christian Churches and communion among them is not excluded by the doctrinal differences which exist among them, and that such a rapprochement is highly desirable, necessary, and useful in many ways for the edifying profit of each particular church and of the whole Christian body, and also for the preparation and facilitation of that full and blessed union that will be accomplished in the future with God’s help. We therefore consider that the present time is most favourable for re-examining this important question and studying it together. . . .

After this essential re-establishment of sincerity and confidence among the churches, we think that, above all, love should be rekindled and strengthened among the churches, so that they should no more consider one another as strangers and foreigners, but as kinsmen, and as being a part of the household of Christ and "fellow heirs, and formed of the same body and partakers of the same promise of God in Christ" (Eph. 3:6).

In our opinion, such a friendship and kindly disposition towards each other can be shown and demonstrated particularly in the following ways:
a) through the adoption by all the Churches of one single calendar so that the great Christian feasts may be everywhere celebrated simultaneously;

b) through the exchange of fraternal letters on the occasion of the great feasts of the ecclesiastical year, as is the custom, and on other special occasions;

c) through more fraternal relations among the representatives of the different Churches;

d) through establishing relations between the theological schools and the representatives of theological science, and the exchange of theological and ecclesiastical periodicals and works published by each Church;

e) through sending young men from one Church to the schools of other Churches for their studies;

f) through the convocation of pan-Christian assemblies for the examination of matters of common interest to all the Churches;

g) through the dispassionate and more historical examination of the dogmatic differences from a scholarly point of view and by dissertations;

h) through mutual respect for the practices and customs of the various Churches;

i) through reciprocal granting of houses of prayer and cemeteries for funerals and burials of the adherents of other confessions who have died in foreign lands;

j) through the implementation of common rules by the different confessions concerning the question of mixed marriages;

k) through a reciprocal and voluntary support of the Churches in the realm of religious edification, philanthropy and other such activities.

In the Patriarchate of Constantinople, in the month of January, in the year of grace, 1920.

The Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Ecumenical Throne:

X Dorotheos, Metropolitan of Prusa
The Members of the Holy Synod:
X Nicholas, Metropolitan of Caesaria
X Constantine, Metropolitan of Cyzicus
X Germanos, Metropolitan of Amasia
X Gerasimos, Metropolitan of Pisidia
X Gervasios, Metropolitan of Ancyra
X Anthimos, Metropolitan of Vizya
X Evgenios, Metropolitan of Selyvria
X Agathangelos, Metropolitan of Saranta Ecclesiae
X Chrysostom, Metropolitan of Tyroloë and Serention
X Irenaios, Metropolitan of the Dardanelles and Lampsacus


First, we can conclude the following from the above Encyclical: the holy hierarchs of the Ecumenical Throne call all the heresies "Churches of Christ" and emphasize that our dogmatic differences do not impede our approaching one another, and communion is not precluded. Having expressed their conclusions, what they end up saying is that in order for one church to approach the other and for union among the churches finally to occur, the eleven steps proposed by the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate must be taken.

The first step in the rapprochement and union of all the churches would be the calendar change, so that we might celebrate with those in heresy, as the above Encyclical states. Therefore, whoever wanted the union of the churches and their rapprochement, in spite of the existing dogmatic differences ("an unhealthy ecumenism," according to the Metropolitan of Demetrias), accepted the proposal of the Patriarchal Synod and changed the calendar. The "whoever" are all of us and whoever else followed or follows the new calendar. Our acceptance of the new calendar bears witness that we have an "unhealthy ecumenism." And the most frightful thing of all is that we attempt to persuade our people by telling them that we have a "healthy ecumenism"!

Unfortunately, we say one thing and do another. We are sometimes Orthodox in what we say, or sometimes unhealthy Orthodox in what we say, but we are certainly unhealthy ecumenists in our deeds. How is it possible for us to say that "Orthodoxy considers dogmatic unity a presupposition to the common Cup; for this reason we do not concelebrate with the non-Orthodox" (as Metropolitan Christodoulos stated on February 21, 1995) while the Patriarchal Encyclical says the exact opposite?

Also, how can we say such falsehoods when our Ecumenical Patriarchs have gone to the Vatican in an official capacity and prayed jointly with the Latins, and the Latins come to Orthodox churches and pray with Orthodox hierarchs? How is it possible to fool ourselves and others when we knowingly say these falsehoods? There exist an abundance of videos and photographs of such concelebrations and common Mysteries (weddings); is it possible to say that these things do not go on in Orthodoxy? Why do we deny the truth? Further, the distinguished Professor Evangelos Theodorou wrote an extensive article in Orthodoxos Typos last year and testified that, unfortunately, most of our Orthodox hierarchs are possessed by "unhealthy Ecumenism." Let us, at least, admit our tragic mistakes.
Those, however, who did not desire these [ecumenistic] contacts with those in heresy, or these unions of the churches "without dogmatic union," did not adopt the proposals made in the Patriarchal Encyclical and they remained with the old calendar. Simply, that is how things are. Why do we try to complicate them?

Finally, our venerable Holy Synod must ask the clergy and the laity: "Do we, the Church of Greece, want the union of the churches despite the existing dogmatic differences, or do we not?" Because, if we do not want such a union, why then did we follow and continue to follow the proposals of the Patriarchal Encyclical of 1920?
Is it not ironic for us, on the one hand, to say "no" to such types of unions, and then on the other hand, to enforce the proposals of the Encyclical of 1920?

This is the main point. This is the issue and the problem. We say one thing and do another. We as Orthodox say no to such types of union, therefore we must disavow the application of the 1920 Patriarchal Encyclical by abandoning the "unhealthy ecumenism" that we have today, and we must return to our former state. We believe that placing this issue on the agenda of the future Pan-Orthodox Council is not the correct solution to this matter, because the calendar change did not come about as the result of a Pan-Orthodox Council. Why, then, should we discuss its resolution today by means of a Pan-Orthodox Council? And, as the Metropolitan of Florina said, it is preferable for us (he means our entire official church) to return to the old calendar and be called anachronistic by some members of the press rather than to be condemned, or at some point to be characterized as heretics.

Your Eminence, there is, unfortunately, only one solution if we truly want to heal the open wound that was created by the change of the calendar. It is to erase the reasons which created it. Otherwise, we will be accountable before God and history, because we who accepted the new calendar created the problem, and not they who refused to change, thereby demonstrating that they refuse union with the Latins under the conditions outlined in the 1920 Patriarchal Encyclical.
Would not a new problem be created even today, should the representatives of the Ecumenical Throne and the other Orthodox churches undertake such unions, without dogmatic agreement, recognizing the errors of the western denominations as "local customs and usages"? The hasty handling of such serious issues, unfortunately, creates problems. Indeed, special care is required in endeavors that concern the union of the Orthodox with those in heresy.

The solution, therefore, is in our hands. We must eliminate the reasons that created this problem for us, because what is going on today is tragic: that is, we call those who follow the old calendar heretics and schismatics and urge our Christians to have no dealings with them, while we call those of the West who are truly schismatics and heretics "brothers" and "sister churches," and go into their churches and pray with them. Therefore, the only cure for this issue is to eliminate the causes that created it.
Let us decide, therefore, because the issue of the calendar is, in essence, the uncovering of our identity, that is, if we are pro-union or anti-union.

We all know that His Beatitude, our Archbishop Seraphim, is anti-unionist, as he has stated many times. Therefore, let him make one more courageous pronouncement that will make his name go down in history: that he ceases, as an anti-unionist, to enforce the 1920 Encyclical, and that he is returning the Greek Church to its pre-1920 state; something which all the holy elders of the twentieth century, such as Father Philotheos Zervakos, sought, and which would immediately resolve the old calendar problem, if they [the new calendar bishops, such as those mentioned in the beginning of this letter] want to resolve it indeed, and are not just engaged in rhetorical discussions. May God help you to proceed with boldness and courage to the solution of this problem that has already distressed our country for seventy years. It is certain that your names will go down in history and your Local Synod will be invested with the authority of an Ecumenical Orthodox Synod. AMEN.
Archimandrite Nektarios Moulatsiotis, abbot.*
Editor's Note: Three years after the above letter was published in 1995, the new calendar Church of Greece has yet to change back to the traditional calendar or terminate its involvement in Ecumenism..."

[John Kapetan]

Effie;

I was wondering, were the last few lines of the letter (the editors note) your comments or from another source? Do you know if the new calendar church of Greece was ever given an answer from the Patriarch?

In Christ,

John K

[Effie Ganatsios]

Father Averky :


“…now don't yell at me Effie, but Greeks are not a people who are known to sit on the fence about anything- in fact, most Orthodox peoples are the same way. They do not react with indifference!….”

Father, I never yell! But, seriously, you are completely right. I have been astounded a couple of times at people who call themselves Orthodox Christians (who also happen to be Greek) coming to blows in front of the television cameras because of religious differences – nothing to do with the Old and New Calendar but apparently because a beloved bishop was transferred or something and the new bishop was not to their liking – they were executing their own form of democracy and protesting church politics , which is to be recommended of course but not in the way they chose to make their opinions known. Believe me, there was nothing remotely Christian about their behaviour.

Effie

[Effie Ganatsios]

Answer to John's question :
"I was wondering, were the last few lines of the letter (the editors note) your comments or from another source? Do you know if the new calendar church of Greece was ever given an answer from the Patriarch? ...."

John, I have a very bad habit of filing and then posting various articles without adding the relevant URL. I didn't comment at all on this piece - I got it from one of the Orthodox sites and there was no follow-up. The Editor referred to is the Editor of the Orthodox Typos from which I downloaded the article.

Effie

[Effie Ganatsios]

John, I have some more information.

Archimandrite Nektarios Moulatsiotis is the igoumenos of the monastery with the monks (Free Monks) who sing tunes aimed at young Greeks. I have long admired the work these monks are doing although there has been bitter dispute about them in Greece. I have sent the Archimandrite an e-mail asking him if he received a reply to his above letter and whether that reply has been made public. If and when I receive a reply from him, I'll inform you.

Effie

[Fr Averky]

Dear Effie,

Thank you for the excellent posting. Tlhe change to the new calendar has produced no positive resukts - it has only served to divide the Church into two camps. The greatest evil of the change is that it produced the "unhealthy ecumenism" of which your posting speaks. When the Great church first opened the door to ecumenical contact, it was with the clear intention of only witnessing the truth of Holy Orthodoxy to the heterodox, bekoning them to return to the fold of the True Church of Christ.

Just recently we Orthodox Christians all witnessed with horror,the near expulsion of the monks of the monastery of Esphigmenou on Holy Mt. Athos, because they complained of continuing ecumenical contacts with the Latins, and it was by the mercy of God, world-wide attention and protests, and the action of the Greek government that the barricade which even cut off medical supplies and food from aged and sick monks was lifted. How sad it has become when those who wish to protect the integrity of the pure teachings of Orthodoxy are seen as enemies and dissidents. The Great Church, in her desire to preserve the Phanar, has made compromises which further endanger the unity of the Church. I was a Roman Catholic, and I can tell you, that the Latins view union with the Orthodox not as "union" at all, but absoption. We would all be reduced to the second and thir class status of the Uniates. The World Council of Churches envisions not only all Chrisitan "churches," but increasingly number of non-Christian groups forming into one strange entity. At the prayer service held by the Pope in Asissi, all kinds of groups showed up, and the Franciscan monks took down some of the crucifixes so as not ofoffend their non-Catholic "brothers". It was permitted for a statue of Buddha to be placed on a Latin altar for use as in a Buddhist service. Is this what we Orthodox Christians want to envision as the "church?" would it not be better for all of us to serve together the Feasts of the Orthodox church in unity with each other, rather than trying to accomodate those who do not share the Truth of our Faith with us - who would absorb us, or have us be a small, quaint and"exotic" section of a larger group?

Let all of us pray that the holy bishops of the Orthodox Churches will be led by the Holy Spirit to repair the damage that has been done, and restore that unity which is so important if we are to meet with strength the dark days ahead. In the Divine Liturgy, we pray for the "unity of churches," this refers to the Orthodox church and the Orthodox churches alone.

[Effie Ganatsios]

"monastery of Esphigmenou on Holy Mt. Athos"

Father Averky, I am posting the URL of the encyclical that was sent to all the churches in Greece concerning this matter. I think you'll find it very interesting because in it Archbishop Chrysostomos protests very strongly about what is happening to this monastery.

For some reason I can't copy it.
http://www.ecclesiagoc.org/sections/esphigmenou/letter_encyclical23.htm

Effie

[Richard Leigh]

Dear List,

I feel compelled to give you a view from "the other side of the river." Not, mind you, another side of your debate, but, from outside your boundary, looking in.

According to Scripture, some in Christ do some things one way, and others in the same body do the same things another, or even different things entirely. The one does what he does to the glory of the Lord, and the other does what he does in honor of the same Lord. Love requires that we not throw brick-bats at one another in our varied honorings of the Lord (i.e., it is not very honoring to the Lord to acuse and persecute his bride, his body -- doing so finds us outside her!)

One of the strengths of Orthodoxy that I see is how the desert fathers teach us to gain victory over our passions. So, when I see someone overtaken by their passions, even if to "honor the Lord" I think I'm probably not seeing "Orthodoxy."

Now I'd like to talk about "healthy" vs. "unhealhty" ecumenism. Picture our first parents just having arrived outside the garden. Unhealthy ecumenism, I would think, would be dialogue and comprimise with the serpent. Healthy ecumenism would be "dialogue" (?) with God
(but when He's talking, we'd all better be quiet)
I think dialogue between our first father and mother would be good, as long as God is in on it, and gets the last word.

In this world of time, we are fraught with a myriad of choices --- we were before the Fall ("the friut of any of these trees you may freely eat, but..."), and now with even more -- and making them has gotten tricky, the serpent always wants to be one of them.

Whatever we do that is not of faith, St. Paul says, is sin, so, he admonishes, we are to be dead certain in what we choose, but we need also be dead certain that what we choose we choose in freedom, not by compulsion, since, as he also says, "love does not demand its own way." Thus "dead certainty" must not be food for our passions, at least regarding free choices (in the Truth) our brethren might have made. That probably takes discernment, but St. Jacob (aka James) says that if any need wisdom, we are to pray for it, and it surely will be given. We all ought to be able to tell the difference between the serpent, and the Lord.

Respectfully,

Richard

[Richard McBride]

monochos:RE: Richard Leigh 64 Posted on Thursday, 15 May, 2003

Dear Richard:

It is a delight to read your messages and partake of your wisdom.
Truly, I have seen no other non-0rthodox who understands so well so much of that which is, and has for so long been, in the bosom of Orthodoxy.
You understand Orthodox theology far better than do I; and you have revealed much of it to me.

So, I cannot understand what keeps you on, "the other side of the river."

In a way, Richard, it was to be expected that at some point you should lapse into your otro lado, your otra persona. The French used to think of it as their bete noire. I'm certain these are not the words you would choose to describe it, but probably the hesitancy to look at your "other side" square in the face and call it what it is : double mindedness -- I think this may be the source of your recent post.

I can tell that you admire, perhaps even love, Orthodoxy. But you are right: While you stand on "the other side of the river" you cannot really KNOW what is on this side. It is like getting married. No one may know what that entails until they commit to it.

Thus, when you say, "According to Scripture, some in Christ do some things one way, and others in the same body do the same things another, or even different things entirely", I positively cannot be one to argue against it. You know far more about these issues than do I. Yet, the implication of your words is that, One way is as acceptable as another. And I think you yourself must know this is not Truth.

It may be "ecumenical", or "pc", or part of the "feel good" ethic; but it is NOT a part of Orthodoxy. To believe that while Christ loves all souls, and while Christ must want all Lutherans in Heaven even as he does all Jews -- to believe this is not the same as believing that Orthodoxy bows to all of these whims, that it rushes to accept every manner or mode.

Once one has been Chrismated into that part of the Body which is Orthodoxy, the Paraclete begins doing His work in bringing that one to a whole Truth. And what is truly a miracle in this respect is to see, in spite of all the dreadful individualism which the modern demon sponsors in us -- what is truly marvelous to see, is how beautifully Orthodox agree in this.

You have participated in this beauty of the whole Truth as have I on this list. You have seen time after time how Orthodox know the Truth when they see it, or find it when otherwise it is missing.

Every day I thank the Theotokos for bringing me kicking and screaming into Orthodoxy. I thank her Son that He allowed her to draw me forward, out of the mud, over a period of twenty or thirty years, before I could accept Truth. Of course, I can now see that I am still far from being 'ready'; but thank God! I am at least Orthodox, even undeservedly so.

The desert Fathers are essential reading, Richard. You know full well. But they speak differently, apparently, to Orthodox. A few Roman fathers have sought out the wider array of desert Fathers (not just those clustered around Augustine and lining up to pay homage to Thomas), but these Romans I have read never see the Truth as do we. Its a curious thing.

Perhaps, it is a good thing if this difference does work to frustrate you. I pray that your search produces the best for you, Richard.

richard mcb

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Richard,

Thank you for your kind words. I will examine the problem of the "double mind" and see where it leads me. You misunderstood, though, if you took my earliest reference to scripture as saying that it taught that it doesn't matter what you do. I was refering to St. Paul's admonisions regarding food offered to idols, circumcision, whether or not to observe a particular New Moon or Sabbath, and vegetarian vs. omnivarian diets and the like.

It is a sin, according to these scriptures, to lead someone to go against their conscience, even if their conscience is "wrong." Thus, a Jew converted to Christ should not be encouraged to eat what he's grown up all his life believing was "unclean" (unclean for what? one might ask, there is no temple to be kept from!).

I understand that the Holy Spirit dwells in the Church, and that He directs the church through the totality of her members -- the group conscience, as it were, and that for the purpose of order, the Whole needs to come to common decisions as to where and when to meet etc. that are pleasing God.

There is, btw no "part of the body" which is not Orthodox. Also, just as not all that passes for Orthodoxy is not Orthodox, I suspect that not all that passes for heterodoxy necessarily is either.

And finally, about those desert fathers, I was referring to the Philokalia.

To God Be the Glory,

Richard