Who are the Old Calendarists?

[Mina of Alexandria]

is there a greek church called old calender orthodox church?
is it orthodox? does it have a relationship with orthodox communion?
thanks in advance
en IC XC
Mina Mounir

[Kris]

is there a greek church called old calender orthodox church?
is it orthodox? does it have a relationship with orthodox communion?
thanks in advance
en IC XC
Mina Mounir

Dear Mina,

The Old Calendarists in Greece are those groups (there are many) that refused to accept the New Calendar when it was intruduced by the Church of Greece in 1924.

As a result of this refusal to accept the New Calendar, they suffered persecution at the hands of the Greek government (which deepened divides) and broke communion with the Church of Greece.

They are identical to other Eastern Orthodox churches in their faith and worship, and so are considered wholly Orthodox in this respect.

In XC,
Kris

[Peter Farrington]

Hi Kris

But since they are schismatic are they considered Orthodox by the EO?

If there is only One Church and it must be a visible unity then what is the status of the Old Calendarist groups who hold an Orthodox theology but believe that most/all of the mainstream EO are heretical? Does that make them outside the Church? If so, why? (That is a question).

Is there a need in EOxy for communion with the EP? If some local church chose to be in communion with one other local church but not with the EP then would they be in or out of the Church?

Peter

[Olga]

My understanding is that any church which calls itself Orthodox must be under the jurisdiction of a canonical patriarchate, or, in unusual cases such as the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (which is on the verge of full communion with the Moscow Patriarchate), be under the jurisdiction of a Synod of Bishops, where the canonicity of the consecration of such bishops is beyond question.

Most, if not all, of these schismatic Orthodox (in Greece and in other countries), including the Old Calendarists, have set up their own hierarchies of bishops and, in a few cases, patriarchs, who are not in communion with any of the canonical patriarchates or synods. I find it difficult to believe it is sufficient for a breakaway church to conduct its rites and services in a manner identical to the church from which it cut its ties. The fact remains that such a church is disobedient to any canonical hierarchy, and, to put it briefly, this has enormous practical, doctrinal and sacramental implications.

A good analogy from the West would be the various Roman Catholic groups which have never accepted the decisions of the Second Vatican Council. These churches have their own bishops and pope, and promote themselves as the "true Catholic church", they have branded all the post-Vatican II popes as antichrists, and the established church of Rome as heretical. Sound familiar? :(

[Alex Haig]

This is an interesting question of Ecclesiology - how is a Church Orthodox? If it is a question of being in communion with other Churches, then ROCOR and the OCA are not Orthodox (from our perspective) and likewise we are not (from their perspective).

Our understanding of who is Orthodox and who isn't is very subtle, it allows for people who aren't in communion and operate a jurisdiction which is extra-territorial which goes against what the view of the Church is from ancient times. Is there any formal definition?

With love in Christ

Alex

[Andreas Moran]

Dear Alex,

I think I'm right in saying that Moscow Patriarchate has just established canonical communion with ROCOR, and OCA must be in communion with MP; the church of St Catherine the Great Martyr in the centre of Moscow is definitely in communion with MP. My wife worshipped there for some years, and we went there just two years ago.

In Christ,

Andreas.

[Peter Farrington]

It is a wonderful thing that the ROCOR has been able to re-establish communion with the MP, but the question, in this thread, is whether or not the ROCOR was Orthodox when out of communion with the MP.

As has been said, if Orthodoxy is a matter of being in communion with someone else then ROCOR wasn't Orthodox. If Orthodoxy is to do with something else then it was.

In the first case this has implications for Orthodoxy apart from communion and visible unity. I don't think it is possible to say that because ROCOR was in communion with the Serbian Church then it was in communion with everyone else because on that basis when St Cyril was out of communion with the Antiocheans then actually he was in communion all the time through the communion exercised with other local Churches. I don't think he would have accepted that at all.

Peter

[Andreas Moran]

Dear Peter,

I was merely pointing out that Alex had referred to ROCOR's being out of communion with MP in the present tense. A debate about whether ROCOR was Orthodox before seems surely rather sterile now. As to others , such as the Old Calendarists in Greece and the Old Believers in Russia, I think Olga has put it very well.

In Christ,

Andreas.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

It is a wonderful thing that the ROCOR has been able to re-establish communion with the MP, but the question, in this thread, is whether or not the ROCOR was Orthodox when out of communion with the MP.

As has been said, if Orthodoxy is a matter of being in communion with someone else then ROCOR wasn't Orthodox. If Orthodoxy is to do with something else then it was.

In the first case this has implications for Orthodoxy apart from communion and visible unity. I don't think it is possible to say that because ROCOR was in communion with the Serbian Church then it was in communion with everyone else because on that basis when St Cyril was out of communion with the Antiocheans then actually he was in communion all the time through the communion exercised with other local Churches. I don't think he would have accepted that at all.

Peter


Part of the problem is that "out of communion" can refer to different things. In the Orthodox Church we are not in communion with many other Christian groups. This refers to serious doctrinal points of division. But within Orthodoxy to be "out of communion" refers to serious matters but seen as not directly touching matters of doctrine.

Here a whole range of issues can come into play, everything from jurisdictional (as when the MP & EP were out of communion due to conflict over jurisdiction in the Baltics); to moral questions (priests have been known to not serve with other priests whom they consider to be flagrantly immoral- a possible solution to the RC problem if this had been canonically possible);issues seen as being of great importance but not quite touching doctrine (eg the Calendar, ecumenism, sergianism, etc).

The thing to see here is that to be "out of communion" in this situation means that despite the fact of canonical separation there is still a common recognition of each other's Orthodoxy. This recognition may be grudging since many of these separations are very acrimonious. In words one may get the impression that the other group is hardly even Orthodox anymore. But the thing to watch is how these groups interact pastorally.

Frequently the faithful still attend each others services and even receive the Eucharist in each others churches. Clergy don't concelebrate but often are received by the other church or jurisdiction just as they are; ie their orders are recognized.

As they say, 'actions speak louder than words'. But in the Church it's more that actions speak as loudly as words. In general I think we can gauge the Orthodoxy of separated groups by watching how the whole body of the Church relates to these groups when economia is called for.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Peter Farrington]

Dear Father

So are you saying that in the situations you mention, because there is a degree of inter-communion (I am using that word just as short hand) of the laity who may be allowed to receive communion in either community that this points to a 'pastoral' lack of communion rather than a theological one?

I mean that if bishops and priests allow members of say, an Old Calendarist group to commune, then this points to a 'pastoral' breach of communion rather than a doctrinal one.

Thanks

Peter

[Father David Moser]

It is a wonderful thing that the ROCOR has been able to re-establish communion with the MP, but the question, in this thread, is whether or not the ROCOR was Orthodox when out of communion with the MP.


The problem here is one of terminology. It has become common to say the ROCOR was "out of communion" with the MP or OCA or GOA or other groups, but that just isn't an accurate statement. Yes, there was (and is in some cases) an administrative barrier such the clergy cannot or do not concelebrate or that there is no official interaction between the Church administrations - but there has never been the situation where we have been "out of communion" in the literal sense. People from born, baptized, communed and raised in ROCOR have throughout the years frequently received communion in other Orthodox Churches whenever they were away from their home parish. True, if there was another ROCOR parish nearby they would go there (kind of like you don't stay in a hotel or with strangers when you are visiting a town where you have family) but that still didn't prevent them from visiting (and communing in) the other parishes. This is particularly true between old line ROCOR and OCA parishes for historical reasons (kind of like having second cousins or something). By the same token, there has never been any barrier to people who are born, baptized, raised and communed in other Orthodox Churches receiving communion in ROCOR parishes. In fact much of my Russian ROCOR parish consists "new arrivals" from Russia who were born, baptized, raised and communed in te MP - when they came to our parish, they weren't rebaptized or rechrismated, they didn't have to renounce any heretical beliefs nor did they have to do anything out of the ordinary - they were and are fully members of the parish participating and communing without any hindrance.

I will certainly concede that in some parishes on both sides a particularly zealous priest will at times draw the line of separation a little more forcefully than others - but still the fact exists that ROCOR has never been "out of communion" with any of the other Orthodox Churches (in fact up until just recently ROCOR clergy were welcome to visit and serve and commune on the Holy Mountain while OCA clergy could visit but not serve or commune - all due to *political* and administrative situations within the Church. But this does not reflect on the OCA's or ROCOR's "canonical" status).

So we have to be careful with our choice of words here. A poor choice but commonly used phrase, "out of communion" which has been used for convenience to describe ROCOR's position has thus led to this chain of incorrect assumptions and conclusions.

Fr David Moser

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Father

So are you saying that in the situations you mention, because there is a degree of inter-communion (I am using that word just as short hand) of the laity who may be allowed to receive communion in either community that this points to a 'pastoral' lack of communion rather than a theological one?

I mean that if bishops and priests allow members of say, an Old Calendarist group to commune, then this points to a 'pastoral' breach of communion rather than a doctrinal one.

Thanks

Peter

Dear Peter,

Yes, this is how some describe the "out of communion" of some of the Orthodox groups. Even thought the clergy would not concelebrate this did not mean that the Orthodoxy of the other group was denied. Maybe call it a protest of some sort. In these situations even though strictly speaking the faithful also were not supposed to commune in each others churches- some in fact did.

For many years all through the most acrimonious relations between ROCOR & other jurisdictions one saw some faithful communing in each others churches. Also we saw the same thing in between the Greek New & Old calendrists.

I think what is at play here is how one sees the disagreement with the other group & what sort of disagreement it is. For example during the most difficult times there were very few in fact who communed in both ROCOR & parishes of other jurisdictions. But still it varied from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Often it depended as much on what the faithful felt about these separations as the clergy did. In any case, except in rare cases which I think arose from extreme animosity, what was more in question was how Orthodoxy was being put into practice rather than whether the other group was actually Orthodox. This is something like when we say, "that's not even Orthodox!" We mean something serious which affects ones Orthodoxy, but yet which means that one is still Orthodox. I guess it's some sort of tight rope we're often walking- and also something which shows our ecclesiology is very different from that of the west.

In any case, behind much of this I think is discernment which much of what we see in practice actually relies on.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Sunny]

I know this is an older thread, but I have a question-I was reading about Patriarch Nikon changing the way the Russian Orthodox crossed themselves in the 1600's. Prior to this time they used their index and middle finger to make the sign. According to this information the Patriarch was trying to unify the Russians and Greeks and so wanted to switch to this way of signing the cross. Does Rocor sign in this ancient way or have they adopted the newer Greek alteration?
Thank you,
Sunny

[Father David Moser]

Does Rocor sign in this ancient way or have they adopted the newer Greek alteration?

Both, actually. A number of years ago, ROCOR made a point to reach out to the Old Believer communities and provide them with the opportunity to return to the Russian Orthodox Church. Some did and now both the old rite and the Nikonian rite exist side by side in the Russian Church. The Old Rite Cathedral is in Erie PA and Bishop Daniel holds the title "Protector of the Old Rite".

Fr David Moser

[Sunny]

Dear Father David, bless,
Thank you for answering my question, and I have another one. In many icons of Christ he seems to be positioning his hand of blessing in the way depicted by the Old Calendarists. Also I have seen many priests hold their hand in this way when the faithful go to them for a blessing. I thought that hand-finger position belonged to the priests alone to bless their congregation, and since they act in place of Christ to us that they were blessing as Christ is depicted doing. Am I wrong about this and can someone explain this to me? Is the finger position the same for all of us when pronouncing a blessing on ourselves?
thank you,
Sunny

[Paul Cowan]

Please correct me, but blessings can only come from someone greater. A lesser can not give a blessing to a greater. Since we are not greater than ourselves, we can not give ourselves a blessing. We can cross ourselves, but it is not the same as a blessing.

I saw in the monasteries the Abbott holding the blessing as we leave the trapezia with his right hand forming the ICXC as we pass under him.


Also I have seen many priests hold their hand in this way when the faithful go to them for a blessing. I thought that hand-finger position belonged to the priests alone to bless their congregation, and since they act in place of Christ to us that they were blessing as Christ is depicted doing.

I don't understand. It seems you are confirming the right doing of your question.

Paul

[Nina]

Does Rocor sign in this ancient way or have they adopted the newer Greek alteration?
Thank you,
Sunny

Dear Sunny, Please forgive me for not understanding, but can you please explain what is the newer Greek alteration? I have no idea what that means.

And certainly I am ignorant about what you share. I thought we all use three fingers (the three first ones of the right hand) to make the sign of the cross because they represent the Holy Trinity! And the rest of the fingers (the two last ones of the right hand) are to touch the palm because of the two natures of Christ who descended from Heaven (which is represented by the place where the three fingers gather that represent the Holy Trinity) on earth, which is represented by the palm of our hand.

[Sunny]

Hi Nina and Paul,

The newer Greek version I mentioned referred to the change made by Patriarch Nikon in the 1600's that I asked about in an earlier post. The current way we position our fingers was instituted by Patriarch Nikon according to the documents I read.

Forgive me for not being clearer in my question. The old calendarists seem to hold their hands the same way or in a similar way to how I've seen current priests pronouncing blessing on their congregation. Also in some old icons the saints are holding their fingers in this same way. Since the material I read referred to the Russian Old Calendarists I was hoping someone here could shed some light on this. It seems that the Russian Orthodox prior to Patriarch Nikon's change held the thumb, ring finger, and little finger together and the index finger was extending with the middle finger bent inward halfway. This looks like some of the finger positions in some old icons. I thought the finger position of Christ meant He was blessing us, but now wonder if the Russian iconographers were proclaiming the proper way to sign the cross on oneself.

Is this any clearer?

Sorry for any confusion, I have no one I know to ask to explain this.

thank you,
Sunny

[Kosta]

I think Sunny is confusing the old calendarists with the old ritualists (aka: old believers).

[Andreas Moran]

Old Calendarists, Old Believers and Old Rite are each different. I assume that Old Calendarists cross themselves as the majority of Orthodox, with thumb and first two fingers together and the other two fingers gathered in the palm. Old Rite people are those in the Russian Orthodox Church who largely follow the services as they were before the Reforms of Patriarch Nikon. They are within MP and we are in communion with them. My wife and I know an Old Rite priest who serves a small community just outside Moscow. He is loving and hospitable. Old Rite people do, though, form the cross in the same way as Old Believers. I have an Old Rite prayer book before me and it says that 'the thumb, the ring finger and the little finger' are joined together for this 'confesses the mystery of the three divine hypostases, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit . . while joining the other two fingers - the forefinger and the middle finger . . . signifies the mystery of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, Who is perfect God and perfect Man. Slightly bending the middle finger confesses the mystery that the Son of God bowed the heavens and came down upon earth and became man for our salvation. Thus, having joined these two fingers, we first place them on the head, or on the forehead; we confess that He Who is our one true and eternal Head gave Himself as head over all Churches; that is over His body. Next, we place them on the belly, confessing His descent to earth; we clearly proclaim His conception without seed in the most pure womb of the Mother of God and His dwelling there for nine months. Then, we place them on our right shoulder ; we confess that He sits at the right hand of the Father. Finally, we place them on our left shoulder, signifying that He will come again for judgment and will render unto those on the left everlasting punishment, but unto those on the right everlasting life.'

Old Believers will have nothing to do with anyone else. My wife went on a pilgrimage to Chechnya some years ago. They were not allowed in to an Old Believers church. Being hot, my wife asked for a glass of water. This was given in silence and the glass placed on a table and after picked up with a cloth so that the Old Believer would not be contaminated by touching what a non-Old Believer had touched!

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

To add further to what is said above: the Old Calendrists arise from the Church calendar change in 1924. The Old Believers arise from the changes instituted from the time of Patriarch Nikon in the 1600s. The former first affected the Greek church & afterwards broadened in scope to affect other churches also. The latter affected mainly the church of Russia.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Father David Moser]

When a priest gives a blessing, he holds his hand differently from the way we do when we cross ourselves. The priest holds his fingers in the shape of the Greek letters ICXC (an abbreviation for Jesus Christ) which indicates that it is not the priest who blesses, but our Lord Jesus Christ, Himself. The hand is held thus: the index finger is straight (I) the middle finger is curved (C) and the ring finger is bent and met by the thumb which crosses it (X) and the little finger is curved (C). From some angles, it could appear that the priest is blessing according to the Old Believer style and perhaps an iconographic representation might also give that appearance at a glance. There are many examples of older icons, both Russian and Greek, were the blessing is given with the two fingers (Old believer style) as that was an accepted tradition in the Church.

Fr David Moser

[Effie Ganatsios]

Old Calendarists cross themselves as we do. There is nothing different about them, and after all, we were the ones that decided to change the calender not them.

From experience I can say the following though :

An acquaintance who became an Old Calendarist was very upset when her priest told her that she couldn't attend her daughter's wedding - her husband and children remained with the New Calendar when she felt she had to "convert".
She told me that there is a lot of friction in her family because of her decision.

But, a close friend, who is also an Old Calendarist - the only one in her family, attended her son's wedding without any trouble. I didn't want to be indiscreet and have never asked her why she was allowed to participate in a New Calendar wedding and the other woman wasn't.

My nephew's bride has an auntie who is also Old Calendar and this woman told her she wouldn't be attending her wedding because it was not an Old Calendar wedding. She also told this young woman that laughing is sinful.

I have still not worked out what is permitted and what isn't. And why should dates separate us? To my mind the Greek Orthodox Church should not have adopted the Gregorian calendar because it was a political decision and not a religious decision.

In families in which some members are old Calendar and some New Calendar, obviously there are going to be practical problems, but I have not observed any in the family of my close friend. She and her husband have agreed to respect each other's different viewpoints and are a loving couple (when they married both were New Calendar).

Effie

[Owen Jones]

I'm sure this has been stated many times here, but the New Calendar is more accurate, and societies started to change over going back, I think, to the 18th Century, for obvious reasons -- modern technology, commerce, etc. demanded a more accurate calendar. In Britain, there were widespread riots against the changeover. The changeover was not made for theological reasons, but practical necessity. The Church's attitude today toward the New Calendar is a different issue, it seems to me, than the purpose for societies as a whole transferring over. They simply had to. But what this did was it contributed to the secularization of societies, since it forced churches to go along with the change thereby hastening the fissure between the Church and society as a whole and government.

[Misha]

I follow the new calendar
But the fact is that calendar's change has been done arbitrarily and without panorthodox agreement.
Church's calendar is a matter of unity between the orthodox local churches and not a scientific issue.
And this unity has been ,unfortunately ,broken in purpose.
Especially in Greece old calendarists has been suffered persecutions,imprisonements and in some cases,murders from the secular authorities.
Among them there were holy men and women.
I hope and pray that some day those who have divided the Church will repent for their crime and ,finally, we will be reunited in Christ.

[Dimitris]

To my mind the Greek Orthodox Church should not have adopted the Gregorian calendar because it was a political decision and not a religious decision.
I wouldn't say it was a sole political decision. I think it was a pastoral decision and hence a theological. Fact is, the Greek state changed the calender in 1920ies. This led to state holidays being apart from church feasts. People used/use the new calendar in every day use, but the church used/uses the old calendar. In my opinion this leads to the church life being separated from people's every day life. But I think, the chuch life should fulfill every day's life. (Sorry for my bad English.)

[Kris]

I wouldn't say it was a sole political decision. I think it was a pastoral decision and hence a theological. Fact is, the Greek state changed the calender in 1920ies. This led to state holidays being apart from church feasts. People used/use the new calendar in every day use, but the church used/uses the old calendar. In my opinion this leads to the church life being separated from people's every day life. But I think, the chuch life should fulfill every day's life. (Sorry for my bad English.)

There's no reason the state couldn't have adopted the Gregorian calendar and simply moved its national holidays from 25th Dec to 7th Jan, 15th Aug to 28th Aug, etc. in order to accomodate the existing Church calendar.

[Kosta]

Old Calendarists cross themselves as we do. There is nothing different about them, and after all, we were the ones that decided to change the calender not them.

From experience I can say the following though :

An acquaintance who became an Old Calendarist was very upset when her priest told her that she couldn't attend her daughter's wedding - her husband and children remained with the New Calendar when she felt she had to "convert".
She told me that there is a lot of friction in her family because of her decision.

But, a close friend, who is also an Old Calendarist - the only one in her family, attended her son's wedding without any trouble. I didn't want to be indiscreet and have never asked her why she was allowed to participate in a New Calendar wedding and the other woman wasn't.

My nephew's bride has an auntie who is also Old Calendar and this woman told her she wouldn't be attending her wedding because it was not an Old Calendar wedding. She also told this young woman that laughing is sinful.

I have still not worked out what is permitted and what isn't. And why should dates separate us? To my mind the Greek Orthodox Church should not have adopted the Gregorian calendar because it was a political decision and not a religious decision.

In families in which some members are old Calendar and some New Calendar, obviously there are going to be practical problems, but I have not observed any in the family of my close friend. She and her husband have agreed to respect each other's different viewpoints and are a loving couple (when they married both were New Calendar).

Effie

Many Old Calendarists do not attend New Calendar churches because of the canons which prohibit attending a heterodox temple and joining in prayer with them.
A friend of mine who is old calendar will attend the reception of a wedding or baptism of our friends but not the actual church service. Another old calendarists person i know, moved away to a location where there is no old calendar church, so he attends a GOARCH church, he prefers the old calendar and believes the new calendarists are on the wrong side of this, but his son is comfortable there and likes to be an altar boy, so he doesnt care, also he is a cradle greek old calendarist who never harbored any extremism nor was ever indoctrinated into the extreme views of the politically minded .

I have another friend who left the GOARCH and became old calendarist, she was recieved with only a confession of faith under Bishop Petros of Astoria who was quite the moderate. She has since moved under the Cyprianites because upon Bishop Petros death- St Markella's parish became more extreme towards the new calendarists and insisted on chrismating new calendrists coming to them (unless they are greeks who spend tuition money at there greek school or have clout, then they can even take communion no questions asked).

So it all depends on the person, how moderate their views are towards the new calendar churches.

But the new calendar change was without a doubt uncanonical already condemned in pan orthodox councils, was authorized under the heretical robber synod "orthodox congress" of 1923 and was done as a means to unite with anglicans. I hope and pray that a future pan-Orthodox council condemns Patriarch Metaxakis and sets things right

[Sunny]

This has been a very interesting and informative thread, and thank you to those who corrected my misunderstanding of old-rite vs. old calendarists.
Was it just the Russians who crossed themselves in the way with the little finger, ring finger, and thumb touching and the index and middle used for crossing oneself? Or was this universal until Patriarch Nikon introduced his changes? Does the Orthodox world as a whole now cross themselves in this way or does it vary according to different locations?
And--how important is it to cross yourself in the 'right way', if one can find out what that is?
Sunny

[Dimitris]

There's no reason the state couldn't have adopted the Gregorian calendar and simply moved its national holidays from 25th Dec to 7th Jan, 15th Aug to 28th Aug, etc. in order to accomodate the existing Church calendar.
That's true. The Russian and the Serbian state for example did it like that. But I don't want to celebrate Christmas on 7th January. I want to celebrate it on 25th December, as it was celebrated for many, many centuries. Also we should be aware that in less than 100 years those who follow the old calendar will celebrate Christmas on 8th January, meaning for the state to re-adopt the holidays. Some time in the future those who follow the old calendar will celebrate Christmas in summer and Easter in winter. I can't believe it's God's intention that we celebrate our feast not every year at the same time, but always a little bit more shifted.

[Mina Mounir]

I read on wikipedia that the Old Calendarists are many groups in greek ... the questions r :
1- what are the differences between them ?
2- which one is the authentic or original or mainstream one?
3- how do we look at these " many " groups ? are all of them same ? do we accept at least their baptism ? ... ?

thanks

[Herman Blaydoe]

I read on wikipedia that the Old Calendarists are many groups in greek ... the questions r :
1- what are the differences between them ?
2- which one is the authentic or original or mainstream one?
3- how do we look at these " many " groups ? are all of them same ? do we accept at least their baptism ? ... ?

thanks

There are more Old Calendar Orthodox than there are New Calendar Orthodox (The Church of Russia is Old Calendar and is the biggest Orthodox Church in the world today). My diocese has BOTH Old and New Calendar parishes.

There are some Greek churches that did not accept the changeover to the New Calendar and basically proclaimed all those who did as heretics. We may recognize their baptisms but they refuse to acknowledge ours.

[Kosta]

Actually both sides have the same understanding of baptism. Usually a person baptised in triple immersion and the trinitarian formula will be recieved in the others Church by either chrismation or a confession of faith.

[Olga]

Actually both sides have the same understanding of baptism. Usually a person baptised in triple immersion and the trinitarian formula will be recieved in the others Church by either chrismation or a confession of faith.

Technically, you are correct, Kosta. However, quite a few of these schismatic "True Orthodox" groups often do not recognise other Orthodox baptisms, as they regard themselves as the "only" grace-filled church, therefore only "their" baptisms have grace. Utter hubris.

[Kosta]

Technically, you are correct, Kosta. However, quite a few of these schismatic "True Orthodox" groups often do not recognise other Orthodox baptisms, as they regard themselves as the "only" grace-filled church, therefore only "their" baptisms have grace. Utter hubris.

That hasnt been my experience, only they (re)baptize converts who were brought into a canonical Orthodox church thru chrismation only. I know the largest greek old calendarist group usually chrismates non chalcedons without baptism, and depending on their mood will either chrismate or simply admit thru a confession of faith an Orthodox from a canonical group (as was the case with my friend). This is the same practise we use on them.

[Andreas Moran]

I'd like to ask a question. How much does it matter (and in no sense am I implying that it does not) which way a person makes the sign of the Cross (not the way a priest makes it to bless)? St Seraphim of Sarov was adamant that we must make our cross as most Orthodox do: thumb and first two fingers together, ring and little fingers gathered in the palm. And I'm all for upholding Orthodox Tradition. The explanation of the Old Rite/Old Believer way as described in my post No 20 above seems perfectly reasonable, though. Western Rite and some Anglicans do put thumb and first two fingers together and the last two fingers in the palm but the last movement is from left shoulder to right. What are the theological and spiritual pros and cons here, and why was St Seraphim so clear about the mainstream Orthodox way being the only permissible way?

[Nina]

Something from St. Kosmas Aetolos about the Sign of the Cross, which is an additional explanation to the other one:


The Sign of the Cross

LISTEN, MY BRETHREN, how the sign of the Cross is made and what it means. First, just as the Holy Trinity is glorified in heaven by the angels, so should you join your three fingers of your right hand. And being unable to ascend into heaven to worship, raise your hand to your head (because the head means heaven) and say: "Just as the angels glorify the Holy Trinity in heaven, so do I, as a servant, glorify and worship the Holy Trinity. And as the fingers are three and separate, and are together, so is the Holy Trinity three persons but one God." Lowering your hand to your stomach, say: "I worship you and adore you, my Lord, because you condescended and took on flesh in the womb of the Theotokos for my sins." Place [your hand] on your right shoulder and say: "I beg you, my God, to forgive me and to put me on your right with the just." Placing [your hand] again on your left shoulder, say: "I beg you, my Lord, don't put me on the left with the sinners." Then bending down to the ground [say] : "I glorify you, my God; I worship and adore you, for just as you were put into the grave, may I also be." And when you stand up straight, you reveal the resurrection and say: I glorify and worship you, my Lord, for you rose from the dead to grant us eternal life." This is what the Cross means. Let us give just one example so you can see the power of the Cross.Link (http://www.stmaryofegypt.org/kosmas/third.html)

[Misha]

why was St Seraphim so clear about the mainstream Orthodox way being the only permissible way?

Because St.Seraphim has seen 12 times the Queen of Heaven and knew exactly Her and Her Son's will.

[Mina Mounir]

There are more Old Calendar Orthodox than there are New Calendar Orthodox (The Church of Russia is Old Calendar and is the biggest Orthodox Church in the world today). My diocese has BOTH Old and New Calendar parishes.

well , I'm not talking about orthodox who r in communion with constantinople , I'm talking about those who broke communion in 1924 in greece , I heard that there are 15 groups atleast , in greece only . are all of them equal in our eyes ? are all of them canonical ? how do we treat with them ?
thanks

[Christophoros]

"There are more Old Calendar Orthodox than there are New Calendar Orthodox (The Church of Russia is Old Calendar and is the biggest Orthodox Church in the world today)."

Crunch the numbers provided by independent organizations and you discover some interesting things about old vs. new calendar usage in the Church.

Here's how it breaks down by one estimate:

Churches Which Follow the New Calendar -

The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople - Membership: 3,500,000
The Patriarchate of Alexandria - Membership: 250,000
The Patriarchate of Antioch - Membership: 750,000
The Orthodox Church of Romania - Membership: 19,000,000
The Orthodox Church of Bulgaria - Membership: 6,500,000
The Orthodox Church of Cyprus - Membership: 500,000
The Orthodox Church of Greece - Membership: 10,000,000
The Orthodox Church of Albania - Membership: 600,000
The Orthodox Church in Czech and Slovak Republics - Membership: 71,000

Membership = 40,271,000

Churches Which Follow the Old Calendar -

The Patriarchate of Jerusalem - Membership: 130,000
The Orthodox Church of Russia - Membership: 90,000,000
The Orthodox Church of Serbia - Membership: 8,000,000
The Orthodox Church of Georgia - Membership: 3,500,000
The Orthodox Church of Poland - Membership: 1,000,000

Membership = 102,630,000

Total Orthodox = 142,901,000 (72% old calendar / 28% new calendar)

Observations: Of the 14 autocephalous Churches, 9 follow the new calendar (64%), yet those who use the old calendar are numerically superior solely by virtue of the immense Russian Church; of 102 million adherents of the old calendar, Russia constitutes 88% of the total. Subtract the Russian Church, and the followers of the new calendar make up 77% of the remaining Orthodox Churches.

So, while one may be factually correct in pointing out that most Orthodox worldwide use the old calendar, such a statement doesn't take into account that the vast majority of autocephalous Churches follow the new calendar, and calendar usage statistics are skewed in favor of the old calendar by the massive size of one particular Local Church.

Membership statistics source: http://www.cnewacanada.ca/ecc-bodypg-ca.aspx?eccpageID=1

[Father Anthony]

According to a copy of the official calendar of the Church of Poland in my possession, it is not on the new calendar but the old calendar. As to the Church of Czech and Slovak lands, you may want to check upon that also.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

[Paul Cowan]

Technically, you are correct, Kosta. However, quite a few of these schismatic "True Orthodox" groups often do not recognise other Orthodox baptisms, as they regard themselves as the "only" grace-filled church, therefore only "their" baptisms have grace. Utter hubris.

Dear Olga,

Allow me to ask a purely Protestant filled question...

If the True Orthodox church is the only grace filled church and many groups claim to be this group, how do we differ from any Baptist sect? I mean if the Orthodox chuch does not recognize other groups as the True church because they split off of Her, who is to "really" say who is the True holders of Grace if we all say the other guy split off from us? Someone is not telling the truth. Or someone is very delusional. Or someone is right. Who is the "someone"? Is it based on sheer numbers? If that is the case, I am participating in a heresy being New Calendar. Is it based on some formula? Then perhaps I am not a heretic by association?

I really don't care about church political heirarchy. I spent my whole life going from one wrong faith system to another. I have found the True faith. Let the ecclesiastical politicians work it out.

Paul

[Olga]

Dear Paul

My use of the term "True Orthodox" does not refer to the canonical Orthodox churches. It refers to those schismatic churches which use this very term (another is "Genuine Orthodox") to assert the notion of their sole custodianship of grace. By separating themselves from their mother church, and by refusing to submit to the obedience of canonically-consecrated bishops, they are therefore "out of the loop", as it were. A current example of such schismatic activity is the appearance of breakaway groups which refuse to recognise the validity of the recent reconciliation between ROCOR and the Moscow Patriarchate. These folks may be sincere, but misguided at best. Deliberate separation such as this is indeed little different from the "Baptist sects" you refer to. "I don't agree with the decision of my church, so I'll set up one of my own."


Who is the "someone"? Is it based on sheer numbers? If that is the case, I am participating in a heresy being New Calendar. Is it based on some formula? Then perhaps I am not a heretic by association?


An inviolable principle of the Orthodox Church is the responsibility of the episcopate, the shepherds and overseers of the Church, to "rightly divide the word of Your truth". If a priest proclaims heresy, or is disobedient to his bishop, then his bishop is obliged to correct him. If a bishop does the same, his fellow bishops likewise should move to correct him. It is a conciliar approach. If the errant cleric refuses to change his ways, then there may be cause for defrocking or other serious action.

This might all sound legalistic, but it is not. This conciliar approach is what Christ appointed to His apostles. Conciliar as in "a decision made by a group of people of one mind", rather than by one man by executive fiat. There are any number of scriptural references which attest to this. Numbers have nothing to do with it either. Two historical examples come to mind: the question of the Judaisers in Acts, and the errant teachings on the Holy Trinity of Arius of Alexandria. Both the Judaisers and Arius "had the numbers", but St Paul and the Fathers of the Council of Nicea, notably St Nicholas of Myra, prevailed.

On heresy and the calendar: Heresy is the alteration of God's law. Adopting the Gregorian calendar is not an act of heresy. If it were, then no canonical communion between the NC and OC churches would be possible. An irregularity, an anomaly, yes. Heresy, no, despite what some may try to say.

[Olga]

I also reproduce an earlier post of mine (from November, 2006) on this thread:



My understanding is that any church which calls itself Orthodox must be under the jurisdiction of a canonical patriarchate, or, in unusual cases such as the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (which is on the verge of full communion with the Moscow Patriarchate), be under the jurisdiction of a Synod of Bishops, where the canonicity of the consecration of such bishops is beyond question.

Most, if not all, of these schismatic Orthodox (in Greece and in other countries), including the Old Calendarists, have set up their own hierarchies of bishops and, in a few cases, patriarchs, who are not in communion with any of the canonical patriarchates or synods. I find it difficult to believe it is sufficient for a breakaway church to conduct its rites and services in a manner identical to the church from which it cut its ties. The fact remains that such a church is disobedient to any canonical hierarchy, and, to put it briefly, this has enormous practical, doctrinal and sacramental implications.

A good analogy from the West would be the various Roman Catholic groups which have never accepted the decisions of the Second Vatican Council. These churches have their own bishops and pope, and promote themselves as the "true Catholic church", they have branded all the post-Vatican II popes as antichrists, and the established church of Rome as heretical. Sound familiar? :(

[Christophoros]

According to a copy of the official calendar of the Church of Poland in my possession, it is not on the new calendar but the old calendar. As to the Church of Czech and Slovak lands, you may want to check upon that also.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Dear Fr. Anthony,

Thank you for the correction on the Church of Poland. I did a quick Google search on the Czech and Slovak Church, but wasn't able to find anything on the calendar question, at least in English! I'll have to keep my eyes open.

In Christ,
Chris

[Dimitris]

Hallo!

According to the German website from the Ostkirchliches Institut Universität Regensburg (Eastern Churches institute of the university Regensburg)/http://www.oki-regensburg.de/ostkirc1.htm the Polish Orthodox Church follows the new calendar, whereas the use of the calendar varies depending on the region within the Orthodox Church of Czech Republic and Slovakia.

Kind regards,
Dimitris

[Father Anthony]

Hallo!

According to the German website from the Ostkirchliches Institut Universität Regensburg (Eastern Churches institute of the university Regensburg)/http://www.oki-regensburg.de/ostkirc1.htm the Polish Orthodox Church follows the new calendar, whereas the use of the calendar varies depending on the region within the Orthodox Church of Czech Republic and Slovakia.

Kind regards,
Dimitris
This link is from the Bialystok Diocese of the Polish Orthodox Church. They definitely claim to be Old Calendar. http://www.orthodox.bialystok.pl/en/kalendar.htm

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

[Kosta]

well , I'm not talking about orthodox who r in communion with constantinople , I'm talking about those who broke communion in 1924 in greece , I heard that there are 15 groups atleast , in greece only . are all of them equal in our eyes ? are all of them canonical ? how do we treat with them ?
thanks

According to Greek authorities approximately 10% of the Orthodox population are old calendarists (not in communion with the CANONICAL CHURCHES). Of those approximately 75 percent belong to the Synod under Chrysostomos II (Florinites). Another 20 percent belong either to the Cyprianites (Synod in resistance) or the Matthewites. Thus close to 95 percent of the old calendarists belong to these 3 groups.

The largest under Chrysostomos tend to consider the canonical churches graceless , but this position has varied thru her history and allows her members to hold the contrary opinion- that the canonical churches do indeed have grace.
The Cyprianites, the second largest group ,who are in communion with the old calendarists from Cyprus and Romania and i believe Bulgaria, and were one time in communion with ROCOR before they re-united with the MP, hold a moderate view and do believe the canonical churches have grace. The Matthewites are extremists and shouldnt be taken seriously.

Whatever other groups that may exist in Greece are either tiny compromising 2 or 3 parishes or defunct groups with possibly a bishop without a flock.

Canon 15 of the first-second council does allow canonical seperation from ones bishop, the calendar controversy and ecumenism can indeed fall under this canon. At the same time, aside from the canons, one needs to examine the complex situation which lead to the creation of these old calendar churches in 1935. And of course this examination must begin with a look at Patriarch Meletios Metaxakis and his 'Orthodox Congress" of 1923 and the grassroots old calendar movement to retain the traditional calendar from 1923-1935.

[Olga]

The Matthewites are extremists and shouldnt be taken seriously.


Their views on the proper iconographic depiction of the Holy Trinity, the Resurrection, Pentecost and other festal icons leaves much to be desired.

[Mina Mounir]

Dear Kosta, thanks for your reply . it is really helpful.
well, if there is a variety in the view of these churches towards us (as u said some claims we are graceless and other not) . what about our view on these churches? do we have a view point for each group ?

thanks

Dear Olga, you say :

Their views on the proper iconographic depiction of the Holy Trinity, the Resurrection, Pentecost and other festal icons leaves much to be desired.
how?
thanks too

[Kosta]

Dear Kosta, thanks for your reply . it is really helpful.
well, if there is a variety in the view of these churches towards us (as u said some claims we are graceless and other not) . what about our view on these churches? do we have a view point for each group ?

thanks

Dear Olga, you say :

how?
thanks too

Officially our view is that they are schismatic. Some clergy hold a more rigid view towards them, sometimes this view is justified in light that many of them refer to us as heretics -other greek clergy have no problem with them.

[Mina Mounir]

Dear Kosta and friends,
well , according to the data u gave me , I was talking to a Monk in the church called "tue orthodox church" which is the main old calendarist church ( the one of chrysostom II ... which is the majority )
I was asking him some questions , and he said the following :
---------
Dear Minas,

...

The New Calendar church considers us to graceless schismatics who are outside the Church, which is very hypocritical, because they consider the Catholic, Protestants, and Monophysites to be part of the Church.

We do not follow the route of the Jerusalem Patriarchate or Mount Athos because the New CAlendarists are already heretics, not heretics in the future. In other words, it is not that they will become heretics when they conclude their union with the Vatican. Rather, they already are heretics because they have a false view of the Church; namely, that the Church is something larger than Orthodoxy, and that it can be divided up into many warring groups. This view has been officially approved on a number of occasions and is avidly preached by the ecumenist bishops. So to follow the example of Jerusalem or Mt. Athos in order to save the ecumenist churches "from the inside" would be like you staying inside the Coptic Monophysite Church in order to try to influence it to come back to Orthodoxy: you cannot do that, because in the process, you will be more likely to lose your own soul than to save others.

Note that one of the monasteries on Mt. Athos, Esphigmenou, is with us.

May God keep you during this Fast.
---------

how do we see this? he says that our church considers them as schismatic graceless ...

[Herman Blaydoe]

how do we see this? he says that our church considers them as schismatic graceless ...

HE says. But what does OUR Church say? I suspect it depends on who you ask, but the general impression I get is best answered by His Grace's own words. It is HE who is doing the cutting off, not us. We are not separating ourselves from him, he is separating himself from us. It is hard to have a relationship with someone who refuses to have anything to do with you. And based on the evidence, the fruits of schism are all too apparent, these Old Calendarist groups simply get smaller and smaller as they declare each other heretical and separate themselves again and again into smaller and even less relevent groups....

[Misha]

Dear Mina i can assure you that this monk's view is a rather extremist one even among the Chrysostomites.
Here in Greece there are bishops and priests of Chrysostom's synod who accept new calendarist to their sacraments .
Their main concern is ecumenism and their fears are justified.If this issue could be resolved then they would have nothing to protest about.

[Olga]

Their main concern is ecumenism and their fears are justified.If this issue could be resolved then they would have nothing to protest about.

Not quite, Misha. Even if the "ecumenism problem" is resolved, that would not be enough for the schismatic Old Calendarists. Over the years they have become so entrenched in their polemical stances which are contrary to the spirit and mind of Orthodoxy, that for them to abandon these stances and "return to the fold" is unlikely. These groups have major differences among themselves, and, as Herman pointed out, continue to fragment further and further in acrimony. They cannot even agree amongst themselves, so, sadly, their return to the canonical Church won't be happening any time soon.

Mina, on the matter of the OC and iconography, the Matthewites regard the so-called "NT Trinity" (God the Father as an old man, Christ sitting next to him, and the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove hovering above them), and the Resurrection "icon" showing Christ emerging from the tomb holding a banner as canonical, and they criticise the canonical churches for condemning these images as uncanonical.

[Misha]

Not quite, Misha. Even if the "ecumenism problem" is resolved, that would not be enough for the schismatic Old Calendarists. Over the years they have become so entrenched in their polemical stances which are contrary to the spirit and mind of Orthodoxy, that for them to abandon these stances and "return to the fold" is unlikely. These groups have major differences among themselves, and, as Herman pointed out, continue to fragment further and further in acrimony. They cannot even agree amongst themselves, so, sadly, their return to the canonical Church won't be happening any time soon.



Dear Olga,i talk often with old calendarists.
A young man told me once:"If Patriarch Bartholomew condemns Ecumenism in a synod and stops the co-prayer with the heretics then i ll go to Constantinople to kneel in front of him and kiss his shoes."

of course there are extremists among them but there are also wise faithful men and women ,who love our Lord and His Church.

[Mina Mounir]

Misha :

Their main concern is ecumenism and their fears are justified
yeah this is clear , he told me so. but their fears are really justified . I think sometimes I find myself can't accept many ecumenist activities... I respect theological dialogues. but it is not convenient for me watching the co-praying meetings , the statements said by some bishops about being a part of a bigger church. I think even Roman Catholic ecclesiology doesn't recognize this concept.
ecumenism is not easy to be accepted. but on the other hand, schism is not an easy decision nor a solution , they could offer help inside the canonical church more than opposing and challenging and even considering it "graceless". the problem of ecumenism is controllable. that's what I tried to tell him.

[Father David Moser]

A young man told me once:"If Patriarch Bartholomew condemns Ecumenism in a synod and stops the co-prayer with the heretics then i ll go to Constantinople to kneel in front of him and kiss his shoes."

From our recent experience with the reconciliation of the two parts of the Russian Church, I can only say "I'll believe when and if I see it".

After the fall of the Soviet Union, there was a lot of talk in ROCOR about how we had to reunite with Moscow immediately. Our hierarchs responded with a list of conditions that would satisfy them that the Church in Russia had indeed thrown off the yoke of its oppressors and was again free. One by one those conditions were met and every time it would appear that a milestone had been passed, there were a multitude of squeaky wheels all saying "yes, it may look like they did this but they really didn't." Among the major conditions were the glorification of the New Martyrs, an recognition of and repentance for the oppressive and false policies of the Soviet state and the harm caused to people (basically an apology), a condemnation of "Sergianism" and withdrawal from the WCC.

The New Martyrs were glorified by the Patriarchal Church and yet there were those who refused (and refuse!) to accept it because of discrepancies in the lists of names of the New Martrys (the most notable was that of Metropolitan Joseph). This was brought up in our talks and it was discovered that there was and is an ongoing commission to verify the names and deaths of the new martyrs and that Metr. Joseph is one of the primary ones for whom they are gathering material. But that isn't good enough!

There were a number of repudiations and apologies from the Patriarch personally on down (and in some cases text was produced to verify the statements) where the representatives of the Church in Russia admitted that things were done that should not have been and took responsibility for and apologized for the injuries and deaths that ensued. They asked forgiveness. But there were (and are) people who, despite even the printed word, will claim that they "just said" those things and didn't really mean them or that we in the west didn't really understand that in their heart of hearts they (the MP) were just out to deceive us.

"Sergianism" was a problem because it was never precisely defined. It is hard to renounced and condemn something when you don't know what it is - and when the person who is waiting for you to do so doesn't either. Eventually "Sergianism" was taken to mean the subjection of the Church to the state, especially when the state is hostile to the Church. This is clearly and in no uncertain terms addressed in the Social Concept of 2000 - but whenever it was pointed out, those who objected didn't really care to read it and remained firm in their belief that "Sergiansim" was alive and well in the MP.

Withdrawal from the WCC. Obviously that hasn't happened, however, the MP's participation has changed radically. There are complex factors which would make the withdrawal of the MP from the WCC more of a problem for Orthodoxy than a remedy. By our interaction with the MP we learned of the less than obvious reasons why they had been involved with the WCC in the first place and the benefits vs the costs that suggest its continuation on some level. We chose to not dismiss but to set aside this condition because now we are directly involved in the internal processes of the MP and can influence the involvement (or lack thereof) of the greater Russian Church in Ecumenical settings and yet can keep ourselves free from direct participation. (BTW, there has already been talk of holding a worldwide symposium on Ecumenism in the Russian Church). Our naysayers simply wag their fingers and say "I told you so".

So no matter what people say now - there will always be some reason why the EP is "at fault" and no matter what he says he will never be able to adequately "condemn ecumenism" nor will he ever be able to stop "prayer with heretics" (anymore than you or I can stop "praying with heretics" on the plane in rough weather) so as I said, I'll believe it when I see it.

Fr David Moser

[Olga]

Thank you, Fr David, thank you so much for this post of yours. You have accurately described (far better than I could) the sort of blinkered intransigence which characterises so many of these schismatic groups, be they Old Calendarist Greeks, "Genuine" Russian Orthodox, or those who refuse to recognise the recent reconciliation of ROCOR and the MP. It is a type of siege mentality: "The world and the other churches are heretics, therefore we must break away from them and stand fast to our beliefs". So sad. So very sad. And so contrary to the spirit and mind of Orthodoxy, which they so fervently claim to defend. St Mark of Ephesus (whom many of them invoke) would be appalled.

Re the Russian reconciliation: It is worth remembering that seventy years of Communism, as brutal, immoral and ruthless as it was, was hardly likely to destroy a thousand years of Russian Orthodoxy. Truly the gates of hell could not prevail against it.

[Kosta]

The ROCOR offshoots whio claim to be the 'True Orthodoxy' and hold similar ecclesiologies as the greek old calendarists are actually a totally different animal. ROCOR's seperation had to with communism not the calendar. Old Calendarists was originally a greek lay movement from 1923-1935 to resist the calendar change based on the uncanonical adoption of it, and the 3 pan-Orthodox Synods which anathemized it. In 1935 two state bishops decided to return their diocese back to the old calendar and hence the old calendarist church was born, and thats when each side began anathemizing each other.

The various ROCOR offshoots are basically a hodgepodge of parishes made up mostly of extremist converts who for the most part are not Russians but may harbor Russian distrust, some of these converts are still living in the past influenced by the cold war, vietnam and decades of anti-russian propaganda. Granted one offshoot tends to be slighlty larger and are in communion with the Synod of Resistance (that bishop ironically is not russian neither but ukranian) but the rest will simply be forgotten someday.

The greek old calendarists and those in communion with them are not schisming further and further as some may think, as i said the overwhelming majority are concentrated between three groups and most of their turmoil was in the 70's under an incompetent bishop they had called Auxentios. They have a valid reason for protest which is simply undeniable.

Not all the slergy old calendarists under Chrysostomos are extremists, the founder of St. Markella's in Astoria, bishop Petros did indeed believe the new calendarists had grace and never signed any declaration (although he was pressured to) which condemned us as graceless heretics. In fact amongst the greeks of Astoria who knew him, including new calendarists believe he is the closest thing of to an Orthodox saint that the Greek church in America (whether canonical or not) has ever produced. I also personally know as a fact that atleast one high ranking priest under this group does not believe new calendarists are graceless heretics, although he will not admit it openly because the extremist element within his church (which gained prominence after Bp Petros death) .

I dont believe the Matthewites are the ones that accept the NT Trinity icon, although they did have a schism where one or two of their bishops seperated in protest for not accepting it. It is true though that they accept that Ressurection icon that Olga mentioned.

It is those under Chrysostomos that accept the NT trinity icon. Which is fine my me because when they begin to act "holier than thou", i bring up the fact that they too have heresy by accepting an uncanonical modernist icon such as the NT Trinity icon. In fact Alexandros Kalomiros who was a very influential old calendarists aurthor (his book River of Fire is very popular) whose traditional Orthodox writings are held in high esteem even by new calendarists -decided to leave the Florinites for this very reason.

[Owen Jones]

I was told today that the entire nation (not just the Church) of Ukraine is on the Old Calendar. Is this true?

[Olga]

Dear Kosta

You wrote:


I dont believe the Matthewites are the ones that accept the NT Trinity icon, although they did have a schism where one or two of their bishops seperated in protest for not accepting it.

This is not correct. I reproduce an extract from a 1992 pastoral encyclical of the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece (a Matthewite group):


The icon of the Holy Trinity of "the three persons", that is, of the Beginningless Father, as the "Ancient of days," the Son as "He appeared in the flesh," and the Holy Spirit in the appearance of a dove, we venerate and honor. Of course, it is not as a circumscription of the uncircumscribable divinity that we depict Him, in as much as "it is impossible to depict and paint the nature of God" (Gregory III, Pope of Rome, Epistle to Leo III, In Session 7 of the 7th Ecum. Council, Mansi 963D) but as the Beginningless Father, as He was revealed in a vision to the prophet Daniel (Dan.7:13) and to the Protomartyr Stephen (Acts 7:55), and the Holy Spirit as He was revealed to John the Forerunner at the Baptism of the Lord in the Jordan and as He is depicted in the icon of the Annunciation of the Theotokos. It is appropriate to remind ourselves that the Holy 7th Ecumenical Council, in the 5th Session, decreed that the visions of the prophets are to be painted.

And, finally, it must be noted that this representation of the Holy Trinity does not constitute a violation of the relative prohibition by God (Ex. 20:4), as some contend, nor an exception to it, but an accurate consequence of the Orthodox Christian teaching regarding the mystery of the divine economy and extreme condescension of the love of God, as St. Dionysios the Areopagite says: "The forms of the formless and the figures of the figureless have been set forth [before us]… since our condition is unable to rise directly to the contemplation of intelligible things and is in need of aids corresponding to our nature so as to guide [us] upward." (Dionysios the Areopagite, On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, PG3, 441D) [incorrect column No. given in the original encyclical. Should be 373.]

In order to prevent conflicting opinions and divisions, we decree that the icon of the Holy Trinity of "the three persons," that is, of the Beginningless Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, be placed upon stands for veneration in the Sacred Temples on Monday of the Holy Spirit. This icon of the Holy Trinity must also be imprinted upon the Sacred Antiminsia.


The full article can be found here (scroll down the left-hand sidebar to click on the article itself): http://www.orthodox-christianity.net/ It is unlikely that this position has been repudiated by this group, as the website was last revised in February, 2008.

Anyone with a modicum of knowledge of iconographic canons, tradition and history can easily see the errors in this document.

[Kosta]

O most definately. The acceptance of the NT Trinity with such faulty reasoning is an embarassment. And proof, that modernism of which the Trinity icon is, and probably a heretical depiction as well, has infiltrated into the so called "true orthodox". For me its a case of both of us having to take the speck out of our eyes.

[Christophoros]

"According to Greek authorities approximately 10% of the Orthodox population are old calendarists (not in communion with the CANONICAL CHURCHES). Of those approximately 75 percent belong to the Synod under Chrysostomos II (Florinites). Another 20 percent belong either to the Cyprianites (Synod in resistance) or the Matthewites. Thus close to 95 percent of the old calendarists belong to these 3 groups."

While I have a great deal of respect for the "Holy Synod in Resistence" of Metropolitan Cyprian, they certainly do not constitute 20% of Old Calendarists in Greece. According to their website, they have 8 married priests serving 31 parishes in Greece, which has a population of over 10 million. They also have monastic communties (22 according to their website) with attached hieromonks as well.

[Kosta]

"According to Greek authorities approximately 10% of the Orthodox population are old calendarists (not in communion with the CANONICAL CHURCHES). Of those approximately 75 percent belong to the Synod under Chrysostomos II (Florinites). Another 20 percent belong either to the Cyprianites (Synod in resistance) or the Matthewites. Thus close to 95 percent of the old calendarists belong to these 3 groups."

While I have a great deal of respect for the "Holy Synod in Resistence" of Metropolitan Cyprian, they certainly do not constitute 20% of Old Calendarists in Greece. According to their website, they have 8 married priests serving 31 parishes in Greece, which has a population of over 10 million. They also have monastic communties (22 according to their website) with attached hieromonks as well.


THE 20% are Cyprianites and Matthewites combined. My numbers of course are estimates , Estimates of the Florinites puts them anywhere from 70-80 percent. Aside from estimates of each groups adherents, old calendarists themselves claim they constitute 20 % of the Orthodox population in Greece. Various greek sources usually puts them at 10% and the U.S. State Dept report on Religious freedom in Greece estimates them to be from 500,000-800,000.

[Mina Mounir]

well, I cannot see the case of ROCOR is like the Old Calendarists of Greece . when the unity happened between ROCOR and MP , there was not any rebaptism , but mutual confession of sacraments. I don't think Old caledarists or the canonical Orthodox church of greece are 'tolerant' that far.

any way , let me ask ... is or was there any dialogue for unity between the two groups (NC and OC ) ?

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I was told today that the entire nation (not just the Church) of Ukraine is on the Old Calendar. Is this true?

No- in Ukraine the secular society uses the Gregorian civil calendar.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

well, I cannot see the case of ROCOR is like the Old Calendarists of Greece . when the unity happened between ROCOR and MP , there was not any rebaptism , but mutual confession of sacraments. I don't think Old caledarists or the canonical Orthodox church of greece are 'tolerant' that far.

any way , let me ask ... is or was there any dialogue for unity between the two groups (NC and OC ) ?

During our (rocor's) talks with the church in Russia (MP) we urged some of the Old Calendrist, 'resisting' groups in Greece, Romania & Bulgaria that we had been in communion with to speak with their Mother churches.

However I do not know if any of these groups accepted to do such or not. Since nothing along these lines has been heard of I guess nothing occurred.

I thought I had heard that at one point the Kyprianite group would at least consider this question. But with the latest occurrences among them I think this would have pushed such a question from the table of consideration.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Mina Mounir]

well, is ROCOR now in communion with OC too ? I think that ROCOR also refused ecumenism and involvement in WCC , what is the situation now?

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

well, is ROCOR now in communion with OC too ? I think that ROCOR also refused ecumenism and involvement in WCC , what is the situation now?

No, rocor is no longer in communion with any of the Old Calendrist or 'resisting' groups.

As to ecumenism and participation in the WCC that is more complex.

If by ecumenism we mean the idea that all forms of Christianity/ religion/etc are part of one world religion. The rejection of this and the belief in One true Body of Christ, His Church, and that this is identical to the Orthodox Church is still an essential part of rocor's identity.

However if by ecumenism is meant meeting with other Christians, religions via the WCC etc then things get more complex. Rocor still has no participation in such official bodies and will not likely participate in such for the time being. However meanwhile it has come to be accepted that participation by other Orthodox churches does not need to amount to a doctrinal mistake, nor that in certain circumstances it is always wrong.

Here though just to clear up a misunderstanding about rocor. Even in the days of most firm separation, many rocor clergy still met on a personal level with other Christians and did things like give talks on Orthodoxy at Christian colleges.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Kosta]

The only time that i can think of, where a case could of been made where an old calendarists group was in some sort of communion with a Patriarchate would be the Synod in Resisitance with the then Patriarch Diodoros of Jerusalem. At that time ROCOR was in communion with the SiR and had close ties with Serbia and Jerusalem. I know from the orthodoxinfo.com website that Patriarch Diodoros of Jerusalem visited the SiR headquarters (their monastery of Sts Cyprian and Justina) and delivered a homily on its feast day.
Here is the homily:
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/patpraise.aspx

Obviously there was some sort of unofficial recognition.

I think the Orthodox churches dshould immediately withdraw from the WCC since its bylaws acknowledges the branch theory as a prerequisite for membership. Anotherwords member churches must agree in the belief of the WCC version of the branch theory or else you will be denied membership. Simply go onto their website and research it yourself, they dont keep it a secret.

As far as dialogue, as certain bishops are world religious leaders they will have to dialogue and interact with other religious leaders, theres no escape from that. But they should refrain from common prayers, concelebrations and refrain from signing "common christological statements". which usually scandalize the faithful more than anything else.

[Mina Mounir]

I think the Orthodox churches dshould immediately withdraw from the WCC
I totally and entirely agree with u

[Mina Mounir]

do we consider the baptism of old calendarist groups is valid ? i.e. if one of them wanted to join our church , should we rebaptise him ? if no , should we give him chrismation ?

do we have the same opinion on the sacraments and validity of all the old calendarist groups of greece ( that is , do we see the florintines equal to cyprianites and ... etc. ?)


last question ,
I know a guy from my patriarchate , he had a problem and went to greece where he was ordained by the cyprianites and became an Archmendrite.
now , he is back and want to be back to the Patriarchate again ... what is his situation ? should he be received normally ? or what is the canon in that case ?


thanks for the help !

[Mina Mounir]

sorry , I want to add another three questions :
-is there a dialogue or something between the Old calendarist and Orthodox church in greece for reconciliation ( like ROCOR & MP)?
-is the Esfegmeno monastery considered as a new " schismatic " group ?
-could we consider the case of florinites is like the ROCOR ?
thanks and sorry

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

do we consider the baptism of old calendarist groups is valid ? i.e. if one of them wanted to join our church , should we rebaptise him ? if no , should we give him chrismation ?

do we have the same opinion on the sacraments and validity of all the old calendarist groups of greece ( that is , do we see the florintines equal to cyprianites and ... etc. ?)


last question ,
I know a guy from my patriarchate , he had a problem and went to greece where he was ordained by the cyprianites and became an Archmendrite.
now , he is back and want to be back to the Patriarchate again ... what is his situation ? should he be received normally ? or what is the canon in that case ?


thanks for the help !

Dear Mina,

This varies according to which group the clergy come from and which church they enter.

Some churches apply a considerable amount of economia in regards to Old Calendar groups while others are quite strict.

In other words there is no one practice about this.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Herman Blaydoe]

do we consider the baptism of old calendarist groups is valid ?

We don't do "valid". A better question might be do we believe their baptism requires correction/completion? (Answer: I don't think so)


i.e. if one of them wanted to join our church , should we rebaptise him ? if no , should we give him chrismation ?

We don't do "rebaptism" either. We either baptize or complete a previous baptism through chrismation. (Answer: see above)


do we have the same opinion on the sacraments and validity of all the old calendarist groups of greece ( that is , do we see the florintines equal to cyprianites and ... etc. ?)

What is your opinion? If you don't tell me how can I know if we have the same opinion?


last question ,
I know a guy from my patriarchate , he had a problem and went to greece where he was ordained by the cyprianites and became an Archmendrite.
now , he is back and want to be back to the Patriarchate again ... what is his situation ? should he be received normally ? or what is the canon in that case ?

Answer: that is what we have bishops for. At any rate I am not aware of ANY Orthodox bishop who requires either baptism or chrismation for members of any Old Calendar group. I could be wrong, I don't get out much... These schismatic groups have had relations of one kind or another with several churches that are in communion with New Calendar churches. You would be hard pressed to show any Old Calendar Greek group that was "pure" in that respect. If a Matthewite or Cyprianite walked into my parish and went up to receive the Eucharist, he would probably be given it. The thing is that he might have a hard time of it when he goes back to his home parish and tells them what he did. Old Calendarist Greeks bounce in and out of relations with other churches all the time. They often accept priests from the New Calendar (the ordination requirements of some of the OC groups are so rigorous that is the only way they can get priests!).

I think the worst that your friend would face is the possibility of acknowledging that some of the extremist positions of the OC Greeks are not correct, and that he resolves to be obedient to his bishop, but that would be up to the bishop accepting him to decide. I seriously doubt he will need to be baptized or chrismated. He may need to make a confession of faith. Other than calling the rest of us heretics, these OC groups profess the Christ as we do as far as I know, they just need to lighten up a little.

Or so it seems to this bear of little brain.

Herman the Pooh

[Herman Blaydoe]

sorry , I want to add another three questions :
-is there a dialogue or something between the Old calendarist and Orthodox church in greece for reconciliation ( like ROCOR & MP)?

Depends on which OC group you are talking about and what time of day it is. They can't seem to "reconcile" with each other, much less with the mainstream churches.


-is the Esfegmeno monastery considered as a new " schismatic " group ?

No, they are considered a group of monks who are in disobedience. The monastery itself is still considered under the EP, that is why the disobedient monks are being asked to leave it.


-could we consider the case of florinites is like the ROCOR ?
thanks and sorry

I think the question is how do they view themselves? You might want to ask them.

Herman the Pooh

[Ryan]

From what I understand, the Florinites have a policy of "walling off"- they do not consider "world Orthodoxy" as graceless or heretical, but ailing and moving in a bad direction, so they are not in communion. I believe the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (under Agafangel, recently split from ROCOR) as well as the major Bulgarian and Romanian OC groups hold the same view, and are in communion with each other.

[Father David Moser]

do we consider the baptism of old calendarist groups is valid ? i.e. if one of them wanted to join our church , should we rebaptise him ? if no , should we give him chrismation ?

Ask your bishop - he's the only one who makes that determination



do we have the same opinion on the sacraments and validity of all the old calendarist groups of greece ( that is , do we see the florintines equal to cyprianites and ... etc. ?)

Ask your bishop - he's the only one who makes that determination


last question ,
I know a guy from my patriarchate , he had a problem and went to greece where he was ordained by the cyprianites and became an Archmendrite.
now , he is back and want to be back to the Patriarchate again ... what is his situation ? should he be received normally ? or what is the canon in that case ?

Ask your bishop - he's the only one who makes that determination


sorry , I want to add another three questions :
-is there a dialogue or something between the Old calendarist and Orthodox church in greece for reconciliation ( like ROCOR & MP)?

I don't know - but your bishop would know since's he's the one with whom they would need to dialogue. ROCOR is encouraging all the old calendrist goups with which they have communication to enter into such dialogue.


-is the Esfegmeno monastery considered as a new " schismatic " group ?
-could we consider the case of florinites is like the ROCOR ?

Ask your bishop - he's the only one who makes that determination

The point here, if you haven't figured it out yet, is that the bishop and/or his synod is the only competent authority to answer these questions. We can't and shouldn't be second guessing them. I know what my bishop would say, but then that only applies to this diocese - or at most to all of ROCOR. What the Patriarch of Alexandria, or your own local ruling bishop, might say is a whole different matter.

Fr David Moser

[Christophoros]

While I wouldn't argue with what Fr. David wrote, it should be pointed out that while your bishop is the arbitrator of these matters, simply because he (or his Synod) may have made a particular decision at a particular time, it should still be viewed for what it is: a pastoral matter subject to change. I am told by former members of the Free Serbian Church that the Serb Patriarchate synodally condemned them as schismatics, and rebaptized children and re-ordained clergy coming from the Free Serbs for many years. Yet, when the two reconciled, it was never an issue. And with the Old Calendarists, you can find examples of clergy and even bishops being received by the State Church in their orders, and laypeople being received as fully Orthodox (and vice versa as well). But when the Old Calendarist Metropolitan Paisios of Astoria, NY, was received by the Ecumenical Patriarchate, they chose to make an example out of him and re-ordained him from the diaconate on up. (And curiously, they never re-ordained the clergy that were ordained by him who were also received by the EP).

[Peter G.]

Hi Father, I was wondering how many groups of Old calendars are in Greece? The Bishop in a church in Montreal told my mom to go to confession and Chrismated again in order to receive Communion.

[Christopher Dombrowski]

is there a greek church called old calender orthodox church?
is it orthodox? does it have a relationship with orthodox communion?
thanks in advance
en IC XC
Mina Mounir

From what I can tell, there are two major ecclesiastical bodies from the Greek Orthodox tradition who insist on making use of the old calendar. These churches do appear to maintain the same doctrine as the standard EOC. However, they consider the Revised Julian Calendar to be heretical and thus refuse to Commune with New Calendarists and seemingly even those churches on the Old Calendar who are willing to Commune with the New Calendarists. They thus are not really part of the mainstream Eastern Orthodox Communion.

[Kosta]

If the church in question is not the matthewites or a splinter group originating from them, then they originate with the florinites, named after Bishop Chryostomos of Florina, one of the original bishops of the old calendar movement.
If it is a florinite group, then it must not be the "Synod in Resistance" under Met Cyprianos. There the most moderate and view "world orthodoxy' as having grace, they would most likely recieve you into their fold with a confession of faith. The other groups would probably want you to be rechrismated.

Regardless of what group they are, its simply ridiculous to rechrismate, since all florinite groups derive their apostolic succession from new calender "world orthodoxy". After the death of bishop Chrysostomos, the florinites were left with no bishops, They got some ROCOR bishops to ordain new bishops for them. At that time those rocor bishop had new calendar parishes bequeathed to them courtesy of Romania who no longer could care for their parishes of the diaspora. Secondly at that time ROCOR was in communion with so called "world Orthodoxy".

The Matthewite clergy derive their apostolic succession from single bishop ordinations which are forbidden by the canons. Bishop Matthew having no others to help ordain more bishops for his synod, singlehandedly consecrated more bishops. So being rechrismated by them makes no sense, since they have no apostolic succession to begin with, it would be a waste of time.

[Mina Mounir]

If the church in question is not the matthewites or a splinter group originating from them, then they originate with the florinites, named after Bishop Chryostomos of Florina, one of the original bishops of the old calendar movement.
If it is a florinite group, then it must not be the "Synod in Resistance" under Met Cyprianos. There the most moderate and view "world orthodoxy' as having grace, they would most likely recieve you into their fold with a confession of faith. The other groups would probably want you to be rechrismated.

Regardless of what group they are, its simply ridiculous to rechrismate, since all florinite groups derive their apostolic succession from new calender "world orthodoxy". After the death of bishop Chrysostomos, the florinites were left with no bishops, They got some ROCOR bishops to ordain new bishops for them. At that time those rocor bishop had new calendar parishes bequeathed to them courtesy of Romania who no longer could care for their parishes of the diaspora. Secondly at that time ROCOR was in communion with so called "world Orthodoxy".

The Matthewite clergy derive their apostolic succession from single bishop ordinations which are forbidden by the canons. Bishop Matthew having no others to help ordain more bishops for his synod, singlehandedly consecrated more bishops. So being rechrismated by them makes no sense, since they have no apostolic succession to begin with, it would be a waste of time.
this is pretty interesting analysis , Kosta.
thanks for this post.
Mina

[Peter G.]

If the church in question is not the matthewites or a splinter group originating from them, then they originate with the florinites, named after Bishop Chryostomos of Florina, one of the original bishops of the old calendar movement.
If it is a florinite group, then it must not be the "Synod in Resistance" under Met Cyprianos. There the most moderate and view "world orthodoxy' as having grace, they would most likely recieve you into their fold with a confession of faith. The other groups would probably want you to be rechrismated.

Regardless of what group they are, its simply ridiculous to rechrismate, since all florinite groups derive their apostolic succession from new calender "world orthodoxy". After the death of bishop Chrysostomos, the florinites were left with no bishops, They got some ROCOR bishops to ordain new bishops for them. At that time those rocor bishop had new calendar parishes bequeathed to them courtesy of Romania who no longer could care for their parishes of the diaspora. Secondly at that time ROCOR was in communion with so called "world Orthodoxy".

The Matthewite clergy derive their apostolic succession from single bishop ordinations which are forbidden by the canons. Bishop Matthew having no others to help ordain more bishops for his synod, singlehandedly consecrated more bishops. So being rechrismated by them makes no sense, since they have no apostolic succession to begin with, it would be a waste of time.

Good and educational post. What your stance on ecumenism?

[Kosta]

I'm completely against being members of the WCC. There bylaws and constitution makes it clear that this is not an organization which will convince anyone to accept orthodox doctrine. Whereas the WCC seeks to unite through christianity's "rich diversity", Orthodox seeks to unite in a common faith and sacramental life. The WCC understanding of the Church is also contrary to Orthodoxy, and this is the reason that even the roman catholic church rejects membership to it. I reject anything that comes out of this organization, including their attempt to change the date of Pascha. This organization is a waste of time at best, demonic at worse.

I reject christological "agreed upon" statements, There attempts at creating alternative definitions to appease all parties. This is why i give no weight to the chalcedonian/ non-chalcedonian talks with the orientals. Even the term "post-chalcedonian" gives me the creeps. Theres no need for alternative explanations we already have the christology of the 7 ecumenical councils.
These statements are poorly drawn up as seen by the Balamaand agreement, and in many cases the Orthodox participants arent even prepared, and in many instances dont even know what the Orthodox position is! Such talks should conclude with the results submitted to learned scholars of every local church to be analysed and scrutinized for their Orthodoxy.

And i believe joint prayer sessions should be refrained from, they give a wrong impression to both orthodox and non-orthodox. Other than, I dont see anything wrong with ecumenism.

[Peter G.]

I'm completely against being members of the WCC. There bylaws and constitution makes it clear that this is not an organization which will convince anyone to accept orthodox doctrine. Whereas the WCC seeks to unite through christianity's "rich diversity", Orthodox seeks to unite in a common faith and sacramental life. The WCC understanding of the Church is also contrary to Orthodoxy, and this is the reason that even the roman catholic church rejects membership to it. I reject anything that comes out of this organization, including their attempt to change the date of Pascha. This organization is a waste of time at best, demonic at worse.

I reject christological "agreed upon" statements, There attempts at creating alternative definitions to appease all parties. This is why i give no weight to the chalcedonian/ non-chalcedonian talks with the orientals. Even the term "post-chalcedonian" gives me the creeps. Theres no need for alternative explanations we already have the christology of the 7 ecumenical councils.
These statements are poorly drawn up as seen by the Balamaand agreement, and in many cases the Orthodox participants arent even prepared, and in many instances dont even know what the Orthodox position is! Such talks should conclude with the results submitted to learned scholars of every local church to be analysed and scrutinized for their Orthodoxy.

And i believe joint prayer sessions should be refrained from, they give a wrong impression to both orthodox and non-orthodox. Other than, I dont see anything wrong with ecumenism.
I totally agree with you on everything you've said. The only thing is what to follow if that ever happens. I'm sure people who are against this wouldn't know where to go, some would go with Old Calendrists, some with others, it seems it would be chaotic for everyone against ecumenism

[Kosta]

Yes it would, For example lets hypothetically say local churches begin to adopt the formula for calculating Pascha devised in Aleppo Syria under the WCC, i would imagine some will join the various old calendar churches, some will go along with the change and a third group will just retain the revised julian calendar, creating three factions and lots of confusion. Meanwhile nominal Orthodox will see this chaos as a sign to simply leave the church.

The important thing is for us laypeople not to remain silent or have our head buried in the sand. Same with right believing bishops, they should have our support and urge them not to capitulate.

[Peter G.]

Yes it would, For example lets hypothetically say local churches begin to adopt the formula for calculating Pascha devised in Aleppo Syria under the WCC, i would imagine some will join the various old calendar churches, some will go along with the change and a third group will just retain the revised julian calendar, creating three factions and lots of confusion. Meanwhile nominal Orthodox will see this chaos as a sign to simply leave the church.

The important thing is for us laypeople not to remain silent or have our head buried in the sand. Same with right believing bishops, they should have our support and urge them not to capitulate.
I go to the regular Archdioce but when I get a chance, I go to the monasteries of Geronda Ephraim. I believe whoever is under his jurisdiction is in good hands. Now I don't know what will happen with all of this but it seems to me everything is moving quick toward ecumenism. You mentioned to get involved, how? I would never leave the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church.

[Kosta]

I go to the regular Archdioce but when I get a chance, I go to the monasteries of Geronda Ephraim. I believe whoever is under his jurisdiction is in good hands. Now I don't know what will happen with all of this but it seems to me everything is moving quick toward ecumenism. You mentioned to get involved, how? I would never leave the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church.


Elder Ephraim's monasteries are under the GOA. Perhaps he came here for the very reason to combat the modernism plaguing the GOA, but im just speculating.

I once asked my cousin who attends church weekly and is involved in his parish whether he wants to get together someday to discuss ecumenism, and possiblr create a flyer to raise awareness about ecumenism. Put them on the car winsdhields at church. Now my cousin has been in church all his life and is college educated. He looked at me like i was crazy and asked "what is ecumenism'??? I told him about the WCC , and once again never heard of the organization. This is not just one example but the norm, i tried bringing the subject up with another who was very involved in her parish, again college educated and seemingly informed, yet she never even heard of the word "ecumenism"!!!

Most of the laity simply have never heard of ecumenism or the existence of the WCC, or modernism etc. The best way to get involved is not to be afraid to speak and inform people.
I know of old calendarist who believe the new calendar churches no longer practise triple immersion because they search youtube and find videos of older babies that can barely fit in the font and thus are not immersed completely, and to make matters worse the priest only fills up the font with a few inches of water. If you see this, write a polite letter to the priest that such things can be taken the wrong way and seem to be modernistic, if your the godparent insist that the font is full, etc.

The test is coming now, becase we celebrate the next 2 pascha's on the same date as the west. Ecumenism will be buzzing and renewed calls for a common celebration with the heterodox to be achieved will definately be heard.

[Jean-Serge]

According to Greek authorities approximately 10% of the Orthodox population are old calendarists (not in communion with the CANONICAL CHURCHES). Of those approximately 75 percent belong to the Synod under Chrysostomos II (Florinites). Another 20 percent belong either to the Cyprianites (Synod in resistance) or the Matthewites. Thus close to 95 percent of the old calendarists belong to these 3 groups.

The largest under Chrysostomos tend to consider the canonical churches graceless , but this position has varied thru her history and allows her members to hold the contrary opinion- that the canonical churches do indeed have grace.
The Cyprianites, the second largest group ,who are in communion with the old calendarists from Cyprus and Romania and i believe Bulgaria, and were one time in communion with ROCOR before they re-united with the MP, hold a moderate view and do believe the canonical churches have grace. The Matthewites are extremists and shouldnt be taken seriously.

Whatever other groups that may exist in Greece are either tiny compromising 2 or 3 parishes or defunct groups with possibly a bishop without a flock.

Thank you for the census. I think however that the number of Cyprianist is exaggerated, at least in Greece. I've had reports that Cyprianists are not so present in Greece. The Cyrianist are in communion with old calendarist from Romania, Bulgaria and ROCOR-Aganfangel.

Being myself under Chrysosotomus II, I've never heard it was allowed to think world orthodox churches had grace.

Matthewites, and Old Calendarists under Makarios of Athens for sure have more than 2-3 parishes.

But finally, it is very difficult to make such census and access statistics. I've been trying for years obtain accurate figures. It is almost impossible.

[Jean-Serge]

This is my own panorama of old calendar jurisdiction. I only talk about


In Greece

A-The florinite churches

Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece under Chrysostomus II, also known as Chrysosotomite. Probably the most numerous in Greece with 3 parishes in Western Europe and more in America. Actually, Esphigmenou monastery is under this jurisdiction that made hieromonks for them.

Ecclesiology : regards itself as the true church of Greece, regard as graceless world orthodox. World orthodox are received by chrismation is their baptism was correct, otherwise by baptism. Good relations it seems with the RTOC (Tikhonites). Recent dialogue with the Synod in Resistance failed.


Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece under Makarios of Athens

Parishes in Greece, France, England, Italy and Romania. Some sketes in Mount Athos seem quite close to this jurisdiction.

Ecclesiology, the same as the Chrysostomites. The same for the reception of world orthodox.


Synod in Resistance under Cyprian of Filii (currently in coma)

Not so numerous in Greece. Most of its member in Greece would be people leaving the State Church.

Ecclesiology : thinks there is still grace in world orthodoxy but that ecumenism makes it necessary to wall-off until an ecumenical council condens ecumenism and new calendar.

Parishes in Greece, USA, UK, Kenya, Congo (Former Zaire), Singapore, Italy

In communion with Romanian old calendarits, Bulgarian old calendarists and ROCOR-Agafangel

Others

Yous should find other jurisdiction like those inherited from the Auxentius synod.


B-The matthewite churches

Not very well known to me, I only know there are four.

Ecclesiology : each of them regards itself as the true church of Greece, regards as graceless world orthodoxy. World orthodox are received by chrismation is their baptism was correct, otherwise by baptism.

Matthewites and most florinites (excepted cyprianists) share the same vision about world orthodoxy. The question still raised is that each one denies the legitimacy of the other's episcopate


In Romania


A- Romanian old calendarists
In communion with the cyprianists. Their ecclesiology is not so clear. Do they believe there is grace in world orthodoxy? I could not find any statement about this. They may disagree with cyprianist on this point.

B- Other old calendarists

There is a small old calendarist jurisdiction that was created by a Romanian Bishop called Leu. It is now in communion with a Matthewite jurisdiction under Kirikos


In Bulgaria

Bulgarian old calendarist

In communion with cyprianists, Romanian old calendarists and ROCOR-Agafangel. They have only one bishop, named Photios


I hope this helps.

[Mina Mounir]

thanks Jean-serge for this informative detailed description,
I think it is quite complicated map for the old calendarists. the question I was always wondering :
are all these jurisdictions maintain an apostolic succession ? because I have been told - for example - about the florinites that they uncanonically ordained themselves bishops... is it the same for the rest of groups?
also,
does the " canonical or World" Orthodoxy have the same relationship with all these groups ? does the official church of greece recognize the validity of sacraments for these groups or for some of them and the orthers no ?


the last question ( sorry :D ) is there a dialogue between any of these groups and the official church ?
thanks!

[Kusanagi]

Some info on the Mathewite Church

http://www.orthodoxrevival.com/

From what I understand that the Canonical or World Churches does not recognise them, though the Old Calendarists in Greece have tried establishing talks in order to have full coummunion with each other but that broke down. I think it broke the most when some agreed that the new calendar church has grace and the other half disagreed and broke off and was led by Bishop Mathew who it seems is canonised by them as shown on the icon on the site.

The Romanian new calendarists have tried having talks with the old calendarists i believe but I am not sure what is the outcome of this. But i do know some Romanians the theologians and some monastics regret that they adopted the new calendar.

ROCOR did have full communion with the Old Calendarist Greeks (the SIR I believe) until they joined with the MP and stopped communicating.

Some info here http://www.synodinresistance.org/index-en.html

But i do find them to have funnier names as they form new groups!:) Like children playing games.

[Father David Moser]

ROCOR did have full communion with the Old Calendarist Greeks (the SIR I believe) until they joined with the MP and stopped communicating.

At one time, ROCOR did establish communal relations with the Cyprianite synod (Oropos and Fili) due to their moderate stand that the N.C. Church did have grace. However, during the period that ROCOR was in talks with the MP about reconciliation, the Cyprianite Synod sent what amounted to an ultimatum to our Synod demanding that we have nothing to do with the MP. When our Bishops chose to ignore that letter and not dignify it with a response, the Cyprianites themselves broke off communal relations with ROCOR. ROCOR took no action in that respect, it all came from the Cyprianite Synod (which included the O.C. Romanians and Bulgarians.) The action of the Cyprianites seemed rather odd, since the MP is, in fact, Old Calendar.

Fr David Moser

[Kris]

Being myself under Chrysosotomus II, I've never heard it was allowed to think world orthodox churches had grace.


An Old Calendar priest who posts on another Orthodox discussion forum pointed out that only the Church of Greece was declared to be without grace, not all the New Calendar churches (and those who commune with them), a declaration provoked by the Church of Greece first declaring the Old Calendarists to be without grace.

He didn't say that the New Calendar churches did have grace, just that no clear-cut statement has been made on the matter.

[Michael Astley]

Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece under Chrysostomus II[/B], also known as Chrysosotomite. Probably the most numerous in Greece with 3 parishes in Western Europe and more in America. Actually, Esphigmenou monastery is under this jurisdiction that made hieromonks for them.

I'm not sure whether you were including the UK among the Western European communities, Mr Jean-Serge. However, the Chrysostomites do have two parishes in the UK (Guildford and Droylsden), and, I think a monastic hermitage in Hastings. The priest and parishioners of the Droylsden parish are all former members of my ROCOR parish. The hieromonk who serves the Guildford parish lived at a monastic hermitage in Hastings, which my godfather helped to decorate as an Orthodox place of worship, but I seem to recall hearing that this has now been quietly laid aside.

The Cyprianites have two monasteries and the St Boniface mission on the Isle of Wight.

[Jean-Serge]

Hello,


Thank you for your precision Michael. Indeed, I include UK in Western Union and forgot the Hastings hermitage. You're entirely right.

Regarding the question of the grace, 3 encyclics (1935, 1950 and 1974) by the Florinites synod condemn the New Calendar church and declares it to be graceless. But if suc h church is graceless in Greece, he must be graceless in Romania, Constantinople etc. Morevoer, the question of grace can no longer be separated from the question of ecumenism. Old calendarism regard ecumenism as a heresy and consequently the ecumenism as having no grace. This is and old interview of Chrysostomus II : here
(http://www.ecclesiagoc.gr/pegeng/h013/pegint.dll?faq0011.peg%7C1)

The Synod in Resistance broke with ROCOR no due to the question of the old calendar, but due to the question of ecumenism. The synod in resistance thinks you cannot have communion with ecumenists and new calendarists. ROCOR was entering in communion with both, so the communion with the Synod in Resistance stopped.

Regarding apostolical succession, the first thing to say is that there is nor apostolical succession outside the church, i.e outside the faith. FOr instance, catholics do not have apostolical succession even if the can trace back consecrations to the apostles (see Canon of Saint Basil).

In the case of the Florinites, the bishop made in the 50s were chritonised secretely by two ROCOR bishop because Metropolitan Anastassy did not want to put his hands in the Greek affairs. In 1969, the whole synod of ROCOR, excepted Anthony of Geneva (who disliked old calendarist) signed a declaration saying it recognised these consecrations.

The Matthewites perfomed single-handed consecration saying that in a period of persecution this was allowed (it is indeed written in the Apostolical constitution; the apostolical constitution do not formally belong to our canons because they were altered by arians, but at the same time, they contain original true elements...)

Negociations with the "official" churches : well, the answer is simple; they all failed. There were in Greece between the Chrysostomite church and the State church. I see no reconciliation coming because the opinion are now too dissenting particularly about ecumenism (that is as divisive as calendar; and even more).

This is an extract from the interview :



The churches of "World Orthodoxy" have now withdrawn their participation in the Ecumenical movement. Several official churches have already left the World Council of Churches. The Moscow Partiarchate is also preparing for this step. Is it accurate to say that World Orthodoxy is slowly breaking with its heretical faith and is slowly self-purifying?


Your question is hypothetical. We have no indications to be so optimistic. I wish they would all return to True Orthodoxy. It would be our great joy. In relation to the process of self-purifying about which you speak, our opinion is that if the official Orthodox Churches returned to True Orthodoxy their canonical rehabilitation should be done via a Pan-Orthodox Synod which would vindicate the confessors of the faith and in which the entire body (if possible) of Orthodox Bishops upholding our traditions would participate, also with the participation of repentant bishops, who in the presence of the former would declare their repentance just like the Iconoclasts at the 7th Ecumenical Synod.

So world orthodoxy should renounce ecumenism (joint prayers, recognition of heterodox mysteries and so on)... Can you imagine Bartholomew doing this?

[Kosta]

Being myself under Chrysosotomus II, I've never heard it was allowed to think world orthodox churches had grace.
.

This was the official teaching of Bishop Petros of Astoria head of the Greek old calendarists of America under Chrysostomos 2. Bishop Petros never signed the 1974 declaration and openly taught that the new calendarists indeed have grace. This is also taught by those clergy at St Markella who were ordained by Bishop Petros to this day.
Of course this was also the belief of Met Cyprian. He was deposed by the GOC under the innovative bishop Auxentios not for believing that new calendarists had grace but for openly communing them.

The biggest clincher that at one time ALL of the GOC Florinites did indeed believe the new calendarists had grace is the fact that the GOC derives their apostolic succession from new calendar bishops. In 1960 the GOC being found without bishops had Akakios Pappas ordained for them as first-heirarch of the greek old calendar church by the new calendarist Romanian Bishop Ionescu in the new calendar romanian cathedral of Chicago. He was assisted in ordaining Akakios by the Rocor archbishop Seraphim of Chicago who was in communion with the romanian new calendar bishop. (At that time ROCOR was in communion with world orthodoxy). The florinites refused to join with the matthewites and prefered to come to America and have a new bishop ordained for them by new calendarists. It wasnt until Auxentios became head of the florinites that the ecclesiology began to change, a very poor and possibly immoral leader, Auxentios is the cause of most of the schisms that the GOC has endured in the past 35 years.

Secondly in the mid-1970's before anyone ever severed ties with the ROCOR, when ROCOR was still in close communion with Serbia and the JP (and hadnt even suspended ties with other official churches), both the matthewites and the florinites came into a short communion with ROCOR. Thus all of Orthodoxy was united in some irregular, but real way.

All this infighting is just politics, and any bishop and even synod is more than willing to change its position in a second if it will benefit them.

[Jean-Serge]

You're wrong in the following points :

1° In 1979 (I think), took place what is called the coup. The synod of Auxentius split when a so called Kallinikos organised secret chironoties. Among them, was Cyprian of Filii. That's why he was deposed by the Auxentian synod. Accordind to the last news, the Cyprianist synod now refuses to commune new calendarists.

2° It is more exactly Seraphim of Chicago who was assisted by the Romanian new calendarist bishop and not the opposite. But we may think that this was regularised by the 1969 ROCOR declaration. I was also told that a prayer was read on the Romanian bishop to regularise his new calendarism. Not sur eabout this.

3° The GOC ecclesiology about the lack of grace comes from the 1935 encyclic. There was indeed much flip flop after 1935 but the position was reasserted in 1950 (before Auxentius) and after that in 1974

4° Now the HOTCA (Saint Markella) also shares the "no grace" ecclesiology.

[Andreas Moran]

There's an old calendarist group in West Yorkshire, the Old Genuine Tykite Synod in Resistance based on Ilkley Moor. They declare that only they have grace because they don't wear hats.

[Mina Mounir]

There's an old calendarist group in West Yorkshire, the Old Genuine Tykite Synod in Resistance based on Ilkley Moor. They declare that only they have grace because they don't wear hats.
this is really WOW

[Ryan]

There's an old calendarist group in West Yorkshire, the Old Genuine Tykite Synod in Resistance based on Ilkley Moor. They declare that only they have grace because they don't wear hats.

I'm pretty sure he's joking. Of course, it's hard to tell with some of these groups.

[Andreas Moran]

Special litany of the OGTSiR:

Wheear 'ast ta bin sin' ah saw thee, ah saw thee?
On Ilkla Mooar baht 'at
Wheear 'ast ta bin sin' ah saw thee, ah saw thee?
Wheear 'ast ta bin sin' ah saw thee?
On Ilkla Mooar baht 'at
On Ilkla Mooar baht 'at
On Ilkla Mooar baht 'at
Tha's been a cooartin' Mary Jane
Tha's bahn' to catch thy deeath o` cowd
Then we shall ha' to bury thee
Then t'worms'll come an` eyt thee up
Then t'ducks'll come an` eyt up t'worms
Then we shall go an` eyt up t'ducks
Then we shall all ha' etten thee
That's wheear we get us ooan back.

[Kosta]

You're wrong in the following points :

1° In 1979 (I think), took place what is called the coup. The synod of Auxentius split when a so called Kallinikos organised secret chironoties. Among them, was Cyprian of Filii. That's why he was deposed by the Auxentian synod. Accordind to the last news, the Cyprianist synod now refuses to commune new calendarists.

2° It is more exactly Seraphim of Chicago who was assisted by the Romanian new calendarist bishop and not the opposite. But we may think that this was regularised by the 1969 ROCOR declaration. I was also told that a prayer was read on the Romanian bishop to regularise his new calendarism. Not sur eabout this.

3° The GOC ecclesiology about the lack of grace comes from the 1935 encyclic. There was indeed much flip flop after 1935 but the position was reasserted in 1950 (before Auxentius) and after that in 1974

4° Now the HOTCA (Saint Markella) also shares the "no grace" ecclesiology.

Who assisted who in Chicago maybe a point of debate, but considering it took place in the romanian new calendar church by 2 bishops of "world orthodoxy" demonstrates that the current ecclesiology of the florinites was an Auxentite innovation.

That new calendarism lacks grace is indeed from a 1935 encyclical delivered by bishop Chrysostomos1 who recanted in 1937. But it does NOT come from the official 1935 declaration which the GOCconsiders to be their confession of faith. The official 1935 declaration (can be found on GOC website) announced the official creation of an old calendar synod. That they have taken up the leadership of that portion which remains true to the church calendar. It did indeed claim that the state church has been cut off from the catholic body of Orthodoxy and have become schismatic, but later on conceded that they sever communion only as long as the state church retains the new calendar. Theres also a portion of text of the 1935 confession which the GOC website manages to censor, it is the following:.
"by their unilateral anticanonical and unthinking introduction of the Gregorian calendar cut themselves off completely from the trunk of Orthodoxy and have declared themselves to be in essence schismatics IN RELATION TO THE ORTHODOX CHURCHES WHICH STAND ON THE FOUNDATION OF THE 7 ECUMENICAL COUNCILS AND THE ORTHODOX LAWS AND TRADITIONS, THE CHURCHES OF JERUSALEM, ANTIOCH, SERBIA, POLAND THE HOLY MOUNTAIN AND THE GOD-TRODDEN SINAI." The capitalized portion of the quote tends to be suppressed by the florinites and the matthewite never display the contents of the 1935 declaration but pay much "lip service" to it.
That the "no grace" stance was reasserted in 1950 is the myth of the modern day GOC. True Chrysostomos 1 did an about face in1950 but not in practise. He never sought to heal the division with the matthewites, upon his death the florinites never merged with the matthewites and ordained new bishops for themselves amongst ROCOR who concelebrated with the new calendarist greeks all through the 1960's! The florinites knew that Chrysostomos reversal (after several encyclicals and newspaper interviews claiming the new calendar had grace) was simply political in nature to make nice with the infighting at a time when persecuton was on the increase.

Once again bishop Petros was one of the original bishops of the restored florinite synod and he always openly taught that new calendarists had grace. Bishop Petros originally an Athonite monk before coming to America and an old calendarist priest since th early 1940's knows what the ecclesiology of the florinites pre and post 1950originally was.

The SiR refrains from communing new calendarists and have taken a much more rigid stance in recent years. But is this what it seems?
When the SiR had dialogues with the GOC concerning this matter, the GOC publicly commented that an "agreement was made by the SiR not to offer the mysteries to new calendarists". In reality the GOC AND SiR agreed to the same ongoing practise. And that practise is not what the hardliners imagine it to be.
The GOC did not find objectionable to the SiR practise of, "By synodal resolution we announce in our churches before Holy Communion that aside from general preparation, only those that confess to Spiritual Fathers belonging to our jurisdiction and more broadly, to the old calendar movement, are permitted to commune." (from the official document of GOC &SiR dialogue)

Now why should the GOC object to this? This is a rampant practise at St Markella, done all the time (yes even now). Its common for new calendarists to confess to monks who maybe old calendarist. And the Sir-GOC dialogues have confirmed this.

[Andreas Moran]

'With grace, without grace'? Who is anyone to tell God where He may and may not grant grace?

[Eric Peterson]

Well, indeed, if the New Calendar Churches do not have grace, what about the saints of those churches? It seems a tawdry and ridiculous argument when put up against Elders Porphyrios, Iakovos, Cleopa, Sophrony, etc.

[Victor V.]

Well, indeed, if the New Calendar Churches do not have grace, what about the saints of those churches? It seems a tawdry and ridiculous argument when put up against Elders Porphyrios, Iakovos, Cleopa, Sophrony, etc.
Indeed
Look at this:
http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fi%C5%9Fier:Ilie_L%C4%83c%C4%83tu%C5%9Fu2.jpg

http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fi%C5%9Fier:Ilie_L%C4%83c%C4%83tu%C5%9Fu1.jpg

http://www.hotnews.ro/zoom.html?desc=&imgUrl=http://arhivamedia.hotnews.ro/images/articole/imgzoom_81043.jpg

He is Ilie Lacatusu, a Romanian, Orthodox, saint, priest, who celebrated ALL his life by the New Calendar. He was a member of the Romanian Orthodox church. So, it is grace in the new calendar churches.
He died in 1983 and the pictures are from 1998. And now, in 2009, his body is unchange.

[Mina Mounir]

I think that if we considered a relatively trivial issue like calendar as a criterion for the existence of grace or not is a problem in understanding not Orthodoxy but Christianity itself ... I think it is a religionizing process of christianity , giving it a " Shari'a " , a new Law.
I think the core of salvation in christianity is beyond rituals and " taxis " ...
I don't know

[Christophoros]

I think that if we considered a relatively trivial issue like calendar as a criterion for the existence of grace or not is a problem in understanding not Orthodoxy but Christianity itself ... I think it is a religionizing process of christianity , giving it a " Shari'a " , a new Law.
I think the core of salvation in christianity is beyond rituals and " taxis " ...
I don't know

I absolutely agree that the calendar issue, per se, should not be viewed as the determining factor as to whether or not a particular local church possesses sacramental grace. However, when you look at statements like the recent "Confession Against Ecumenism" (as well as the conclusions of the Inter-Orthodox Theological Conference on Ecumenism in 2004 at the University of Thessaloniki), you see increasing recognition - by ruling Greek metropolitans, no less - of the 1920 encyclical of Constantinople as the beginning of manifestly heretical ecumenism, adherence to which "essentially places [you] outside the Church." Now, the calendar issue is not specifically addressed in these contemporary statements (due to its continued divisive nature in Greece, I imagine), but since a uniform calendar for the concelebration of major feasts with non-Orthodox was the first change proposed in the 1920 encyclical to bring about the propagation of (heretical) ecumenical ecclesiology, it is hard to argue that the calendar does not play a role (in a minor way) in the expansion of non-Orthodox ecclesiological and soteriological concepts in the Church.

So, perhaps, the calendar issue shouldn't be viewed as trivial, given the original purpose for the change.

[Andreas Moran]

I agree with Christophoros. Thirteen days does not determine Orthodoxy or the location of grace. But the adoption of the new calendar was wrong, ought to be reversed, and should not be a factor in compromising Orthodoxy in the interests of improper ecumenism.

[Olga]

But have there been any deviations from Orthodox doctrine or practice in those churches which have adopted the new calendar? Last time I checked, the giving of Holy Communion to those not of an Orthodox baptism is still forbidden, liturgical concelebration of Orthodox clergy with non-Orthodox clergy is still forbidden, the Paschalion remains the same, there is complete communion between canonical old-calendar and canonical new-calendar churches, as evidenced by the names of the hierearchs on their respective diptychs, etc etc.

[Christophoros]

But have there been any deviations from Orthodox doctrine or practice in those churches which have adopted the new calendar? Last time I checked, the giving of Holy Communion to those not of an Orthodox baptism is still forbidden, liturgical concelebration of Orthodox clergy with non-Orthodox clergy is still forbidden, the Paschalion remains the same, there is complete communion between canonical old-calendar and canonical new-calendar churches, as evidenced by the names of the hierearchs on their respective diptychs, etc etc.

I would say yes, there have been, at times, deviations from Orthodox doctrine. And some members of the Holy Synod in Greece apparently agree:

This pan-heresy has been accepted by many Orthodox patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, clergymen, monks and laity. They teach it “bareheadedly”; they apply it and impose it in practice, communing with heretics in every possible manner - with common prayers, with exchanges of visits, with poemantic collaborations - thus essentially placing themselves outside the Church. Our stance, per the Conciliar canonical decisions and per the example of the Saints, is obvious. Each one must now undertake his own responsibilities. (Point 8 in the "Confession of Faith Against Ecumenism")

This statement was signed by 6 Greek metropolitans and hundreds of clergy. And several bishops - including the renowned Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos - and many clergy signed the following statement in 2004:

That it be made manifest to church leaders everywhere that, in the event that they continue to participate in, and lend support to, the pan-heresy of Ecumenism—both inter-Christian and inter-religious—the obligatory salvific, canonical and patristic course for the faithful, clergy and laity, is excommunication: in other words, ceasing to commemorate bishops, who are co-responsible for, and co-communicants with, heresy and delusion. This is not a recourse to schism but rather to a God-pleasing confession, just as the ancient Fathers, and bishop-confessors in our own day have done, such as the esteemed and respected former Metropolitan of Florina, Augustinos, and the Fathers of the Holy Mountain (Athos). (Conclusions of the Inter-Orthodox Theological Conference on Ecumenism)

So, clearly, there is substance to the accusations of heresy and deviation from Orthodox dogma.

In Christ,
Chris

[Olga]

This pan-heresy has been accepted by many Orthodox patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, clergymen, monks and laity. They teach it “bareheadedly”; they apply it and impose it in practice, communing with heretics in every possible manner - with common prayers, with exchanges of visits, with poemantic collaborations - thus essentially placing themselves outside the Church. Our stance, per the Conciliar canonical decisions and per the example of the Saints, is obvious. Each one must now undertake his own responsibilities. (Point 8 in the "Confession of Faith Against Ecumenism")

Does anyone know which of the Orthodox patriarchs, archbishops and bishops have accepted this "pan-heresy", who have preached it in their churches, and who have imposed it in church praxis, such as allowing Holy Communion to non-Orthodox, or allowing Orthodox to commune in non-Orthodox churches, which is what this statement implies? These are allegations of the most grave nature, and should not be made lightly.

[Mina Mounir]

I don't think that ecumenism is the problem. I'm afraid the old calendarist infinite number of sects make use of " ecumenism " to justify their attutude.
ecumenism is like television , u can use it to put good channels or bad channels. the orthodox church is obliged to enter ecumenical dialogues because it is her duty towards christendom. to pray with a catholic in a conference is not a " heresy " since heresy is today used so commonly without understanding its meaning ( i made a topic here about the distinction between schism and heresy and fr. Mathew Steenberg wrote a very well detailed post based on patristic heritage).
ecumenism is not having communion with non-orthodox , this is not true at all. such behave done by certain individuals (like a bishop in romania for example ) cannot be a reason for stopping all the ecumenical dialogues and considering the whole christendom are a "heretic and infidel " groups !
I would agree that there are mistakes and even unaccepted results of some dialogues (like the one with monophysites .. and I thank God it was stopped and being reconsidered again .. it was not even an offivial dialogue) ... but this doesn't mean we should close the door. and I know that old calendarists know what I mean very well.
I had a long conversation with a florinite bishop in saint Markella cathedral in USA a one of his monks who made a conference against ecumenism ... and I think they didn't find an answer, and even the monk changed his idea of gracelessness.

nothing happenned to justify all these schisms ... and ecumenism was not the problem ( or atleast was not the problem all the time). it was just a means to bless their movement and give their ecclesiology a meaningful status. if I have a problem in my church , I don't leave it and make another one ! but I fight for it against what I think is bad for her.
I heard from a friend that there are 14 bishops who claim to be the archbishops of Athens ! each one claims he has the apostolic succession and against the other 13 ecumenists ! the Mathewittes see the florinites in that way and vice versa !!!! are the florinites ecumenists !? it's a fight for crowns.

I'm sorry to say this.
and thanks

[Kosta]

Does anyone know which of the Orthodox patriarchs, archbishops and bishops have accepted this "pan-heresy", who have preached it in their churches, and who have imposed it in church praxis, such as allowing Holy Communion to non-Orthodox, or allowing Orthodox to commune in non-Orthodox churches, which is what this statement implies? These are allegations of the most grave nature, and should not be made lightly.

A few patriarchs would undoubtedly be Patriarch Meletios (of sorry memory), and Patriarch Athenagoras of Conbstantinople. The late Patriarch Parthenios of Alexandria who said Orthodoxy should recognize Muhammed as a prophet. I believe the current EP falls under the above statement as well.

As far as communing its done all the time with the orientals, Antioch even has some sort of agreement in place with them.
Personally i would like a future council to anathemize Meletios and i think there a good chance that it will happen.

[Michael Astley]

Thank you for the clarification, Jean-Serge.


Does anyone know which of the Orthodox patriarchs, archbishops and bishops have accepted this "pan-heresy", who have preached it in their churches, and who have imposed it in church praxis, such as allowing Holy Communion to non-Orthodox, or allowing Orthodox to commune in non-Orthodox churches, which is what this statement implies? These are allegations of the most grave nature, and should not be made lightly.

Oh, it does happen, Olga - sadly. The Antiochian church communicates non-Chalcedonians. That I have seen with my own eyes and, when I asked the priest about it, he said that it was in obedience to his bishop. An Antiochian priest also responded to the question about Catholics with this:


Roman Catholics may receive Communion from us (and vice versa):-

(1) If their own church is not accessible ... Orthodox in rural Italy or Roman Catholics in Archangel for example.
(2) Spouses in "mixed" marriages.
(3) In Extremis

Now reposed Metropolitan Gabriel of Western and Central Europe was quite adamant in support of this practice.

I was shocked by this but had no reason to doubt the honesty of this priest. This was in 2006 and I don't know whether anything has changed since then but I think it overturns the nature of the Eucharist and a proper ecclesiology, not to mention actively encourages the reception of Communion by those who do not discern the Body - who are separate from the Body of Christ, the Church. It implies communion where there is no communion and I struggle to accept how this can be Orthodox practice.

Likewise, at least on the local level, the Antiochian church seems to permit its people to communicate in non-Orthodox churches in certain circumstances, as is stated in the British Deanery's "Pastoral Guide to the Holy Mysteries", some excerpts of which may be read at the bottom of this (http://www.hocna.net/Thyateira%20-website.pdf) PDF.

Of the Thyateira Confession (excerpts of which are also to be found in that PDF), I think that speaks for itself. Among other things, it speaks of our common Baptism with all manner of non-Orthodox confessions, which seems to me to be not in keeping with the patristic mind of the Church. Indeed, St Cyprian of Carthage refers to such "baptisms" as a "defiling deluge of pagan water". Yes, we can extend economy and receive by chrismation where there is pastoral necesity but I think that doing so as standard practice carries the danger of creating the false impression that we accept baptism outside the Church, which is dangerous to our people and extremely unfair and potentially dishonest to those from heterodox confessions who may be genuinely seeking Orthodoxy. It undermines a proper ecclesiology.

I don't know whether any church has actually formally adopted and implemented this but there is this (http://orthodoxwiki.org/Balamand_Statement) very worrying statement. The Church of Russia's more recent statement (http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/7/5/1.aspx) seems to preclude many of the positions stated in the Balamand statement, which is encouraging, but I do not know of the other churches.

What I'm saying is that I cannot condemn the Old Calendarists. I think that the name is unfortunate because it gives the impression that their concerns are merely over a matter of 13 days, and that is how they are often dismissed but the truth is that those 13 days were originally part of a number of proposals that embrace the same sort of mindset as the actions and documents above. While most New Calendar Orthodox today may no longer adhere to those ideas, and indeed may be horrified to learn of the origins of this calendar (I have many New Calendar friends who are fervently Orthodox and who would have no time for such ecumenist ideas), the fact remains that there are many who still do advocate them and I have a great deal of sympathy for those who feel that they cannot stay in communion with them.

The reasons that I could not become an Old Calendarist are that I do not think that the actions of some people within New Calendar churches necessarily renders those churches heretical. I think that our situation today is different from the mindset of the 1920s when these problems were introduced, and that we, who are the heirs and have inherited the resultant mess, now need to work together to fix it. I also firmly believe in the nature of the Church as a communion and that I would be separating myself from the communion of the Church if I were to become an Old Calendarist. While I agree with the ecclesiology that states that this communion must be one of true faith and love, and that, as stated by the Council of Ephesus which dealt with those deposed by Nestorius, clergy must remove themselves from bishops who teach or practice heresy, and seek the oversight of an Orthodox bishop, I also believe that problems do arise and are not resolved immediately. The heretical teaching of the double-procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, codified in the filioque, was taught in various parts of the west for 450 years before communion was finally severed. I think that we, in our day, should be similarly measured with the problem of ecumenism, and not hastily withdraw after a mere few decades.

There are real problems that need to be addressed but only through fervent prayer and faithfulness to Christ will they be overcome.

May God help us.

In Christ,
Michael

[Olga]

Excellent post, Mina!

[Andreas Moran]

There are real problems that need to be addressed but only through fervent prayer and faithfulness to Christ will they be overcome.

This is, of course, true, but the laity are also guardians of the deposit, of the faith.


May God help us.

He will, but I suspect He expects us to do our bit.

To what Michael has posted we can add the interview Metropolitan Kallistos gave after the last Lambeth conference, and commemoration of non-Orthodox in the proskomodie. Secularism, compromise, and modernity are present in the Church in the west, and it is incumbent upon the laity to be vigilant and speak out against these things.

[Christophoros]

Does anyone know which of the Orthodox patriarchs, archbishops and bishops have accepted this "pan-heresy", who have preached it in their churches, and who have imposed it in church praxis, such as allowing Holy Communion to non-Orthodox, or allowing Orthodox to commune in non-Orthodox churches, which is what this statement implies? These are allegations of the most grave nature, and should not be made lightly.

As others have pointed out, the Patriarchate of Antioch is on record as giving non-Orthodox the Sacred Mysteries. I have personally witnessed this. I have also witnessed the churching of a Uniate woman and newborn who happened to be attending an Orthodox parish because there wasn't a nearby Uniate parish. The blatantly heretical Balamand Statement indicts all of its signers, including Metropolitan Spyridon, who shortly after signing the document was named Archbishop of America. The Thyateira Confession, written by Archbishop Athenagoras in 1975 and "published with the blessing and authorisation of the Ecumenical Patriarchate" contains countless examples of heresy. There are many, many resources available on the internet if you are serious about learning specific examples.

In Christ,
Chris

[Michael Astley]

To what Michael has posted we can add the interview Metropolitan Kallistos gave after the last Lambeth conference, and commemoration of non-Orthodox in the proskomodie. Secularism, compromise, and modernity are present in the Church in the west, and it is incumbent upon the laity to be vigilant and speak out against these things.

Indeed it is, Andreas.

Do you have a link to this interview with Met. Kallistos? I have only been able to find excerpts online. Thank you.

May I offer our priests, and request my other sisters and brothers to pass to their priests, this petition for insertiojn into the Augmented Litany (of Fervent Supplication)?


Again we pray Thee, look down with mercy upon our Church, do Thou strengthen, establish and increase her, and evermore defend her against the wiles of her enemies. Do Thou cast down all dissension, schism, heresy, apostasy, and unbelief, and spread abroad in our land, and in every place, piety, devotion and zeal for Orthodoxy: illumine those in ignorance and error, and those enslaved unto sin, and soften the hardness of their hearts, that they may come to know Thee: help them and us to live holy and blameless lives, and root the saving Faith firmly and make it to bear fruit in our hearts; we fervently entreat Thee, hearken and have mercy.

In Christ,
Michael

[Christophoros]

Interview with Metropolitan Kallistos Ware:

http://www.prayerbookatlambeth.org/interviews/2008/7/28/an-interview-with-the-most-revd-kallistos-ware-archbishop-of.html

First question and answer:

GW - Bishop Kallistos, may I ask you how you understand the role of the ecumenical observers here at the Conference?

KW - Well, most obviously it signifies that we are conscious that we are all members of one Body in Christ. There are visible divisions separating Christians, but we know that on a deeper lever we do share, in a real sense, membership in one Body. Its expression is incomplete, imperfect, but it is nonetheless a genuine reality. Therefore, I can as an Orthodox, worship with my sisters and brothers who share with me belief in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and Saviour. But I would go further than that. I think of the words of St. Paul, in 1 Corinthians Chapter 12, when one member of the body suffers, all the other members suffer with it; when one member rejoices, all the other members rejoice. As fellow Christians we share one another’s joys and sorrows. For me, as an Orthodox, coming to the Lambeth Conference is an opportunity to do precisely that – to share in your joys and your sorrows.

[Father David Moser]

I would like to point out that discussions speculating who has grace and who does not, or detailing the sins of others (especially hierarchs) are far outside the bounds of this forum. Please return this discussion to the original question of "who are the old calendrists" without passing judgment either on them or on others (we can leave that to our Lord).

Fr David Moser

[Andreas Moran]

In relation to the litany set out in Michael's post, I see problems in the words 'dissension, schism, heresy, apostasy, and unbelief', and also in the reference to 'those enslaved unto sin'. First, 'Unbelief' is not the same as 'wrong belief' - or heterodoxy - in this context. I would not bracket together unbelievers with 'dissenters, schismatics, heretics, and apostates'. This conflates two separate matters. Secondly, we are all enslaved to sin but that is very different from being a dissenter, schismatic, etc., etc.

I respectfully accept Father David's point that we are deviating from the topic of the Old Calendarists, though I would say that whilst we are not to detail the sins of others (hierarchs or not), we cannot ignore manifest errors of our shepherds and pastors where such errors involve departure from Orthodox faith and praxis.

[Christophoros]

I would like to point out that discussions speculating who has grace and who does not, or detailing the sins of others (especially hierarchs) are far outside the bounds of this forum. Please return this discussion to the original question of "who are the old calendrists" without passing judgment either on them or on others (we can leave that to our Lord).

Fr David Moser

With all due respect Father, no one is pointing out the sins of hierarchs or any individuals, but public acts and statements contrary to the Orthodox faith. (Though I suppose the preaching of heresy is a sin.) Some of the greatest Fathers of the Church have testified that this is the duty of every Christian, when they are called to do so by circumstance. I have seen numerous quotes from many Fathers teaching we are to ignore all the personal sins and vices of our bishops and priests, but we must openly oppose heresy when it arises.

In Christ,
Chris

P.S. I have heard Bishop George of Mayfield has added his name to the Confession of Faith Against Ecumenism. May God grant him many years!

[Herman Blaydoe]

Indeed it is, Andreas.

Do you have a link to this interview with Met. Kallistos? I have only been able to find excerpts online. Thank you.

May I offer our priests, and request my other sisters and brothers to pass to their priests, this petition for insertiojn into the Augmented Litany (of Fervent Supplication)?

In Christ,
Michael

I would hope and pray that priests are not unilaterally adding to or taking from the Divine Liturgy without the full knowledge and direction of their bishop.

Herman

[Michael Astley]

Don't worry, Herman. The Augmented Litany is so called because it contains a rubric inviting the deacon/priest to add petitions for various needs. Most of these are adapted from various molebens and are printed in an appendix at the back of the priest's sluzhebnik. We had a thread about them a while back, and I think it may have been Father Raphael who mentioned that there are actually many more in the Slavonic than are printed in the current English translations of the service books. I assume that this is one of them. My parish priest got it from the monastery where he was trained as a deacon.

That said, I do take Andreas's point and had not considered that distinction before.

In Christ,
Michael

[Michael Astley]

I think I've managed to find it (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=5288).

[Kusanagi]

Does anyone know which of the Orthodox patriarchs, archbishops and bishops have accepted this "pan-heresy", who have preached it in their churches, and who have imposed it in church praxis, such as allowing Holy Communion to non-Orthodox, or allowing Orthodox to commune in non-Orthodox churches, which is what this statement implies? These are allegations of the most grave nature, and should not be made lightly.

I talked to a Romanian lady before who was based in Western Romania next to Hungary, it seems to be common practice for them to go next door to take communion from the Catholics because they do not see anything wrong with this. I think this maybe down to ignorance rather than teaching of the Hierarchs. But i think it was Bishop Nicolae who then goes and take communion with the uniates and doesn't think there was anything wrong, i dont think he has been disciplined or anything like that yet. So this sets a bad example and confuses many people in that area of Romania. Fr Teofil of Sambata de Sus monastery says it is ok for the faithful to receive Communion from him still. So i think that has caused more confusion, dont think Patriarch Daniel has said a word about it and nor do i think he would.

Also on another note wasn't the Old Calendar originally 12 days different? I read somewhere that that was the case.
To add that the fruit of this excessiveness of these old calendarists is that I do not notice much pious or spiritual people with the exception when the new calendar was being adopted and the old calendarist held onto their tradition and probably as a result went deeper into the faith like with all previous persecutions. However since then they go over the top and i only notice pious people in the new calendars where there are claims there is no grace. I feel is because rather than being tied down to who has or hasnt have grace they mind their own business and peroformed their duties as Christians as faithfully as they can with God's help.

[Michael Astley]

Also on another note wasn't the Old Calendar originally 12 days different? I read somewhere that that was the case.

Possibly. The drift was 11 days when the Gregorian calendar was introduced in Britain in the middle of the 18th century, and it is now 13, so it must have been 12 at some point in the interim. I am not sure whether it drifted to 13 before or after the introduction of the Meletian calendar in the 1920s.

[Andreas Moran]

I talked to a Romanian lady before who was based in Western Romania next to Hungary, it seems to be common practice for them to go next door to take communion from the Catholics because they do not see anything wrong with this. I think this maybe down to ignorance rather than teaching of the Hierarchs. But i think it was Bishop Nicolae who then goes and take communion with the uniates and doesn't think there was anything wrong, i dont think he has been disciplined or anything like that yet. So this sets a bad example and confuses many people in that area of Romania. Fr Teofil of Sambata de Sus monastery says it is ok for the faithful to receive Communion from him still. So i think that has caused more confusion, dont think Patriarch Daniel has said a word about it and nor do i think he would.

Yes, it was Bishop Nicolae who took communion in a Uniate church. The then Metropolitan Kyrill of Smolensk (now Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia) required an explanation of this from the Romanian Church. Bishop Nicolae was called upon to repent which he did and his repentance was accepted by the Holy Synod of the Romanian Church. That seemed to conclude the matter.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Possibly. The drift was 11 days when the Gregorian calendar was introduced in Britain in the middle of the 18th century, and it is now 13, so it must have been 12 at some point in the interim. I am not sure whether it drifted to 13 before or after the introduction of the Meletian calendar in the 1920s.

When the Gregorian calendar was first instituted, the difference was 10 days. In the year 2100, the difference will be 14 days. Not sure how the Russians are going to feel when they are told that Christmas is no longer 7 January but is now 8 January. I fear a schism....

Herman the New Calendar Pooh

[Andreas Moran]

When the Gregorian calendar was first instituted, the difference was 10 days. In the year 2100, the difference will be 14 days. Not sure how the Russians are going to feel when they are told that Christmas is no longer 7 January but is now 8 January. I fear a schism....

Herman the New Calendar Pooh

It will be on 25 December.

[Herman Blaydoe]

It will be on 25 December.

You know that and I know that, but does Babba know that? THAT is my point. "Russian Christmas" to many I am acquainted with is 7 January (civil calendar) and when they are told it isn't anymore, they will say "My Babba celebrated on 7 January and I will celebrate on 7 January!", so THEY will celebrate on 24 December (old calendar) and God help the priest who tells them different.

[Andreas Moran]

I assume 'Babba' mean babushka. I'm sure the Russian Church will prepare for this eventuality - if the Second Coming doesn't occur before (which it might).

[Herman Blaydoe]

I assume 'Babba' mean babushka. I'm sure the Russian Church will prepare for this eventuality - if the Second Coming doesn't occur before (which it might).

Or if the Old Calendar Churches switch to the New before then. There is really no good reason why they can't...

Still haven't figured out why the civil calendar instituted by a pagan society is "better" than one reformed by a Christian, but I am admittedly a bear of very little brain.

Herman the Pooh

[Mina Mounir]

Or if the Old Calendar Churches switch to the New before then. There is really no good reason why they can't...

Still haven't figured out why the civil calendar instituted by a pagan society is "better" than one reformed by a Christian, but I am admittedly a bear of very little brain.

Herman the Pooh
thanks so much Herman , well I guess it is fanaticism the reason ... there's a nice quote says : man fears what he doesn't know.
as you see , no one from old calendarists can explain the reason for all these schisms inside them , uncountable groups , and each group claims it preserves the true apostolic faith and succession ... it is neither calendar nor ecumenism. the saint Markella bishop I was talking too told me this clearly: even the new calendar is correct , it is still presented by the Pope
so, he doesn't care about right or wrong , it is a problem with the pope only ... something personal I guess !
and I don't think it is a christian attitude anyway

[Kusanagi]

Just felt like adding this from what I found on the St Gregory Palamas web site, not sure if it has been posted before:

Two miracles proving that the calendar does not save but repentance does.
"Unpublished letters on the issue of calendar" by Archim. Philotheos Zervakos.

The monks of Loggovarda do not follow calendars, they follow Christ who said "Whoever wishes to follow Me let him deny himself, carry his cross and follow Me" (Mark 8:34). He did not say he should follow the lifeless calendar and he who believes in it and is baptized will be saved. The believer in Christ and in the Bible will be saved, not by the old calendar.

Many of the fanatical and zealous old calendarists are greatly deceived believing that without the calendar man cannot be saved. All the Saints, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs and the Sanctified were not saved and performed miracles based on the calendar but on faith.

The performed mysteries by the new calendarists are valid, because the calendar does not perform and sanctify them, but they are performed by the Holy Spirit that the new calendarists also invoke to sanctify them and man is saved by the true faith, of love and good works, not by calendars..... Worship which many old calendarists attribute to the old calendar has made them time worshippers, that lack true and sincere love towards God and neighbour, they lack love towards each other and even to those old calendarists, the impiety, the unfaithfulness, the bad polity, the ignoring of the Law of God, the divine commandments and holy traditions of most clerics and lay new calendarists, prolong the division, the schism, increase the passions, the hatred, the bad intentions, the sins, they harden the hearts of both, distance themselves from repentance and we approach, if we do not repent, perdition.

"If you do not repent" said the Lord, "you shall lose yourselves" (Luke 13:3).

All of us, we have become, with the exception of a few, a cunning generation, crooked and perverse; and to the perverse the Lord sends them to perverse ways. The cunning like all sinners He destroys and the Lord keeps all those that love Him. Men will not be judged nor condemned as much for the calendars as for their lack of love and good works. Let us love the Lord, let us keep His commandments and if as humans we commit a sin, let us repent that we may not be excluded from the Bridegroom Christ.

It is needful here to describe two miracles that demonstrate that the mysteries performed by the new calendarists are valid and that man does not live by the calendars but repentance saves him, through confession, faith, love, good works, God.

In the village of Parthenios there was a young man who was convinced by some old calendarists not to go to the Church, nor to go for confession or partake of the holy mysteries because he would be cursed since liturgy or the mysteries cannot be performed under the new calendar. All those who go to the Church are new calendarists, they confess, they commune but they are all cursed. The young man becoming scared distanced himself from the Church and from the holy Communion and to the unfortunate one happened what Saint Kyrill said of those who distance themselves from the Church and the holy mysteries, that they become enemies of God and friends of the devil. The compassionate God however did not leave him to perish because he was naively deceived by the old calendarists, so when he became sick and was approaching death, one day a crowd of demons entered his room and embracing him they told him, "We came to take you, you are ours". At the presence and sight of the vile demons the youth became frightened and loudly cried, "Help! Help! Send away these black ones that came to take me". Frightened the parents and the neighbours came and asked him what happened. He would however scream louder. "Throw out these black ones who came to take me away" The parents and those who run to him could not see anyone and tried to console him but he continued to tremble, to cry and to scream to throw them out.

Seeing that they could not help him at all, he tells his parents. "Bring me Father Philotheos to confess me" but because they told him he was away he told them "Bring me Father Manoli". They told him, "He is a new calendarist and you never went to the church because he was a new calendarist and you wouldn't even greet him, how then do you now seek him? "I was wrong, I was wrong; bring him that I may confess". They called him, the Father came and he confessed. When however the Priest came, the demons went outside and stood by the door. However, when the priest read the prayer of repentance, the black and uncomely demons left crying, while some beautiful youths, very good looking, embraced him and told him, "Because you confessed yourself clean, we came to help you".

The youth stopped crying and being scared, with cries of thanksgiving, with cheerful and joyful face, he invited his parents and neighbours to come and see the brightness and beauty of those young ones but being unworthy they could not see them. Three days later he told his parents, "Call Father Manoli tomorrow at 9:00am to come and commune me because the young ones who keep me company told me that they will take me with them. So it happened and he left happy and with good hope to the Jerusalem above.

At Syros there were two hieromonks who were spiritual fanatics and great zealots of the old calendar, who advised and preached the people, the Christians, not to go to the church, nor to partake of the holy mysteries. Instead of partaking of communion, they would say, it is preferable to fill a glass with wine and dipping a slice of bread in it to eat it. Also, about their babies, instead of new calendarist priests baptizing them, it would be preferable to have a swim in the sea or to fill a container with water and wash them. In fact someone much more fanatical used to say that the communion of the new calendarists, he would place on the floor and step on it, while mouthing a rude word.

They had between them such hatred, envy and maliciousness that they would do nothing else but go to the people, acquaintances and strangers alike and accuse one another, with horrible accusations and slander. There was such a great scandal in the town of Syros.

Some sensible and God fearing people begged me to intervene and pacify them. I tried to convince them as Christians and especially as hieromonks and spiritual people to repent, to discuss, to expel the malice and enmity that they may not die in enmity. But it proved impossible. One of them, after many examples and teachings from the Bible, I managed to convince him that they should forgive each other. The other one proved impossible, so I told him, "if you do not forgive him then do not perform the liturgy, for Christ says: "First make peace with your enemy and then offer your gift or sacrifice". He however told me: "I shall perform the liturgy ....". But instead of performing the liturgy few days later when I told him not to perform the liturgy, he took a knife and went to kill the nephew of the industrialist, for he believed that he stole his money. However, because the policeman locked him up for a few days and warned him not to disturb his nephew anymore otherwise he would punish him, he went, like another Judas took rope tied it to a rock and tried to drown himself. Luckily, at that moment a woman who saw him, called others who then untied him and saved him. But because of his mental state he was locked up in a mental asylum. When he was approaching death, the priest went to commune him but found him eating his waste! Thus he died uncommuned, he who was saying that he would place the communion of the new calendarists on the floor and step on it and plaster it with waste. When he was exhumed his body was incorrupt and black, it stunk foul, his mouth was open and his tongue hung outside his mouth. These were the achievements of fanatical old calendarists, who expelled love while holding tight to the old calendar not to lose it.

If I had to enumerate the deceits and heresies the old calendarists fell into after the introduction of the new ecclesiastic calendar (eortologion), time would not be enough. Short of re-baptism and re-Chrismation, some would not dare enter the churches of new calendar Christians, would not venerate the sacred icons and even while passing outside the churches would not bother to cross themselves, saying that these churches are Latinized and the icons are polluted. And when the bells chimed on the feast of a Saint, some old calendarists would say that it was a feast of Latin Saints. A certain old calendarist nun from a convent in Tinos, while passing by the open doors of the Church of Great Paraskevi and seeing the crucified Christ in the middle of the Church, turned her back to Christ. When another old calendarist nun questioned her why she was not ashamed, she answered with impudence and disrespect saying: "That Christ is not ours, He belongs to the Latin". Enough I do not wish to say any more, but just to add, "Father forgive them for they do not know what they do" (nor what they say).

This I write, so that you not be deceived and that you do not believe I say these to defend the new calendar. From the beginning I was, is and shall be against the thoughtless, anti-canonical and illegal introduction of the new calendar. I struggled, struggle and shall struggle to the end for the return of the old calendar, not because I consider that the calendar is what will save me. "I struggle for the solidarity, the unity and peace of the Church" without which both nation and Church will sink.....

Guard that you love God and always be close to Him.

With Pastoral love and wholehearted blessings,
Archimandrite Philotheos

[Andreas Moran]

Or if the Old Calendar Churches switch to the New before then. There is really no good reason why they can't...

Still haven't figured out why the civil calendar instituted by a pagan society is "better" than one reformed by a Christian, but I am admittedly a bear of very little brain.

Herman the Pooh

Still haven't figured out why the civil calendar instituted by a freemason is "better" than one followed by the Church for 2,000 years.

[Father David Moser]

Don't worry, Herman. The Augmented Litany is so called because it contains a rubric inviting the deacon/priest to add petitions for various needs.

I would however point out that one cannot just add any old petition to the litanies, rather the litanies that are added are already in use and approved by the Church. If it is something new or original, then it is best to submit the petition to the ruling bishop and leave it up to him to disseminate it to his clergy (should he decide to do so). Nothing in the Church should be done without the blessing of the bishop.

Fr David Moser

[Michael Astley]

I would however point out that one cannot just add any old petition to the litanies, rather the litanies that are added are already in use and approved by the Church. If it is something new or original, then it is best to submit the petition to the ruling bishop and leave it up to him to disseminate it to his clergy (should he decide to do so). Nothing in the Church should be done without the blessing of the bishop.

Fr David Moser

Quite right, Father.

I didn't think to make this explicit but had simply taken it for granted. Thank for you for clarifying.

In Christ,
Michael

[Victor V.]

I talked to a Romanian lady before who was based in Western Romania next to Hungary, it seems to be common practice for them to go next door to take communion from the Catholics because they do not see anything wrong with this. I think this maybe down to ignorance rather than teaching of the Hierarchs. But i think it was Bishop Nicolae who then goes and take communion with the uniates and doesn't think there was anything wrong, i dont think he has been disciplined or anything like that yet. So this sets a bad example and confuses many people in that area of Romania. Fr Teofil of Sambata de Sus monastery says it is ok for the faithful to receive Communion from him still. So i think that has caused more confusion, dont think Patriarch Daniel has said a word about it and nor do i think he would.

About the Romanians who took communion from the catholics in Western Romania, there is religious ignorance or cosiness, in some cases, and not a act permited by the church. And is not a common practice.

About +Nicolae, he was chided by the Holy Synod for that. Afterwards the Holy Synod prohibited any co-celebrations and eucharistic comunion with non-orthodoxs

About Fr Teofil of Sambata, I never heard to say such a think. Actually he think that ecumenism is unuseless and a waste of time. That is what I hearded.


new calendar is correct , it is still presented by the Pope
so, he doesn't care about right or wrong , it is a problem with the pope only ... something personal I guess !
and I don't think it is a christian attitude anyway
The new calendar is made by a pope, who is a sort of christian, and the old calendar is made by a pagan, a non-christian, Julius. So, where is the problem with who made the calendar? It is not important who made it.

[Kusanagi]

About Fr Teofil of Sambata, I never heard to say such a think. Actually he think that ecumenism is unuseless and a waste of time. That is what I hearded.



He mentioned it in a seminar/talk that my godfather went to, he was translating for the non Romanian speakers. I think he said it so people are not in spite towards the Bishop.

Just another separate issue, what do people think about the calendar that was made by the Serbian monk which is meant to be more accurate than both Julian and Gregorian Calendar?

I cannot remember the name at the moment and it is not much help on google since I do not know the name.

Also wanted to ask is there any particular canons or rules etc that prohibit the Lunar calendar being used by the Church?

[Christophoros]

On the question of litanies, the local Old Calendarist parish in my area (under Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna) commemorates the exiled King Constantine of Greece in the Great Litany. Is this a common practice among other Old Calendarist groups?

In Christ,
Chris

[Michael Astley]

On the question of litanies, the local Old Calendarist parish in my area (under Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna) commemorates the exiled King Constantine of Greece in the Great Litany. Is this a common practice among other Old Calendarist groups?

In Christ,
Chris

Am I right in believing that Archbishop Chrysostomos is with the Cyprianites? I can understand how a church would commemorate King Constantine if they supported his cause, but only if they were on a territory where his reign was (or ought to be, if that's how they see it). It seemes to me to be very strange indeed for a church in the USA to do such a thing. Why not commemorate the local government? Certainly, the Cyprianites in this country pray "For our Sovereign Lady, Queen Elizabeth, and all her royal house, for her government and armed forces...". Perhaps that parish just happens to have a number of supporters of the king and a priest who either agrees with them or is willing to humour them.

[Christophoros]

Am I right in believing that Archbishop Chrysostomos is with the Cyprianites? I can understand how a church would commemorate King Constantine if they supported his cause, but only if they were on a territory where his reign was (or ought to be, if that's how they see it). It seemes to me to be very strange indeed for a church in the USA to do such a thing. Why not commemorate the local government? Certainly, the Cyprianites in this country pray "For our Sovereign Lady, Queen Elizabeth, and all her royal house, for her government and armed forces...". Perhaps that parish just happens to have a number of supporters of the king and a priest who either agrees with them or is willing to humour them.

Yes, he's with the Cyprianites. It's a very small parish composed of the family of the priest and a couple others. Not much to speak of number-wise, but a beautiful building... I thought it was odd not only because they are in America, but the former king is a member, I am told, of the "new calendarist" Church. I understand that most of the original Old Calendarists in the 1920's and 30's were Royalists, but it seems strange to be commemorating a dethroned monarch from a foreign country who is a member of a Church that they are "resisting." But perhaps it is a practice dating from the original foundation of the Old Calendarist movement.

[Olga]

The new calendar is made by a pope, who is a sort of christian, and the old calendar is made by a pagan, a non-christian, Julius. So, where is the problem with who made the calendar? It is not important who made it.

Victor, thank you so much for this. Truly a wise analysis, and one the hard-line "traditionalists" should think about when proclaiming the new calendar as being heretical, which it is not.

[Kosta]

I would like to add that we who are Orthodox and take the true faith seriously, by participating on such boards and voicing our opinions can have some impact though little it maybe on stemming the tide of ecumenism and a council to restore the Church Calendar and condemn that patriarch with the last name which sounds like a greek liquor.

The new revised julian calendar is not heretical but it is an anomaly that has no spiritual or astronomical value. The calendar change was indeed first proposed in 1920 in order to celebrate christian feasts on the same day as the anglicans. Here is a great article from a popular new calendar monk of Greece written years ago asking the Synod to bring back the Church calendar and the false reasons for introducing a new one:

http://www.homb.org/st_annas/Articles/reasons_for_change.htm

Now while i respect the old calendarists for their firm stance on Tradition and antiecumenism, i can come up with a laundry list of canonical infractions and innovations that they have incorporated as well. In fact if we strictly apply the canons like they apply them on new calendarists, it is quite obvious none of them have any apostolic succession. This also touches upon their innovated interpretation that the revised Julian calendar was condemned and anathemized by the Sigillon of 1583. Their is no merit to this. The Sigillon of 1583 only condemned the papal Paschalion and the Menologion. It did not condemn a rearrangement of the festal Menaion based on the gregorian. The menaion and menologion are two different things which is glossed over

The menologion concerns itself with the feast days of the saints, being that we have different saints and those saints we do have in common are celebrated on totaly different days and seasons, it is impossible to synchronize such feast days Thus the second condemnation of the papal calendar drops any mention of the menologion. The Pan-Orthodox council of 1593 strictly concerns itself with the Paschalion and the menologion is no longer mentioned:

"For exclusion of the new calendar, which is to say the innovation of the Latins in regard to Pascha... It is our will that the disposition made by the Fathers in regard to holy and salutary Pascha remains unchanged as it is...All those who dare to disturb the great and holy ecumenical council of Nicea as held in the precense of the pious and GOd-loving King Constantine in regard to the holy feast of man-saving Pascha, be excommunicated and excluded from the church".

Where is the condemnation of celebrating a synchronized menaion (or menologion) in the above? Not found because its impossible to synchronize the menologion and a synchronized menaion will not bring wrath since both latins and Orthodox shared these feast days before the papal calendar disturbed this trend. Likewise the latins calculated pascha on a different algorithm thus it didnt always fall on the same date.

[Mina Mounir]

In fact if we strictly apply the canons like they apply them on new calendarists, it is quite obvious none of them have any apostolic succession.
an important point, Kosta. I was wondering , what does it mean to stick with a certain calendar while not taking the apostolic succession issue seriously?

I was talking to an archimendrite in the patriarchate of Constantinople ( in the secretary of Patriarch Bartholomew) , he told me "what can the one do with the priesthood of people ordained themselves uncanonically " ? I guess it is more important to keep apostolic succession and the canons of Orthodox ordination more than spending life and causing schisms for a calendar issue.

[Kosta]

Mina you are quite correct. Only by applying charity and eikonomia can it be said that old calendarists have apostolic succession. Unfortunately since they dont pass that charity and eikonomia to no one but themselves when it suits them, its obvious they have no apostolic succession. And this lack of apostolic succession is manifested in a number of ways. For instances no miracles occur in old calendar churches.
What the "GOC" is most remembered for amongst the greek community of Astoria and all of NY is the embarrasing scandal at St Irene Chrysovolantou when uder the old calendarists they devised the fraud of a tearing icon of St Irene. It was "stolen" in front of everyone and finally mysteriously returned alittle bit after the mobster John Gotti publicly warned whoever took it to return it. They became the laughing stock of Astoria. Another example is when Vladimir Moss was peddling a story in order to overturn the 7th ecumenical council and the tradition of the Church which forbids depictions of God the Father (one of the more blatant heresies most old calendarists hold onto). An old calendar church in Greece put some blood on the heretical image of the NT Trinity painting, to decieve people into thinking its a canonical icon. To this day the only thing the old calendarists hold onto is a cross which appeared in the sky over a church in 1925 (10 years before the old calendar synod even existed) which still celebrated using the old calendar.

Meanwhile in Greece especially on August 15 countless miracles occur on the new calendar such as the holy snakes of the Virgin Mary on Cephalonia.

[Dimitris]

What I have never understood concerning the churches following the old calendar:

The old calender is presently 13 days apart from the new calendar. However, regardless of the calender used, all churches celebrate the Divine Liturgy on the same exact weekday, Sunday. So that means, if the Liturgy is celebrated on Sunday (derived from the new calender in ALL churches!), according to the old calender this would presently be Saturday. How can this be no problem to old calendar churches?

[Andreas Moran]

Perhaps it is not necessary to mention this, but just in case (since guests also read these posts) . . .

We must keep in mind the distinction between Old Calendarists, by which we mean those groups who have severed themselves from a canonical jurisdiction which adopted the 'new calendar', and Old Calendar Churches which are perfectly canonical, namely the Churches in Russia, Serbia, Georgia, Poland (most parishes) and Jerusalem, together with certain elements within the Ecumenical Patriarchate notably Mount Athos and also others such as the Exarchate of Western Europe and the monastery at Bussy-en-Othe, France. Somewhere between two-thirds and three-quarters of Orthodox Christians in the world observe the Julian ('Old') Calendar.

[Herman Blaydoe]

What I have never understood concerning the churches following the old calendar:

The old calender is presently 13 days apart from the new calendar. However, regardless of the calender used, all churches celebrate the Divine Liturgy on the same exact weekday, Sunday. So that means, if the Liturgy is celebrated on Sunday (derived from the new calender in ALL churches!), according to the old calender this would presently be Saturday. How can this be no problem to old calendar churches?

That is the thing about calendars. They are simply trying to harmonize so many independent things. The seven day week does not care about how long each day is, the rotation of the Earth on its axis is not governed by how quickly it circles the Sun. The Moon does not care about the Sun and orbits the Earth according to its own priorities. And the calendar tries to track all of this. It is merely man's attempt to mark the metre of the celestial dance. When Pope Gregory instituted the calendar that bears his name, 10 days simply "disappeared". It remained the same day, but the date changed. The seven day week marched on, so regardless of the date, regardless of the calendar, Sunday is still Sunday, the Lord's Day, the mystical eighth day of Creation.

Remember too that the Church calendar (old or new) is a combination of moving and immovable feasts, but the Sundays ALWAYS count from Pascha which is celebrated on the same day in both calendars. So in that respect both churches still follow the same calendar for the moving feasts. It is the immovable feasts that cause headaches for cantors and choir directors and for those who are concerned about "when Christmas is".

Herman the day counting Pooh

[Christophoros]

Kosta: Mina you are quite correct. Only by applying charity and eikonomia can it be said that old calendarists have apostolic succession. Unfortunately since they dont pass that charity and eikonomia to no one but themselves when it suits them, its obvious they have no apostolic succession. And this lack of apostolic succession is manifested in a number of ways. For instances no miracles occur in old calendar churches.

In regards to the last statement, you are obviously not familiar with the Old Calendarist Church. And I say this as a steward of a new calendar GOA parish in the Metropolis of Chicago.

If we cannot be charitable toward the Old Calendarists, then perhaps we should looks at the facts from the other side. How long until the anathemas of the councils and Fathers fall on those who openly disregard the canons and worship with heretics? And those who openly and repeatedly recognize the Mysteries of condemned heretics as salvific? Those who publicly teach the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church are two parts of the same Body of Christ? Those who repeatedly give the Sacred Mysteries to heretics? Those who disregard the decisions of the 1st Ecumenical Synod by keeping Pascha with Roman Catholics (Church of Finland)? Those who deny in general the ecclesiological and soteriological exclusivity of the Holy Orthodox Church of Christ?

And in regards to the quesion of apostolic succession, cases can be found in history where those who were not yet officially deposed were already considered deprived of authority due to their persistent unrepentant stance in the face of rebukes. This is something the most rabid ecumenists should think about, especially after the recent anti-ecumenist statements from the Greek conference of clergy and the Inter-Orthodox Theological Conference.

Given our own serious, theological issues within our own community, perhaps detailing the shortcomings of the Old Calendarists is not a good idea.

In Christ,
Chris

[Eric Peterson]

With respect to the Church of Finland, I may be wrong, but I thought they were required by Finnish law to keep the Gregorian Paschalion, just as the Church of Japan is required by Japanese law to cremate.

[Mina Mounir]

Dear Christophoros. the term " heretics " cannot be applied to Roman Catholics, according to St. Basil's 1st canonical letter (no. 38), however Father Steenberg didn't speak about a certain denomination , he discussed the difference between heresy and schism on a theological and patristic base , please check this : The distinction between schism and heresy - Monachos.net Discussion Community (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4724)
i think that using the term " heretics " in this wide use cannot be justified theologically.
the world is not like Greece. for example, I'm Orthodox convert from a 50% coptic and 50% catholic roots. if u live in Lebanon , u will find many denominations in one family, if we considered a catholic as a heretic and u can't say a prayer with him ! the christians of middle east for example will be divided in the same family and sink in hostility , and maybe swalloed in the Islamic majority.so, I guess we should reconsider our judgements.

secondly, making calendar issue a salvific issue makes christianity a judaic sect which preserves rituals and laws that we were freed from , according to Paul. the Finnish church made this because it - as Orthodox faith calls us to - cares about people , People's life comes first, this is the merciful economy.
thirdly, I do believe that the church has the same authority that it had in the apostolic time. the Council of Ephesus 431 declared not to make a creed on christology in addition to the Nicene creed . however, the Church felt the need to form the creed in Chalcedon to close the door on the different heresies led by monophysites and Nestorians , and that's why the creed was formed. the same authority can make what fits. so, when we see that the new calendar is more appropriate , we - the same church - can do it. there's nothing called contradiction in administrative issues , it is changable ... the julian calendar was not inspired by God. and Christ - by the way - was not born neither in 25 december or 7 january !

Old calendarist infinite number of sects today can never be witnesses to christian recapitulation that Paul called for in his epistle to Ephisus. what does it mean to preserve a certain calendar and in the same time disregard apostolic succession and Orthodox ordination!
Yes, I do agree there are mistakes, it is the dual nature of the church , but the mistakes are controllable and individual. old calendarist bishops I was talking to told me that persons of them had sexual harrasments and other scandals ... and consequently, we see frequent schisms in the body of each group ! where is Christ then !?

I can tell u a small story, I know a man who was an Orthodox member in the patriarchate of Alexandria, he was seeking ordination and priesthood , this led him to get involved in a conflict with Patriarch Petros VII of good memory. he left the church and travelled to greece where he was warmly welcomed in the cyprianite church where they ordained him an archimendrite! he served in Australia and then Canada, when I talked to him on the internet after he bacame archimendrite, he was telling this nonsense story of ecumenism and that cypriantes preserve the " pure Orthodoxy " ! if he was ordained by patriarch Petros VII he would not talk about Ecumenism ! . later he came back to Egypt and asked the patriarch to bring him back to the community!

it is the same story we have here about the old calendarist situation.

well, this is my view point anyway :)

[Michael Astley]

Dear Christophoros. the term " heretics " cannot be applied to Roman Catholics, according to St. Basil's 1st canonical letter (no. 38), however Father Steenberg didn't speak about a certain denomination , he discussed the difference between heresy and schism on a theological and patristic base , please check this : The distinction between schism and heresy - Monachos.net Discussion Community (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4724)
i think that using the term " heretics " in this wide use cannot be justified theologically.

Dear Mina,

Please may I ask you to unpack this a little more? You have made a statement but I have read that canonical epistle and Fr Matthew's exposition of it I cannot see how you reach the conclusion that you do. A group that teaches a false distortion of the nature of the Trinity and a false ecclesiology does not fall into the category of schism (a split over administrative matters) or unlawful assembly. These are questions of the nature of the exstence of the Three Divine Persons in eternity, the implications on the nature of the Church, and therefore of our salvation, which is all to say that these are matters of doctrine.

In Christ,
Michael

[Christophoros]

Mina: the term " heretics " cannot be applied to Roman Catholics, according to St. Basil's 1st canonical letter (no. 38), however Father Steenberg didn't speak about a certain denomination , he discussed the difference between heresy and schism on a theological and patristic base... i think that using the term " heretics " in this wide use cannot be justified theologically.

Me: I am using the term "heretics" as it is used by modern Fathers and saints, not modern theologians. St. Nectarios of Pentapolis, St. Nikodemus the Hagiorite, St. Cosmas Aitolia, and many others (not to mention the soon-to-be glorified saints of the 20th century, such as Blessed Philoethos Zervakos, Blessed Justin Popovic, Blessed Paisios the Hagiorite, etc.) all considered Roman Catholics, the "Oriental Orthodox," and Protestants to be heretics. I accept their judgment, as do the modern signers of the anti-ecumenist confessions recently produced. If anyone does not accept their witness, that is between them and God.

Mina: the world is not like Greece. for example, I'm Orthodox convert from a 50% coptic and 50% catholic roots. if u live in Lebanon , u will find many denominations in one family, if we considered a catholic as a heretic and u can't say a prayer with him ! the christians of middle east for example will be divided in the same family and sink in hostility , and maybe swalloed in the Islamic majority.so, I guess we should reconsider our judgements.

Me: This is a red herring. The rules governing private prayer with heretics are different from those governing pulic prayer within the Church. I too come from a mixed background, with Orthodox, Roman Catholics and Lutherans in my family. This is nothing new in the life of the Church, and there have been pastoral guidelines set down for many years pre-dating the rise of ecumenism which have delt with these circumstances.

Mina: secondly, making calendar issue a salvific issue makes christianity a judaic sect which preserves rituals and laws that we were freed from , according to Paul.

Me: I agree; it is not an issue of salvation, and I have never argued that it was. However, the calendar change was incorporated into a series of measures explicitly designed to spread an ecclesiological heresy. This much is clear from the Ecumenical Patriarchate's 1920 encyclical, so it cannot be argued that the calendar was a purely innocent change without any spiritual significance whatsoever. But we have seen that there are anti-ecumenists who utilize the new calendar, and ecumenists who have kept the old, so ultimately I do not think we should view the calendar question in isolation (which the original Old Calendarists did), which can produce an unhealthy fanaticism.

Mina: thirdly, I do believe that the church has the same authority that it had in the apostolic time... the same authority can make what fits. so, when we see that the new calendar is more appropriate , we - the same church - can do it. there's nothing called contradiction in administrative issues , it is changable ... the julian calendar was not inspired by God.

Me: Bishops are not popes; they do not have ultimate authority over everything. They are required to follow the canons, and employ oikonomia only when justifiable. The revision of the liturgical calendar by the EP and Greece was done deceptively; the bishops of Greece were told that all the Local Churches had accepted the decision, when it fact they did not. The history of the calendar change is not a pretty one, if you care to research it. The issue over the calendar isn't the change itself, but the manner and motive behind it.

Mina: Old calendarist infinite number of sects today can never be witnesses to christian recapitulation that Paul called for in his epistle to Ephisus. what does it mean to preserve a certain calendar and in the same time disregard apostolic succession and Orthodox ordination!
Yes, I do agree there are mistakes, it is the dual nature of the church , but the mistakes are controllable and individual. old calendarist bishops I was talking to told me that persons of them had sexual harrasments and other scandals ... and consequently, we see frequent schisms in the body of each group !

Me: If you think the Old Calendarists are scandalous, I pray you don't research the widespread scandals in the "new calendar" Church of Greece over the past ten years, involving monks, nuns, priests, metropolitans, etc... It's hardly just a few individuals.

[Kosta]

Kosta: Mina you are quite correct. Only by applying charity and eikonomia can it be said that old calendarists have apostolic succession. Unfortunately since they dont pass that charity and eikonomia to no one but themselves when it suits them, its obvious they have no apostolic succession. And this lack of apostolic succession is manifested in a number of ways. For instances no miracles occur in old calendar churches.

In regards to the last statement, you are obviously not familiar with the Old Calendarist Church. And I say this as a steward of a new calendar GOA parish in the Metropolis of Chicago.

If we cannot be charitable toward the Old Calendarists, then perhaps we should looks at the facts from the other side. How long until the anathemas of the councils and Fathers fall on those who openly disregard the canons and worship with heretics? And those who openly and repeatedly recognize the Mysteries of condemned heretics as salvific? Those who publicly teach the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church are two parts of the same Body of Christ? Those who repeatedly give the Sacred Mysteries to heretics? Those who disregard the decisions of the 1st Ecumenical Synod by keeping Pascha with Roman Catholics (Church of Finland)? Those who deny in general the ecclesiological and soteriological exclusivity of the Holy Orthodox Church of Christ?

And in regards to the quesion of apostolic succession, cases can be found in history where those who were not yet officially deposed were already considered deprived of authority due to their persistent unrepentant stance in the face of rebukes. This is something the most rabid ecumenists should think about, especially after the recent anti-ecumenist statements from the Greek conference of clergy and the Inter-Orthodox Theological Conference.

Given our own serious, theological issues within our own community, perhaps detailing the shortcomings of the Old Calendarists is not a good idea.

In Christ,
Chris

The problem is that i am all too familiar with the old calendarist churches, this is how i know more about them than most old calendarists know about themselves.
I am a rabid anti-ecumenist, and seriously considered joining the old calendarists, I have friends who are old calendarists who can trace their roots back to the initial 1923 start including a prominent old calendarist priest. But i realzed that while many good and pious people belong to these churches, they are basically frauds. They only look at the externals and for all there talk of the rudder most of these bishops have no idea about the canons.

In fact the 2 bishops of St Irene Chrysovalandou who were originally extremists and claimed world orthodoxy to be graceless, eventually joined the EP. When interviewed in the greek-american newspaper as to why they agreed to be reordained by the EP, they responded by saying they were simply "laymen in cassocks". They admit to not having apostolic succession!

As far as your other concerns, canon 15 of the 1st-2nd synod answers your questions. You can opt to seperate from a bishop who is teaching heresy and temporarily suspend communion with him, but no where in this canon does it give you the authority to declare all those that dont follow your way as graceless heretics.

Guess what? Its only the SiR that observes this canon, while the Matthewites and all russian splinter groups have officially declared the Cyprianites heretics for their "heretical ecumenist ecclesiology"!

In fact this reaction towards the moderate Cyprianites demonstrates further that these groups have no apostolic succession. I'll prove this; These russian splinter groups consider Metropolitan Philaret a saint (even have glorified him) because of his anti-ecumenist stance. What stance was that? The identical stance of the Cyprianites! While Met Philaret considered the soviet church (MP) graceless he still communed with the rest of Orthodoxy though it didnt buy into his ecclesiology. Todays russian splinter groups have an ecclesiology which actually condemns Metropolitan Philaret as a graceless heretic for communing with churches that were in communion with the MP. If one local church is heretical, then all who commune with are as well, this is the official ecclesiology of all the old calendarist churches EXCEPT the SiR. Is this not the spirit of confusion? Why is St Philaret there folk hero if he contradicted there ecclesiology in practise? Met Philaret did not violate canon 15 like the Matthewites and the GOC and the ROAC and the ROCiE do. It is confusion on the scale of schizophrenia and the HOLY Spirit is not the author of confusion. This is another outward sign of a lack of a true apostolic succession.

I give respect to the SiR. I support the Esphigmenou monks over the EP, but i must point out the inconsistencies of the extremist elements that have hijacked the old calendarist movement, the same extremists who attempted in the 1970's and 80's to hijack the ROCOR.

As far as Finland i would never celebrate Pascha in a Finnish church, i feel as if there slapping me in my face by celebrating with the heterodox and not with their fellow brethren. But all the local churches grant them this eikonomia for whatever civil reasons. And with this i must point out something from the 1935 old calendarist declaration, even they have inserted a loophole for just such an occasion:

" Because the ruling heirarchy of Greece through its introduction of the Gregorian calendar into the divine ritual WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF ALL THE ORTHODOX CHURCHES shattered the unity of the universal Orthodox church and divided the christians into two opposing factions."

As you can see even the 1935 GOC declaration allows for a loophole for cases such as Finland. Finland has gotten the consent of all the Orthodox churches, personally i would just attend a russian parish if in finland.

[Christophoros]

Mina: thirdly, I do believe that the church has the same authority that it had in the apostolic time... the same authority can make what fits. so, when we see that the new calendar is more appropriate , we - the same church - can do it. there's nothing called contradiction in administrative issues , it is changable ... the julian calendar was not inspired by God.

Regarding the changability of the liturgical calendar, here is a brief excerpt from the unabridged version Dr. Alexander Kalomiros' work The Touchstone that I had posted previously in another thread:

"In the last century, when the newly-established Church of Japan asked permission from its Mother Russian Church to change the festal calendar, permission was granted without any autocephalous Church making protest because there was a missionary need for this change. Certain great Christian Feasts had to be made to coincide with the important idolatrous holidays of the Japanese, just as in the first centuries of Christianity the Church fixed great Christian Feasts to coincide with great feasts of the idolators. This action was of great missionary significance and was like a counter-attack of the Church which persecuted the demons, at the very moment they were wreaking the most havoc. In this way, for example the feast of the Nativity was arranged to be celebrated on the days of the idolatrous feast of the birth of the sun. So then, we have two Churches that changed the festal calendar: the Church of Japan and the Church of Greece. How great, however, is the difference between these two changes! The first took place in order to facilitate the spread of Orthodoxy in an idolatrous land, and the other in order to facilitate the introduction of the West's heresies into an Orthodox land for the glory of Ecumenism. The same act was on one occassion constructive, and on another occassion destructive."

[Kosta]

Mina: thirdly, I do believe that the church has the same authority that it had in the apostolic time... the same authority can make what fits. so, when we see that the new calendar is more appropriate , we - the same church - can do it. there's nothing called contradiction in administrative issues , it is changable ... the julian calendar was not inspired by God.

Regarding the changability of the liturgical calendar, here is a brief excerpt from the unabridged version Dr. Alexander Kalomiros' work The Touchstone that I had posted previously in another thread:

"In the last century, when the newly-established Church of Japan asked permission from its Mother Russian Church to change the festal calendar, permission was granted without any autocephalous Church making protest because there was a missionary need for this change. Certain great Christian Feasts had to be made to coincide with the important idolatrous holidays of the Japanese, just as in the first centuries of Christianity the Church fixed great Christian Feasts to coincide with great feasts of the idolators. This action was of great missionary significance and was like a counter-attack of the Church which persecuted the demons, at the very moment they were wreaking the most havoc. In this way, for example the feast of the Nativity was arranged to be celebrated on the days of the idolatrous feast of the birth of the sun. So then, we have two Churches that changed the festal calendar: the Church of Japan and the Church of Greece. How great, however, is the difference between these two changes! The first took place in order to facilitate the spread of Orthodoxy in an idolatrous land, and the other in order to facilitate the introduction of the West's heresies into an Orthodox land for the glory of Ecumenism. The same act was on one occassion constructive, and on another occassion destructive."

I agree with this assessment, thats why i am in unison with the retired Metropolitan Augustine of Florina of the state church of Greece to bring back the Church calendar. Not only to Greece but to all of the traditional Orthodox churches which have adopted the revised julian calendar.

[Christophoros]

Kosta: As far as your other concerns, canon 15 of the 1st-2nd synod answers your questions. You can opt to seperate from a bishop who is teaching heresy and temporarily suspend communion with him, but no where in this canon does it give you the authority to declare all those that dont follow your way as graceless heretics. Guess what? Its only the SiR that observes this canon, while the Matthewites and all russian splinter groups have officially declared the Cyprianites heretics for their "heretical ecumenist ecclesiology"! ... I give respect to the SiR. I support the Esphigmenou monks over the EP, but i must point out the inconsistencies of the extremist elements that have hijacked the old calendarist movement, the same extremists who attempted in the 1970's and 80's to hijack the ROCOR.

I agree with these sentiments, Kosta. The 15th canon of the 1st-2nd Synod does indeed grant the right to sever communion with bishops who obstinately and publicly teach heresy. But, as you said, most of the Old Calendarists have gone well beyond this. What they should have done was simply follow the advice of the contemporary elder Archimandrite Epiphanios Theodoropoulos (+1989), who wrote: "If your conscience wishes to to exercise the right provided by the Fifteenth Canon of the First-Second Synod, then your course is clearly marked out: in ceasing to commemorate the Patriarch, you will avoid commemorating any other Bishop, and you await the judgment of a Synod in the desert of your conscience." This is precisely what the Holy Monastery of Esphigmenou has done, and what the ROCOR Skete of the Prophet Elias did: they recognized the Holy Mountain as the territory of the EP (as the Greece mainland is the territory of the Church of Greece), but when they viewed the occupant of the throne of Constantinople as having fallen into heresy, they ceased commemorating him. They continued to recognize the Ecumenical Patriarchate, as an institution, as the rightful overseer of Athos, but considered the patriarch, or the occupier of the throne of Constantinople, as illegitimate. And they have refrained from commemorating any other bishop in their divine services, so as to not question the authority of the Patriarchate as an institution separate from the patriarch.

I also respect the Synod in Resistance; they have given serious thought to the meaning of their existence in a way others haven't. However, I find their arguments just as compelling a reason to stay within the "new calendar" church. Example - In document, "On the Status of Uncondemned Heretics," they state the following:

a. First and foremost, it is not correct, or even just, that a local Church should be characterized and regarded as ecumenist in toto, simply because a number of Her clergy - and sometimes a small number, at that - are actually ecumenists: they are certainly not to be equated with the local Church.

b. The local Orthodox Churches today are fundamentally anti-ecumenist ; the inertia of the silent majority does not in any way imply agreement with, or endorsement of, ecumenist activities and teachings.

c. It should not be forgotten that no local Church has proclaimed synodally that the primary dogma of the ecclesiological heresy of ecumenism is a teaching of the Orthodox Church that must be believed and that is necessary for salvation; and neither has this ever been proclaimed in a pan-Orthodox manner.

d. The aforementioned views, concerning the need to avoid indiscriminate generalizations, if one is to have a reliable understanding of the true ecclesiological identity of our ecumenist brothers who are caught up in innovation and heresy, but have not yet been brought to trial, are grounded in the Fathers and are strongly upheld by St. Theodore the Studite, as follows:

- St. Theodore, in his detailed analysis of the extremely intricate question of "whether one should receive communion from the Presbyter of a bishop who is himself Orthodox," but out of fear "commemorates his own Metropolitan", who is a heretic, ultimately makes the following declaration: "If the Metropolitan falls into heresy, it is not the case that all of those who are in direct or indirect communion with him are regarded automatically and without distinction as heretics," despite, of course, the fact that by this stand of theirs, "they bring upon themselves the fearful charge of remaining silent."

In their "Informatory Epistle Concerning the Ecclesiological Identity of the Orthodox in Resistance to the Panheresy of Ecumenism," it states:

With regard to the tremendous confusion caused by ecumenism, we should avoid indiscriminate generalizations deriving from undiscerning zeal, and we should not forget that the local Churches cannot be characterized, today, in their entirety as ecumenist, taking into consideration, on the one hand, that only a small portion of them consists of out-and-out ecumenists, while the overwhelming, albeit silent, majority is anti-ecumenist; and, on the other hand, that no local Church has proclaimed synodally that the primary dogma of ecumenism is a teaching of the Orthodox Church, which must be believed and is necessary for salvation; neither has there ever been any Pan-Orthodox proclamation to this effect.

And finally, in regards to the Pan-Orthodox anathemas against the new calendar, the same epistle says this:

(b) These Synods did indeed "condemn the calendar innovation," but they condemned that of Pope Gregory XIII, which directly affected the Orthodox Paschalion, and certainly not the partially implemented innovation of 1924, which did not alter the four "Stipulations" concerning Pascha, and for this reason, as the Confessor-Hierarch, Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina stated, "is an issue that appears for the first time in the history of the Orthodox Church."

(c) Likewise, these sixteenth-century Synods did not "cut off from the Body of the Church those who accepted this innovation," for the simple reason that none of the Orthodox of that time accepted it; in fact, it was rejected at a pan-Orthodox level.

(d) There was certainly never any possibility of any Synod in the sixteenth century "proleptically" cutting off from the Body of the Church "those who would accept" an innovation in the distant future, because excision, when it is deemed necessary, according to St. Nicodemos the Hagiorite, is always "put into actual effect by a Synod of living," that is, present "Bishops," while "the imperative force of Canons remains unexecuted and does not act of itself, either immediately or before a decision."

(e) This issue is extremely serious, if one takes into account that any acceptance of the erroneous idea of the automatic efficacy of Patristic and Synodal penalties and anathemas, prior to a specific ruling by a competent synodal body, would entail, for example, that the various Synods which have hitherto been convoked in order to condemn heretics and schismatics were wrongly convoked, since all of these persons would already have been cut off from the Body of Christ, on the basis of the Apostolic anathema: "If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed"; furthermore, it would entail that, in essence, all of those Christians who in other respects are truly Orthodox in outlook are already cut off from the Church and have been handed over to Satan, on the basis of the other Apostolic anathema: "If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema."

(f) Besides, the mere idea that these Synods held in the sixteenth century cut off from the Body of the Church those who would in the future accept this innovation, aside from being inherently absurd, demonstrates the perversity of those who accepted and endorsed the idea, for the following very simple reason: if it really is the case that, at the time of the calendar change in 1924, all those who accepted it and, of course, those in communion with them were automatically and indiscriminately cut off from the Body of the Church, then the proclamation, seventy-four years later, of an anathema against them and the ecumenists who came after them would be completely devoid of meaning, because, as is well known, the Church does not judge those outside Her, according to the Apostle Paul, of whose words St. Theophylact offers an excellent interpretation: For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? says [Paul]; therefore, it is superfluous to apply the ordinances of God to those outside Christs fold; for whatever the Law says, it says to those under the Law.

If all these things are true, they just made a sound case for recognizing legitimate resistance to ecumenism - and the calendar innovation - with the bounds of the "new calendar" Church. But to do this legitimately, we must never allow ourselves to "remain silent" on these issues.

In Christ,
Chris