Anastasios Hudson

Tag: Ecumenism

New Calendarist Elders
Part of my ongoing Correspondence series, featuring replies to people who contacted me and asked questions, mostly when I served as a priest (2008-2013).

Dear Chris,

I’m not surprised that you are struggling with the issue of how to view the New Calendarist elders. Almost everyone who comes down this path has to confront this issue. I also had to consider it, of course. As you know from my article I sent you[1], I do not believe that struggling from within makes any sense or is good for the soul, and I think that “elderphilia” is a cancer in modern Orthodoxy. To me, the idea that one would not follow ecclesiological principles to their logical conclusion because there is someone who is holy on the “other side” seems to be a subversion of the proper order of theology.

For instance, we of course have our elders (such as Elder Ieronymos of Aegina)…does that mean that Elder Ieronymos, who left the New Calendarist Church in 1942, is a fraud? Or does it mean that there are true elders on both sides, and it really doesn’t matter which side one is on? Or perhaps it does matter, but God blessed people who made the wrong choice anyway, but who were sincere? These are all possibilities. However, seeing that one would have to consider all these possibilities, I do not see how any of them would supersede wanting to be under bishops who are Orthodox, because the Church is where the bishop is, not where the elder is. Look at Church history, and try to find how many times a charismatic figure ultimately won out against the episcopacy? Whenever there is a dispute between bishops and monastics, the bishops almost always win.

So how do I and other Old Calendarists deal with the people you listed? We could discuss each one individually, but I will instead just give you the highlights, and we can follow up if you wish. Fr. Paisios was in delusion, I believe, owing to the many false prophecies that he gave. Of course none of these are mentioned by his supporters, especially not in English translation. However, in Greek we have published some of the most notorious ones, such as his prophecy that he would die on Athos (which didn’t happen) or my favorite, his telling a Greek colonel that he would be the one to liberate Constantinople from the Turks (the colonel retired without having ever received even a promotion). We have thought about translating these things into English, but that is a double-edged sword. If we do, then we might be accused of being evil, mean-spirited, spiteful, partisan, etc. If we don’t, then we let misconceptions remain and are accused of not having an answer.[2]

In regards to Fr. Joseph the Hesychast, Bishop Petros knew him on Mount Athos, and in fact, thought he was in plani (delusion) for returning to commemoration. Fr. Joseph’s sister remained a non-commemorator/Old Calendarist.[3]

Fr Justin Popovich was a great author, and in fact, he broke communion with the ecumenist Serbian patriarchate, although not all of the Serbian bishops.[4]

While it would have been best for him to completely leave, the fact that he recognized that communion with a blatant communist and ecumenist was impossible and that he therefore broke communion with him speaks volumes of his character.

I know little about Elder Cleopa.

In regards to Met. Chrysostomos of Florina, two points should be considered. The first is, that while he was reticent to deny that New Calendarists had grace (although he eventually did, publicly) he still did not think it was possible to have communion with them. Secondly, he viewed the situation which was still at play in the Church of Greece; there were hierarchs telling him that they wanted to return to the Old Calendar. He softened his position from 1937 to 1950 because he second-guessed whether a hardliner position was right, seeing that there was still “some hope” in the state Church, a struggle for Orthodoxy…that failed, ultimately. That was in the 1940’s, also—things have gotten qualitatively worse since then, I think we can all admit.

As for the idea that we haven’t entered into “blatant” concelebrations or heresy, can you honestly watch this video and say that?

“Orthodox Unilateral Ecumenism” Part 1 Part 2

My “favorite” part is where Met. Christodoulos admits they rejected a large number of Uniates in Italy who had applied en masse to the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the 1960’s, because they didn’t want to set back ecumenical dialogue with the Vatican. That isn’t heretical?

As for the question of feeling peace or not, I am not sure what to tell you. I felt peaceful when I joined the Catholic Church, I felt peaceful the first time I went into a New Calendar Church, and I felt peaceful when I went to the Old Calendar Church the first time…I don’t make much out of feelings. For the record, when I was baptized at St. Markella’s, I experienced something different than “peace,” namely illumination of the nous, which lasted about 10 minutes. During that time, reality changed. It was like I could see beyond what was in the room, and I experienced other realities. When my thoughts went back to worldly things, I lost the feeling. When I was ordained, I felt fire reign down on my head. When I have prayed for people, I have felt “electricity” go from my hand to them, and they likewise have felt it. What to make of all these experiences? I suggest you see experiences as secondary to proper ecclesiological concerns.

I hope it gives you something to think about. You are in my prayers.

In Christ,
Fr. Anastasios

[1] An as-of-yet unpublished manuscript titled Resisting from Within: A Personal Testimony, in which I draw on my experience as a Eastern-Rite Catholic trying to be more Orthodox in practice and use this to argue against the idea of resisting the heresy of Ecumenism, Modernism, and the New Calendar from within the New Calendarist Church.

[2] We subsequently did translate the incident with the colonel into English here.

[3] After I wrote this letter, we received a large group of clergy and faithful from HOCNA, and some of them brought with them a personal devotion to Fr. Joseph. The argument that HOCNA put forth was that Fr. Joseph reacted to extremism, but if he had been alive in 1965 when the anathemas were lifted, he would have stopped commemorating again. I do not believe that this is a proper line of argumentation, since the Church of the GOC of Greece had already ruled the commemorators as schismatic, but I do not wish to quarrel needlessly with other bretheren.

[4] Vladimir Moss, “The Fall of The Serbian Church.” I do not generally recommend the writings of Vladimir Moss, due to their polemical and political nature, but occasionally he does write some great material. Please use caution with other links on that site.
Related posts:
1. Answering a Sincere New Calendarist Inquirer
2. Uncanonical
July 8, 2014
Statements Against Ecumenism by New Calendarists
Part of my ongoing Correspondence series, featuring replies to people who contacted me and asked questions, mostly when I served as a priest (2008-2013).

What is your take on this? Very strongly worded. The list of signers is impressive.

A Confession of Faith Against Ecumenism

Dear M.,

I rejoice when people in the New Calendar Church make the correct confession, but here are a few points to consider:

1) This is the latest in a series of such statements. If you see the one (and only!) Romiosini we put out in 2007, we republished similar statements that were made then. It raises the question: how many statements do they need to make before they do something about it?

2) They do not include New Calendarism in the category of Ecumenism for obvious reasons; if they did, they would have to conclude that they fall under their own anathema.

3) The signatories to this statement are the usual crowd. Fr George Metallinos, Fr Thomas Zisis. Other members of the New Calendar Church ridicule them behind their backs–I have seen this first hand when I was in the seminary, where the dean of St Vladimir’s referred to Fr George as basically a crackpot.

4) Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus just wrote a blazingly arrogant piece against us, totally unprovoked. You can see our response (in Greek) on ecclesiagoc.gr

That being said, I am hopeful, but in a way most people do not anticipate. After the Council of Nicea in 325, the group that remained faithful from Day 1, the Orthodox, are referred to as “Old Nicenes” by scholars. They confessed “homoousios” ie. that Christ is the of the same substance as the Father. The compromisers, who arose under the heretical Emperors that succeeded St Constantine, confessed “homoiousios” ie. that Christ is of similar substance to the Father. They remained in communion with the Arians and are termed semi-Arians by many scholars.

At some point, the Arians became more extreme and confessed Eunomianism–Christ is not of the same substance as the Father. This finally scared the Semi-Arians, who broke communion with them and joined communion with the Old Nicenes. They became known as New Nicenes as they were the “johnny come latelies.” Together, these two groups vanquished the Arians.

In our modern situation, I believe that we are the Orthodox and that the conservative New Calendarists are like the Semi-Arians/New Nicenes. If they follow their consciences they will eventually break communion with the blatant heretics and join with us, and together we’ll win. That’s my opinion for what it’s worth. I therefore support reaching out to these people, and having good relations with them, not being too antagonistic towards them, while at the same time reminding them that as long as they are with the Ecumenists, they are not doing anyone any good. Also, we will have to be patient with them, as they will continue to lash out at us like Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus did, because we prick their conscience.

in Christ,

Fr Anastasios

Postscript: The above-mentioned statement against Ecumenism was published in 2009. Nothing has come of it whatsoever in the intervening five years. In fact, as I edit this post for publication on my website, Patriarch Bartholemew of Constantinople is preparing to meet Pope Francis in Jerusalem to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the so-called “Lifting of the Anathemas,” which inaugurated a syncretistic ferver with Roman Catholicism.
Related posts:
1. Angry Orthodox
2. Answering a Sincere New Calendarist Inquirer
May 16, 2014
Just One More Step…
For many people, converting to the Orthodox Christian Church is a tough process. Whether coming from a secular background and having to deal with basic questions of faith, or coming from a Western Christian background and having to give up previous ways of thinking and familiar hymns and practices, the transition is often difficult. Add to that the rather uneven quality of experiences one finds in Orthodox parish life in the Western world, and it is remarkable when someone “crosses the finish line” and is received into the Church finally.

There exists a schism in the modern Orthodox world between those who belong to Churches which follow the New Calendar and/or practice Ecumenism with other Christian denominations and religions, and those who belong to Churches which follow the Old Calendar and do not participate in the Ecumenical Movement. These latter are often referred to as Traditionalists, Old Calendarists, or True/Genuine Orthodox, while the Churches which are involved in the Ecumenical movement together with those who switched to the New Calendar often refer to themselves as the “Canonical” Orthodox, while being referred to as New Calendarists, Ecumenists, or “World Orthodoxy” by the other party. It must be noted that there is not a schism “in” the Church, as the Church cannot be divided, but as the two Churches both consider themselves Orthodox and have a shared history and culture, it is therefore possible to speak of a schism or division within the Orthodox world. This division often is painfully felt within families and in local communities.

I became somewhat well-known in Orthodox circles on the Internet due to my participation in various forums and blogs, and also my YouTube channel where I produced missionary content while I served as an Orthodox priest (2008-2013). Because of this, numerous people contacted me weekly, and while the flow has decreased now, it still continues to do so today. Many of these are people who have converted from Protestantism or Roman Catholicism to one of the so-called Canonical Orthodox Churches, and who have now discovered the Orthodox Traditionalists and their positions. Others are still going through the conversion process, and are now rethinking their ultimate affiliation.

In both cases, there is often a shell-shock. People have assumed that they knew what they were getting into, that they had found the True Church, that they were home, and then they realize that there is “something else out there” making claims which contradict what they’ve already learned and experienced. For many, it’s just too much emotionally for them to confront, and they shut these thoughts down before they have time to develop. Such people often remark that, “there’s just no way God cares about a calendar!” and imagine they have just stated something profound and previously unconsidered.

However, there are those who take it a step further, and actually make contact with members and clergy of the Traditionalist Orthodox Church. They usually have great questions, are fair-minded, and are rigorous in their approach. After some back-and-forth, sometimes they decide to come over to the Traditionalist Church, based on principle. Yet other times, seemingly with one foot out of the door of the New Calendar Church, they turn back. Their reasons are often disappointing to hear, and not as much based on a sober analysis of the facts, but on other factors.

Some common non-theological reasons I often heard for not joining the Traditionalist Orthodox Church are:

1)      There is no parish close to me, so I will have to travel, and won’t have a regular parish life.

2)      My wife had a hard enough time coming to the New Calendar; I can’t ask her to make another move.

3)      It’s just too small of a Church.

4)      They’re just too strict.

5)      I don’t want to celebrate Christmas on a different day.

6)      People will think I am weird/crazy.

7)      God wouldn’t let His Church get so small.

8)      My kids won’t have any friends at the Church.

What perplexes me is this: oftentimes, the same people who make such excuses for not joining the Orthodox Traditionalists have already make great sacrifices to join the New Calendar Church. Some of these people moved to be closer to a parish, or travel by car once a month to the nearest parish. Some gave up family relationships, jobs, and completely re-oriented their lives in order to accept what they thought was the Orthodox faith in its pureness. The myriad practical reasons one would have for not leaving a Protestant Church did not impede them from joining the New Calendarists, but suddenly, the thought of joining the Traditionalist Orthodox produces a slew of practical objections.

In Wilmington, North Carolina, there is a sign which states that Barstow, California is 2,554 miles away—at the other end of Interstate 40. It must be an exciting thing to drive from one coast to another, and I am sure that every year, there are more than a few people who do it. Imagine, though, that one were to drive 2,550 miles, and simply stop, before seeing the Pacific Ocean. Perhaps the car broke down, and one would have to get a rental car, or walk, or take a bus, to go those extra four miles. No matter what reason there might be, it seems to me that any excuse not to figure out a way to go those extra four miles would be met with disbelief by friends and family inquiring about the trip afterward.

It would be as if the whole trip were a waste, if one did not make it to the ultimate destination. So with the conversion to Orthodoxy: why stop at the compromised Church, when the fullness of Orthodoxy is just a few steps further? Could any further obstacle be too much to surmount, after having traveled so far? Will people really think one is “more weird”? Does the relative size of the Church really matter? Does God not bless the effort that those who commute long distances to a parish put in to reaching it?

All of these “practical considerations” are temptations from the Evil One to keep us out of the Truth. Perhaps it’s easier to psychologically dodge this fact by assuring oneself that the differences between the two Churches are not that great, in reality. Having all the trappings of Orthodoxy such as nice liturgy, pretty icons, well-produced Patristic works, and Ancient Faith Radio assuage a troubled conscience into compromising and staying with the New Calendar Church. It was such a disappointment to me to see so many people wake up to the problems of the New Calendar and Ecumenism, only to later rationalize staying in or joining this body for reasons other than principle.

The purpose of this article is not to judge the hearts of those who have had trouble joining the Traditionalist Orthodox Church, but to encourage and exhort the many people who have contacted me over the years about joining us, and who then backed out, to rethink their decision. It is also to provide a warning to those who are at present pondering what to do, that they not compromise at the last step. Recall the icon of the Ladder of Divine Ascent—at the top of the ladder, monks are still falling off! They went so far, but didn’t make it. Don’t become one of those who fell at the top, but complete the journey.

Even if some of the objections were to come true, we must follow the Truth wherever it leads, and accept it with no regard for the consequences. I did it, and I never looked back. When I first converted, I had to fly to New York four times a year for the Holy Mysteries! But eventually God provided an opportunity for me locally, and I believe He will for you, too. If Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, then He can build up healthy, vibrant, traditional parishes in the Western world. If the Holy Spirit is “everywhere present and filleth all things” then that includes your home if you live far from a parish. The ball is in your court. Follow through on your instinct and don’t sell yourself and your faith short. We are waiting to welcome you!
Related posts:
April 29, 2014
Uncanonical
Part of my ongoing Correspondence series, featuring replies to people who contacted me and asked questions, mostly when I served as a priest (2008-2013).

Dear V.,

The Calendar was changed in 1924, and that was a big event in Greece. At that time, about 25% of the people rejected the change, by some accounts. Monks from Mount Athos, who did not change to the New, came down to Greece to serve the people that rejected the change. From 1924 to 1935, no bishop was on the side of the Old. But in 1935, three bishops couldn’t wait any longer. They had tried to restore the Old Calendar but the other bishops wouldn’t listen. So they returned to the Old Calendar on May 13, 1935. The other bishops who were on the New attacked them immediately, and some of them were even arrested and put in jail! Some of the priests were taken to the basement of the New Calendar Archdiocese in Athens, and were hit and then had their beards shaved off and were dressed in civilian clothes! One New Calendar bishop came in to one of our Churches in Greece and took the chalice off the altar and dumped the Holy Communion out of it and stomped on it, saying, “you are not really priests!” Even if they felt that way, that is a very evil thing to do. It was in this set of circumstances that our own founder in America, Bishop Petros, came to America.

Yet it was not just about a Calendar. The Old Calendarists knew that the Calendar was just one of the things that they were trying to change. Take a look at this letter that the Ecumenical Patriarchate wrote in 1920 “Unto the Churches of Christ Everywhere.” The title itself is a problem; the Church of Christ is the Orthodox Church only; all other Churches have broken away from it. The Ecumenical Patriarchate is offering to change the calendar to have union with the fallen Western Churches. There are other proposals such as exchanges of theological students, etc. The whole context is one of the Greeks trying to soften Orthodoxy to have relations with the Westerners.

This fit in to a political situation at the time, Venizelos vs the Royalists, when Venizelos wanted to make Greece look like London. Now, there’s nothing wrong with reaching out to other people and trying to work out our differences, but the difference here is that it is not based on the truth, but on a kind of committee discussion and compromise. That would lead to what we have in modern times, the “World Council of Churches,” where all sorts of groups of people that disagree get together and sign compromise documents. Unfortunately, many so-called Orthodox go to this and sign these documents. They say they are trying to reach out to non-Orthodox, but really, they are not offering them the truth that Orthodoxy is the original and true Church of Christ. That’s not really being nice to them if you think about it. You’d want your friend to tell you if your shirt was ripped, right?

So the point of the above paragraph is just to put the Calendar change in context. It was part of a bigger program of the Greek government of the time reaching out to the Westerners and using Church union as part of the plan. The Calendar change was just the first step in many changes that would happen as time went on, which is what we now call Ecumenism.

Our New Calendar friends are the majority, and so they like to put us on the defensive. They like to say we are not “canonical” or recognized because we are on the Old Calendar and not in communion with Patriarch Bartholemew. But really, we are the ones that did not change anything. Orthodoxy is about preserving the truth and keeping firm to the traditions, right? So how do they say that we are the ones that are unrecognized when we did not change a thing? We are the ones that on March 10, 1924, went to bed, and the next day we woke up and it was March 11, 1924. They are the ones that went to bed on March 10, and woke up on March 24, cutting out 13 days. We stood firm against this, and they gave in. Yet they say we are the ones who are not canonical.

Let’s take a look at this word canonical. It means following the canon, which in Greek means the rule, like a ruler. The canons are a collection of rules that the Church Fathers laid down for our spiritual benefit. They say that we disobey the canons, yet which canons do they think we disobeyed? Again, we are not the ones that changed things. They, on the other hand, go against the holy patriarchs and churches that agreed that the New Calendar was wrong—back in 1583. Here is that document: http://orthodoxwiki.org/Sigillion_of_1583

Basically, what it boils down to is, they changed things and began to disobey the previous Fathers and Councils, but then because they are in the majority, they say we are the ones who are obviously wrong because we are small and “fanatical.” But their arguments center on two things usually: the first is to claim we are uncanonical, which really means we are not administratively under the Patriarch so we are not “official,” and the other is to cite various elders and saints in the New Calendar as proof that we are wrong.

I think that you both know that just because something is “official” does not mean it is true. And official by who’s standards, exactly? The New Calendarists are the majority, so they make people think they are the Orthodox while we are just dissatisfied breakways. Their argument is that we are being disobedient to the Patriarch and so we are in the wrong. But Christ and the Apostles said we had to follow the truth, and that there would be false teachers in the end. Numbers aren’t what counts, but truth is. Our Old Calendar Church is the one that has not changed things, while they did. So basically, their argument is administrative while they are breaking the same canons they accuse us of breaking. Here is a video of supposedly Orthodox bishops praying with the Pope and Protestants. This is forbidden by the canons, yet they say they can’t do anything about it because the Patriarch approves. We say that even a Patriarch is not above the law. http://www.synodinresistance.org/Publications_en/Video/Videos%20On%20Ecumenism/E4d1008Ortho1998VideoPart3Tainia-256Kbs.wmv

As far as the argument about saints, they will say that various holy figures were and are under the New Calendar such as Fr. Ephraim and others. Yes, it is true that these people may be personally holy (I have never met Fr. Ephraim personally), but whether or not they are holy is irrelevant. Every religion has so-called holy people; our Old Calendar Church has many holy people like A. mentioned who have worked miracles. Here is a good book about a modern saint, whom our Metropolitan Pavlos knew as a boy:

http://www.bostonmonks.com/product_info.php/products_id/686

Elder Ieronymos was very holy, and lived in Aegina. He died in the 1960’s. He left the New Calendar and became an Old Calendar priest. He rivals any holy person from the New Calendar. I think that he proves the Old Calendar Church has the grace of God and is legitimate. Yes, God does allow some miracles to guide us, but always in the context of the truth, which is discerned from the Liturgy, the writings of the fathers, and the canons of the Church.

In the end, don’t let people fool you with arguments from administrative authority or appeals to holy people alone, when they themselves are not following the canons they claim they uphold. The Old Calendar Church is the Orthodox Church. We have a valid bishopric (ordained by the Russian Church in the 1960’s after the last Old Calendar bishop in Greece died). We haven’t changed anything. We have an entire Synod in Greece of 10+ bishops, with around 200 parishes. Our Archbishop is Chrysostomos II.

If you have any more questions or something I said didn’t make sense, please ask me to clarify.

May God bless you as you continue to develop your faith and spiritual life. Pray for me a sinner.

Fr. Anastasios

(Originally written in 2010. The present Metropolitan of America is His Eminence Demetrius and the present Archbishop of Athens is His Beatitude Kallinikos. There are now 26 bishops on the Holy Synod).
Related posts:
April 28, 2014
New Calendarism, Vaganteism, and the True Orthodox Church
In the last century, a new heresy permeated the Orthodox world, the heresy of ecumenism. This umbrella term encompasses several related problems that have been eating away at Orthodox life for more than eighty years. For the purposes of this article, we will use ecumenism as an umbrella term to refer to the problems of the branch theory, which imagines that the sacraments of the Church are present in various Churches that are not united and do not share the same faith, and modernism, which is at its root the assumption that modern man has the ability to diagnose the development of the Church’s tradition and make modifications as necessary, ignoring the organic development of the past several centuries.

From the beginning of this heresy, Orthodox have resisted it. These Orthodox are known by various names: True Orthodox, Genuine Orthodox, Traditionalist Orthodox, Old Calendarists, and Anti-Ecumenists, for instance. In the beginning, Athonite monks provided the sacraments to those in Greece who refused to follow the first tangible aspect of ecumenism in the life of the common people: the calendar change of 1924, when the patristic calendar was jettisoned in favor of a crude hybrid Julian-Gregorian calendar (a calendar so flawed that in several thousand years Christmas and Pascha will coincide). Later, in 1935, several bishops returned to the patristic calendar. Later, as ecumenism increased, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR) also experienced an awakening of anti-ecumenism. In the 1960’s, the ROCOR and the Old Calendarist Greeks began to cooperate in witnessing traditional Orthodoxy: the ROCOR even provided the Greek Old Calendarists with bishops after the last Old Calendarist bishop reposed.

In lands where Orthodoxy is not established, there is generally more confusion as to what constitutes authentic Orthodoxy. With the heresy of ecumenism, the lines have become even more blurred. Anti-ecumenism exists in North and South America, but what constitutes valid resistance to this heresy is not always obvious. Due to the influence of false western ecclesiological ideas, such as the idea that apostolic succession exists outside the Church (and thus anyone ordained a bishop by “valid” bishops is himself a “valid” bishop as long as he can prove his “lines” of succession), combined with pride and ambition, and a desire for money, there have arisen a class of pseudo-Orthodox clergy who claim to be priests and bishops of the Orthodox Church.

These bishops, called episcopi vagantes in Latin ecclesiological terms, sometimes pretend to be Roman Catholic, sometimes Orthodox, or sometimes even combinations of their own creation. Among the New Calendarists, these people are rightly rejected as being false clergy, but the problem becomes acute when innocent people begin to resist ecumenism and look for a new home. This is because when searching for a traditional Orthodox parish, one often encounters these episcopi vagantes who claim they are Old Calendarists too. Those looking for traditional Orthodoxy then end up farther away from it than when they started. Therefore, one must understand the difference between a True Orthodox Church and a false Church staffed by episcopi vagantes, which we hope to make more clear by pointing out several indicators of a Church being false.

The first clear indicator of a false Orthodox Church is one which appeals to “valid orders,” “valid apostolic succession,” or “ordination from valid bishops” and in this context oftentimes usually considers anyone from the Orthodox or Catholic Churches to have this “valid succession.” A traditional Orthodox bishop would not appeal to such concepts because an Orthodox bishop is not made a bishop by those claiming descent from Roman Catholic bishops, or from bishops who he never communes with again, or made an independent bishop. An Orthodox bishop must be part of a Synod which confesses Orthodoxy in an unbroken community, not simply a line of one bishop ordaining another—if a bishop breaks from other bishops and consecrates bishops, these ordinations are meaningless. A bishop can only be created in the Church and for the Church, by people still in communion with the Church and with each other.

Some would argue that because Old Calendarists are not in communion with the so-called “mainstream” Orthodox (i.e. the New Calendarists and those professing ecumenism, or those who are in communion with such persons), they are falling under their own judgment for not being in communion with the Church. We must point out, however, that one of the criteria of true apostolic succession is bishops are ordained in the context of the Orthodox community, and not in schism or heresy. Ecumenists, by their heresy, have cut themselves off from the Church, and as such, we must not have communion with them. An episcopi vagante often does not have concerns about ecumenism, or traditional Orthodoxy, but rather is separate because of personal problems with the “institutional Church” or flaunt their “independence”—but do not resist any heresy. What reason, then, do they need to be separated from New Calendarists, since one can only separate for questions of faith, and not for personal controversies?

Some episcopi vagantes are anti-ecumenist, but then the question arises, why are they not in communion with the Orthodox Church (i.e. the True Orthodox)? Again, one can only separate for reasons of faith, and yet some of these false bishops accept that ecumenism is wrong, and that the True Orthodox are right in their position, and they may even present themselves as True Orthodox, but they do not commune with the True Orthodox nor do they belong to a Synod of True Orthodox bishops? One cannot be Orthodox and be independent of the Church. If one is opposed to ecumenism, he should join the True Orthodox Church—not start his own.

The other major problem of these false Orthodox are ambition and immorality. Some are so interested in becoming clergy that they will do anything to be ordained. When they are turned down from ordination in the New Calendar Church, suddenly they seek out alternatives to ordination. Sometimes they briefly join the Old Calendar Church and successfully feign piety long enough to be ordained and leave. But more often, they rush towards the most sure and quick way to be ordained: by seeking out episcopi vagantes, who are eager to ordain so they can build up their numbers on paper. This double lust for worldly glory leads to disastrous results.

Other clergy are simply immoral, and have been defrocked by other Churches; these people, having nowhere else to go, start their own Churches. Sometimes, there are priests that are not immoral, but wish to become bishops while being married. This is another sign of a false Church: married bishops. No Orthodox Church has married bishops, and there are no exceptions to this rule. A false Orthodox Church will often have more clergy than parishioners, or its clergy will claim grand titles, like “Metropolitan Archbishop” when they only have one parish. While size is not the main factor in determining legitimacy, having a consistent lack of parishioners while maintaining a large number of clergy, or having a consistently changing population of people (i.e. many coming and many leaving, so that at any given time most people are not the same people that attended a year ago) are other clues of being a false Church.

Thus, if one is seeking the answer to ecumenism, he will find it in one place: the True Orthodox Church. In Greece, this is headed by Archbishop Kallinikos of Athens. In America, there is an Eparchial Synod under the presidency of Metropolitan Pavlos of North and South America.
Related posts:
March 22, 2013
Old vs. New Calendar: Frequently Asked Questions
Q. I’m Greek Orthodox but I’ve never heard of the “Old Calendar.” Could you please explain what this means?

A. All Orthodox in the world used the Julian Calendar, which is currently thirteen days behind our modern civil calendar, until March 1924. At that time, the bishops of the Church in Greece unilaterally converted their dioceses to the New Calendar, by deleting thirteen days at once, so that the religious calendar would coincide with the civil. This means that Orthodox Christians across the world were now celebrating the important celebrations of our faith out of sync with each other, which impacted the unity of the Orthodox Church. The majority of the Orthodox in the world did not accept this change, as is still the case in places like Russia, Serbia, Jerusalem, and Georgia.

Q. So the majority of the Orthodox in the world did not accept this change. Why did the Greek Church promote it, then?

A. Greece had just suffered the Catastrophe in 1922, and was destabilized internally between factions. Those in power believed that the only way Greece could survive was to ally with the Western powers such as Great Britain. The adoption of the New Calendar was seen as a way to cement ties with the Anglican Church and make the Greek people look more akin to Western Europeans to ensure greater political and cultural integration.

Q. Had the Calendar ever been an issue discussed before?

A. Yes. In the 16^th century, when Pope Gregory XIII instituted the New Calendar, he wrote to the Orthodox to encourage them to accept it. They refused, and condemned the Calendar on three separate occasions. One of these Orthodox councils resulted in a document called the Sigillion of 1583, which condemned the New Calendar as incompatible with the Orthodox faith.

Q. Did anyone in Greece resist this change?

A. Yes. About 25% of the people and many of the priests in Greece at that time did not accept this change. Many more priests were unhappy with the change, but they were threatened with loss of livelihood since the Church in Greece is not separate from the State (and, indeed, to this day, many Old Calendarist priests work a secular job and take little or no salary from their parish). Monks from Mt. Athos, the center of worldwide Orthodox monasticism, came to serve them. Some of the bishops who originally went along with the change tried to get it overturned privately, and when in 1935 they saw this was not going to happen, returned to the original Julian Calendar (now called the “Old”). They ordained new bishops, and formed a Synod that maintained the traditional Calendar. The State of Greece persecuted them, calling them “Old Calendarists” (Παλαιοημερολογίτες) which they meant as an insult. The Old Calendarists preferred to call themselves Genuine Orthodox Christians (GOC), because they did not alter even one Tradition of the Orthodox Church. These bishops travelled to other Orthodox countries to solicit support, but due to the volatile nature of the world at that time, none came. These bishops eventually died, were exiled, returned to the New Calendar under threats, and one isolated himself and refused to commune with the others, forming a faction. The last Greek bishop on the Old Calendar died in 1955.

Q. I thought a Church can’t exist without a bishop? What happened then?

A. That is true, and for this reason, the priests formed a committee and approached the Russian Church Outside Russia (ROCOR) for help. Eventually, ROCOR bishops helped consecrate bishops for the Old Calendar Greeks. Some of it had to be done secretly as the State of Greece would try to arrest anyone being ordained. By 1969, though, once the situation was stable, the ROCOR issued all the necessary paperwork to demonstrate it accepted these ordinations and maintained full communion with the GOC.

Q. Why didn’t the other Churches help the GOC?

A. Over time, other changes were introduced into the Orthodox Church to make it more modern, and attempts were made to reach out to other Christians in a process called Ecumenism. Ecumenism started off as a noble idea—try to get Christians back together—but being completely outnumbered and often intellectually overpowered, the Orthodox delegates (many of whom had studied in the West) gradually began to agree more and more with the non-Orthodox positions, rather than convincing the non-Orthodox to become Orthodox. The Orthodox Church confesses that it is the original Church of Christ, and therefore, there can be no compromise in matters of faith. These meetings were acceptable when it was simply people trying to overcome misunderstandings, but once joint prayers and joint statements began, the Orthodox delegates should have ceased. They did not, and began to more actively support such bodies, such as the World Council of Churches.

Q. You mentioned the Russian Church Outside Russia, but what about the one Inside? What did they have to say about this, since they stayed on the Old?

A. In the Soviet Union, the Church there had been overtaken by the Communists, and those who refused to cooperate went underground, living in secret. We consider these people the “Catacomb Church” and accept that they were Genuine Orthodox Christians as well. The State-controlled Church there was used as a tool to promote the Communist party, and as such could not be recognized as a truly Orthodox body. For all of these reasons, no support came to the Old Calendarists. In fact, the Communists intended to eventually change the Calendar there, too; it was switched in Bulgaria in 1968 as a test case, but the formation of an Old Calendar Church there in reaction made them postpone the plans.

Q. Communism ended though. Why is that still an issue?

A. Indeed, communism ended, but those bishops who had been installed by the Communists for the most part did not resign or repent. Generic “mistakes were made” type statements were issued, but no concrete repentance followed. Most communist-appointed bishops continued to participate in Ecumenism, and those nominally on the Old Calendar continued to support the New Calendar in places where it had been adopted.

Q. So it’s not just about a Calendar then.

A. No, it’s about a general process in the 20^th century to Westernize and modernize the Orthodox Church, and to push it in to union with the non-Orthodox Churches by means of political compromises. The Calendar was in many respects the frontline of the battle; in fact, an Encyclical written by the Ecumenical Patriarchate in 1920 “To the Churches of Christ Wherever They May Be” outlined the change of calendar as just one of several points in a modernization scheme. The Calendar, Ecumenism, and modernistic practices together have diminished the Orthodox faith, reducing it in many places to a purely secular and cultural phenomenon and hurting its spiritual power.

Q. Are you not recognized by the Greek Archdiocese (GOA), then?

A. The question might be posed in reverse: “do we recognize the Greek Archdiocese?” because we are, after all, the ones who remained faithful and did not change anything. But no, there is no mutual recognition between the GOA and GOC. Differing bishops and jurisdictions have differing views on the Old Calendarists from tacit support to sympathy to disdain. We do not base ourselves off of their recognition, however, since again we are the ones who kept the faith purely, and our ordinations were conducted by and canonically recognized in 1969 by the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, which no one could deny was a valid Orthodox Church.

Q. What would I have to do to become a member of this parish?

A. You can speak with our priest about this in private. Our Church approaches the reception into communion of those coming from the New Calendar Church on a case-by-case basis. The process varies because the people vary. Our goal is to build up the Orthodox faith in you, which you may not have been taught completely elsewhere. We’re not interested in criticizing your past, but instead on taking the foundation you’ve received and helping you grow in the Orthodox faith. We have to get to know you a little in order to do that.

Q. I can see this is a vibrant community and the people seem spiritually happy. I’m just not ready to commit because this is a lot of information I’ve never heard before. What do you recommend?

A. We are here for everyone, regardless of his or her affiliation. Christ teaches us to minister to one and all. You are welcome to attend liturgy, and participate as much as you are able as a guest. We do ask that you not approach communion in our Church until you’ve had a chance to make a decision and have spoken with the priest, but you are welcome to receive antidoron (blessed bread) at the end of liturgy. We are also happy to pray the Mnimosino or other prayers for you and your family. Take your time to get to know us, and we can provide you with any additional information you need.

This was a booklet that I originally prepared to distribute to those visiting my mission parish from a New Calendar background, many of whom by this point were unaware that there even was such a thing as the Old Calendar Church. Its focus is pastoral in nature, rather than historical/doctrinal.
Related posts:
March 18, 2013