The Change in the Calendar of the Church of Greece
The Calendar issue is not a simple religious issue. If one goes back, impartially, to historical sources, he will realize that political and religious differences between East and West are implicated. Since the establishment of the empire of Rome as the Roman (Hellenic-Orthodox) Empire of Constantinople (Constantine the Great, 4th century A.D.) the different peoples who lived outside its borders coveted its advancement and wealth. The barbarian peoples of the West, Franks, Logobards, Burgundians, Saxons, Normans and Goths attacked at different periods of time, enslaving western provinces of the Roman Empire. The conquerors with the passing of time, realized that the enslavement of these people was only physical, and that under no circumstances were able to make the enslavement spiritual. So it was impossible to convert them. With this realization, they began to effect ways to spiritually enslave the Romans.
They knew that the points of reference of the enslaved Greeks consisted of:
a) On one hand, their Orthodox faith, and
b) On the other hand, the acceptance of the Emperor of Constantinople as their supreme lord and head of the nation. In order to impose their sovereignty, they had to persuade the Western Romans that the Eastern Romans were their enemies and had enslaved them, while these representatives of the Franks were their friends, proof of which was their liberation from slavery, which was forced on them by the East!
In order to realize their plans, they set two goals in their propaganda:
a) Firstly, they pretended to become Orthodox, without ever having studied Orthodoxy and assimilating to it.
b) Secondly, they accused the Emperor of Constantinople in every way, and also the Romans of the East that they were perverted and had enslaved them. Therefore, they, the Franks, were their liberators from their enslavement by the Eastern Romans.
To succeed in their first goal, not only did they agree to be baptized Christian, but also took care to network themselves into the leadership of the Orthodox Church with the prospect of conquering it. From then on, the first child in a family of “nobles” inherited the nobility title from his father. The second child went into the military, and the third child advanced into the clergy, in fact becoming a priest at a large parish or an abbot at an important monastery, with a later purpose of becoming a bishop. Those bishops were the ones who dogmatized the addition of Filioque in the 8th century A.D.
These tactics constitute the basis of the “Black Middle Ages” with the Holy Inquisition. These pseudo-Christian descendants of the conquerors that had become priests used the sacrament of confession against the enslaved Romans. In other words, they interrogated the confessors, if they still held the faith towards the East, if they accepted the doctrines of faith of the easterners and if they believed the emperor of Constantinople to be the Supreme Lord. When they found this to be true, they surrendered them to the “Holy Inquisitors” who with various means of torture forced them to admit to being involved with sorcery and they were condemned to death by burning at the stake.
To succeed in their second goal, to cut all ties with Constantinople and the emperor, they tried to persuade the enslaved Romans that in the East, only perverse and immoral heretics lived, who had enslaved them, and from whom they had set them free. They also tried to persuade them that they (the Franks) are the true Romans. In fact, in the 8th century A.D. they crowned Charles (the Great for the Franks) King of the Romans in the East and West.
In the 11th century A.D. (1054) when the schism of East and West was made official, they then decided to abolish the Eastern Roman Empire by force. As justification, they used “the liberation from the Muslims of the grave of Christ.” Thus, they started the notorious “Crusades” whose main purpose was the occupation or seizure of Constantinople, or at least, in every way, its weakening.
As Prof. B. Feidas writes in Religious and Moral Encyclopedia on the premise of the “Crusades”: “These campaigns strengthened the authority of the pope of Rome and in time took on the general character of war against all the faithless who were proclaimed enemies of Christianity, as well as against those who did not wish to submit to the commanding jurisdiction of the pope. One can perceive what submission to the pope really means when you think that the Pope is the main expression of the Franks. A fortunate end for the Franks was the weakening of the Empire of Constantinople and the enslavement of the Eastern Romans by the Turks on May 29, 1453.
During the Turkish rule 1453-1821 the Franks tried to debase Orthodoxy with the admission of the Frankish (new) calendar (Calendar of Holidays). The Romans (Hellenic-Orthodox) reacted with Panorthodox Councils in 1583, 1587, 1593 which condemned the Franks as heretics and delivered an eternal anathema to all those who accepted the Frankish calendar. Unfortunately, after the liberation from Turkish rule of a small province, formerly belonging to the Roman Empire in Greece, the Franks used another way to succeed in their goal, the recruiting of traitors.
They convinced the enslaved Ecumenical Patriarchate to send their clergy to the “free Christian West” to be educated! With this Frank education they were changed to “janissaries” against Orthodoxy and Greeks.
From the end of the 19th century there was a friendly attitude toward the west at the ecumenical Patriarchate. With the nomination of Ioakim 3rd as Patriarch, (1878-1884) we have the first ecumenical Free-mason Patriarch. In the year 1895 the Ecumenical Patriarch Anthimos 7th can be considered the forbearer of the calendar change, since he was the first to express a desire and the wish for a single calendar for all Christian people.
By sending a circular during his second period as Patriarch (1901-1912), Ioakem 3rd asked the opinion of all Orthodox Churches about the change in the calendar.
In the spirit of this question, the church of Greece was also pressured by the Greek State to accept the change of the Julian Calendar of Holidays to the Gregorian one, suggesting a committee consisting of the Most Reverends: Demetriados Germanos as President, Ambrosios of Naupaktias and Euritanias and the professors: the then Archimandrite and later Metropolitan of Athens, Chrisostomos Papadopoulos, Mr. Aiginitis and Mr. Zolotas. The committee following a proposal of Professor Aiginitis decided as follows: The Committee is of the opinion that the change of the Julian Calendar, not going against the dogmatic and canonical word, is possible after coming to an understanding with all the Autocephalous Orthodox Churches.
With the suggestion of the committee, the church of Greece rejected the idea of change to the calendar. It seems that the issue did not receive the expected acceptance by the other Autocephalous Churches and remained as is for a later time. Indeed, the modernistic spirit found suitable ground for change at the end of the first twenty years of the 20th century. The reason for this was the national tragedy of Asia Minor and the political animosity that was dominant at this time in Greece. Then was the suitable time for the first steps for the panheresy of the Ecumenism. According to the Patriarchal encyclical of 1920 under the governorship of Dorotheos Prousis (this is considered to constitute the charter of Ecumenism) in which it explains the reason that the change in calendar is imperative. “The simultaneous celebration of immobile holidays between East and West will contribute the utmost in order to obtain the much desired union.” The objective of the change is the bridging of the chasm between East and West. But not with the blotting out of the reasons that brought it about, and not by the return of the West to its Orthodox sources from which, as we said above, it had cut off ties, but by the Orthodox East accepting the various innovations of the West to come close and finally assimilate with their herecy.
The “Pan-Orthodox Convention” in Constantinople in June 1923, which decided the change of the calendar, in its 10th decision reserves the right for later amendments (of the new calendar). It puts, however, as a necessary condition the consent of the rest of the Autocephalous Churches.
Therefore, we come to the conclusion that even for the initial change a necessary presupposition was the agreement by all Autocephalous Christian Churches. The rest of the churches (save the Greek ones) not only did not agree with the acceptance of the new calendar, but wrote to the Ecumenical Council that asked their opinion about the change in the calendar:
a) The Patriarchate of Russia states their opposition to the new calendar.
b) The Patriarchate of Jerusalem states that any change to the old calendar and a preference to the new would be harmful to Orthodoxy.
c) The representatives of the Orthodox Church are hesitant about this issue because a change in the calendar would mean a change in the celebration of Easter and would be dangerous to Orthodoxy. (Church of Mavrovounio)
d) We should not tamper with ancient decisions. (Church of Romania)
Also, when the Metropolitan of Athens, Chrysostomos, tried to persuade the rest of the Orthodox Churches to support the Ecumenical Patriarchate for the change in the calendar, he received the following answers:
a) Identifying the Orthodox holidays towards the Roman papal church is judged unprofitable for Orthodoxy (Patriarchate of Jerusalem)
b) Political factors believe that a change in the calendar is a symptom of progress even though the eastern church holds onto the Julian Calendar, despite the violence the state is using on us to accept the Gregorian one. This inclination towards the alteration of the canons looks in our eyes as a great danger. (Patriarchate of Antioch)
c) “... all about the calendar and Paschal celebration... we have read... we made haste to announce these to your Most Holy Synod of Metropolitans, convening on the 14th of March according to the calendar our fathers delivered to us... Because our holy church not only did not see any neccesity at all, but not even due to simple circumstances is there a need to correct the calendar our Orthodox Church is currently using.” (Patriarchate of Alexandria)
The Greek state was pressured by the Frank government of the West for a change in the calendar. Afraid of possible reactions from the Church of Greece, with a Royal Decree that was signed on January 18, 1923 and was published in the Government newspaper on January 25, it decided the change in calendar by which the February 16th 1923 became March 1st 1923. Under no circumstances did it create an issue in the Church.
And this because Paragraph 3 of the first article stated: “We are maintaining valid the Julian calendar as far as the Church and religious holidays are concerned.
In the next Paragraph 4, it stated: The National Holiday of March 25th and some other holidays are regulated according to the Julian calendar.
Obviously, the Metropolitan of Athens, Chrysostomos, pressured the revolutionary government to celebrate March 25th according to the new calendar, contrary to the Royal Decree. And this because he seemed driven by modernistic tendencies (tonsure of the hair, attending theatrical performances). He wanted to pressure the hierarchy to accept the change of calendar on the pretext that perhaps confusion would be created by not celebrating the Annunciation together with the National Holiday.
The approval by the Hierarchy was received and Chrysostomos circulated encyclical, No. 430, on March l, 1924 in which he notifies the Greek Church that the 10th of March will be named and celebrated as the 23rd of March!
This news of change had as a consequence the scandalized reaction of the conscience of the Orthodox people who with one voice shouted: “After 20 centuries our church has been made “Frankish!”. They formulated their ecclesiastic position as follows: The administrative Hierarchy by its acceptance and use in holy worship of the Gregorian calendar, as acknowledged by the then Ecumenical Patriarch Gregory, in his letter to the then Metropolitan of Athens, Chrysostomos Papadopoulos wrote: “We and the church must not, dear brother in Christ go along with this reform towards the Gregorian calendar. I declare it schismatic against the stature of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church of Christ.”
From that moment on, a large part of the clergy and the people did not accept the accomplished event and started resistance against the calendar innovation.
Initially, based in Athens, the organization of the “Greek Religious Community of Genuine Orthodox Christians” was founded, with the purpose of organizing branches (parishes) in all of Greece. With a series of articles in the daily press, magazine publishings and other printed matter, they battled against the New Calendar followers. At the same time, on behalf of the New Calendar Church with the aid of the State, persecution against the Genuine Orthodox Christian clergy and laymen was started. The religious needs of the Genuine Orthodox Christians were met in different remote chapels for fear of the violent deformation of the clergy and the arrest of the laymen.
Until the year 1934, with the help of the clergy who did not follow the “law-abiding” church of the New Calendar and Holy Monks from Mount Athos, almost 800 branches (parishes) were organized. At the same time efforts to find Orthodox high priests who would undertake the leadership of the Holy War of Orthodoxy was continued.
13/26 May 1935 was a historical day for the true traditional Church of Christ. Three Metropolitans, Germanos Mavromatis of Demetrias, the former Metropolitan of Florina, Chrysostomos Kavouridis and Chrysostomos Demetriou of Zakynthos declared the Archbishop of Athens as schismatic and with their message to the people: “The persistance to the new calendar is a danger to the religion.” (Daily Press 14/27 May l935).
From April 23rd to April 26th 1935 the ordination of four new bishops takes place. Ordained were the Archmandrites:
Germanos Barikopoulos as Bishop of Kyklades
Christoforos Hatzis as Bishop of Megaris
Polikarpos Liosis as Bishop of Diavleia
