Schismatic Old Calendarism is an Anti-Patristic Stance

[Anastasios]

So let me get this strait--you think we have gone beyond Orthodoxy? Just want to clarify.

[Michael]

"The entire point I made in posting the above references was to show the utter nonsense behind the notion that the Ecumenists are somehow Orthodox, and haven't really betrayed the faith. You now seem to be sidestepping this issue by postulating that the Old Calendarists weren't correct in their stance because they didn't oppose heresy before the 1960's."

And you seem to be missing the point that Ecumenism didn't take on heretical dimensions until the 1960's at the earliest, and that contemporary Old Calendarists are historical revisionists who like to conveniently date the rise of manifest, blatantly heretical Ecumenism from 1920 in order to cover-up their unjustifiable separation from canonical authorities at such an early date. In the words of the Old Calendarist Fr. George P Macris, author of “The Orthodox Church and the Ecumenical Movement During the Period 1920-1969,” -

"A review of the formative period of the Ecumenical Movement [1920-1958] revealed that the Orthodox remained steadfast in their convictions positively declaring that they alone had preserved in full and intact 'the faith once delivered to the saints.' Their insistence that unity could only be accomplished by a return of the separated brethren to the Una Sancta – the Orthodox Church – proved discouraging to the Protestant membership of the World Council of Churches who looked to gain at least a degree of mutual recognition as members of the Church of Christ.” (page 17)

"You then go on to call St. Philaret 'of blessed memory,' and quote a reference from the Sorrowful Epistles, which indicated an Orthodox attitude towards ecumenism prior to the 1960's. However, this does not prove that the Patriarchal Encyclical of 1920 wasn't really heretical."

Once again, you're missing the point, which was that no one, even the famously anti-ecumenical Metropolitan Philaret, considered Ecumenism to be manifestly heretical - which is precisely the meaning of teaching something "bare-headed in church" (not implied, inferred, secretly or potentially, but blatantly) as says the 15th canon of the 1st-2nd Synod - until the 1960's. Now, if you personally consider the 1920 Encyclical to be manifestly heretical, then you better think long and hard, because no one at the time believed this, and thus the whole Church knowingly or unknowingly drifted away into apostasy a long time ago.

"Splitting hairs over some point in time that the Old Calendarists were uncanonical is nothing but a red herring to distract attention from the fact that 'World Orthodoxy' is an apostate religion, and is utterly anathema."

And such anti-ecumenical rhetoric is also a red herring, a cover-up for the completely uncanonical origin of the Old Calendarists, who severed communion with their Archbishop over an unfortunate and ill-advised canonical innovation and have since spiralled downward into sectarian confusion, long before Ecumenism reared its head as a heresy, and only adopted a public and stridently anti-ecumenical stand when it became advantageous for them. In fact, even as late as 1985, the famous non-commemorator Fr. Theodoretos of Mt. Athos, when responding to the question of why he was publishing the anti-ecumenical works of Metropolitan Philaret and not those of the Greek Old Calendarists, he replied "I would gladly publish them, but there are none!”

[Anastasios]

Actually, you're quite wrong. The very reason why the 1920 Encyclical was not instantly rejected by the Church as a whole is because it had no real theological intent behind it.

It was produced by a persecuted Constantinople in a feeble attempt to improve the socio-political situation of Orthodox Christians in the wake World War I. Mount Athos didn't erupt in universal protest, and neither did any other ecclesiastical center, because they saw it for what it was. Today, it is not-so-cleverly used to justify a "walling off."

It's ok to betray Orthodoxy as long as it is for socio-political reasons? Nationalism is another great problem infecting the Orthodox Churches in our time, but that is another topic for another day. At any rate, even non Old Calendarists recognize the ecclesiological problem of this encyclical: http://www.orthodox.net/articles/confli ... linos.html

And one encyclical is not the catch-all. You keep referencing one statement here, one act there. I don't operate like that. No one statement or one act is generally enough to merit a break of communion, but it is the totality of the acts and the context in general.

"When the first steps were taken in the organization of the Ecumenical Movement, many of the Orthodox Churches, following the initiative of the Patriarch of Constantinople, began to participate in its conferences. At the time such participation did not cause any worry even among the most zealous Orthodox. They thought that the Church would suffer no injury if her representatives appeared among various truth-seeking Protestants with the aim of presenting Orthodoxy in the face of their various errors. Such a participation in inter-faith conferences could be thought of as having a missionary character."

This was what Orthodox Christians thought "at the time," as you put it.

How does this prove your point? The Faith and Order conference did not involve any voting on doctrine or joint statements, but was composed of people sitting around and comparing beliefs and nothing more. There is nothing wrong with talking to other people--but changing calendar to celebrate holy days with heretics IS caving in.

Again, you quote Metropolitan Philaret. Obviously ROCOR had a differnet attitude towards the Caledar change as shown by the letter of Fr George Grabbe in 1962 to the Old Calendarist council of archimandrites. We can respect differences of opinion.

"This is the way our understanding develops--retrospectively. The seed and the clues were there though, and like I said, the calendar itself is a part of tradition and doctrinal."

This is what makes the Old Calendarists sectarian, and why they are viewed a "fanatical" by so many, and why their voice is rendered silent, as opposed to individuals such as Blessed Philotheos Zervakos, Blessed Ephiphanios Theodoropoulos, Blessed Augustinos of Florina, and so many others who remained under new calendar hierarchs, yet fought Ecumenism publicly and courageously.

How is THAT what makes us "sectarian"? My ideas of retrospective understanding were given expression from reading the new Calendarist author Fr John Behr, one of my professors at St Vladimir's Seminary.

It's interesting that neither Met Augustinos nor Elder Philotheos would call Old Calendarists schismatics as you have asserted.

You are parroting the old MP polemic, which modern scholarship - traditional and otherwise - has proven to be false. Nikon had motives and his reforms had consequences which would cause this discussion to drift in a direction too far from the original topic, so I will leave it alone. But I will observe that, regardless of the intent, it did produce a division, and a division which was much larger than that produced by the calendar change. And just like they Old Calendarists, they have drifted beyond Orthodoxy and into the realm of sectarianism.

I am actually not parroting anything--I have never read up on the Old Believer schism. I am simply looking at the issue with the evidence as presented.

Anastasios

[Michael]

"It's ok to betray Orthodoxy as long as it is for socio-political reasons? Nationalism is another great problem infecting the Orthodox Churches in our time, but that is another topic for another day."

No, I don't believe it's OK, and neither did anyone else who read it. But Orthodox Christians, intelligent as they were, recognized the dire circumstances that existed at the time and understood the intent. That is why there was no uproar or "walling off."

"Again, you quote Metropolitan Philaret. Obviously ROCOR had a differnet attitude towards the Caledar change as shown by the letter of Fr George Grabbe in 1962 to the Old Calendarist council of archimandrites. We can respect differences of opinion."

I agree. Of course, one could argue that the only opinion that is relevant from the ROCOR at the time is the consensus of the Synod of Bishops, which was expressed twice in official letters to the Old Calendarists in 1961:

"Our Church keep the Old Calendar and considers the introduction of the new calendar a great mistake. Nevertheless, her tactic was always to keep spiritual communion with the Orthodox Churches who accepted the new calendar as long as they celebrated Pascha according to the decision of the First Ecumenical Council. Our Church has never declared the Ecumenical Patriarchate of the Greek Archdiocese of North and South America to be schismatic and did not break spiritual communion with them." (dated 9/27)

and

"Our Church keep the Old Calendar and considers the introduction of the new calendar to be a mistake. Nevertheless, according to the politics of Patriarch Tikhon of blessed memory, we never broke spiritual communion with the canonical Churches in which the new calendar had been introduced." (dated 10/3)

And ultimately, the Holy Synod issued a "Statement" in 1974 that, contrary to the Old Calendarists, the acceptance of the new calendar does not automatically entail the loss of grace:

"Concerning the question of the presence or absence of grace among the new calendarists the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad does not consider herself or any other Local Church to have the right to make a conclusive decision, since a categorical evaluation in this question can be undertaken only by a properly convened, competent Ecumenical Council, with the obligatory participation of the free Church of Russia." (dated 9/24)

It would seem to me that if the calendar was a question of doctrine, and the Russian Synod refused to recognize this, then they fell away from the Church along with the New Calendarists decades ago, and under the presidency of Metropolitan Philaret!

"How is THAT what makes us 'sectarian'? My ideas of retrospective understanding were given expression from reading the new Calendarist author Fr John Behr, one of my professors at St Vladimir's Seminary."

Using your logic, you could justify a "walling off" from someone tampering with any external custom of the Church. The Holy Tradition and "traditions" of the Church are rightly well-integrated, and one could easily argue that nothing should change ever in the Church, but if this was accurate, then the Church disappeared many centuries ago. The 1st-2nd Synod made it clear: breaking of communion is acceptable only in instances of heresy - doctrine and dogma - which have been previously condemned by Synods and Fathers (meaning no "new", no unexamined doctrines can justify "walling off"), and is being taught "bare-headed" - explicitly, openly, manifestly, clear for all to see - in Church.

"It's interesting that neither Met Augustinos nor Elder Philotheos would call Old Calendarists schismatics as you have asserted."

I won't speak on behalf the Blessed Augustinos (which the modern TOC considers a heretic and schismatic), but Blessed Philotheos was quite found of the term "fanatic" when describing those who consider the calendar a question of doctrine and New Calendarists devoid of grace. I suspect the only Old Calendarists he would have any sympathy to today would be the Cyprianites, who are rejected by the rest as heretical. And his spiritual son, the great ant-Ecumenist Blessed Epiphanios, wrote very harsh things against the Old Calendarists - and referred to them as schismatic - apparently with his blessing.

[Michael]

At this point, I should probably withdraw myself from this discussion, simply because I do not wish to provoke any further contentious discussion during this period of Lenten struggle. I would also like to state that despite my uncharitable choice of words, I do not consider every Old Calendarist to be a schismatic. There have been so many events in the past 40 years that are disturbing to the Orthodox faithful, and some people, out of conscience, have chosen to join the "True Orthodox Church of Greece." I can only hope and pray that these sincere believers, while existing outside the visible boundaries of the Church, somehow remain, by the mercy of God, within the confines of the Ark.

I apologize for any offense my words have caused, and may God have mercy on us all.

[Sean]

God forgives.

I just find it strange that so many ecumenists are personally against ecumenism, but won't separate from their heretical bishops. This is a traditionalist forum, moderated and administered by members of the Catacomb Church of Russia and the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece, yet most of the people who post on this site are with the OCA. It's as if the Church were swamped by Arians against Arianism.

If your bishop is a heretic, YOU are a heretic.

At this point, I should probably withdraw myself from this discussion, simply because I do not wish to provoke any further contentious discussion during this period of Lenten struggle. I would also like to state that despite by uncharitable choice of words, I do not consider every Old Calendarist to be a schismatic. There have been so many events in the past 40 years that are disturbing to the Orthodox faithful, and some people, out of conscience, have chosen to join the "True Orthodox Church of Greece." I can only hope and pray that these sincere believers, while existing outside the visible boundaries of the Church, somehow remain, by the mercy of God, within the confines of the Ark.

I apologize for any offense my words have caused, and may God have mercy on us all.

[Anastasios]

Thank you mlillios for an interesting discussion. Blessed Lent!

In Christ,

Anastasios