OLD AND NEW CALENDAR

Ημέρας παρατηρείσθε και μήνας και καιρούς και ενιαυτούς. Φοβούμαι μήπως εική κεκοπίακα εις υμάς (Gal. 4:10-11)

A GENERAL INTRODUCTION

In what follows we will be discussing the problem of so-called "Old Calendarists" which is a schismatic-at-most group of Orthodox Christians that places great emphasis on dates and other things as we shall see during our analysis. They are not to be confused with ordinary everyday Orthodox Christians who observe the Old Calendar (Julian) who are in full communion with those who follow the New Calendar (adjusted Julian). Most of Orthodoxy follows the Old Calendar but is in full sacramental union with the people who follow the New Calendar. There is a small minority today who feel very strongly on the changes in the Calendar and for this reason we discuss this issue here.

Also, many people in the West that belong to Churches that follow the Old Calendar (henceforth Old Style) are sympathetic to Old Calendarist groups which becomes a problem when individual people start thinking that these groups may have a point and therefore start looking at ordinary Orthodox Christians who follow the New Style (so-called "New Calendarists") with some resentment. This is dangerous of course and since small problems can lead to greater ones, it is worth discussing this issue in some detail here and examine why "New Calendarists" have nothing to fear as regards their Church (being Schismatic or Heretic) and also why Old Style Orthodox Christians need not worry about the changes in the Calendar as an issue that affects sacramental intercommunion. To put it more simply, the aim here is to protect the Russian, Serbian etc. Orthodox Christian especially in the Diaspora, who might be affected by Old Calendarist groups and individually decide to avoid a New Style Church near where he or she lives, even though there may be no Old Style Church nearby for him or her to worship in. Everyone should of course worship in their own Church if they can, for it is always easier (Russians in Russian Church, Serbs in Serbian etc.) but sometimes in the Diaspora they may not have the ability to visit a temple under their local Church and will have to visit a Church that may fall under the New Calendar. For example, for years I was going to a Serbian Church -- even though I normally go to a Greek Church -- because that was the one closest to me. The fact that the feasts were 13 days later than the feasts some of my friends in other cities would celebrate in their New Style Churches did not bother me. And of course it should not bother me, because the Old and New Styles are in intercommunion. In other words this is really not an issue that an individual can take into their own hands since the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is united and peaceful on this. Nevertheless, let us find out what is going on.

Let us first briefly discuss these "dogmatic" Old Calendarists and see how it all started out.

We refer the reader to this article here, written by the well-known pious Athonite Elder fully respected by "dogmatic" Old Calendarists who used to be one of those figures who valiantly fought various issues in the Church (Athenagorism, Ecumenism etc.).

The reform in the calendar aroused lively opposition, particularly in Greece, where groups of "Old Calendarists" or Palaioimerologitai broke with the official New Calendar Church and set up a separate organisation of their own. In the 1930s and 1940s, although persecuted by the Greek civil authorities, they commanded a substantial following, with their own bishops and monasteries, together with some 800 parishes and perhaps as many as a million sympathizers. In those days they were simply Orthodox Christians who reacted strongly to the unilaterally introduced New Calendar, at a time when Greece was in civil strife with politics playing a major role in such issues. (It is often attributed to Metaxakis, but the politics of the time played a major role, larger than that of Metaxakis.) A large number of such Orthodox Christians reacted against the New Calendar but did not leave Mother Church as they knew the issue was not dogmatic and therefore if they severed relations they would become schismatics. Also it is to be noted that there were valid practical reasons for the introduction of this Calendar, which after all was decided by an Ecclesiastical Body. If indeed the other supposed innovations promoted by Metaxakis never saw the light, how can we say that the Council was subject to his whims and desires?

A smaller group however did sever relations and in 1950 officially broke relations with Greece.

More recently members of this Old Calendarist group split further, under the spirit of delusion, into a number of rival groups and these lost most of their influence in Greece, although some unfortunately began to receive strength in the West where they moved: the Western Orthodox received the Calendar issue with some delay, and in the Diaspora it is still causing some problems.

The monks of Athos, while adhering to the Old Style, have for the most part maintained communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople and the official Church of Greece. It is probably constructive to say that today the only Palaioimerologitai group on Athos is the self-proclaimed "zealot fathers" at the Monastery of Ascension at Esphigmenou. It is also worth pointing out that the Esphigmenou Monastery did not used to be "Old Calendarist" until very recently (for the past 30 years). For example, when Elder Paisios of the Holy Mountain used to be in the Esphigmenou Monastery, the Monastery was not Old Calendarist in those days. However there are changes even there, and they are not as strict in their views as they used to be having corrected some of their old fallacies.

The Old Calendarists see the change in the calendar as the first in a long series of innovations which, so they believe, have corrupted the mainstream Orthodox Churches in the present century. In their view, what is at stake is not just a technical matter of thirteen days, but the purity of the Orthodox faith. They object in particular to the initiatives taken by the Ecumenical Patriarch and others towards reunion with western Christendom. They believe this Ecumenism as a result of the Ecumenical Movement leads us one step closer to the reign of the Antichrist.

And they are partly correct.

We say partly because we must also disagree with many of the methods used to attempt "dialogues of love" in order to eventually re-unite with the West: we must help bring Christ to all especially those deceived by heresy first, and then to the allodox, but without compromising Christ's Faith in the process. This compromising wherever it happens, happens by individual pseudo-Ecumenist priests and lay or clerical syncretistic theologians who are present in some meetings and never by the totality of the Church of Greece or other "New Calendarist" Churches.

We agree that the Truth of Christ does not come out of dialogues of intellectual scholastics, but through Divine Revelation. The union of Christianity is not a matter of putting things down on the table and discussing them to see what concessions can be made so we can all unite. If that were the case then the Confessors and Martyrs of the Orthodox Church would never have existed. We could have avoided so much blood by simply making a few dogmatic concessions here and there (Rome-style). But when one leaves the Light of the Sun of Righteousness, even by a tiny part, he is in Darkness. The Church cannot be divided, which means that if we make concessions that are against the Church's doctrines and ethos, we move to the Darkness of Heresy. There is no Grace there. Only Darkness.

However, we must also disagree with the statement that Orthodox Churches were "destroyed" since the dogmas are still the same because the discussions have never resulted in the Orthodox Church making any dogmatic concessions. Even if some of the views/agreements put forward/made by some Orthodox "pro-pseudo-ecumenists" were not Orthodox, these people are not truly representative of the pleroma of the Orthodox Church, and, while these views were unfortunate, still form nothing but their own personal opinions, often dismissed as quickly as formulated. However, where the danger actually lies, is in the fact that the world watches these meetings and many people wrongly believe that the official position of the Orthodox Church appears in these meetings.

That is the trap of the Devil!

However, any pseudo-ecumenist attempts are individual attempts at agapology and not a catholic representation of the participant Churches, especially when we have not even reached a time when pseudo-Ecumenism has been formally proclaimed as a heresy by the Orthodox Church. Of course, this does not mean that we sit and stay idle, or that we applaud these attacks. The people who write on this site are a few amongst million others who oppose such "pseudo-Ecumenist attempts" (which are done by individual priests or laity now and then, and are only at the stage of dialogue) and yet we are not Old Calendarist! It should also be noted that certain hierarchs accept the participation in the dialogues because of great pressures from the enemies of Christianity. A lot is going on behind the scenes and if the reader examines things carefully, they will discover that many hierarchs have to resort to great levels of diplomacy in order to keep things going. The word is also known as blackmail.

While the vast majority of the Orthodox people around the world have no idea about any of this, it should be noted that many hierarchs and laity who do know oppose pseudo-Ecumenism and realise that the World Council of Churches (WCC) do not have a clean agenda. The members of this site also object to many of the decisions made by present and past hierarchs on this and other issues.

The same holds for the individual pro-Rome and other pseudo-Ecumenist actions of even Ecumenical Patriarchs. Former Patriarch Athenagoras was not only wanting of a Papal union, but he even ... gave the blessing for a Spiritualist book once! Yes, that is right, Spiritualism, the satanic act of the "mediums"! There is strong evidence to suggest that he even was a Freemason (outside the Masons' list of "deceased brothers"), although he never said anything in public (although he did not denounce the accusations either). At any rate, what matters for our discussion here is the fact that while the 1960s saw Patriarch Athenagoras moving towards a very dangerous union with his pro-Rome actions, the same has not happened since. And while the issue of the Calendar was never considered dogmatic for the majority of the Athonite Elders, some monasteries (not all) felt that they had no choice but to observe the canons of the Holy Fathers in his case, as Orthodox canons required, and thus stopped commemorating Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras for a while, as a protest; while however remaining within the Holy Community and respecting its decisions. Indeed, whenever the Church is in true danger, the Church Fathers leave the realm of Economy and apply the Exactness of our Church. The pseudo-unions of 1274 and 1439 were the only times after the Great Schism when the Fathers of the Church did not apply Economy and had to stop communion because an attempt at union with the heretic Latins had been made.

We must recall what Elder Paisios of the Holy Mountain would say as regards the former Patriarch Athenagoras who had deviated (not because of the Calendar Change, not because of the Orthodox participation in the dialogues with the WCC) into syncretistic ecumenism: "I pray", the Elder would say with pain in his heart, "that our Lord takes years off my life and gives them to our Patriarch", because the one who leads a wicked life has the real need for many years; the Orthodox who is on the right path only needs to have good years!

This is how the saintly ascetic viewed -- with sadness of course -- the deviation of an Ecumenical Patriarch, this is the Orthodox way of love. He did not share his views on one extreme, and he did not sever relations with the Church on the other (by considering all New Calendarist Churches as schismatic and heretical because all this somehow began through the Calendar issue and Athenagoras was the end product of this), but found the golden section of true love in Christ. And of course, Athos did stay canonical, since it was accepted as such by all other Patriarchates. The commemoration of Athenagoras ceased by some monasteries due to love, it was done in peace and harmony under the guidance of the Holy Community that put up with this as a justified temporary form of protest (not individual groups deciding to cut off relations by themselves ignoring the common decision, which is insurrection). Elder Paisios did not turn around with a small insurrected "gang" to start slandering and anathematising the Patriarch, with a malice and satisfaction that "the heretic will burn to hell". He obeyed the rest of the Athonite Elders, and they all did this out of love, and not because of any Calendar, but because Athenagoras had deviated individually and they could not continue to commemorate him as an Ecumenical Patriarch, and this for a time.

We must indeed disagree with the arbitrary statement that, somehow, all the problems in Greece took off with the change in the Calendar. In the mind of the majority of Old Calendarists, to this very day, as well as certain Russian Orthodox groups abroad (ROCA) that have been influenced by Old Calendarist arguments, the Calendar Change remains the single most important issue in modern history and everything, from pseudo-Ecumenism down to individual deviations of hierarchs, somehow manage to find themselves related to that event.

We oppose not the Christian Ecumenical spirit but the agapology (the art of turning the word agape -- i.e. love -- into an elevated art of hypocrisy) that seems to be the substitute for true love and thirst for truth today on some occasions through syncretism and nauseating anti-canonical concelebration that take place on some instances here and there during WCC meetings but also outside (by some individual hierarchs). Of course such anti-canonical crimes would also take place in the past, throughout history, long before the new form of pseudo-Ecumenism became prevalent.

And of course since Christ is at the helm He ensures that many bishops proved true to their name (bishop = guardian). They have guarded the faith and did not let the few hierarchs and lay political leaders who went astray on certain issues or continue their attack against us, respectively, harm the Body of Christ; something of course they cannot do anyway because Christ is at the helm and not even the gates of Hades can destroy His Church.

The members within the State Church of Greece or other "New Calendarist" Churches have often fought pseudo-Ecumenism. Read here, for example. Pseudo-Ecumenism however is not implemented in practice as a realised individual heretical act until such a time when an Orthodox Christian decides to go beyond modernism and pseudo-Ecumenist views and pray together with heretics, Assisi-style. Having individual opinions that are pro-Rome, or participating into discussions without praying, or even visiting the Vatican, cannot be taken as examples of "having fallen into the heresy of pseudo-Ecumenism". And even if individual people fall into such a heresy, again this does not render the whole Church as heretical but is an anti-canonical crime that this person has committed. What the Church decides to do with them afterwards, depending on whether they repent or not, is another issue. There is also another excuse that some of the deceived people have today, and that is the fact that the Orthodox Church has not provided a formal declaration on the nature of this newly developing heresy. Old Calendarists see themselves in their prideful manner as a form of "bedrock", as the "true protectors" of everything that is Orthodox, and marvel in their self-conceit. In reality, however, both within and outside the World Council of Churches, millions of Orthodox souls are fighting against pseudo-Ecumenism calmly and trusting in Christ's promise that the Gates of Hades will never prevail against His Church, a promise that has never failed because He is Truth, without resorting to fanaticism and extremism.

We shall leave us behind the snake of pseudo-Ecumenism for now, though, and return to the issue of Old Calendarists. As you see, we agree with them on this issue: the Orthodox Church is in danger from pseudo-Ecumenism. However the participation of the State Church of Greece in the World Council of Churches does not make the Church heretical for neither do we accept the views of the heretical members nor are we supposed to pray with their representatives during meetings. Any hierarchs that choose of their own will to pray with heretics (whether within the WCC or outside) have themselves to blame! The syncretistic environment of the WCC makes such an endeavour even more difficult and this is yet another good reason why we should leave and not let the poor Orthodox hierarchs lose their soul through possible concelebration or other anathematised acts. God will judge them however and the canons of the Church, should these find themselves applicable under the circumstances, depending on how Economy may apply.

Yes, we must speak against any blasphemous moves we notice, and we do! The Holy Mountain that accepts the State Church of Greece as fully canonical, has nevertheless issued a formal document of concern to Archbishop Christodoulos as regards recent pro-Rome and WCC actions. (We will add this soon when we discuss pseudo-Ecumenism in greater detail.) But we (like the Elders at Athos also do) must always do so with respect and love, remembering that we (each one of us individually) are not the Church but individual members and while we can provide our own opinion with tact where it is wanted, we cannot insurrect against our hierarchs. We are not over and above the Church. We will come back to this point later on.

Of course, we must add here that in a hypothetical scenario where the reader knows of a priest in his parish that has prayed together with heretics, he must confront the priest and tell him that he does not agree with what he did and then avoid seeing or talking to him, mention it to the other parish priests and eventually all the way up to the bishop. If no one pays heed and they begin to do this on a daily basis, he must leave this parish and inform other Orthodox that crimes are being conducted in that parish. If you, dear reader, decide to put up with such a situation then of course you also have now a share of the blame! But these situations wherever they may happen (and have happened in the distant past of our Church) are (and were) individual and independent events, which often end (and ended) with the wrath of God to whom such acts are an "abomination" (read our Patristic Section for an example of such an issue on Athos many centuries ago).

Unfortunately, the Devil can deceive people at times but we have heard of such events very rarely, even in our secular world of today with slack faith and no ethical values. It should also be noted that in the vast majority of these rare cases, we also have a certain form of persecution taking place at the time. Usually, Rome has taken that mantle in the recent past (e.g. Yugoslavia in WWII).

The Church will always have some issue to tackle, thrown in by the Devil and those he controls. This does not mean though that we pack our bags and leave the Church at a time when She needs us most! When the army needs you to fight but you abandon the war and go to sit on the side to make impressive comments about the enemy's wickedness and rightfully condemn the enemy, do you know what happens to you? You still get shot for abandoning the lines!

If indeed participation into the WCC is a dangerous pathway that eases the heresy of pseudo-Ecumenism, then all the more important that we stay inside the Church and learn about pseudo-Ecumenism, without however leaving the Church! And where can we go outside Christ's Body? Naked and alone? As if the Church of Christ can ever fall into apostasy!

Alas, this is what the Old Calendarists have done. As a result their theology is full of fallacies as regards certain beliefs of our Church.

Let us therefore re-iterate first of all that the fact that they are against pseudo-Ecumenism does not grant them the right to abandon the Church because this new threat in the realms of the Orthodox Church is something that millions of Orthodox Christians around the world are fighting against. Indeed, some Churches have left the WCC. In the USA serious consideration is given to abandoning the National Council of Churches, albeit for the wrong reasons. Even if we accept the fact that many Orthodox hierarchs are victims of pseudo-ecumenist beliefs (consciously or unconsciously) this does not mean that we must leave the Church! First, because the pseudo-ecumenist tendencies may or may not lead one to pseudo-Ecumenism. Secondly, because even if someone becomes a true pseudo-Ecumenist, that is an individual deviation, not the deviation of the whole Church or jurisdiction he belongs to, let alone the Church! Of course, syncretistic pseudo-Ecumenism has been reduced in many places, despite what the fanatics may claim. The Church is winning the battle against pseudo-Ecumenism. Moreover, the participation in WCC is at times due to political motivations. The Patriarchate in Constantinople would probably have disappeared by now had we not made some (non-dogmatic) concessions such as pretend we are happy to continue participating in the WCC.

Also, the increasing number of scandals and deviations we hear of around the world (within and outside the Church) should not scandalise the faithful. First, because the fact that the world is becoming more darkened has nothing to do with our faith, which always opposes the world, unless of course we want to imitate the world and not Christ and His Saints! Second, because the Fathers have prophesied on our times that are slowly approaching those of the Antichrist, when the worldly spirit will enter even the Church's hierarchs and few will remain strong in the faith, when people will be running away to the monasteries to savour the spirit of Orthodoxy free from worldly elements. But this is already happening today, especially in the West! The more worldly the priests become, the more people run to the various monasteries around the globe, where the monks now play a double role, because some of our hierarchs and lay or otherwise theologians are deviating -- falling prey to the worldly spirit which is more anti-Christian than ever! Third, because the satanic media will always turn like scavengers on the handful of deviant clergy or laity but will never mention anything as regards the thousandfold more Orthodox hierarchs and laity who live a life of sanctity, the incredible miraculous events of Orthodoxy or anything at all positive about the Church, but present the jaundiced views that suits their respective anti-Christian needs.

And it is not as if all of a sudden we are all forced to go and pray together with heretics in WCC meetings! That we are required to have "easy" mixed weddings or avoid baptism of converts in all cases, making dispensation the rule and not the exception. That we have to listen to those deceived hierarchs who had attempted to unsuccessfully "enjoin" some Antiochian parishes in the USA with Monophysite heretics, when of course the majority of the jurisdiction opposed to this, or just because some hierarchs in Europe signed a few papers in Geneva back in 1991. Can signed agreements be a substitute to a Pan-Orthodox Synod? Of course not. The devil always fights the Church. If we are going to count the number of "agreed statements" -- forced agreements due to sociopolitical reasons -- between Orthodox and heretics throughout the centuries we could not even fit them inside a large library!

And so on. There are many open wounds on the Body of Christ all over the Orthodox world. All of course stem from human failings; the more mainstream acceptance of mixed weddings e.g. in Greece are mainly due to the politics of king Othon in Greece who was a pro-Papist and helped ease the transition to their acceptance. Of course the Church allows such mixed weddings but in rare circumstances, making use of the Divine Oeconomy. However many parishes all over the Orthodox World totally reject "easy" mixed weddings. We do not have infallible leaders! There have always been moves in Greece against "easy" mixed weddings. Thus, if you can name ten parishes in Greece that easily accept "easy" mixed weddings, we will bring you fifty ones that only accept such situations using the Mystery of the Divine Economy with discernment and love in Christ; and yet not Old Calendarist (in this case State Greek). And of course that would still not be a reason for Schism. Even during war, if we observe the canons to the letter, we will most certainly lose.

Of course, the Church quietly accepts various current problems and issues for the time being, to a smaller or larger extent, though eventually decisions will have to be made and rest assured that they will be made. The traitor former Patriarch of Jerusalem Irinaeus was a problem and was eventually deposed. The problems get sorted out eventually: local synods convene and the other Churches become aware of these results (see below at the asterisks section). It is important to note that when local Synods convene in the Spirit, they take decisions that represent the whole of the Church, i.e. their decisions are also "in the Spirit". It is therefore important to realise that when the Continuous Local Synod of Greece participates fully and in humility, is guaranteed to be guided by the Holy Spirit. Many spiritual fathers participated in WCC with full knowledge of the dangers involved because they realised that our world of darkness had a need to hear about the Truth.

This also holds for pious American fathers. Father Romanides, that pillar of contemporary Orthodox theology and "prophet of Roman Orthodoxy", participated in WCC meetings. Eventually, he admitted that the intentions of WCC do not seem to relate to seeking the Truth. Nevertheless, he gave them a chance and defended the Orthodox position. Father Florovsky of blessed memory, admired by all "traditionalists", had been at the forefront of the Ecumenical Movement, even though he came to regret his participation at the last years of his life because of the great dangers it brings. We had an obligation to give others a chance though. After all, we must also remember that Christ gives everyone a chance. It was important that the Orthodox voice was heard in WCC meetings.

Today, however, things have changed. Since we can be of no help, as the WCC people behind the scenes do not really seem to want to be helped or to help others, but on the contrary intend to use Orthodoxy for their own dark purposes (read "Ecumenism unmasked" and "Ecumenism and Universality" from the references as well as this link), we must leave the WCC members alone so that they realise the error of their ways. Nevertheless, this must be decided by the totality of the Church (individual autocephalous Churches and Patriarchates, and eventually even by a new Pan-Orthodox Synod that, according to some, has been long due!). We bring our humble opinion but we cannot expect the Church to make a decision tomorrow morning just because "this is the way I feel". Such decisions take time. God steers the Church, and we must be obedient to the Fathers of our Church.

The point therefore is that regardless as to whether the reader accepts WCC as an anti-Christian organisation or not (and we certainly believe that it has dark purposes), this issue by tiself cannot be used as an excuse to move away from Mother Church, the Ancient Rock of our Faith, and stay cut off in small congregations, small pebbles in the deep of the ocean, where the schismatic quickly loses his balance and falls inside the sea of deceptions.

Therefore, to sum up: participation in WCC in and by itself is not heretical although improper manner during the meetings can be problematic. Were it heretical, then father Florovsky who had been at the forefront of the Ecumenical Movement should have carried (at least for a time) the stigma of a heretic. As we mentioned above, the blessed father eventually came to condemn the nature of this beast, of course, which appears friendly on the outside while in our opinion it is not. However when he condemned its nature he was mainly interested in ensuring that next generations of Orthodox do not lose their soul in witless discussions. We all agree: it is dangerous and, unless something drastically changes in this organisation, pointless! WCC seems to have been used indirectly as a means to bring all Christian people together into a "union" (and not a mere "unity" in terms of a common voice in general matters, like abortion, which is what discussions between Orthodox and Papists have often centered around). But a "union" in what? Can there be true union in anything but True Faith and Ethos? Of course not. But until Churches pull out it takes time. Many people are still not convinced and they believe this form of dialogue is a good thing. We respect this view. We cannot label them heretics for this view when the Church has not even officially proclaimed the new heresy that lies behind the apparent dialogues (although there is an ever-increasing awareness of it all over the world).

The problem, as one can read here or here, is not so much in participation in the discussions but in two other major factors that need to be taken into consideration:

A.) A dialogue cannot bring the unity if not done in the Spirit. Discussions can only proceed between the grace-filled Body of Christ who can only act as a Physician towards the patients of the WCC who must be humble and understanding of their problem. It cannot produce any fruits if it is conducted as between equals, because we are not attempting to "find the Truth" amongst all denominations, but bring the deceived denominations back to Christ's Orthodoxy.

B.) Dialogues that are conducted against the Spirit, as described in A.), will never bear any real fruit because they are scholastic and empty of true living theology which must be lived. Even if we accept these discussions as able to bear some fruit (not a single member of WCC has become Orthodox so far) these can only take place for a limited amount of time: "the heretick after the first and second admonition reject". A century has already passed, where many admonitions have taken place but the "heretick" still insists on his fallacy. As fr. Seraphim Rose of the Russian Church Abroad put it succinctly: "Participation in WCC is at best a waste of time and at worst a compromise of the faith." The faith indeed is often compromised by certain individual members, and the enemies of Christianity are working hard to convince the world that this compromise wherever and whenever it happens is the official Orthodox position.

Of course, the Ecumenical Movement does not affect the individual salvation and life of Christians within each Church of Orthodoxy, except when pseudo-Ecumenist priests run their parishes, for the priests will often affect the flock, especially the flock that is not knowledgable in our faith but is instead weak or "loose". Wherever deep Orthodox roots exist, however, such problems are not often met. On the contrary, many problems arise in countries where Orthodoxy has an infant presence (like the USA), especially as many other problems already exist there (Western secular spirit, no deep Orthodox roots, modernism, strong proselytisation from other religions and heresies, lack of a historical memory etc.).

However, Orthodox Christians are not meant to act like the members of the deluded Western heresies as regards what they are told. There are many safeguards that Jesus Christ has given us through our Holy Tradition to ensure that we are not subject to the whims and desires of every priest. We listen, we read, we attend church, but we do so while also knowing our faith, while praying properly, while living close to the Church and in so many words while being responsible in Christ.

Needless to say that there is also God Himself, Who watches everything and acts against the actions of deviant priests and theologians who know their error but insist on it because they want to make some money, obtain fame and glory, and in so many words are victims to the devil they serve with their life.

The pseudo-Ecumenist discussions take place by some hierarchs (who do not of course represent their jurisdiction or Church because the Church as a whole can only be truly represented in True Pan-Orthodox Synods). Whatever these hierarchs choose to do or not do, is not something that will affect the reader's salvation within his or her Orthodox jurisdiction or Church, unless the reader of course accepts these views himself or herself. Those who are pseudo-Ecumenists or modernists in some way are those with a weak faith and living a life of comfort, affected by Western scholasticism and environment. Those with a strong faith and who live the life in Christ see through the eyes of their souls these errors and ignore them.

If, however, years from now, certain Churches or large groups of Orthodox Christians within a Church wholeheartedly decide either through their Local Synods or individually as a group to unite with heretics in intercommunion, then every single Orthodox Christian within said Church or jurisdiction will have the right and the obligation to flee and go to another parish of another jurisdiction that is canonical, even before formal condemnation by a Local or Pan-Orthodox Synod takes place. In the meantime, the current danger of pseudo-Ecumenism, while not ignored, cannot be used as a basis to leave the Church. Problems, anti-canonical issues, newly developed issues and so forth were faced and yet tolerated by the Fathers for two millennia. When the time was ripe, we saw where the situation led and eventually we all took the decision in Christ, as the Orthodox Church does. And Mother Church will not go astray because Christ is at the helm.

Nevertheless, we must also understand that such problems and issues did not first arise with the "Calendar Issue". Pseudo-ecumenism has taken many forms and shapes over the centuries. Contemporary pseudo-ecumenism wants to bring all of Christendom together in a union to Christ, using a minimalist belief in dogmas, so we all forcibly unite "for the love of Christ" and later on "for the love of god". On a smaller scale, this is exactly what many deviant hierarchs and lay wanted to do during many parts of the History of the Church.

Discussions with Rome, often from the part of some Orthodox hierarchs for them to obtain fame, glory and money, or out of political weakness and necessity, or both, have been taking place all the time in one way or another since the time of the Great Schism. Recall, for example, when the pseudo-Synod of Florence convened (read the examples we bring here). We will bring a lot more such examples because people new to the Faith fail to appreciate these points. What are these examples but a form of pseudo-Ecumenism?

The change in the Calendar did not open the road to pseudo-Ecumenism. One could very easily say that political inferiority, poverty, Communism, Islam, and many other factors opened the road to political and religious pseudo-Ecumenism in the 20th century. Even before the Ecumenical Movement had even been thought out as an organisation, pseudo-Ecumenists existed in other forms, as did Zealotists of course exist before the advent of Old Calendarism (recall the Old Believers or the Name-of-Jesus worshippers). Various forms of either slackness or extremism are guaranteed to lead one astray from the Church and of course weary Mother Church at the same time. In all such cases there have always been plenty of "valid reasons" to explain our slackness or zealotism. The devil ensures there are always enough "valid reasons" in order to keep us without reason.

Both in those times, as well as today, the vast majority of the lay and clergy were neither participant nor even knowledgeable of the various agapological attempts made in one way or another. The Church however did not fall. Indeed the Church cannot fall or be divided. In the end the fallacies disappear, the attempts thwarted. Take Communism. Russian Orthodoxy was attacked from outside, from within, from everywhere in such a way that one could not expect for us to have not even one Orthodox alive today in the former USSR region. In 20th century alone, more than 170 million Orthodox were killed in former USSR, the Balkans and elsewhere for their faith. And the persecution always continues, because the Devil knows where Christ's Body is situated and roars like a lion, trying to see how many souls he can devour. But even he knows the Truth that he rejected out of pride, viz. that not even "the gates of Hades can prevail against it": Churches were restored, Orthodoxy is again strong, millions of people returned to the Church, even the ex-KGB atheist Putin is now an Orthodox pious convert that recently visited Mount Athos with his also pious wife. On top of everything, millions of Russian martyrs smile at us and pray for us from the heavenly Jerusalem.

Therefore, if one decides to go to a GOA parish in the USA or to a church in Greece they will not be "participating in the Ecumenical Movement" as true organic members (the Church is not considered an organic member and has cleared her position on the heretical belief of the theory of branches), forced to pray with heretics or forced to accept numerous innovations in the realm of worship. If however individual people in some American parishes, lay or clergy, are a little modernist in some non-dogmatic aspect, or ignore a canon or two, it is not the end of the world.

(We say "American" because these issues are more commonly met in the West and not the East, as these are not so much fruit of the Ecumenical Movement as fruit of the slackness of the Western society with its lack of deep Orthodox roots. In Greece -- despite the handful of deviant priests (a couple were lovers of money and one was a homosexual) we heard so much about from the Satanic Hellenic and even international media recently and who are the overwhelming minority, the exception of Greek priests -- the norm is that the priests are pious and caring, even Saints, because the Orthodox roots go 2000 years down the ground, and not only 100, as they do in the States; and Greece is an Orthodox country with a Christian History, as opposed to a historically myopic multi-religious patchwork).

That is not what heresy is. We cannot judge individual people's actions; much more present them as the official position! We can however, through discernment, help to correct errors when we see them, and remember that such issues always existed in the Church Militant, because we are still fighting for our perfection here. We are not in a rosy garden. The rosy garden is above, not below. We cannot expect things always the way we want them to be, and of course we cannot act on our own, as if we are the Church individually. The Church is a congregation, not a unit. This is because Paradise is a congregation and Hell is a unit.

The Devil will try to use whatever people have. If they have a weaker faith and a tendency to talk about the Faith intellectually he will try to lead them to some form of "pseudo-Ecumenism" and thus even in Heresy (if they become true pseudo-Ecumenists, as opposed to merely "ecumenist"-minded). If they have a great zeal as Orthodox in the canons he will try to pull them in another direction and turn them into "zealots" in the euphemistic sense of the word; i.e. lead them to extremes in order to get them out of the Church, in Schism!

If you liken the Church to the Ark of Humanity, with a little crack developing on a mast, the response of the "ecumenist"-minded will be to pick up an axe and chop off his own leg (for he can never actually harm the Church but only himself) whereas that of the "zealot" will be to fall into the water where the sharks live in order to better alert his other brothers and sisters of the crack!

We will not concentrate here with the details of pseudo-Ecumenism, the "ecumenist-minded" or more importantly with the real pseudo-Ecumenists. We will discuss all this at another point of our web page at a later stage. This new threat is not a formal heresy that has been pinpointed by the Church but a special form of syncretism that is developing around the world. Nevertheless, other forms of syncretism were also present throughout history and the Church was successful in her battle against them.

More details on how Exactness and Economy have been applied throughout the Church's history in practice can be found in an article written in response to Old Calendarist zealots by the Athonite elder Basil Gregoriates. The article can be found here.

We will rather concentrate on the problem of Zealotism, one form of which is Old Calendarism.

We need to have discernment as Orthodox Christians, and to help those who have sadly moved themselves outside the Church out of excessive zeal. This issue makes us very sad and we feel sorry for this. But we cannot turn and tell you that these groups are not Schismatic because we will then be ecumenist-minded!

Yet this is what matters the most in practice for the reader: The only thing really one needs to be aware of whenever they enter a new Orthodox parish around the world is to check its canonicity. This can be found by listening attentively to the priest: if they are in a Russian parish, does he commemorate the Patriarch of Moscow? If in a Greek parish in the USA around Chicago, say, does he commemorate bishop Iakovos of their diocese who is in communion with Constantinople's Bartholomeos? If in a Greek parish in Greece, do they commemorate Archbishop Christodoulos? And so forth. All of them must commemorate their bishop and archbishop who in turn will be in communion with the other Patriarchates. Of course, one must also make sure they enquire as to who ordained the priest of the parish. Is he a canonical priest? Could it be that in some of the Litanies he commemorates the pope and thus is a Uniate dressed up as an Orthodox priest? These are questions the reader has a responsibility to examine before worshipping in an Orthodox parish that is new to him.

Let us then return to Old Calendarism where we examine their actions before we move to describe their particular beliefs and provide a detailed criticism at the end.

Once the Old Calendarists got cut off in 1950 (by officially severing relations to pretty much everyone, including Old Style Churches because they were in communion with the "New Calendarists") they started falling into more and more fallacies. Their most common argument became that the calendar is a dogmatic issue because "it was defined by God". We have thwarted this absurdity below. Indeed, most Old Calendarists today would agree with us and few Old Calendarists would continue to argue this point which until very recently was their main cause (see for example Esphigmenou publications), though for others it still is.

Seeing that they had fallen into error, many Old Calendarists, instead of repenting, decided to find a new excuse. (This can be seen clearly through our patristic examples in our Patristic section). Participation in the Ecumenical Movement was the perfect excuse they needed. While hardly any Old Calendarist was interested in the Ecumenical Movement in those days, today it has become their number one point and they try to prove that this became so because (yep, you guessed it right) the Calendar changed! And since ROCOR communities have been openly against participation in the Ecumenical Movement, the Old Calendarists picked up a new cause along the way: support "any cause of troubled ROCOR" again in order to return to the Calendar Issue!

First, let us examine where we all agree. Here is a typical statement made in an article:

"The Orthodox Church is internally divided over the issue of the Church calendar. Some, beginning in 1923, have wrongly decided to follow the so called "New" (Gregorian) Calendar, which is the same calendar -- excepting the period of Great Lent and Pascha --adopted by the Roman Catholics and Protestants. Other Orthodox churches adhere to the traditional Julian calendar (although their adherence to this calendar does not necessarily mean they oppose ecumenism or are "traditionalists")."

That is essentially true. However, the first thing we must say as regards this argument is the use of the word "wrongly". The correct wording should be initially unilaterally (or at least initially wrongly). It was a local unilateral decision, in other words and in some ways unfortunate. Since however everyone today, including Athos, agrees that the issue was not dogmatic and they all put up with this, one cannot any more say that the New Calendar is "wrong" or "worse" than the Old Calendar, or equivalently that it is not the "traditional" calendar. Since the Church also accepts it, it is also a "traditional" calendar (we will examine the two calendars in proper detail below). It is therefore against the spirit of the Orthodox Church to claim that the "Church calendar" is the Old and the "New" one is only tolerated for reasons of ... economy, not being "traditional" enough. The main problem lies in their misunderstanding of the word "tradition". We will discuss this later.

To be fair, though, the Calendar change was something that could have been avoided and it certainly caused problems as Orthodox Christians began to question the reasons behind its introduction. Such a stance was perfectly normal and when confronted within limits it "had a blessing". Blessed elders such as Habbakuk the Barefoot are known to have described its introduction with harsh expressions, such as "Cain's sacrifice".

Nevertheless, we must say that the problem was also practical: a minority of hierarchs from the Church of Greece believed they would help bring the confusion of a different Church calendar from the secular calendar to an end. The use of two calendars for everyday use was certainly problematic and even undesirable when lay people were forced to use a different calendar for their everyday activities. In certain parts of the world, like the USA, where jurisdictions overlap in the same city, and not in traditionally Orthodox countries, this problem becomes much more of a reality. Of course, again for practical reasons, it could be argued that it is very helpful to have the New Calendar as the chosen Calendar in many of these areas of the Diaspora (USA, UK, Germany). There is no real reason why the Old Calendar should be the chosen one in such areas. If it is because it was created by a Pope, we will simply reply, together with Elder Paisios, that "the New Calendar was given by a Pope and the Old Calendar by an idolater" (although of course this does not mean that the New Calendar is necessarily desirable).

But let us see what the Church thought at the time and what She did through her Synod. The State Church of Greece initially rejected the New Calendar. However, the State was not interested in any discussions and only wished to impose its views in order to promote commerce. As a result, the State Church of Greece, accepted the change, realising the matter was not doctrinal. Athos examined the matter and the Holy Community agreed and thus kept communion with Greece. Of course, many monks and laity demonstrated against this change, still believing it to be a bad thing. Had it not been for the extreme Old Calendarists (those who evolved into what we now call OCs), the moderate ones (who simply thought theirs was a stance of protest as members of the Church) would have brought the desired change back to the Old Calendar, since the majority of the nation at the time was with them. Unfortunately, the fanaticism of those who wished to "save the Church" led people to be put off by them and their arguments, and unfortunately the New Calendar entered our life under bad circumstances.

Of course, Old Calendarism became firmly established through a fraud, as we saw above. Notice also that the word "traditionalist" is usually left blurred in such statements. Also, confusion seems to exist between usage of the words "tradition" and "traditionalism". Strictly speaking, the word "traditionalism" should refer to "those who treat church customs with a religiosity". However, in order to differentiate from the "ecumenists" (i.e. what we called pseudo-Ecumenists), they introduce this term to include "all Orthodox who are not ecumenists". Thus the term "traditionalist", apart from those New Calendar Orthodox who are not "ecumenist"-minded, usually also includes both Orthodox Christians who follow the Old Calendar but are not Old Calendarist (Old Style) and who are in intercommunion with each other and with us of the New Calendar (all together approximately 99%), and the Old Calendarists who are most usually cut off and also follow the Old Calendar (1%). Such a blurring is treacherous, however, because schism exists between the Old/New Style with the extreme Old Calendarists and we cannot blur the terms to bring all as "one family" when some have decided to take a walk. Notice also that some priests will claim to be "Old Calendar zealots" without articulating what they mean by that. Are they inside a canonical Church calmly fighting within limits about the Calendar issue? Often, they claim to be "moderate" in their views (that is fine) but in fact belong to Old Calendarist groups that are in schism with Orthodoxy! So despite their clever terminology, in reality they are often schismatic OCs! Many Protestants consider the Orthodox to be Christians; this does not mean however that they are inside the Church or that they are not heretics! Similarly, if I believe that the canonical Churches have grace but nevertheless go to an OCist "traditionalist" congregation that is in schism (because somehow they convinced me that they are not really schismatics), this does not change the fact that I am going to a schismatic congregation!

Similar articles present the inter-Orthodox Council of 1923 that took the decision to change the Calendar in Greece as a "blasphemous parody" of a Council. I would claim that this is going too far as a characterisation, since many blessed Orthodox hierarchs did participate and come to certain decisions that did not touch dogmatic issues of the faith and were certainly not controlled by "secretive Masonic" beliefs. Freemasons love to call certain people as their brother after these passed away, when there is often no real evidence for or against this claim! The Council does not deserve such a harsh and fanatical title. After all, since eventually these decisions were put up by the whole of the Church and since we did not deal with dogma, the issue did stay (or should have stayed) as a relatively trivial one.

As relates to the issue of the attack against the Old Calendarists in those days; indeed atrocities took place by the civil authorities who were very strict however against everyone in those days, because they feared civil strife. However, as we mentioned before, these attacks (often augmented with wild stories with no backing that never actually took place but are Old Calendarist lies to draw sympathy) happened against Orthodox Christians who did not know themselves under the name of "Old Calendarist" in those days, at least not in the very beginning. These were Orthodox who did not like the change in the calendar and had no interest in severing themselves from the Church of Greece. It was only later on that the severing took place, only by some, and that for very different reasons (see our patristic examples in patristic.eastern-orthodoxy.com but also our series of Zealotism articles on the root site).

We mentioned ROCOR before. How exactly did they fit in the Old Calendarists' plans?

In the past, some Old Calendarists in Greece -- not being able to be ordained priests by no one in Greece but also by no one in an Old Style Church as no Orthodox Patriarchate would acknowledge them as grace-filled -- were forced to travel outside Greece and visit some ROCOR communities in the Diaspora. These, sometimes out of neglect and understanding, and sometimes due to excessive zeal, were also led astray by the arguments of Old Calendarists and would ordain them. Then these Old Calendarists would return to Greece in order to continue their battle on the calendar as "ordained priests"!

These few "rogue" ROCOR communities however were doing this without the knowledge of the official ROCOR Church (the "Synod" Church). Thus the Synod Church condemned this, when they found out. A part of these groups reacted by cutting relations with ROCOR and now forms part of the Schismatic Old Calendarist groups we discuss in this web page. We should note here that the official ROCOR Church was for the most part considered schismatic in those days (until recently when the schism was healed in May 2007). There were some serious problems that needed to be sorted out and they have been sorted out, much to the dismay of various OCist groups. Most of these issues had been created of course due to Communism. However, union with Moscow was always on the mind of the Synod and in the consciousness of the people. They are now officially canonical and have been so since May 2007. Glory be to God for He loves His Church!.

Of course, one wonders: when many of these ROCOR parishes were still in intercommunion with "New Calendarist" parishes in 1955, how come the Old Calendarists allowed themselves to become ordained by them? Weren't these also "schismatics" since they were, after all, in communion with New Calendarists?

The mistake of the Old Calendarists however lies in something deeper and more important: the way they view Tradition. For this reason I have highlighted the important part below with asterisks.

With the above in mind, let us finally begin our Analysis on this sad chapter of our times.

BASICS

Many "dogmatic" Old Calendarists (henceforth OCs for short) identify the New Calendar that the Church of Greece and New Calendarists in general (henceforth NCs for short) follow with the Gregorian/Papic/Frankish Calendar, whereas the Old (Julian) Calendar they themselves follow they consider it to be the traditional genuine Ecclesiastical Calendar.

But that is not the case. Those who claim this are either completely ignorant on the subject or maliciously distort the facts on purpose. The New Calendar which we follow is not Gregorian, Papic or Frankish, as they call it, but Julian. And here is the proof.

Firstly: If we open any high-school textbook on cosmography we will see on the subject of calendars the difference between the Gregorian and Julian Calendars from a purely calendarist point of view.

In other words, we know that one year is made up from precisely 365.242217 solar days. The length of the civil year based on the Julian Calendar is 365 days and 1/4 of a day, because every 4 years one day is added, namely the 29th of February. Therefore the Julian Calendar exceeds the true year, i.e. is greater than the true year, by 365.25 - 365.242217 = 0.007783 solar days. This difference within a period of 400 years comes to 3.1132 days. Therefore the true date falls short by 3.1132 days every 400 years. In order to correct this error, Pope Gregory XIII, with the aid of the astronomer Lillio, ordered the day after the 4th of October 1582 to be called 15th of October and not 5th of October. In order that this error would not be repeated in future, he also ordered that in a period of 400 years they should not take 100 leap years, as is done by the Julian Calendar, but only 100 -3 = 97. Thus, according to the Gregorian Calendar, in a period of 400 years the date falls short now only by 0.1132 days.

4,000 years must pass before the date falls short by 1.132 days.

In order to correct the Julian Calendar, Pope Gregory ordered that the years of the centuries (i.e. 1600, 1700, 1800) are not leap years unless the number of hundreds is divisible by 4. Thus, the year 1600 was a leap year according to the Gregorian Calendar, because the number of hundreds 16 is divisible by 4; according to the Julian Calendar it is still a leap year because the whole number 1600 is divisible by 4. However, the years 1700, 1800, 1900 are leap years according to the Julian Calendar, because these numbers, 1700, 1800, 1900, are divisible by 4, whereas they are not leap years for the Gregorian Calendar, because the numbers of the hundreds, namely 17, 18 and 19, are not divisible by 4.

Thus, after 1600 years that have passed approximately since the First Oecumenical Synod, we the NCs, since we follow the Julian Calendar and will have as leap years those years that are divisible by 4, we will have a new difference of 13 days, whereas the Gregorian Calendar will not have such a difference, because every 400 years it will have 97 leap years and not 100.

Here is the difference between the New Calendar and the Gregorian Calendar, from a calendarist point of view. They will have 97 leap years every 400 years, we will have 100.

However, Pope Gregory did not stop at this calendarist modification. He also adjusted his Easter upon his calendar, not taking into account the Passover of the Jews and the decision of the First Oecumenical Synod regarding the Christian Pascha and the Jewish Pascha.

PASCHA AND THE TIME WE CELEBRATE IT

If we open the Rudder of our Church, we will see on p. 9 that four are the things that must be satisfied for the celebration of Pascha:

a) Vernal equinox

b) First full moon after this equinox

c) After the Nomicon Pascha

d) the first Sunday after a) - c).

The Gregorian or Papic Calendar takes into consideration only a), b) and d). It totally ignores c), the legal pascha of the Jews. Thus Papics can happen to celebrate their Easter together with that of the Jews or before the Jewish Pascha despite the 7th canon of the Apostles and despite the historical fact that Christ resurrected after the Pascha of the Jews. However, we NCs take into consideration all 4 points on the Christian Pascha, namely a) - d), and thus differ from the Gregorian or Papic Calendar not only from a calendarist but also from an ecclesiastical point of view. In other words, we celebrate our Pascha after the Jewish Pascha, in accordance with the decisions of the First Oecumenical Synod.

Therefore we conclude that from a Calendarist and an Ecclesiastical point of view both we the NCs and the OCs differ from the Gregorian Calendar. Both NCs and OCs follow the Julian Calendar from a Calendarist and from an Ecclesiastical point of view!

Why then do some OCs identify the New Calendar, the one we the NCs follow, with the Papic Gregorian, since there is such a great difference from a calendarist and an ecclesiastical point of view between the two calendars?

One can however guess their objection: <<why promote the moving forward of the 13 days?>> To which we answer: This promotion by itself did not violate if you like the Julian Calendar, but only the calendar almanac of this Calendar. Our Calendar was and has remained Julian. The OCs have Julian. So do we. Only that our Julian Calendar is corrected, adjusted; this is why it is commonly referred to as revised Julian.

The OCs will argue now: << OK we accept all this. Why though alter the calendar almanac of the Julian Calendar?>>

And we answer: We know from the Rudder of our Church that the Fathers of the First Oecumenical Synod that established the Paschal celebration based on the vernal equinox had vernal equinox then on the 21st of March. This we know from the Rudder (see p. 9). After the passing of approximately 1600 years however from then till today, we deviated from that date with the result of having vernal equinox on the 8th of March. This is also mentioned in the Rudder (p. 9). With a "leap" of 13 days thus, we, the so-called "New Calendarists", have as vernal equinox the one the Holy Fathers of the First Oecumenical Synod had. This way we have the old date of the vernal equinox, the 21st of March, whereas the OCs have the new date of this equinox, namely the 8th of March. Therefore, rather ironically I think, we the NCs follow the old date, whereas the OCs the new date. We follow the old calendar almanac, the OCs follow the new calendar almanac. We are based upon the old Julian Calendar of the First Oecumenical Synod, the OCs are based upon the new Julian Calendar. As a consequence we, the so-called NCs are in reality old calendarists and the so-called OCs are in reality new calendarists!

The OCs may ask now: <<Why though do St. Nicodemus together with Chrysostom in the footnotes of the Rudder on p. 9 talk against the moving forward of the 10 days under the Gregorian Calendar?>>

St. Chrysostom has absolutely no interest in the dates of the feasts unlike the OCs who give so much importance to these. He tells us this explicitly: "Ει τω δείνα μηνί ει τω δείνα μηνί εορτάστηκε το Πάσχα ουδείς ποτέ εκολάσθη ουδέ ενεκλήθη" i.e. "no one has ever been condemned or reprimanded for celebrating Pascha on this date or on that date". The thing which is of importance to this holy Father is the celebration of Pascha in accordance with the decisions of the First Oecumenical Synod. What are these conditions? St. Nicodemus analyses these in a wonderful manner in the footnotes of the Rudder of our Church. In particular, St. Nicodemus talks against the Gregorian Calendar in the footnotes of the Rudder, because this Calendar does not take into consideration the Jewish Pascha and thus the Western Church sometimes celebrates it before the Jewish Pascha or at the same time as the Jews do, contrary to the 7th canon of the Apostles and the historical fact that the Lord rose after the Jewish Pascha. Here is what St. Nicodemus writes in the first footnote of this Canon:

"Το να κάνη τις το Πάσχα μετά την 21ην Μαρτίου ως κάμνουμεν ημείς οι Γραικοί ή μετά την 11ην Μαρτίου ως κάμνουν οι Λατίνοι δεν είναι έγκλημα. Το να σχίση όμως την Εκκλησίαν είναι αμάρτημα ασυγχώρητον", i.e.

"Whether someone celebrates Pascha after the 21st of March as we Greeks do or after the 11th of March as the Latins do is not a crime. If he causes a schism to the Church however, this is an unpardonable sin".

How did the Western Church go astray with the Calendar issue? The words of the same holy Father give us the answer straight away:

"Η ακρίβεια αύτη προξενεί δύο μεγάλας ατοπίας εις τους Λατίνους το να εορτάζουν δηλαδή το Πάσχα ή μετά Ιουδαίων ή προ των Ιουδαίων" i.e.

"This absolute precision [of the Gregorian Calendar] causes two great contradictions to the Latins, namely to celebrate the Pascha sometimes with the Jews and sometimes before the Jews [celebrate their passover]".

Do you therefore see dear reader what the Rudder says? It is not a crime, it is not schism, to celebrate Pascha at different dates, but it is not good for our Pascha to be celebrated before the Jewish Pascha or together with the Jewish Pascha. Here is where St. Nicodemus places the main difference between the Gregorian and Julian Calendars. To avoid celebrating our Pascha before or with the Jewish one. This however is avoided by us so-called NCs. Why do therefore the OCs identify and confuse the New Calendar with the Gregorian?

Of course the OCs may say to this: <<You should not have named the 8th of March as 21st of March in order to move our calendar almanac forward by 13 days>>.

We answer: The Rudder told us, as we saw above, that it is not a crime to celebrate Pascha on two different dates (after the 8th of March or after the 21st of March) so long as this is done after the Jewish Pascha. It is much more so (unimportant that is) since both us NCs and the OCs celebrate our Pascha on the same day and this day is for us the 22nd of March which we call 1st of April. Since, in other words, according to St. Chrysostom and the Rudder of our Church, the celebration of Pascha at different times is not a crime, nor condemnation, it is certainly not a crime or condemned or of any importance at all in fact, that the celebration of Pascha by us happens to take place on the same time as the OCs' one but on a different date from them, as long as it is done after the Jewish Pascha.

This is the double difference, i.e. from a Calendarist and from an Ecclesiastical point of view, between the Julian and the Gregorian Calendars.

Let us now however examine the broad subject of Paschal celebration.

Secondly: At other times, OCs support that <<The God-bearing Fathers of the First Oecumenical Synod defined the Paschal celebration by divine inspiration of the All-Holy Spirit, and that ranges from the 22nd of March until the 25th of April>>.

Such OCs either ignore how things have or distort the truth on purpose!

In the minutes of the First Oecumenical Synod nowhere is this date that the OCs mention written but 4 fixed points, as we discussed above (namely a) - d) ). These are the necessary calendarist "signs" needed to be satisfied for the Paschal celebration. Why then do some of the OCs set forth only one condition, the date range 22nd March - 25th April, as the necessary condition for Paschal celebration? By doing this they distort the text of the Rudder.

One can guess however the OCs' question at this point: <<Won't the date range 22nd March - 25th April in which Pascha lies according to the Old Calendar be taken into consideration at all? How come this range is mentioned at the end of the Gospels of the Church and based upon these it is that the Evangelic and Apostolic readings of the year are set?>>

This date range has its place but not the one set by the OCs. The date range 22nd March - 25th April is not the unique chronology of calculating the Paschal celebration, as it appears from the OCs' point of view erroneously, but fifth in order and coincidental, because it is set after adjusting for the other four necessary fixed "signs": Vernal Equinox, full moon, Jewish Pascha and Sunday. In other words, it happened that the time of the vernal equinox during the First Oecumenical Synod was on the 21st of March and for the Jewish Pascha to range until the 20th of April. If however tomorrow morning the Jews correct their calendar by 13 days and hence their Pascha is celebrated henceforth earlier than the current one, then, in order that one of the two necessary conditions of the 7th Apostolic Canon be satisfied (our Pascha set after the Jewish Pascha) we will have to ignore the old date range 22nd March - 25th April and transfer our Pascha on an earlier time. If we decide to stick to the range 22nd March - 25th April of the Old Calendar we will violate the 7th Apostolic Canon, because our Church has always celebrated our Pascha on the first Sunday after the Jewish Pascha. We will also violate the historical truth as well, since the Lord rose after the Jewish Pascha. This can also be deduced from the Rudder as we saw above.

As we see clearly, the date 21st March has no importance at all for the Paschal celebration but only in relation to when the Jews celebrate their Pascha. The God-bearing Fathers therefore set as chronological signs for the Paschal celebration the vernal equinox, first full moon, Jewish Pascha and Sunday, and not the date range 22nd March - 25th April.

And here lies the first main delusion of the OCs.

They ignore the four necessary fixed signs and mention only the fifth and coincidental one as the unique condition: 22nd March - 25th April!

But this mistake of the OCs stems from another mistake. They believe that the equinox is not constant and therefore take as a fixed date range for the calculation of the Paschal celebration the range 22nd March - 25th April. Some OCs e.g. have claimed the following: <<The Fathers had full knowledge that the equinox is not constant. The God-bearing Fathers of the First Oecumenical Synod moved the equinox down to the 21st of March>>. It is truly sad that sometimes even theologians can be so ignorant and claim things like the above!

The equinox, dear reader, is constant. For this reason the Rudder calls it "μέτρον διαιρετικόν του τελείου ενιαυτού", i.e. "dividing unit of the perfect year". See p. 10. The date of the vernal equinox however is variable. This date was at the time of the Apostles 22nd of Drystos (March), whereas during the time of the First Oecumenical Synod it was on the 21st of March; today it is on the 8th of March with the Old Calendar. This is also mentioned in the Rudder on p. 10. Therefore the vernal equinox is one thing and the date of the vernal equinox is another. The first one, the vernal equinox, is constant and thus it is "dividing unit of the perfect [i.e. true] year" whereas the second one, the date of the vernal equinox, is variable and changed from the 21st of March to the 8th of March. As for the argument regarding the transfer of the equinox on the 21st of March by the Fathers ... How could the Fathers do such a thing? The equinox is constant! Its date is variable. The OCs need to clear these things in their mind and stop confusing the two.

And here lies the second main delusion of the OCs.

But there are more delusions that we have seen from OCs. Some OCs have claimed the following: <<St. Chrysostom calls the Latins schismatics with respect to this calendar issue, and confesses that the God-bearing Fathers of the First Oecumenical Synod set as equinox date the 21st of March>>. But Chrysostom lived during the 4th century AD. How could this holy Father criticize the Gregorian Calendar which was created 1100 years later?! Of course, the Rudder does mention something regarding this. This something however needs clarification. Shouldn't the OCs and especially the theologians among them who claim the above go and check the source, the very text of St. Chrysostom, and see exactly what the holy Father says, in order to understand properly and thus be able to clarify the condensed version present in the Rudder?

So this is what happened.

During Chrysostom's times, there lived some Christians who, following the old tradition of St. Polycarp of Smyrne, and, based also upon Apostle Paul's verse "Και γαρ το Πάσχα υπέρ ημών ετύθη Χριστός" (1 Corinth. 5:7), celebrated their Pascha on the 14th of Nissan (March), when the Lord was crucified. The First Oecumenical Synod set the Paschal celebration on the first Sunday after the Jewish Pascha because that was when the Lord was resurrected.

Thus the Christians who celebrated Pascha on the 14th of March (known as tessareskaedecatites = four-and-tens c.f. e.g. Stephanides History 1 p. 101) , celebrated their Pascha together with the Jews and thus celebrated the crucificial Pascha. The First Oecumenical Synod however set that we celebrate a resurrectional Pascha, and that was chosen to be the one on the first Sunday after the Jewish Pascha. This holy Father wants Christians not to celebrate the crucificial Pascha but lead them to celebrate the resurrectional Pascha. However the tessareskaedecatites insist and celebrate their Christian Pascha at the same time with the Jews and the holy Father criticizes them for this. And here is what he says:

"Ιδού γαρ κατά τον παρόντα ενιαυτόν η πρώτη των αζύμων εις Κυριακήν ημέραν εμπίπτει και η ανάγκη πάσαν νηστεύσαι την εβδομάδα ..." (Tom. II, 398. Bareille) i.e. "Now then in the present year the first day of the unleavened bread falls on a Sunday and it is needed that everyone fasts on that week ...".

They did not want to however and would say: "Τοσούτον ενήστευσα χρόνον και νυν μεταθήσομαι;" i.e. "I fasted all this time and now I must transfer [the Paschal celebration]?" I fasted for such a long time during Lent and you want me now to transfer the celebration of Pascha? The First Oecumenical Synod set Pascha on a Sunday after the Jewish Pascha. Thus the Father criticizes them: "Ει γαρ εσφάλλετο η Εκκλησία ου τοσούτον κατόρθωμα από της των χρόνων ακριβείας ην, όσον το έγκλημα από της διαιρέσεως και του σχίσματος" i.e. "Even if the Church had erred here, this would not have been as big a deal as division and schism are, since we are only dealing here with chronological accuracy". Therefore we see that the holy Father criticizes the OCs of his time, because they do not want to keep the canon of the First Oecumenical Synod regarding the celebration of Pascha on the first Sunday after the Jewish Pascha. For almost the same reason, the Rudder mentions these words of the holy Father and turns against the Western Church, because they celebrate Pascha before the Jews or with the Jews, despite the canon of the First Oecumenical Synod. Nowhere does the holy Father mention that the Fathers set the 21st of March as equinox date. The holy Father does not talk about dates, but he talks about the celebration of the Christian Pascha; that it need be celebrated after the Jewish Pascha on a Sunday.

How much the OCs are in error!

There is also a fourth favourite error as regards Pascha by the OCs. Some claim: <<The moving forward of the calendar by 13 days brings us to St. George's celebration, whose melodic vigil contains joyful troparia of the Lord's Resurrection before Pascha, so that the resulting disorder in the Ecclesiastical constitution reach an unholy travesty of the religious faith, and in order to avoid this disorder the schismatic Church of Greece shifts this feast on another day after Pascha; this is done however arbitrarily and in an irregular manner. Note that this feast of St. George's falls according to the Old Calendar always with Pascha and on rare occasions on the very day of Pascha itself>>.

Since the Paschal celebration happens at the latest on the 25th of April, as the OCs themselves admit, and St. George's feast is on the 23rd of April, won't it happen under the Old Calendar for St. George's Feast to fall on Great (Good) Friday if the Pascha happens on the upper limit of the 25th of April? Or on Great Saturday if the Pascha falls on the 24th of April? Therefore, if according to the Old Calendar Pascha comes pretty late, on the 24th or 25th of April, and thus the feast of St. George's on Great Friday or Great Saturday, what will the OCs do then? Will they celebrate St. George's Feast on Great Friday or on Great Saturday?! Won't the OCs move then the celebration on the Second Day (Monday) of Pascha? And this is exactly what they do! <<The Church of Greece shifts this Feast arbitrarily and unlawfully>>, they claim. Isn't the OCs transfer then "arbitrary and unlawful"?!

Continuing such nonsense some OCs claim that <<Whenever St. George's Feast has fallen on a date before Pascha (1926 - 1936 etc.) the Church should have conducted a Pre-sanctified Liturgy and not shift it on the Second of Pascha (Easter Monday), for no one has the right to such a transfer>>. The OCs however, as we saw above, transfer St. George's Feast whenever it falls on Great Saturday; why do they do that then?! The OCs have a right to a transfer and the NCs do not?! For the NCs the transfer is unlawful, unholy, a travesty! For the OCs it is not?!

The very typikon of the Church commands this transfer! Yes! Let the OCs read the typikon carefully!

Let us now move to a different "circle of errors" by OCs.

This is based upon this very popular argument of theirs:

<<Pascha is kept by the NCs according to the four defined and needed signs set by the First Oecumenical Synod.

The moving forward however by 13 days in the calendar almanac disturbed the cycle of the immovable feasts (Christmas and the feasts which depend on it by time constraints) and we celebrate these on days which differ from those set by God Himself!>>

We must therefore examine the Bible and the Church Fathers to see whether these feasts, namely Christmas and those that depend on it by time constraints, were defined chronologically by God or whether their definition has a different source.

CHRISTMAS AND THE IMMOVABLE FEASTS RELATED TO IT

Some OCs have calculated the "precise time" of celebrating the Feasts of Christmas, the Annunciation of the Theotokos, the Conception of the Forerunner, the Meeting of our Lord in the Temple and of His Circumcision based on the appearance of the Archangel to Zechariah, the Forerunner's father, which is celebrated on the 23rd of September. But how do they come to the conclusion that the Feast of the Conception of the Forerunner was set by God Himself?

They quote Luke's Gospel 1:8-24. The days described in this section, during which Zechariah happened to be conducting services as a priest (hierateyein) are the days of the Feast of Tent Pitching (Σκηνοπηγία), according to our Tradition (c.f. calendar almanac of the Great Horologion of 23rd September; see also Chrysostom's speech on the Saviour's Birthday, Galanos 2, pp. 917 - 925). They claim that when the Feast of Tent Pitching had ended, i.e. around the 23rd of September, the Holy Forerunner was conceived on that day, arranged thus by God Himself via an angelic vision.Therefore the 23rd of September is the Feast of Conception of the Holy Forerunner defined by God Himself. Now, since the Angel appeared on the 23rd of September, the Archangel appeared to the Theotokos "on the sixth month" (Luke 1:26); therefore we have the Annunciation of the Theotokos celebrated on the 25th of March. Consequently, 9 months later we must have the Birth of our Saviour celebrated, namely on the 25th of December and His entry into the temple on the 2nd of February, and finally the Birth of the Forerunner on the 23rd of June.

The OCs use the Bible and the Tradition, and in particular father Chrysostom, to justify their position. We will therefore base our arguments on them as well.

First of all, father Chrysostom in his relevant speech on Zechariah's Annunciation does not define some day of the month, some date, like the OCs do, but a month, in particular the month September. Apart from this, father Chrysostom talks regarding Zechariah, John's father, that he was an Archpriest and as such had entered the Holies of Holies on the feast of Tent Pitching (p. III, 6000 Bareille). We honour and respect the views of the holy Father. However, this particular opinion of his does not seem to have a strong support. Let us therefore look more closely what the Holy Bible and the Fathers say on this matter.

And first of all let us look at the Holy Writ.

The Archpriest would enter the Holies of Holies once a year on the day of expiation on the seventh month. Zechariah however was not an Archpriest but a Priest. We are told this explicitly by St. Luke: "on the days of Herod, king of Judea, some priest called Zechariah of the Avia ministration ..." (Luke 1:5). As one can see clearly, Zechariah is called a Priest. But apart from this explicit attestation that Zechariah was a Priest and belonged to the Avia ministration (Luke 1:5.8), we also know that the Avia ministration is the hieratical class of Avia, which was eighth in the hieratical order(1 Paralipomena 24:10). How come therefore the priest Zechariah became an Archpriest, so that he could enter the Holies of Holies on the seventh month?

But let us accept despite the above that the annunciation of the Forrunner's birth to his father, Zechariah, happened on the seventh month and that priest Zechariah was an Archpriest! How can one based on this deduce that the day when the Angel appeared to Zechariah was the 23rd of September? In other words, how can the Julian calendar, which we observe today and which started on 45 BC, be adjusted according to the Jewish calendar, which used lunar months and solar years? It is well-known that each solar year consists of twelve lunar months and 11 days. In order to take into account these 11 days, the Jews would add one lunar month every 2 or 3 years and had a year with 13 months. The 13th month was called Be-Adar, i.e. second Adar. Thus the years observed by the Jews would differ the first year from the next one by 11 days and the first year from the third one by 20 days. Every 2 or 3 years they would add a whole month. In other words, the thing which we do with the Julian Calendar, adding 13 days after approximately 1600 years, the Jews would do by adding one (lunar) month every 2 or 3 years. So, the question arises: in this anomaly of lunar months and solar years observed by the Jews, how is it possible to find by calculation that the Jewish day of expiation coincides with the 23rd of September according to the Julian calendar? This is not possible! This is also evident by the fathers of the Church, including John Chrysostom himself that the OCs quote, who did not know the day when Christ was born! So:

Thirdly. The Tradition of the Fathers.

a) In Jerusalem: The ascetic Kosmas Indikopleustes who lived in 500-550 AD writes in the Fifth Christian topography (E.T. 88, 9 - 477): "Οι Ιεροσολυμίται τοις Επιφανίοις ποιούσιν την Γένναν". The people of Jerusalem that is, would celebrate Christ's Birth on the 6th of January (Epiphany). "Εκ στοχασμού πιθανού ουκ ακριβώς δε ποιούσι τοις Επιφανίοις": In fact, ascetic Kosmas informs us, they would celebrate the Epiphany on the 6th of January not based on historically proven facts, but based on possibilities (c.f. Kontogonos' Ecclesiastical History p. 621). The same held for the celebration of Christmas, which they would celebrate on the same day as they celebrated Theophany. In other words, they had no historical testimonies on the day of Christ's birth either. "Η μετά της εορτής των Επιφανείων σύνδεσις της Γεννήσεως του Χριστού καταφαίνεται και εκ τούτου, ότι εν τη Εκκλησία των Ιεροσολύμων η σχετική Θεία Λειτουργία ετελείτο εν τω Σπηλαίω της Βηθλεέμ" (Migne 64, 44; c.f. Stefanides' Tome 1, p. 104): The connection of Christmas with Epiphany can also be seen by the fact that in the Church of Jerusalem they would celebrate the relevant Divine Liturgy inside the Cave of Bethlehem. Here is testimony of this Saintly ascetic attesting that the Christians of Jerusalem had no knowledge of a specific date to celebrate Christmas and thus celebrated it together with Epiphany.

b) In Egypt: Monk John Kassianos (365 AD) founder of many Monasteries in Sicilly, writes in Collationes Patrum X 2:

"Inra Aegypti regionem mos iste antiqua traditione servatur, ut peracto epiphaniorum die. Quam provinciae istius sacerdotes vel dominici baptismi vel secundum carnem nativitatis esse definiunt. Et idcirco utriusque sacramenti solemnitatem non bifarie. Ut in occiduis provinciis sed sub una huius diei festivitate concelebrant" (Real Encyclopadie tom. 16 p. 690).

I translate: In Egypt the following ancient custom became prevalent, namely that the day of celebration of Theophany was assigned by the priests as either the day of Christ's Baptism or of His Birth and thus the divine officiality would be celebrated not twice (on two different dates as the Western provinces would do) but once, on the same date. Therefore we see that in 365 AD Egypt also celebrated Christmas on the feast of Theophany!

c) In Alexandria: Clemes of Alexandria (Stromateis 1, chap. 21) writes that Christ's Birth was thought to fall by some on the 25th of Pachon (20th of May) and by others on the 25th of Pharmoothi (19th or 20th of April) (c.f. Kontogonos' Ecclesiastical History p. 32 - 33).

d) In Cyprus: St. Epiphanius writes on his work against heresies 51, 29 (early third century AD): "Ημέρα Επιφανείων, ότε εγεννήθη εν σαρκί ο Κύριος" (E.T. tom. 41 - 43) namely, "Day of Epiphany, the day when the Lord was born according to the flesh" (c.f. Kontogonos' Ecclesiastical History p. 621). Therefore we see that in Cyprus the Lord's Birth was also being celebrated on the 6th of January, feast of Theophany.

e) In Constantinople: "Μη υπαρχούσης έτι εορτής ιδίας Χριστουγέννων, την 6ην Ιανουαρίου εορτήν των Θεοφανίων εωρτάζετο η Γέννησις του Σωτήρος"; namely, "Not having a specific date to celebrate Christmas itself, the 6th of January, feast of Theophany, was the date when the Saviour's Birth was being celebrated", writes Balanos in his Patrology (p. 312) on the life of St. Gregory Nazianzus, who was the first to introduce the special celebration of Christmas on the 25th of December in the year 379 AD (E.T. 36, pp. 312 - 356).

f) In Antioch: The celebration of Christmas on the 25th of December was introduced in the year 386 AD by Chrysostom. The holy father writes: "Την Γενέθλιον ημέρα του Σωτήρος ημών Ιησού Χριστού, προ δε ολίγων ετ΄ψν γνωρισθείσαν των από της Δύσεως ελθόντων και αναγγειλάντων, ούπω δέκατον έτος, εξ ου δηλή και γνώριμος ημίν αύτη η ημέρα γεγένηται" (Bareille 3rd tom. p. 592). We see that the Birth day of the Saviour became known to Chrysostom and the people near him only a few years before he wrote this - ten years he says - from people that came from the West and told them.

Therefore we see that Egypt, Alexandria, Palestine, Byzantium and Antioch had no idea regarding the celebration of Christmas on the 25th of December for more than 300 years; neither St. Kosmas, nor St. Epiphanius nor St. Chrysostom knew this date beforehand. Only in Rome was this date known and used as the feast of Christmas, namely the 25th of December.

Ieronymus (345 AD) writes:

"Epiphaniorum dies non, ut cuidam putai, natalis in carne, tunc enim al conditus est et non apparuit"; namely: "The day of Theophany is not, as some believe, the birth [of our Lord] in the flesh, because then [during His birth] He was hidden and not visible" (c.f. Kontogonos' Ecclesiastical History p. 621). Here we see that Ieronymus separates Christmas from Theophany. But in Rome Christ's birth was also not being celebrated before 334- 357 AD. Before this date we meet no celebration of Christmas. The celebration of Theophany itself was introduced at 300 AD for polemic and dogmatic reasons (c.f. Stefanides' History tom 1 p. 104).

Conclusion: 300 years after Christ's birth until Chrysostom's, Gregory's and Epiphanius' times, nowhere is the feast of Christmas found to be celebrated! The OCs however claim that the feasts of Christmas and the rest have been defined by God. Had Christ's birth day been set by God it would have been known to the ancient Church. Why isn't this feast seen to be celebrated as a special feast on the 25th of December before 300 AD? Why did the Christians of Palestine, Egypt and Cyprus celebrate Christmas on the 6th of January, on Theophany?

Had the 25th of December been known as the Day of Birth of Christ and been set by God Himself, why does St. Chrysostom talk about a new celebration, one that had been introduced a mere 10 years before he wrote this? We are not talking of a theological opinion here of the holy Father (a theologoumenon) but about a fact!

And I ask the reader now: Who knows better the Christmas feast, the OCs who set it exactly on the 25th of December or the ancient Church who did not know this feast for 300 years? Are the OCs superior to St. Epiphanius, bishop of Cyprus, to the ascetic Kosmas Indikopleustes, to the famous monk Kassianos, all of who attest that the Churches of Cyprus, Egypt and Palestine would celebrate Christmas on the 6th of January? Are the OCs superior to St. Chrysostom when he explicitly said on his speech on Christmas that this feast arrived to them only 10 years ago? How do the OCs therefore call us, the so-called NCs, "modernists" for believing that the 25th of December was not defined historically but dogmatically? What happened in other words is that the Fathers substituted the idolatric feast of the winter solstice with the Birth of the new Sun of Righteousness, Christ.

The above opinion is also stressed by the Fathers of our Church. St. Ambrosius contrasting the feast of the Birth of Christ with the idolatric feast of the sun of winter solstice writes: "Bebe quodam modo sanctum hunc diem natalis domini solem novum vulgus appelati": "Rightfully the people call the day of the Birth of Christ as the New Sun" (Sermoni in app. bened p. 303 Real Encyclopadie tome 16 p. 690). Also, Maximus, bishop of Turin, rhetor of the 5th century (Migne P. L. 57, 221 - 832), says that Christ was born during the national (idolatric) feasts in order to substitute these.

Blessed Augustine says that: "Christians celebrate Christ's Birth day, not because of the sun, like the infidel do, but because of the Creator of the sun" (Real Encyclopadie tome 16, p. 690; c.f. Stefanides' Ecclesiastical History 1, p. 10).

St. Prudentius (348 - 405 AD) says in one of the hymns he wrote on Christ's Birth:

"Quid est quod arctum circulum sol jam recurrens deserit? ... "(Real Encyclopadie tome 16, p. 690). "What is it that the sun leaves behind in its travel away from ursa major? Isn't Christ born on earth, the one who increases the path of the light?"

Similarly father Paulinus bishop of Nolis (who lived around 400 AD) writes in his poem XIV, 15, p. 382 Ed. Muratori: "Nam post solstitum, guo Christus corpore natus sole novo gelidiae mutavit tempora brumae procedente die secum decrescere noctes jussit" (Real Encyclopadie tom. 16, p. 690). "After the sun set, when Christ was born in the flesh, He changed the cold days of the winter solstice according to the new sun and ordered the same day that the nights' length be reduced herewith".

Do we therefore see what the Church's history tells us?

<<Yes>>, the OCs will reply. <<This date however was established henceforth and should be observed as tradition of our Church>>.

The OCs who support this show clearly that they confuse Tradition and Church. Let us therefore discuss this point as well.

TRADITIONS - CHURCH - SCHISM

OCs confuse the notions of Tradition, Church and Schism. They drown the Church in a sea of traditions and somehow believe that the Church is only governed by these and that therefore any deviation from these traditions must constitute schism.

If that is the case then the OCs are schismatic almost by default! Why? Because, following their own "logic", they go against many Apostolic, Patristic and Synodic traditions and canons! But let us follow their own "logic" and use their own way of thinking against them.

Firstly: Apostle Paul asks: "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?" Apostolic Commands 1 (3 Migne 1564-5) command us to cut our hair: "την τρίχα της κόμης συγκόπτειν και καθαίρειν αυτήν ... ουκ έξεστι σοι τρέφειν τας τρίχας της κεφαλής σου". Clemes of Alexandria speaks against long hair and calls this look "lecherous" (πορνικός) and "without God" (άθεος): "Πορνικός ο τρόπος και άθεος ... " (Clemes of Alexandria Pae. 3; 3 Migne 8, 577).

St. Epiphanius (Migne 42, 765-8) says: "Αλλότριον έτι της καθολικής Εκκλησίας κόμη εκτεινομένη ... ανήρ ουκ οφείλει κομάν". i.e. leaving long hair is a practice alien and against the spirit of the catholic Church; a man should not let his hair grow long. Ieronymus suggests we let our hair grow only that long so that it just covers the skin of our head; the rest of the hair should be cut (Migne P. L. 25, 437).

In the 11th century AD, we meet Eustathius, the well-known Archbishop of Thessaloniki, who "canonises" monks whose hair has grown longer than allowed with the following words: "Οι πλείους παρανομείτε κανταύθα τρέφοντες κόμην ..."; i.e. "Those of you gathered here who leave long hair trespass in a major way"! Long hair is condemned not only by the voices of the holy men, but also by the canons! So for example the 22nd, 42nd and 96th canons of the Sixth Oecumenical Synod condemn long hair! The various ordination books command the same: "Προσαγόμενος τω αρχιερεί κείρεται σταυροειδώς είτα τέλειον υπό τινος κληρικού κείρεται"; namely: "As he approaches the archpriest, he has his hair cut cruciformly, and then the haircut is finished properly by some cleric".

Since the OCs want to be faithful guardians of all the ancient traditions of the Christian Church, why do their priests leave long hair - like our priests do - and they do not cut it? They are schismatics! Where is the keeping of the traditions and canons of the Church? Why do the OCs go against these? You are schismatics, OCs! You must cut your hair if you want to observe the Canons faithfully as well as the ancient traditions and indeed an Apostolic Command; that of Apostle Paul's in 1 Corinthians 11:14!

Secondly: Related to the issue of long hair is that of papalethra, which was kept in the ancient Church but today does not exist. More specifically, if we open the Rudder of our Church we will see St. Nicodemus talking about the papalethra (παπαλήθρα) of the clerics: <<This papalethra>>, he says, <<used to be an almost round, wreath-like haircut on the head. This used to be in use at the time, a tradition of the whole Church, as is certified by the 21st Canon of the Sixth Oecumenical Synod and by the Holy Fathers. St. Ieronymus says, when writing to Augustine: "Παρακαλώ την στεφάνη σου" [i.e. "I beg your wreath"]. Similarly, Augustine would write to bishop Proculianus: "By your wreath". This wreath used to be the mark of clerics>>. St. Nicodemus adds at the end: <<Our own clerics must also have this wreath-like haircut on their head. For it is not right that we should change limits eternal set by our Fathers>> and the original: <<Ου γαρ δίκαιον όρια αιώνια μεταίρειν, α έθεντο οι Πατέρες ημών>>.

Do the OCs' clerics have this wreath-like haircut on their heads? No! Why do they violate the 21st Canon of the Sixth Oecumenical Synod which clearly talks about this tradition? Why do they violate this ancient tradition of the Church? Why don't they listen to the ancient Holy Clerics, who would bear the wreath?

Why do the OCs' priests violate "limits eternal" which were set by our Holy Fathers, as St. Nicodemus confesses? Since they violate the 21st Canon of the Sixth Oecumenical Synod, and in fact the whole tradition of the ancient Church as regards this issue, they are schismatics!

Thirdly: The Fifth Canon of the Holy Apostles says "A Bishop or a Presbyter or a Deacon must not turn his wife away using piety as an excuse. If he does let him be excommunicated, and if he still insists let him be unfrocked."

The Canon here mentions that a Bishop (amongst other clerics) must not drive his wife away using piety as an excuse. Do the OCs' priests see what was going on then? Bishops were allowed to marry in those times. The 18th Apostolic Canon also talks regarding married Bishops. However the 12th Canon of the Sixth Oecumenical Synod arrives later on and amends this Apostolic Canon and forbids Bishops to get married!

This amendment stems from the fact that the Archpriest had to be most perfect and for this reason celibate, for celibacy is higher than matrimony, according to 1 Corinthians 7:38. This amendment however is clearly a confutation of the Fifth Apostolic Canon and alteration of a tradition of the Church of the first centuries, which allowed Bishops to marry.

Are we in a position to accuse the Sixth Oecumenical Synod as a transgressor for abolishing the Archpriests' right to marry, an ancient and actually apostolic tradition?

Fourthly: The 101st Canon of the Sixth Oecumenical Synod forbids Holy Communion be given to lay people by some object, as we do today using the labis (λαβίς = spoon); the Holy Bread should be given directly to the hands of the lay people and the Blood of our Lord should be offered directly from the cup with the Deacons' help to the faithful; in other words, in the same way our clerics receive communion today.

The same Canon commands that the Priest who shall not give the Holy Bread directly to the hands of the lay people should be excommunicated. The Canon continues and asks that the lay person who receives communion in any other way than the one instructed (i.e. receiving the Holy Bread directly onto his hands) should also be excommunicated.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Mystagogic Catech. 5) describes the ancient tradition in an even greater detail: "When you approach the mysteries [i.e. the Holy Communion] extend your palms ... the left hand should be placed below the right hand and hollowing the palm accept thus the Body of Christ" (Rudder p. 310).

Let me now ask the OCs ... since you receive communion using the labis, like we do, and not by extending your palms and since you believe that there are only Canons and traditions and nothing else, how will you explain this deviation of yours?

On what will you be based to reply? A small footnote in the Rudder may bring a possible interpretation for the abolition of the Canon: the lack of a sufficient number of Deacons in the ancient Church and the impossibility thus for the Priest to give Body and Blood separately to the lay people. He unites these together therefore (from Chrysostom's times onwards) inside the Holy Chalice and gives them together via the labis; or to help the infants receive communion more easily.

This possible interpretation using the words of the footnote in the Rudder is not satisfactory because today we have a lot of Deacons in many Churches. At least, wherever a Priest officiates with a Deacon, the Canon should be observed and not violated. Again, if the change was made in order to accomodate the infants then the alteration should have been bound to them alone and not to everyone. But then how did the infants receive communion until the times of the Sixth Oecumenical Synod? Let them receive communion now in the same way!

But another excuse for the introduction of the labis, which is mentioned by St. Nicodemus in the Rudder, is not at all satisfactory: "The reason that the labis was introduced was so that some people either pretending they were Christians or because they were heretics or superstitious after receiving the Holy Bread on their hands would then throw it or hide it or use it in magic or other forms of satanic worship." He concludes by saying that this way the heretics and magicians could not do such a thing any more, thanks to the labis.

It is however clear that even with the use of the labis, the danger for any form of scorn for the sacrament, for this holiest mystery, was not reduced at all. The one receiving the Holy Communion could very easily keep it in his mouth without swallowing it and immediately spit it in a little box that he carried in his pocket which he could then defile in any magical deed that the Devil commanded him to use it for. As we can see, the introduction of the labis does not protect the Mystery from being scorned and even defiled, if someone really wants to do that.

Putting therefore all possible excuses on the side, since none are truly satisfactory, let the OCs tell us ... why? Do you see, OCs, that both of us violate the above-mentioned Canon? Since all the Canons, all the traditions of the Church are inviolable and their violation constitutes Schism, how come you abolished the 101st Canon of the Sixth Oecumenical Synod?

We could bring many more examples of abolishing ancient Canons not only by us the so-called NCs, but also by you the OCs. The four above-mentioned examples will suffice however, for we do not wish to draw this longer than necessary.

And I ask the OCs: on what assumption have you abolished the above Canons, Apostolic Commands, old customs, ancient uses and traditions of the Church without the consent of a later Oecumenical Synod?

Of course they cannot answer this point because they confuse traditions and Church. The OCs (and some Orthodox converts who were initially attracted to Orthodoxy by its "air of antiquity" with all these ... "ethnic" and "traditional" little nice customs the Orthodox have, that helped spice up their "thirst" for "spirituality", which in this case was a temporary interest in "eastern mysticism") are under the impression that the Church is only ancient traditions and old Canons. (At least the converts have a good excuse because they arrived to Orthodoxy through a distorted prism; what is however the excuse of the Eastern OCs I wonder, or any one else who was brought up in a good Orthodox environment!) The OCs give no importance to the contemporary Church as a whole, as a Body, with her Patriarchates and her autocephalous Churches. The OCs consider these schismatic, because some of them follow the New Calendar and others, among the ones who follow the Old Calendar, are in spiritual communion with NCs.

The difference between traditions and Church is fundamental and especially the OCs' theologians have no excuse for not knowing it. Here is the difference:

*************************************************************************************************************************************************

The Church consists, as we all know, of two parts: the Triumphant and the Militant Church (although, as bishop Kallistos Ware correctly mentions in his book "The Orthodox Church", we must not stress such a division too much for the two are inseparably connected into one, mystically).

Triumphant Church is the one in heavens: the Holy Apostles, Martyrs, and the Fathers, Saints and Righteous ones, who died, live up there. Militant Church is the Church on earth, and consists of all her living members, the visible Orthodox Church.

The Church which is in heaven left us with some Laws, Canons and customs. These are called traditions. The Militant Church is in a position to canonise laws too, for the following reason:

When the Lord said that "I am with you all the days until the end of the eon" (Matth. 28:20), He was not referring to the Triumphant Church in heaven, but to the Militant Church on earth, for it is with the latter that He will be with until the "end of the eon", whereas He will be with the Triumphant Church after the "end of the eon" as well, "unto the ages of ages". This is also certified by the History of our Church. Let us bring a few examples.

When the Sixth Oecumenical Synod took place in 690 AD, the Fathers had before them the traditions and Canons of the Holy Fathers and Apostles who lived before their times, who already constituted part of the heavenly Church. As a living Church, the Militant Church of those times, in 690 AD, had the right to amend the two Apostolic Canons which discuss marriage of Bishops. The Synod abolished the ancient custom and tradition of marriage of Bishops, even though this tradition was Apostolic, and established a new situation: the compulsory celibacy of the Bishops.

The Fathers of the Sixth Oecumenical Synod also defined, by means of the 101st Canon, that we must not receive communion by any object (as the labis also is), but by our own hands, and this was to hold not only for Clerics, but also for lay members. The Fathers of the Sixth Oecumenical Synod died and moved to the Triumphant Church. This Canon remained on earth as a tradition.

The post-tenth or post-eleventh century living Church, and the Church in every generation henceforth, till our times today, judged differently and in turn abolished the above Canon: we have used the labis ever since.

The haircut of Monks and Clerics using a papalethra constituted tradition of the Church until the 15th century AD. All those fathers left, rose up to the heavens, and left us with the tradition of the haircut with papalethra. The Church after the 16th century AD, abolished this tradition and today all Clerics, both NCs and OCs, leave long hair and have no papalethra.

What do the above show? Traditions are one thing and Church is another!

Traditions are the remnants on earth of the triumphant Churches of each generation. These are ancient customs, various Canons, stemming from Pan-Orthodox or Local Synods, and sometimes pious opinions of Holy Fathers, all of whom are now in heaven.

When we talk of "Church", we mean the living Church of each generation, the Militant Church, who has the divine right to canonise laws, as the Sixth Oecumenical Synod had done, who had abolished Apostolic Canons and the ancient tradition of marriage of Bishops, or even the right to quietly accept various situations stemming from remnants of the Triumphant Church, as the Church following the times of the Sixth Oecumenical Synod did, and our Church today continues to do, as regards the issue of Clerics' haircut.

Therefore we see that Church and traditions constitute one living organism. In the same way every living organism consists of two elements, one unchangeable and the other changeable, in a similar manner it happens for traditions and the Church; namely, the (old and new) Church, consists of something Divine and something human, and thus has something absolute that will not change ever, namely the dogma and ethics, but it also has something relative that can be expressly changed or quietly lived as a situation. In other words, no one has a right by himself, even if he is a Priest or an Archpriest, to violate any of the traditions of the Fathers. Nor has any local Church the right to ignore the consent of the other Churches in general matters.

Therefore schism is not called the violation of an ancient tradition (as we have seen many such violations have taken place in the past) but when a violation of an ancient tradition cuts (schiso) one Church from another, in other words when their intercommunion is interrupted.

Therefore we see that only "the tradition of the Faith", namely the dogmas, and the "tradition of the life in Christ", namely the ethics, are things eternally inviolable and unchangeable and cannot be altered in any way. The other traditions, however, the ones referring to issues of worship, office, ecclesiastical eutaxy etc. can be altered and changed - provided of course this is not done by such and such person (as the Protestants do), even if he is a Priest or an Archpriest (as the Roman Catholics do), for in that case we have true violation and an insurrection - but by the CHURCH!

*************************************************************************************************************************************************

DOES THE NEW CALENDAR CONSTITUTE SCHISM?

Now that we have clarified what traditions, Church and Schism entail, let us see if the New Calendar constitutes schism. The OCs use a number of arguments to "prove" that the New Calendar is schismatic.

And firstly: OCs quote the All-Orthodox Synods of 1582, 1587, 1593 and 1848 which had condemned the Gregorian Calendar. We reply:

They claim that the New Calendar is condemned by these Synods because they, in their confusion, still identify the Gregorian calendar with the New calendar. In the beginning of our analysis, it was proven beyond any doubt that the New Calendar is not Gregorian but adjusted Julian, not only from a calendarist point of view but also from an ecclesiastical point of view, since the Gregorian calendar does not take into consideration the Nomicon Pascha and the Latins celebrate their Easter sometimes together with the Nomicon Pascha and sometimes before it; something that does not happen with the adjusted Julian calendar as we proved.

The All-Orthodox Synods they refer to condemned the Gregorian Calendar, the Calendar's Paschalion and its Calandarion i.e. the church calendar of the movable feasts of Mid-Pentecost, Ascension, Pentecost, Holy Trinity etc., because it deviates from the true delimitations of the First Oecumenical Synod, according to which our Pascha must be celebrated after the Jewish Pascha. The New Calendar, as we proved, abides by this ordinance. Therefore it does not come under this condemnation. The 13-day shifting by itself does not come under the condemnation of the All-Orthodox Synods of 1582, 1587, 1593 and 1848 since it did not touch neither the Paschalion nor its Calandarion.

Secondly: <<The 13-day promotion in conjunction with keeping the same Paschal cycle results in the reduction - and occasionally the suppression - of the Apostles' Fast>>, OCs claim.

The Apostles' Fast, even though it has not been canonised by an Ecumenical or Local Synod, has legal value as an ancient custom. As such, it is true that it cannot be abolished or modified by no one, not even an Archpriest. Also, it cannot be altered in any way by one local Church without the other Churches knowing about it.

Since however both the Churches following the New Style accept and the Churches following the Old Style put up with this restriction, there was no Schism. We would have had a Schism on the issue if the Autocephalous Churches and the Patriarchates had cut off their fellowship with the New Style Churches. This however did not happen. Therefore there was no Schism!

Thirdly: OCs consider schismatic the situation where New Style and Old Style Churches celebrate the Christmas and the other fixed Feasts at different times, and also because they fast at different times: when one Church has a fast, the other Church doesn't. When one Church has a fast, the other one celebrates a Feast, and so on.

Of course, it is better if all Orthodox Christians celebrated together and fasted together, at the same time. There is no disagreement on this.

The difference however in the times of celebrating the Feasts and the fasts of Christmas and of the Holy Apostles does not constitute Schism because the ancient Church up to the times of the First Oecumenical Synod had never celebrated Feasts together; nor were the fasts done on the same dates throughout the Christian world. Nevertheless there was no Schism between the various local Churches. We showed before that Christians would not celebrate together the fixed feasts before 300 AD. But the Christians of those ancient times would not celebrate together not only Christmas and the feasts associated with it, but not even Pascha! This we know from History.

St. Polycarp (150 AD), bishop of Smyrne, went to Rome and met Bishop Anicetus. It was Pascha time. St. Polycarp wanted to celebrate Pascha on the 14th of Nissan. Pope Anicetus wanted to celebrate it on the coming Sunday. They talked about it. Neither did Polycarp persuade Anicetus nor did Anicetus persuade Polycarp. They co-officiated and left in peace (c.f. Eusebius' Ecclesiastical Hist