Why I Am Not an Old Calendarist

 

The Old Calenderists - self-styled True Orthodox, Genuine Orthodox, and Traditional Orthodox - are a collection of schismatic groups that originated in 1924 in Greece over the change of the Julian calendar to the Revised Julian calendar for ecclesiastical use by the Church of Greece (CoG) and Ecumenical Patriarchate (EP). The motivation for this change was multifaceted, but for Old Calendarists, the change represented a scandalous rupture to the tradition of the Church. Now, 100 years later, the Old Calendarists in Greece have split into a handful of factions, with additional factions principally in the U.S. and Western Europe; some of these factions are in communion with some of the others, while some are totally isolated. We will evaluate the root cause of the Old Calendarist schism and whether such a cause justifies schism. We will also consider some secondary issues that undermine Old Calendarists’ credibility.

The Calendar Change: The Root Cause

It cannot be doubted that the sole cause for the Old Calendarist schism in 1924 was the EP and CoG changing their liturgical calendars from the Julian to the Revised Julian. Therefore, if the calendar change cannot justify the schism, then the Old Calendarist schism is illegitimate. The calendar change cannot justify the schism since there is nothing in the Orthodox tradition to support such a notion, as we will show; therefore, the Old Calendarist schism is illegitimate.

First, let us establish our claim that the sole cause for the 1924 schism was the calendar change. It was at the onset of the calendar change that a popular pushback ensued, followed by an episcopal pushback in 1935 [1]. The former pushback reflects the quick, reactionary temperament that is common of popular-level revolts; it demonstrates a lack of systematic thought, instead driven by passion. The latter pushback provided a more dispassionate, systematic appraisal, providing the first formal statement of the Old Calendarist position, an encyclical from 1935 [2]. In particular, it stated, “the State Church [the CoG]...from whom the Grace of the All-holy Spirit has departed, since they have set at naught the resolutions of the Fathers…and all the Pan-Orthodox Councils that condemned the Gregorian festal calendar”. This is the sole charge levied by the Old Calendarists in this 1935 encyclical. Indeed, the encyclical implicitly acknowledges that the calendar change is not a matter of doctrine when it quotes St. Basil on schismatics and opens with, "Even though the schismatics have not erred in doctrines..”. Further, no mention is made of any doctrinal error (e.g. ecumenism) on the part of the CoG and EP. That the calendar change was the sole cause of the schism is clarified by comments from one of the encyclical’s signatories, Chrysostomos of Florina, in the following years, "we joined the struggle under the restitution of the Patristic Calendar to the Church, setting as our primary goal, not the creation of a permanent ecclesiastical division, but the pacification of the Church and the union of all Orthodox Christians in the celebration of the Feasts" [3].

Now that we know what caused the schism, we must ask whether such a cause justified it. It would seem that the calendar change does not justify the Old Calendarist schism. If the calendar change did justify the schism, then fathers and historians of the Church would teach that such a change is a legitimate reason to schism. However, the Church’s fathers and historians don’t teach such a change is a legitimate reason to schism; therefore, the calendar change is not a legitimate reason to schism. Eusebius, known as the “father of Church history”, records St. Irenaeus of Lyons’ and other bishops’ disapproval to Pope St. Victor’s breaking of communion over the difference of when to celebrate Pascha (Easter) between the Asia Minor churches and everywhere else, “But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace and of neighborly unity and love…the disagreement in regard to the fast confirms the agreement in the faith” [4]. Additionally, this same logic is shown in the writings of Sozomen, another famous Christian historian:

We have now described the various usages that prevailed in the celebration of the Passover. It appears to me that Victor, bishop of Rome, and Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, came to a very wise decision on the controversy that had arisen between them. For as the bishops of the West did not deem it necessary to dishonor the tradition handed down to them by Peter and by Paul, and as, on the other hand, the Asiatic bishops persisted in following the rules laid down by John the evangelist, they unanimously agreed to continue in the observance of the festival according to their respective customs, without separation from communion with each other. They faithfully and justly assumed that those who accorded in the essentials of worship ought not to separate from one another on account of customs. - Sozomen (400 – c. 450 AD), Book 7, Chapter 19 [5]

It might be objected by an Old Calendarist that none of this is applicable given the Church has explicitly forbade the "new" calendar change. For instance, one Old Calendarist group in America provides the below reasons for why it follows the Julian Calendar, and rejects the “new” calendar [6]:

a. Because based on it [the Julian Calendar], the First Ecumenical Council established the Paschal Canon and appointed that the feast of Holy Pascha may fall anywhere from March 22nd until April 25th, while with the New (Papal) Calendar it can fall as late at May 8th.

b. The Gregorian (Papal) Calendar has been condemned by three Pan-Orthodox Councils under Patriarch Jeremiah Tranos (1583, 1587, 1589)

c. Through Synodal Patriarchal Encyclicals in 1593 Patriarchs Jeremiah of Constantinople, Sophronios of Alexandria, and in 1848 Patriarchs Anthimos of Constantinople, Hierotheos of Alexandria, Methodios of Antioch and Cyril of Jerusalem placed under serious penances whomever accepts the reform of the Orthodox Ecclesiastical Calendar.

However, such reasoning makes a crude equivocation. Indeed, the calendar introduced in 1924 wasn’t the “New (Papal) Calendar”, AKA the Gregorian calendar. The “new” calendar introduced was the Revised Julian calendar, a calendar created by the Orthodox intended to be superior to the Gregorian in astronomical accuracy while correcting the flaws in the Julian; additionally, it served as an initial step to replace both the Gregorian and Julian calendars with a third, more astronomically accurate calendar [7]. Therefore, points “b” and “c” are simply irrelevant. Further, the “Paschal Canon” referred to in point “a” is something still followed by the CoG/EP; in other words, the Paschal Canon which utilizes the Julian calendar, never changed in 1924. Lastly, points “b” and “c” reasoning for condemning the Gregorian calendar had to do the perception that the Gregorian calendar undermined the 1st Ecumenical Council’s decisions on how to calculate Pascha; this is acknowledged by even some Old Calendarists [8] and Orthodox hierarchs that Old Calendarists view fondly:

You know the 13th, 14th and 15th canons of the First-and-Second Council, which speaks about separating oneself from a Bishop or Patriarch after his conciliar condemnation. And there is the canon (the 15th), which says that the clergyman is worthy, not of condemnation, but of praise, who breaks links with him [the heretic] for the sake of the heresy condemned by the holy council or the fathers…, and besides ‘when he (that is, the first hierarch) preaches heresy publicly and teaches it openly in the Church’. But this, glory to God, neither P[atriarch] Basil [III of Constantinople] nor [Archbishop] Chrysostom [of Athens] have done yet. On the contrary, they insist on keeping the former Paschalion, for only it, and not the Julian Calendar itself was covered by the curse of the councils. True, P[atriarch] Jeremiah in the 15th [correct: 16th] century and his successor in the 18th anathematized the calendar itself, but this curse: 1) touches only his contemporaries and 2) does not extend to those frightened to break communion with him, to which are subjected only those who transgress the canonical Paschalion. Moreover (this needs to be noted in any case), the main idea behind the day of Pascha is that it should be celebrated by all Christians (that is, the Orthodox) on one and the same day throughout the inhabited world. True, I myself and my brothers do not all sympathize with the new calendar and modernism, but we beseech the Athonite fathers not to be hasty in composing letters (Romans 14). Do not grieve about our readiness to go to the [Constantinople] Council. Of course, there will be no council, but if there is, and if we go, as St. Flavian went to the Robber Council, then, of course, we will keep the faith and deliver the apostates to anathema. But as long as the last word has not been spoken, as long as the whole Church has not repeated the curses of Patriarch Jeremiah at an Ecumenical Council, we must retain communion, so that we ourselves should not be deprived of salvation, and, in aiming at a gnat, swallow a camel. - Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky in The Russian Church and the New Calendar by Vladimir Moss [9]

The insistence by the EP of “keeping the former Paschalion” that Met. Khrapovitsky described above continues today with the current Ecumenical Patriarch, Bartholomew I. [10] In sum, the Old Calendarist schism is illegitimate because its justification hinges on separating over something that is non-doctrinal in nature, which goes contrary to historical examples in the Church, and utilizing crude equivocations of what “new” calendar means vis-a-vis 16th century condemnations of the Gregorian calendar over the Paschalion.

Secondary Undercuts to Credibility

The apostolic succession of the Old Calendarists is shrouded in irregularity and hypocrisy. Less than 10 years after bishops took leadership of the Old Calendarists, a schism occurred over the question of whether New Calendarists’ sacraments had grace; in the affirmative were the Florenites - departing from the 1935 encyclical’s statement that, “the Grace of the All-holy Spirit has departed”[2] - and in the negative were the Matthewites [11].

• Bishop Matthew, the leader of the Matthewites, ordained new bishops under the justification that he was the only Orthodox bishop left in the world [12]. This action contradicts Canon 1 of the Apostalic Canons: “Let a bishop be ordained by two or three bishops” [13].

• Metropolitan Chrysostomos, the leader of the Florenites, left no successors following his death, resulting in the Florenite group without bishops from 1955 until in 1960 [1] during which two ROCOR bishops ordained an Archmandrite Akakios [12]. However, this consecration is marred with irregularity and irony: 1) it was done behind the back of the ROCOR synod (see 1961 ROCOR letter-2); 2) one of the two bishops involved in the consecration, Theophilus (Ionescu), celebrated on the New Calendar [14]; and 3) ROCOR as a whole was in communion with the EP and wider new calendarist churches at the time, the very people Akakios and his group believed were graceless schismatics [15] (also, see 1968 Greek Archdiocese yearbook-3).

Old Calendarist appeals to persecutions and miracles to strengthen their credibility hinges on special pleading and unwarranted presuppositions. In the hundred years of the Old Calendarists’ existence, there is a consistent appeal to the persecutions they suffered [16] and key miracles - particularly the purported appearance of the Cross over a parish celebrating on the Julian calendar in 1925 in Greece [17] - related to their resistance efforts. However, such appeals are largely without force when considered outside of the narrow context they wish to contain such events.

• Appeals to persecutions relies on special pleading. The Byzantine Empire systematically repressed non-Chalcedonians after Chalcedon (451) to the end of Byzantine rule in Egypt [18]; Greek Orthodox committed heinous acts against Latins in Constantinople [19]; and Russian Orthodox murdered Byzantine Catholics in Ukraine [20], and yet, not Old Calendarist would believe such persecutions bolster credibility and ultimately warrant conversion to any of these traditions. So why would persecution by the Greek government warrant bolstered credibility or conversion to Old Calendarism?

• Appeals to the purported Cross event in 1925 is not only an example of special pleading but based on presuppositions one need not admit. Again, purported miracles have occurred in other Christian traditions - some of which are far better documented than the 1925 Cross appearance [21] - and yet no Old Calendarist would want to say such miracles justify conversion to those traditions. Further, the implicit presupposition in appeals to this miracle following that calendar change is that God was giving His preference to the Julian calendar over the Revised Julian calendar. But the Old Calendarist must first explain why we ought to think this is what God had in mind, if we assume this miracle actually occurred. Why can we not just admit that the persecutions that preceded this miracle were immoral and God was making the very point to the persecutors that Old Calendarists wish to deny: namely, that one should not fight over which calendar one is on?

Contemporary Old Calendarists dabble in historical revisionism by shifting the focus of the schism from the calendar change to ecumenism. Contemporary Old Calendarists often cash out the calendar change as a symptom to a more fundamental problem, ecumenism. This is done, for instance, when it is stated, “the idea of promoting the union of Churches (Orthodox and heterodox) began to gain ground among circles in the Eastern Orthodox Church…a series of steps [was necessary for this goal]...the first was the change of the calendar” [1].

• As shown above from the 1935 encyclical of the three bishops who took charge of the Old Calendarists, the only charge was that of changing the calendar; indeed, no mention of ecumenism is found. Fifteen years later, after the Florenite/Matthew schism, the Florenites issued an encyclical in an attempt to fix this divide by reaffirming what they abandoned: that the new calendarists are without grace [22]. However, once again, no reference to ecumenism is made for this claim, the calendar alone is the cause of this deprivation.

• If ecumenism was to blame for the schism, then the ecumenical activities going on in Orthodoxy before and during the calendar change should have served as an impetus in the schism. The ecumenical activities going on in Orthodoxy before and during the calendar change did not serve as an impetus in the schism as no mention of them is made by the founders of Old Calendarism for why the new calendarists are graceless.

• For instance, St. Tikhon of Moscow at the consecration of an Anglican bishop in 1900 (see photograph-3); the Orthodox involvement of a Pan-Christian celebration of 1600th anniversary of the First Ecumenical Council in 1925 (see photograph-4); EP Joachim III’s 1902 encyclical calling for a pursuit to Christian unity through dialogue [23] or EP Meletios IV’s 1920 encyclical of the same nature.

Sources
[1] https://www.hotca.org/orthodoxy/orthodox-awareness/416-a-brief-history

[2] http://genuineorthodoxchurch.com/1935encyclical.htm

[3] https://classicalchristianity.com/2013/06/24/on-the-original-purpose-of-the-old-calendarist-movement/

[4] https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250105.htm

[5] https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/26027.htm

[6] https://www.hotca.org/orthodoxy/orthodox-awareness/335-%CE%BD%CE%B5%CE%B1%CE%BD%CE%B9%CE%BA%CF%8C%CF%82-%E1%BD%80%CF%81%CE%B8%CF%8C%CE%B4%CE%BF%CE%BE%CE%BF%CF%82-%CF%83%CF%8D%CE%BD%CE%B4%CE%B5%CF%83%CE%BC%CE%BF%CF%82

[7] https://www.amazon.com/Quest-Reform-Orthodox-Church-Pan-Orthodox/dp/1932401091/

[8] https://www.imoph.org/pdfs/2011/07/04/20110704aSigillion/20110704aSigillion.pdf

[9] https://classicalchristianity.com/2013/03/25/met-anthony-khrapovitsky-on-the-old-calendar-schism/

[10] https://orthochristian.com/163257.html

[11] https://httptrueorthodoxy.wordpress.com/2017/06/04/florenitesmatthewites-schism/

[12] https://www.imoph.org/pdfs/2013/12/30/20131230aTheOldCalendarGreekOrthodoxChurch-ABriefHistory.pdf

[13] https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3820.htm

[14] https://orthodoxwiki.org/Theophilus_(Ionescu)_of_S%C3%A8vres

[15] http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/schmem_azkoul2.aspx

[16] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9781405166584

[17] http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/cross_sign.aspx

[18] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Copts#Roman_Egypt

[19] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Latins

[20] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josaphat_Kuntsevych

[21] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Zeitoun

[22] https://www.omologitis.org/en/archive/encyclicals/

[23] https://www.ecupatria.org/documents/patriarchal-and-synodal-encyclical-of-1902/

Natural Theology: The Existence of God

Change occurs. This is self-evident when we consider if such a proposition is true, then conclude that it is. Further, it is empirically validated by stepping outside and observing everything around you. If change occurs, then we must ask what is change? Change is the actualization of a potential. Since everything in our experience changes in some respect, everything in our experience is a combination of act and potency. A ball has the potential to roll, now it’s actually rolling; a boy has the potential to grow muscle, now he actually has muscle; a mirror has the potential to reflect my image, now it actually reflects my image. So, change exists, and the definition of change is the actualization of a potential.

For something to go from potential to actual, some other thing already actual must bring the something in question to actuality; this is known as the principle of causality. The idea that something potential could bring itself to act - pulling itself up by its metaphysical bootstraps - is necessarily impossible. An example showing this impossibility would be the incoherent statement, “I actualized my own existence”. If I caused (i.e., actualized) my own existence, that implies I existed before I caused my own existence since for me to cause my own existence presuppose I already exist, thus making a self-contradicting claim.

So, change exists; change is the actualization of a potential; and for something potential to be actual requires a cause (i.e. something actual). Now, there are two applications of the principle of causality in reality: one deals with a temporal, static line of events (a linear casual series) that traces causes back in time, without any need for the series to terminate in some fundamental, first cause; the second kind deals with any given moment in time, particularly the very present moment (a hierarchical causal series) that involves causal power being derived from some fundamental member, the primordial source of a given causal power. An example of a linear causal series is a father who begets a son, and that son, in turn, begets his own son, and so on. This series could theoretically go on to infinity; taken at face value, there is nothing in this example that necessitates a first, most fundamental cause through which all the other members in the series rely upon in order to actualize their potency. In the example used, the first son requires nothing from his father to beget his own son once the first son is begotten; after the first son is begotten the father is irrelevant to the son continuing to exist and using his own causal powers (i.e. actualities) to actualize the potential life of his own son.

The metaphysics is different in a hierarchical causal series. In a hierarchical causal series, a first cause is necessary for the other, secondary members of the series to have any causal efficacy because derivativeness is the key factor in how a secondary cause can have causal power at all. Consequently, a hierarchical causal series is not concerned with the past in explaining how a potency is actualized, but how any potency is actualized at any moment, including here and now, given the secondary cause must derive its actualization from a first cause. I will provide three examples of a hierarchical causal series:

1. A stone’s potency to roll is actualized by a stick pushing it; however, the stick can only actualize this potency insofar as a moving hand actualizes the stick’s potency to move.

Metaphysics: Substances & Their Attributes

Substances are the subject of the four explanations and are the concrete, existing beings we encounter in life. Insofar as a substance exists, it is a composite of form and matter, caused by something, and possessing causal powers for specific, intrinsic ends. Form and matter are a substance’s internal principles since they undergird the composition of a substance, while causality and teleology are external principles since those causal powers and ends manifest outside the substance. Form and telos are perhaps the most notable of the four explanations. This is because the form (AKA nature) of a substance provides explanatory power for what and how a substance has what it has regarding its matter and causality while teleology explains why it has that matter and causality. Further, teleology tells us what is good for a substance by virtue of its form. We will return to this latter point in another post; however, as we have already noted, substances reach their fullest actuality when they reach their natural ends, and those natural ends are grounded in their nature.

Also, substances inherently possess their causal powers and ends versus having them extrinsically imposed. For instance, a daisy flower is a substance, intrinsically possessing its powers and ends, such as the power to absorb sunlight for the end of obtaining food. We call the forms of these substances’ substantial forms, since their forms are intrinsically grounded, rather than extrinsically imposed. On the other hand, a crown of daisy flowers strung together is what we might call an artificial form, by virtue of its form being extrinsically imposed. A daisy crown possesses the power to communicate peace and love for the purpose of obtaining world peace; however, there is nothing intrinsic to this artifact that possesses these properties and ends because the form from which they proceed is extrinsically imposed and depends on the more fundamental, substantial form of a daisy. Examples of substantial forms and artificial forms are numerous. For the former, we have minerals, plants, animals, and human beings; for the latter we have bricks, daisy crowns, taxidermized deer heads, and wax figurines of Elvis Presley.  

Further, substances do not exist in other things, but rather exist in their own right; they are the receivers of change, permanence, diversity, and unity. On the other hand, the attributes of substances are the givers of change, permanence, diversity, and unity in a substance. Thus, just as form and matter are applications of act and potency respectively, so too are attributes and substance applications of act and potency respectively. Attributes can include quantity, quality, relation, place, time, posture, condition, action, and being acted upon. For instance, a human (substance) has the attribute of weighing 139 pounds (quantity), with black hair (quality), that has a child (relation), who is at the grocery store (place) in the afternoon (time), bending over (posture), wearing clothes (condition), picking up (action) a box of cereal while being tugged to leave the store by their child (being acted upon). In such a situation, such attributes are acts actualized by the substance, and the substance remains in potency to take-on new acts/attributes, such as standing upright, moving to a new location, etc.

Finally, attributes can be distinguished between contingent and proper attributes. The latter directly flows from the form of a substance, while the former does not. For instance, the skin color (quality) of a human being is a contingent attribute, but to have skin (condition) at all is a proper attribute of a human being. As an aside, this is why racism is irrational on a philosophical analysis. For to make skin color X a matter of superiority or inferiority to that of other skin colors, is to directly associate a contingent attribute with the substantial form of a human being. But contingent accidents do not flow from a substance’s substantial form. Therefore, skin color has nothing to do with the substantial form of a human and thus has no relevance to superiority or inferiority amongst substances of the same substantial form. A light-colored and dark-colored human share the same substantial form.

Metaphysics: Hylemorphism – Matter and Form

We have addressed two – causality and teleology - of the four explanations that provide a metaphysical account of a thing. We will now move on to the remaining two explanations and then conclude this metaphysics series with an account of what – or, perhaps, who – are the subjects of these four explanations. For now, let us address the remaining two explanations, matter (hyle) and form (morphe). As we will see, these two principles are complimentary to each other, like how causality and teleology are complementary.

Matter is that out of which a thing is made; it answers the question, “what is X made of”? It is an application of potentiality, accounting for an individual thing’s change, diversity, and limitation. Form is that which configures and determines matter; it answers the question, “what is the nature of X”? It is an application of actuality, accounting for an individual thing’s permanence, unity, and perfection. For example, an eyeball is made of various tissues and veins, and yet, an eyeball is not merely these tissues and veins; an eyeball is also a configuration of these materials that actualize the nature of “eyeball”. If I had an eyeball resting on my palm and squished it with my grip, no eyeball would remain despite the matter remaining. This is because things are not merely their matter, but their matter plus the organizing principle by which their matter is actualized with a given nature. 

In the context of change and diversity, matter is that which needs actualizing; form is that which results from actualization:

• For instance, the matter of X human being differentiates it from Y human being and, for both, has the potential to take on diverse changes throughout the human being's development, and, by virtue of human form, actualizing those changes. Change occurs because something persists, namely the form; otherwise, it would not be change, but rather annihilation of one thing and the spontaneous emergence of something else. Therefore, as a particular human being reaches adulthood, it actualizes various potencies – puberty, for example – by virtue of what it is. 

In the context of perfection, matter is that which limits (i.e., remains potential); form is that which perfects (i.e., actualizes):

• For instance, the form of circularity - a collection of points equidistant from a fixed center point -can be actualized by drawing a circle. To the extent a given circle is drawn in conformity to circularity, the circle actualizes circularity. In the case of any given circle, matter is the limiting principle insofar as it keeps in potentiality all points being equidistant from a fixed center point. Form is the perfecting principle; insofar as we can make our circle in conformity to circularity, we have a more perfect circle. We might say a circle drawn digitally using special technology is more perfect than a circle drawn with chalk on a blackboard.

Next in the series: Substances & Their Attributes

Metaphysics: Teleology

 In our account of being, we have discovered that being is fundamentally divided into act and potency, which accounts for how permanence and change, on the one hand, and unity and diversity, on the other, can coexist in being. We focused on the principle of causality (PoC), which states potential being can only be actualized by some being already actual. Further, the PoC grounds how an agent can bring about change or be changed by virtue of its causal powers and potencies respectively. It is one of four explanations that together form a complete metaphysical account of any substance. We will now move on to another of these explanations: teleology.

Teleology studies the ends (telos) of beings by virtue of their causal powers and potencies; in other words, it studies a thing’s effects. If the PoC answers, “what brought X about?”, teleology answers “what is X for”? For example, while rain and sunshine are the causes of an acorn becoming an oak tree, the end or goal of an acorn is to become an oak tree. This is rooted (no pun intended) in what an acorn is, what makes an acorn an acorn - it’s form and matter, the remaining two explanations we will discuss later.

To know something about how a thing is affected is also to know something about what a thing is for. We know that rain and sunshine actualize the potencies of an acorn to grow into an oak instead of an elephant partially because we know the telos of an acorn. This is based on the causal regularity we see between agents and their effects, which of course can be frustrated by interfering factors; in the case of the above example, a squirrel eating the acorn or it being damaged. Nevertheless, a causal regularity exists that explains why one effect is produced over another. Thus, we see causality is not intelligible without teleology. This establishes the principle of finality: every agent acts for an end. In other words, a potency always points beyond itself towards some specific actuality. Without such a principle, we cannot intelligibly explain why X agent causes Y effect instead of Z effect.

From the macro to the micro, our experience of being is full of teleology. The telos of a thing is some potential end waiting to be actualized; it points beyond the already actual being possessing that end. DNA points towards the development of some organism or part of an organism; the act of thinking points towards some thought; the eye points towards sight; the water cycle points towards hydrating the Earth, and so on. Being thus has a natural tendency towards certain ends by virtue of what form it takes. Therefore, substances reach their fullest actuality when they reach their natural ends.

Next in the series: Hylemorphism – Matter and Form