Defining the Monarchy of the Father

The monarchy of the Father (MOTF) is a doctrine of Trinitarian theology that identifies the Father's unique, causal primacy in the Trinitarian taxis. This primacy puts the Father as the primordial source, cause, font, beginning of the entire Godhead; it is from the Father that the other two persons of the Trinity - the Son and Spirit - ultimately receive their being. The implication of this primacy is a causal subordination of the Son and Spirit in relation to the Father. This sort of subordinationism is not to be confused with an ontological subordinationism - a heresy that considers the Son and/or Spirit to be of lesser substance then the Father (i.e., not homoousion with the Father) - in the Trinity. The MOTF does not entail this heresy because causal subordination pertains to the modes of origin of the persons, not the one, perfect divine substance of which all three persons share. Indeed, it is this one, perfect divine essence that the Son and Spirit have by virtue of ultimately receiving it from the Father.

Simply, the MOTF is defined as: the Father is the primordial causal source and beginning from which the entire Godhead eternally subsists and owes its being. 

This doctrine is present in the common witness of the Church Fathers - as we shall see - and is affirmed by our Lord Himself when he tells the disciples, Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I (John 14:28). Furthermore, the doctrine is affirmed by both sides of the Great Schism of East and West and through the Protestant Reformation - as we shall also see - revealing its centrality to Trinitarian theology.

Fathers of the Church

We shall examine the following patristic florilegium to identify the key elements of the MOTF doctrine described above: 

And hence it is that the Son too says not, 'My Father is better than I John 14:28,' lest we should conceive Him to be foreign to His Nature, but 'greater,' not indeed in greatness, nor in time, but because of His generation from the Father Himself, nay, in saying 'greater' He again shows that He is proper to His essence. - Athanasius, Discourse 1 Against the Arians, Chapter 13

It is the Father to Whom all existence owes its origin. In Christ and through Christ He is the source of all. In contrast to all else He is self-existent. He does not draw His being from without, but possesses it from Himself and in Himself….Who, indeed, would deny that the Father is the greater; the Unbegotten greater than the Begotten, the Father than the Son, the Sender than the Sent, He that wills than He that obeys? He Himself shall be His own witness:— The Father is greater than I. It is a fact which we must recognize, but we must take heed lest with unskilled thinkers the majesty of the Father should obscure the glory of the Son. - Hillary of Poitiers, De Trinitate, Book 2.6, 3.12

As staunch defenders of Nicene orthodoxy, Athanasius and Hillary are powerful witnesses to the orthodox understanding of our Lord's words in John 14:28. The difference in "greatness" between the Father and Son does not pertain to the substance, but causal relations. It is the Father who is "unbegotten" in relation to the Son who is begotten. The Father possess His existence in a primordial way, unlike the Son who receives His existence from the Father. This primordial "unbegotteness" is a property of the Father alone:

We do not speak of the Holy Ghost as unbegotten, for we recognize one Unbegotten and one Origin of all things, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ: nor do we speak of the Holy Ghost as begotten, for by the tradition of the faith we have been taught one Only-begotten: the Spirit of truth we have been taught to proceed from the Father, and we confess Him to be of God without creation. - Basil of Caesarea, Letter 125

The Son is second to the Father in rank because he is from him. He is second to the Father in dignity because the Father is the principle and cause by virtue of which he is the Son's Father and because we approach and access the God and Father through the Son. Even so, the Son is not second in nature, since there is one divinity in both of them. - Basil of Caesarea, Against Eunomius, Book 3.1

In both of these quotes, Basil explicitly affirms the same thing affirmed by Athanasius and Hillary: causality, not substance, is the differentiating principle of superiority in the Trinity. It is the Father's ultimacy as the "one Origin of all things", "the principle and cause", that forms the MOTF doctrine. Nevertheless, there is no difference in nature because "there is one divinity" all three divine persons share. 

Now, the name of that which has no beginning is the Father, and of the Beginning the Son, and of that which is with the Beginning, the Holy Ghost, and the three have one Nature — God. And the union is the Father from Whom and to Whom the order of Persons runs its course, not so as to be confounded, but so as to be possessed, without distinction of time, of will, or of power. For these things in our case produce a plurality of individuals, since each of them is separate both from every other quality, and from every other individual possession of the same quality. But to those who have a simple nature, and whose essence is the same, the term One belongs in its highest sense. - Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 42

The Father is Father, and is Unoriginate, for He is of no one; the Son is Son, and is not unoriginate, for He is of the Father. But if you take the word Origin in a temporal sense, He too is Unoriginate, for He is the Maker of Time, and is not subject to Time. - Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 39

And if, when we admit that in respect of being the Cause the Father is greater than the Son, they should assume the premise that He is the Cause by Nature, and then deduce the conclusion that He is greater by Nature also, it is difficult to say whether they mislead most themselves or those with whom they are arguing…I think the fallacy here is the arguing from a conditioned to an unconditioned use of a term, to use the technical expression of the logicians. For while we assign this word Greater to His Nature viewed as a Cause, they infer it of His Nature viewed in itself. - Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 29

Gregory of Nazianzus too communicates the same truth as the rest of the chorus cited: the Father is the uniquely causal source in the Trinity by virtue of Him being from no other. Instead, He exists in and of Himself. Gregory also points out an important qualification when discussing causality within the Godhead: it lacks any notion of temporality or change. Therefore, there is no moment when the Son (or Spirit) was not. Instead, causality within God is atemporal and simply recognizes who lacks existential derivation (the Father) and who has it (the Son and Spirit). 

…the Son owes to the Father that which He is, — thereby also certainly owing this in particular to the Father, to wit, that He is equal to the same Father, or that He is His Peer, whereas the Father owes whatsoever He is to no one. - Augustine of Hippo, On Faith and the Creed

That then which the Lord says —Whom I will send unto you from the Father, — shows the Spirit to be both of the Father and of the Son; because, also, when He had said, Whom the Father will send, He added also, in my name. Yet He did not say, Whom the Father will send from me, as He said, Whom I will send unto you from the Father,— showing, namely, that the Father is the beginning of the whole divinity, or if it is better so expressed, deity. He, therefore, who proceeds from the Father and from the Son, is referred back to Him from whom the Son was born. - Augustine of Hippo, On the Trinity, Book 4

Like the other fathers, Augustine taught the MOTF doctrine explicitly. He recognizes the Father as the unique, primordial source of the Godhead. It is interesting to note that despite this consistency, Augustine interpreted our Lord's words in John 14:28 differently from the rest of the fathers quoted. [1] He identifies the Son's human nature - taking on the form of a servant (Phil 2:7) - as the basis of our Lord's statement. Despite the immediate difference, Augustine seeks to safeguard the same thing the other fathers explicitly seek to safeguard as well: that despite this causal subordination, there is no ontological subordination insofar as it is the Son's divine nature that makes him consubstantial with to the Father. 

(We believe) in one Father, the beginning, and cause of all: begotten of no one: without cause or generation, alone subsisting: creator of all: but Father of one only by nature, His Only-begotten Son and our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ, and Producer of the most Holy Spirit…one must recognise that the word ἀγένητον with only one 'ν ' signifies uncreate or not having been made, while ἀγέννητον written with double 'ν ' means unbegotten. According to the first significance essence differs from essence: for one essence is uncreate, or ἀγένητον with one 'ν,' and another is create or γενητή . But in the second significance there is no difference between essence and essence. For the first subsistence of all kinds of living creatures is ἀγέννητος but not ἀγένητος. For they were created by the Creator, being brought into being by His Word, but they were not begotten, for there was no pre-existing form like themselves from which they might have been born…So then in the first sense of the word the three absolutely divine subsistences of the Holy Godhead agree: for they exist as one in essence and uncreate. But with the second signification it is quite otherwise. For the Father alone is ingenerate, no other subsistence having given Him being. But if we say that the Father is the origin of the Son and greater than the Son, we do not suggest any precedence in time or superiority in nature of the Father over the Son John 14:28 (for through His agency He made the ages ), or superiority in any other respect save causation. And we mean by this, that the Son is begotten of the Father and not the Father of the Son, and that the Father naturally is the cause of the Son: just as we say in the same way not that fire proceeds from light, but rather light from fire. So then, whenever we hear it said that the Father is the origin of the Son and greater than the Son, let us understand it to mean in respect of causation. All then that the Son and the Spirit have is from the Father, even their very being: and unless the Father is, neither the Son nor the Spirit is. And unless the Father possesses a certain attribute, neither the Son nor the Spirit possesses it: and through the Father, that is, because of the Father's existence, the Son and the Spirit exist, and through the Father, that is, because of the Father having the qualities, the Son and the Spirit have all their qualities, those of being unbegotten, and of birth and of procession being excepted. For in these hypostatic or personal properties alone do the three holy subsistences differ from each other, being indivisibly divided not by essence but by the distinguishing mark of their proper and peculiar subsistence. - John of Damascus, An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith (Book I), Excerpts from Chapter 8

Closing out the pre-schism patristic era, John Damascene, the synthesizer of Greek patristic thought captures all the elements described in the previous fathers cited. Reconciling the consubstantial equality of the Trinity while recognizing that the Father is the ultimate source of the Trinity. 

Post-Schism Sources 

Following the Great Schism, we see the MOTF explicitly affirmed by both halves of Christendom. For those familiar with the filioque controversy - arguably the primary theological issue causing the schism - it is no surprise that the Eastern side of this schism continued to affirmed the MOTF. Indeed, it was (and is) the Greek concern over how the filioque potentially undermines the MOTF that was central to the debate. However, despite this concern, the West repeatedly affirmed this doctrine even through the Protestant Reformation. This point is significant because it clearly establishes 1) the MOTF was not unique to Eastern theology and 2) the West - both Catholic and Protestant - believed one could coherently affirm the MOTF and the filioque, as we shall see: 

The Father is without beginning, not only as being outside time, but also as being in every way without cause. He alone is the cause, root and source of the Godhead beheld in the Son and the Holy Spirit; He alone is the primary cause of what has come into being; He is not the Creator alone, but the sole Father of the one Son and the sole Originator of the one Holy Spirit. He always is, and is always the Father, and always the sole Father and Originator, greater than the Son and the Spirit, but only as cause; in all other respects He is the same as Them and equal in honor. - Gregory Palamas, The Orthodox Confession of Faith Set Forth By The Most Reverened Metropolitan of Thessalonica 

In De Trinitate 4 Augustine says, “The Father is the principle of the whole divinity (deitas).” Among the Greeks it is customary to say that the Son and the Holy Spirit are such that they are begun (principari). However, this is not common usage among our doctors. For even though we attribute a certain authorship (auctoritas) to the Father in virtue of His being a principle, nonetheless, in order to avoid an occasion of error, we do not in any way attribute subordination or inferiority to the Son or the Holy Spirit. As Hilary puts it in De Trinitate 9, “The Father is the greater because of the honor attached to giving, but the Son is not the lesser in virtue of being the one to whom the gift is given". - Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, First Part, Question 33, Article 1

Despite differences in emphasis and linguistic employment, both Palamas and Aquinas - each core representatives for Orthodoxy and Catholicism respectively - affirm the MOTF. They each identify the Father as the unique beginning in the Godhead and are well aware of the patristic and biblical basis behind this doctrine. Both also clearly state that despite this unique role of the Father in the Trinity, it in no away infringes on their substantial equality. As stated above, the West affirmed the MOTF and filioque together.

At the Council of Florence it was said by the Latin delegation: 

For even we ourselves would say that the Son is not the primary cause of the Spirit: we assert one cause of the Son and the Spirit, the Father, the one according to generation and the other according to procession; but in order to signify the communion and the equality of the essence we also assert the procession through the Son and clearly confess the inseparability of the substance. For the Son is substantially the Son of the Father and the Holy Spirit substantially is of the Father and the Son. Maximus states that the pronouncements of the holy Roman fathers do not say otherwise, not only Augustine, Jerome, and Ambrose but the rest whose books manifestly assert the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son. - A. Edward Siecienski, The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy, page 165 (quote from "Joseph Gill, Acta graece, 412.)

 And within the dogmatic definition at Florence: 

The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto. - Council of Florence, Session 6, Definition of Faith 

These quotes provide a clear, official position of what the late medieval Latins believed about the MOTF and their attempt to harmonize it with the filioque. Almost 100 years later, the Protestant Reformers - also committed to the filioque - would affirm the MOTF: 

The distinction of the Father, as we have heard, is this, that He derived His deity from no one, but gave it from eternity, through the eternal birth, to the Son. Therefore the Son is God and Creator, just like the Father, but the Son derived all of this from the Father, and not, in turn, the Father from the Son. The Father does not owe the fact that He is God and Creator to the Son, but the Son owes the fact that He is God and Creator to the Father. And the fact that Father and Son are God and Creator they do not owe to the Holy Spirit; but the Holy Spirit owes the fact that He is God and Creator to the Father and the Son. Thus the words ‘God Almighty, Creator’ are found [in the Creed] as attributes of the Father and not of the Son and of the Holy Spirit to mark the distinction of the Father from the Son and the Holy Spirit in the Godhead, again, the distinction of the Son from the Father and the Holy Spirit, and the distinction of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son; namely, that the Father is the source, or the fountainhead (if we may use that term as the fathers do) of the Godhead, that the Son derives it from Him and that the Holy Spirit derives it from Him and the Son, and not vice versa. - A. Edward Siecienski, The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy, page 174 (quote from "Martin Luther, 'Treatise on the Last Words of David,' Eng. trans.: Jaroslav Pelikan, ed., Luther's Works 15 [Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1972], 309-310)

These Holy Scriptures teach us that in this one sole and simple divine essence, whom we have confessed, there are three Persons:  the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.  The Father, first cause, principle, and origin of all things.  The Son, his Word and eternal wisdom.  The Holy Spirit, his virtue, power, and efficacy.  The Son begotten from eternity by the Father. The Holy Spirit proceeding eternally from them both; the three persons not confused, but distinct, and yet not separate, but of the same essence, equal in eternity and power. - John Calvin, The French Confession of Faith, Section VI

We are not denying at all whether the Father is the prime origin and source from which all things flow, while the Son and the Spirit as the cause are caused from it (the source which is the Father) according to Gregory the Theologian. But we add that this power [spirating the Spirit] is granted to the Son necessarily through the begetting...In reference also to your illustration concerning the two-directional streams arising from one overflown fountain, we place against it another similar to it which is more fitting...the sun which is the cause both of light and of illumination. Wherefore, certainly not without His innate light, but by it He illuminates the world so that the illumination will be reflected from both. In like manner, the Father is the origin and the cause of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and [the Father] is the emitter of the Spirit, not, however, without the Son who preceded the Spirit by origin. - Tubingen theologians, Second Theological Exchange: Tubingen to Constantinople, Augsburg and Constantinople

There is no question that the MOTF is consistently and explicitly affirmed by filioque proponents and opponents alike. Therefore, as it relates to the filioque, the more important and interesting question is whether the MOTF can coherently be held together with the filioque. This is a key question to which the two halves of Christendom have no agreement. 

Deaconesses: A Florilegium

Therefore, O Bishop, appoint for thyself workers of righteousness and helpers, to help with thee to life, electing those who please thee from all the people. The man who is elected is for many oversights that are required, but a woman for the service of the women; for there are houses where thou canst not send a Deacon to the women on account of the heathen. Send a Deaconess for many things. The office of a woman Deaconess is required, first, when women go down to the water, it is necessary that they be anointed by a Deaconess, and it is not fitting that the anointing oil should be given to a woman to touch; but rather the Deaconess. For it is necessary for the Priest who baptizeth, to anoint her who is baptized; but when there is a woman, and especially a Deaconess, it is not fitting for the women that they be seen by the men, but that by the laying on of the hand the head alone be anointed, as of old time the Priests and Kings of Israel were anointed. Thou also, in like manner, by laying on [thy] hand, anoint the head of those who receive baptism, whether of men or of women, and afterwards, whether thou thyself baptize, or command the Deacon or the Elder to baptize, let it be a Deaconess, as we said before, who anoints the women. Let a man repeat over them the names of the invocation of the Godhead in the water. And when she that is baptized arises from the water let the Deaconess receive her, and teach her and educate her, in order that the unbreakable seal of baptism be with purity and holiness. Therefore we affirm that the service of a woman, a Deaconess, is necessary and obligatory, because even our Lord and Saviour was served by the hand of women deaconesses, who were Mary the Magdalene, and Mary of James, the mother of Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children, with other women. This service of Deaconesses is necessary also to thee for many things, for in the houses of the heathen, where there are believing women, a Deaconess is required, that she may go in and visit those who are sick, and serve them with whatever they need, and anoint those who are healed from sicknesses. - The Didascalia Apostolorum, Chapter 16

Concerning the Paulianists who have flown for refuge to the Catholic Church, it has been decreed that they must by all means be rebaptized; and if any of them who in past time have been numbered among their clergy should be found blameless and without reproach, let them be rebaptized and ordained by the Bishop of the Catholic Church; but if the examination should discover them to be unfit, they ought to be deposed. Likewise in the case of their deaconesses, and generally in the case of those who have been enrolled among their clergy, let the same form be observed. And we mean by deaconesses such as have assumed the habit, but who, since they have no imposition of hands, are to be numbered only among the laity. - Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325), Canon 19

It is plain too that there is an order of deaconesses in the church. But this is not allowed for the practice of priesthood or any liturgical function, but for the sake of female modesty, at either the time of baptism or of the examination of some condition or trouble, and when a woman’s body may be bared, so that she will be seen not by the male priests but by the assisting female who is appointed by the priest for the occasion, to take temporary care of the woman who needs it at the time when her body is uncovered. For the ordinance of discipline and good order in the church has been well protected with understanding, by the standard of our rule. For the same reason the word of God does not allow a woman “to speak” in church either, or “bear rule over a man.” And there is a great deal that can be said about this. - Epiphanius of Salamis, The Panarion, Books II and III

Those which were then first-fruits, and tithes, and offerings, and gifts, now are oblations, which are presented by holy bishops to the Lord God, through Jesus Christ, who has died for them. For these are your high priests, as the presbyters are your priests, and your present deacons instead of your Levites; as are also your readers, your singers, your porters, your deaconesses, your widows, your virgins, and your orphans: but He who is above all these is the High Priest. 

Let also the deaconess be honoured by you in the place of the Holy Ghost, and not do or say anything without the deacon; as neither does the Comforter say or do anything of Himself, but gives glory to Christ by waiting for His pleasure. And as we cannot believe in Christ without the teaching of the Spirit, so let not any woman address herself to the deacon or bishop without the deaconess. - Apostolic Constitutions (Book II), Section 4

Nay, further, we do not permit to the rest of the clergy to baptize — as, for instance, neither to readers, nor singers, nor porters, nor ministers, — but to the bishops and presbyters alone, yet so that the deacons are to minister to them therein. But those who venture upon it shall undergo the punishment of the companions of Corah. We do not permit presbyters to ordain deacons, or deaconesses, or readers, or ministers, or singers, or porters, but only bishops; for this is the ecclesiastical order and harmony. - Apostolic Constitutions (Book III), Section 1

Let it also be the bishop's business and care that no lay person utter any curse: for he ought to take care of all — of the clergy, of the virgins, of the widows, of the laity. For which reason, O bishop, ordain your fellow-workers, the labourers for life and for righteousness, such deacons as are pleasing to God, such whom you prove to be worthy among all the people, and such as shall be ready for the necessities of their ministration. Ordain also a deaconess who is faithful and holy, for the ministrations towards women. For sometimes he cannot send a deacon, who is a man, to the women, on account of unbelievers. You shall therefore send a woman, a deaconess, on account of the imaginations of the bad. For we stand in need of a woman, a deaconess, for many necessities; and first in the baptism of women, the deacon shall anoint only their forehead with the holy oil, and after him the deaconess shall anoint them: for there is no necessity that the women should be seen by the men. - Apostolic Constitutions (Book III), Section 2

Let the deacons be in all things unspotted, as the bishop himself is to be, only more active; in number according to the largeness of the Church, that they may minister to the infirm as workmen that are not ashamed. And let the deaconess be diligent in taking care of the women; but both of them ready to carry messages, to travel about, to minister, and to serve, as spoke Isaiah concerning the Lord, saying: To justify the righteous, who serves many faithfully. - Apostolic Constitutions (Book III), Section 2

Let the deaconess be a pure virgin; or, at the least, a widow who has been but once married, faithful, and well esteemed. - Apostolic Constitutions (Book VI), Section 3

And let the bishop speak thus to the people: Holy things for holy persons. And let the people answer: There is One that is holy; there is one Lord, one Jesus Christ, blessed for ever, to the glory of God the Father. Amen. Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good-will among men. Hosanna to the son of David! Blessed be He that comes in the name of the Lord, being the Lord God who appeared to us, Hosanna in the highest. And after that, let the bishop partake, then the presbyters, and deacons, and sub-deacons, and the readers, and the singers, and the ascetics; and then of the women, the deaconesses, and the virgins, and the widows; then the children; and then all the people in order, with reverence and godly fear, without tumult. And let the bishop give the oblation, saying, The body of Christ; and let him that receives say, Amen. And let the deacon take the cup; and when he gives it, say, The blood of Christ, the cup of life; and let him that drinks say, Amen. And let the thirty-third psalm be said, while the rest are partaking; and when all, both men and women, have partaken, let the deacons carry what remains into the vestry. - Apostolic Constitutions (Book VIII), Section 2

Concerning a deaconess, I Bartholomew make this constitution: O bishop, you shall lay your hands upon her in the presence of the presbytery, and of the deacons and deaconesses, and shall say: O Eternal God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Creator of man and of woman, who replenished with the Spirit Miriam, and Deborah, and Anna, and Huldah; who did not disdain that Your only begotten Son should be born of a woman; who also in the tabernacle of the testimony, and in the temple, ordained women to be keepers of Your holy gates — do Thou now also look down upon this Your servant, who is to be ordained to the office of a deaconess, and grant her Your Holy Spirit, and cleanse her from all filthiness of flesh and spirit, that she may worthily discharge the work which is committed to her to Your glory, and the praise of Your Christ, with whom glory and adoration be to You and the Holy Spirit forever. Amen. - Apostolic Constitutions (Book VIII), Section 3

A deacon does not bless, does not give the blessing, but receives it from the bishop and presbyter: he does not baptize, he does not offer; but when a bishop or presbyter has offered, he distributes to the people, not as a priest, but as one that ministers to the priests. But it is not lawful for any one of the other clergy to do the work of a deacon. A deaconess does not bless, nor perform anything belonging to the office of presbyters or deacons, but only is to keep the doors, and to minister to the presbyters in the baptizing of women, on account of decency. A deacon separates a subdeacon, a reader, a singer, and a deaconess, if there be any occasion, in the absence of a presbyter. It is not lawful for a subdeacon to separate either one of the clergy or laity; nor for a reader, nor for a singer, nor for a deaconess, for they are the ministers to the deacons. - Apostolic Constitutions (Book VIII), Section 3

Let the canon of our holy God-bearing Fathers be confirmed in this particular also; that a presbyter be not ordained before he is thirty years of age, even if he be a very worthy man, but let him be kept back. For our Lord Jesus Christ was baptized and began to teach when he was thirty. In like manner let no deacon be ordained before he is twenty-five, nor a deaconess before she is forty. - Council of Trullo (A.D. 692), Canon 14

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.