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.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:
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.
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?
- 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/