The 70th Anniversary of the Pan-Orthodox Congress, Part II of II
A Major Step on the Path Towards Apostasy
by Bishop Photius of Triaditsa
During his uncanonical tenure as Archbishop of Athens,
the Freemason Meletius Metaxakis raised the question of changing the Church Calendar
before the Synod of the Greek Church. Meletius offered to set up a commission in order to
study this question. The Greek Church approved his suggestion and issued the necessary
directives. The commission sent the following finalized text to the Synod: "It is the
opinion of the commission that a change in the calendar is possible only if it does not
violate canonical and dogmatic teachings, and is agreed upon by all autocephalous Orthodox
Churches first of all by the Constantinople Patriarchate, which should be given the
opportunity to show the initiative in all decisions of this nature. Furthermore, we should
not simply change to the Gregorian calendar, but rather a new, more scientifically
accurate calendar should be created, free from the inaccuracies of both the Julian and
Gregorian calendar."  This feeble and diplomatically correct proposal advocates,
without any particular argument, the necessity of introducing an entirely new Church
Calendar. At the same time, it attempts to preserve the necessary propriety by speaking of
the canonical and dogmatic basis of any change and the need for a conciliar decision.
These demands would later be dispensed with.
The commission's decision was a new step towards
calendar reform so sought after by Meletius and his cohorts. The Greek Synod, at its
session on May 20, 1919 unanimously accepted Meletius' opinion that the "government
should be free to adopt the Gregorian calendar as the European calendar and, until a new
scientific calendar be established, the Church would continue to use the Julian." 
The synod delivered its opinion to the government together with the commission's decision
concerning the calendar reform. Meletius pronounced the following famous words during the
session: "The situation of the Church in Russia has now changed and the possibility
of drawing closer to the West is more favorable." Furthermore, Meletius emphasized,
"We consider it imperative to reform the calendar." 
After his meteoric and uncanonical elevation to the
Throne of Constantinople, Meletius Metaxakis continued his stubborn and methodical work
for calendar change. He took upon himself the "initiative" recommended by the
Synod of the Church of Greece's commission, and issued an encyclical on February 3, 1923,
"To the Most Blessed and Honorable Churches of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem,
Serbia, Cyprus, Greece and Rumania,"  introducing the question of changing the
Church Calendar. The epistle cites the following motivations behind the calendar reforms:
"The question of the calendar has been long standing, but has taken on a special
importance in our day,"  when, "the necessity of using a common, universal
calendar familiar to Europe and America becomes more and more evident."  One
Orthodox government after another has accepted the "European calendar." The
difficulty of using two calendars in social life is self-evident. Therefore, the desire to
find and to establish one common calendar for social and religious circles has arisen on
all sides. It is necessary not only so that every Orthodox Christian may function
harmoniously as a citizen and a Christian, but also so that we may advance universal
Christian unity. We are all called to this task in the name of the Lord by celebrating
together His Nativity and Resurrection."  Meletius gave these same reasons during
his introductory speech at the opening of the "Pan-Orthodox" Congress. 
The basis for Church Calendar reform obviously does not
have its roots in tradition, theology, liturgical life or the canonical rules of the
Orthodox Church, but rather in the one-sided, semi-religious, semi-social approach of the
ecumenical cult which is grounded in a political-religious ideal of "Christian
In his epistle, Meletius Metaxakis calls upon the
"representatives of the Holy Orthodox Churches to agree to the forming of a
commission comprised of one or two representatives of every Church to meet in
Constantinople immediately after the celebration of Pascha, in order to make a detailed
study of the calendar question and other possibly urgent Pan-Orthodox questions, and to
indicate the means for their canonical solution." 
Meletius's epistle did not meet with a positive response
from the older, more ancient Patriarchates (after Constantinople); those of Alexandria,
Antioch and Jerusalem. Nevertheless, the above mentioned commission began its work on May
10, 1923, under the auspices of Meletius. Nine members took part in the sessions: six
bishops, one archimandrite, and two laymen. The representatives of Constantinople were:
Patriarch Meletius IV as president, Metropolitan Callikos of Kizik, and the layman V.
Antoniadis, a Professor at the Halki Theological Institute. There was one representative
from Cyprus: Metropolitan Basil of Nicea (later Ecumenical Patriarch, 19251929). The
Serbian Church had two representatives: Metropolitan Gabriel of Montenegro and Milutin
Milankovitch, a laymen and professor of mathematics and mechanics at Belgrade University.
From the Church of Greece there was one representative: Metropolitan James of Drach. From
the Rumanian Church there was one representative: Archimandrite Jules (Scriban).
Archbishop Alexander (Nomolovsky) of North America and
the Aleutian Islands, who at that time was of unclear canonical status, did not actually
represent anyone (serious canonical charges had been brought against him by the Synod of
the Russian Church Abroad, as a result of which he transferred to the Evlogian Exarchate,
under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate).
Besides these nine participants, Archbishop Anastassy
(Gribanovsky, later Metropolitan) of Kishinev and Hotinsk, a member of the Synod of the
Russian Church Abroad, who was at that time in Constantinople, also took part. He
announced at the first session on May 10, 1923 that he had no "definite instructions
from the Russian Hierarchs at Karlovtsy concerning the calendar question."  He
soon abandoned this unusual meeting.
To call such a church forum "Pan-Orthodox" is,
to put it mildly, presumptuous. The representatives of the three elder sees after
Constantinople (Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem) refused to take part. The Russian
Church, the Archbishop of Sinai and the Bulgarian Church (which the Ecumenical Patriarch
considered to be schismatic at that time) also did not participate. It is noteworthy that
more than half of the local Churches were not represented, and the authority of those who
did participate is questionable as well. According to the opinion of the famous canonist
and theologian, S. Troitsky, who analyzed the ecclesiological-legal aspect of this
question, the members of the commission had no right, at the time of the meeting, to
express the opinions of their Churches since the local Churches had not yet formulated
their decisions on the questions that went into the protocol of the congress. In such
circumstances the delegates could only, in fact, express "their own, personal
opinions,"  or, at best, the opinion of their synods, which themselves had no
right to decide general Church, canonical or even more importantly, dogmatic questions.
Professor Troitsky defines this "Pan-Orthodox Congress" from an ecclesiological
point of view as "a private meeting of a few people, who had as their agenda the
examination of various questions which troubled the Orthodox Church at that time,
concerning which, they expressed their opinions." Nevertheless, in spite of the
canonical irregularity of the congress' make-up and its representatives, Meletius very
self-assuredly announced that, "We work as a commission of the whole
As we can see, considered as an organ of legislation,
the congress of 1923 was in fact a defective precedent. It was created and began its
activity as "a Commission of Orthodox Churches"  or "Pan-Orthodox
Commission,"  and changed its title to "Pan-Orthodox Congress" during
its third session, on May 18, 1923. Professor Troitsky is perfectly justified in noting
that for the first time in the history of the Orthodox Church, which up to this time had
only one organ of general church legislationthe Councils, some sort of
"Pan-Orthodox"congress took this task upon itself, modeled after Pan-Anglican
conferences and political conferences and congresses. In his memorandum of November
14, 1929 to the Archepiscopal Synod of the Church of Greece, Metropolitan Ireneaus of
Kassandria (+1945) wrote indignantly: "What right does that upstart [Meletius
Metaxakis] have to create a Pan-Orthodox Congress without consulting the Metropolitans of
the Ecumenical Throne? What law or canon gives the representative of one local Church the
right to change the decisions of all the Eastern Patriarchs concerning the question of the
calendar and Paschalia to, which was finalized by the illustrious Patriarchs Joachim III
of Constantinople, Meletius Pigas of Alexandria, Joachim of Antioch and Sophronius of
Jerusalem? Is it possible that in civil matters a lower court can reverse a decision of a
To summarize the above we might conclude: In agreement
with the holy canons, church questions of local and general significance are to be
discussed exclusively by a Council of Bishops  who have flocks and dioceses, not by
"congresses," "meetings," or "conferences." From a
legal-ecclesiastical point of view, the "Pan-Orthodox" Congress in
Constantinople was uncanonical in its make-up, authority, and establishment. Therefore,
its decisions, made in the name of the entire Orthodox Church, were made without any
authority, and have no significance for the local Orthodox Churches. Furthermore, the very
content of the decisions is in direct opposition to the canons of the Orthodox Church.
Let us briefly review the work of the 1923 congress. It
spanned eleven sessions from May 11 to June 8, 1923, and was not concerned exclusively
with the question of reforming the Church Calendar. At the second session (May 11, 1923)
Patriarch Meletius listed the following "canonical and ecclesiastical
questions," concerning which the commission was to formulate its opinion:
1) The question of transferring the Feast Days of major
saints to the nearest Sunday with the goal of lessening the number of holidays.
2) The question of impediments to marriage.
3) The question of marriage and the clergy:
a) The Episcopate and marriage;
b) Second marriages for widowed priests and deacons;
c) Whether it is absolutely essential for the sacrament
of ordination to follow the sacrament of marriage;
4) The question of church services;
5) The question of the fasts;
6) The necessity of calling a Pan-Orthodox Council
In addition to the above six points, questions were
raised concerning the canonical age for ordination, the question of clergy cutting their
hair and beards, and clerical dress. These question, headed by the question of the
calendar, were presented for discussion on the basis of the renovationist tendencies
typical of post-war Orthodox liberalism. These tendencies were characterized by: a desire
to replace the Julian Calendar for immovable and movable feasts, and the possibility of
allowing that Pascha should become an immovable feast, fixed to a specific Sunday; a
willingness to accept any new, more scientifically accurate calendar reckoning (not even
excluding the renunciation of the seven day week); permitting married bishops, second
marriages for clergy and marriage after ordination; and a shortening of church services
The possibility of uniting the Orthodox and Anglican
Churches was also discussed. At the the congress's fifth session (May 23, 1923) the former
Anglican bishop of Oxford, Gore, was present as a guest along with the pastor Bexton who
was accompanying him. Gore was given a seat to the right of Patriarch Meletius who
entrusted him with two documents: a petition from 5,000 Anglican priests in whose opinion
there was nothing to prevent union with the Orthodox; and another, containing the
conditions for such a union. Gore expressed his great joy at being present at the
Pan-Orthodox Congress, "where we have gathered in order to discuss various church
questions and, most importantly, the question of the calendar."  "For us,
living in the West" the Anglican bishop emphasized, "it would be a source of
great spiritual satisfaction to have the possibility of celebrating together [with the
Orthodox] the major Christian feasts: the Nativity, Easter, and Pentecost."
Recall how Meletius Metaxakis himself indicated in his epistle to the heads of the seven
local Orthodox Churches that a calendar reform was imperative: "In order to
facilitate the union of all Christians so that all who call upon the name of the Lord
might celebrate His Nativity and Resurrection on the same day." In fact, only
three years after the publication of the encyclical was announced by the Patriarchate at
Constantinople in 1920, there already existed the possibility of making the first step
towards union with the heterodox which was envisioned by the encyclical: "The
acceptance of one calendar for the universal celebration of the great Christian
feasts." It comes as no surprise that long before the congress accepted the above
decisions Patriarch Meletius turned to the Anglican bishop Gore asking him "to inform
the Archbishop of Canterbury that we are well disposed to accept the New Calendar which
you in the West have decided upon." These words candidly express the tendency
which had been implied in the premeditated decision of the "Pan-Orthodox"
Congress concerning the calendar question.
The main issue discussed by the congress was the
acceptance of the so-called "New Julian" calendar, or the "Revised
Julian" calendar, the project of Professor M. Milankovitch, one of the delegates in
the congress. In fact, this [new] calendar corresponds with the Gregorian calendar until
the year 2800, when a difference of one day will occur in leap years. Nonetheless, this
difference will even out in the year 2900. What an amazing discovery! Thus it becomes
possible to "celebrate the major Christian feast days simultaneously with the
heterodox" and, at the same time, traditionally minded Orthodox Christians can be
assured that they will have not adopted the Roman Catholic calendar. Patriarch Meletius,
using typical Jesuit sophistry to placate those who opposed the calendar reform, during
the fourth session of the congress (May 21, 1923) read out a telegram from Patriarch
Damian of Jerusalem stating, "A change in the Church Calendar is of no use and will
not be accepted by our Patriarchate because it would place us in an unfavorable position
in relation to the holy places of pilgrimage and to the Latins." Meletius
responded by announcing, "In addition, the Church at Jerusalem does not desire to
adopt the Gregorian Calendar and celebrate Pascha with the Roman Catholics. We must
clarify the fact that we are not adopting the Gregorian Calendar and that in a certain
number of years a difference will appear between the Orthodox and Catholics in [the date
of] the celebration of Pascha. Therefore, the qualms of the Church at Jerusalem are, in
part, appeased." Of course, Meletius "omits" the specifics that "a
certain number of years" is, in actuality, a full nine centuries!
Decisions were made in Constantinople on June 5 and 6
concerning the following:
1) "The correction" of the Julian calendar and
the determining of the date of celebration of Pascha "on the basis of astronomical
2) The conditions under which the Church would take part
in discussions about a New Calendar, "which is more accurate, both scientifically and
3) The marriage of priests and deacons after ordination.
4) A second marriage of widowed priests and deacons.
5) Various other categories: the youngest possible age
for ordination to the three levels of the priesthood; the "material and spiritual
well-being" of pastors; the hair and exterior appearance of clergy [i.e., the cutting
of the beard and hair, wearing of the rassa]; the keeping of monastic vows; impediments to
marriage; the celebration of saints' days during the week as non-working days; the
question of fasts.
6) The celebration of the 1600th anniversary of the
First Ecumenical Council at Nicea (3251925), and the gathering of a Pan-Orthodox
7) The question of the "Living Church" Council
which took place in Moscow in June, 1923 at which Patriarch Tikhon, then in prison, was
The text of the decision to "correct" the
Julian calendar and change the Julian Paschalia  ends with the words, "This
reform of the Julian calendar is not a stumbling block to further change in the calendar
that the other Christian Churches might like to make."  This concept was further
developed and concretely stated in the second decision where it was literally said,
"The Pan-Orthodox Congress in Constantinople
requests that the Ecumenical
Patriarchate announce to the people, after an exchange of opinions with the other Orthodox
Churches, that the Orthodox most willingly desire to adopt in the future the New Calendar
in which the order of days of the week [that is, seven] will be maintained, although it
does not bind itself to such an opinion if the other churches agree to adopt a new
calendar which would abolish the usual number of days in a week."  Further, it
was indicated that, in agreement with the other "Christian Churches," the
Orthodox Church was prepared to celebrate the Lord's Pascha as a fixed day on a specified
Sunday, with the desire that "this fixed Sunday would correspond to the actual
[historical] day of Resurrection of the Lord, which was to be determined by scientific
These four decisions of the 1923 congress were
promulgated in the typical style of Orthodox modernism, full of exhortations about
"harmony with contemporary life" and "ecumenical expansiveness." The
third and fourth decisions of the congress permitted the marriage of priests and deacons
after ordination and second marriages for widowed clergy, although this was contrary to
Church Tradition and canons (26th Apostolic canon; 3rd and 4th canons of the Fourth
Ecumenical Council). 
In the Council's fifth resolution it was considered
right for clergy to cut their hair and wear lay clothing outside of church. Local Churches
were called upon to decide each separate case where saints' days would be celebrated on
weekdays, "until a new calendar would be established in which the celebration of
specific feast days could be fixed only on Sundays in order to lessen the number of
holidays."  A new Menaion would of necessity be created in order for this system
to work in practice. During the sixth resolution a request was made that the Ecumenical
Patriarchate take upon itself the initiative of calling an Ecumenical Council in order to
decide "all questions concerning the Orthodox Church at the present time." 
One could appraise the activity and decisions of the
"Pan-Orthodox" Council of 1923 with the words of Saint Athanasius the Great,
"All of this without the consent of the whole [catholic] Church." 
In fact, the first five resolutions of the congress are
in total contradiction to the Tradition and canonical norms of the Catholic, Orthodox
Church. The abolition of the Julian Paschalia a break with the seventh Apostolic
canon and the decisions of the First Ecumenical Council, which the Antiochian Council
refers to potentially places upon the congress at Constantinople a serious
canonical sanction. The celebration of the Lord's Pascha is categorically forbidden on the
same day as the Jewish Passover in the above mentioned canons. Following the New-Julian
Paschalia (which is, in fact, the same as the Gregorian), the Resurrection of Christ
sometimes falls on the same day as the Jewish Passover, and often before it (which is also
forbidden). It is noteworthy that, according to the resolution of the Holy Fathers of the
Council of Antioch, those who violate the decisions concerning the celebration of Pascha
must be excommunicated from the Church without previous investigation of their violation.
Such a strict sentence is rarely encountered in the canons.
A similar spirit is encountered in the resolutions
compiled by the sigilliums of the Eastern Patriarchs in 1583 and 1584, and the
ecumenical epistle of the Ecumenical Patriarch Cyril V of 1756, which categorically
condemned those who adopted the Gregorian Calendar and Paschalia.
Afraid of these sanctions and aware of their enormous
canonical responsibility in light of a change in the only canonical Paschalia, the Julian,
not one of the local Orthodox Churches which had adopted the New Calendar for the
celebration of the cycle of feasts (that is, the Menaion) dared institute the Gregorian
Paschalia (with the exception of the Church of Finland). Thus, the New Style Churches
began, in practice, to use two calendars simultaneously: the Gregorian for fixed feast
days, and the Julian for movable ones.
Not a single local Church adopted the third, fourth and
fifth resolutions which cried out in contradiction of Church Tradition and canons.
Even if one does not consider important the uncanonical
nature of the congress at Constantinople with regards to its make-up and authority, the
irregularity of its actions, and the anti-Orthodox essence of the congress which,
ironically, called itself "Pan-Orthodox," is sufficient to discredit it.
Besides, even during the sessions themselves a huge wave
of disfavor arose. Archbishop Chrysostomos (Papadopoulos), who himself was one of the
initiators of the calendar reform, wrote, "Unfortunately, the Eastern Patriarchs who
refused to take part in the congress rejected all of its decisions by one act alone,"
their absence. The Mason, A. Zervudakis, in his monograph on Meletius Metaxakis wrote,
"Meletius met with great dissension when he decided to adopt in Constantinople some
American traditions as well as to his innovative views concerning the calendar, the
Paschalia, the marriage of clergy, etc., which instigated problems and great
Remember that on June 1, 1923 a group of religious
leaders and laymen gathered in Constantinople for a meeting which grew into an attack on
the Patriarchate, with the goal of deposing Meletius and evicting him from the city.
In spite of this, the Synod of Constantinople, under the
presidency of Meletius, circulated a written announcement to all the local Orthodox
Churches on June 25, expressing his expectation of their "general approval" of
the resolutions on the calendar reform, and their confirmation of "the resolutions of
the congress as those of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church (sic!).
Nonetheless, the Mason, Meletius Metaxakis', ambition met with serious resistance.
Patriarch Photius of Alexandria (19001925), in his epistle of June 25, 1923 to
Patriarch Gregory IV of Antioch (19061928), categorized the calendar reform as
"pointless, uncanonical and harmful." In the words of Patriarch Photius the
resolutions of the Congress at Constantinople "smell of heresy and schism."
In the epistle of October 7, 1923 of Patriarch Gregory IV to the Ecumenical Patriarch, he
indicates that the calendar was adopted too quickly and that its institution was
"untimely and suspicious." The Patriarch of Antioch sent a copy of Patriarch
Photius' epistle to the Russian Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) in Karlovtsy with a
gramota in which was written, "You can clearly ascertain the opinion of three of the
Eastern patriarchs with regard to the questions raised by the meeting at
Constantinople." Patriarch Damian of Jerusalem (18971931), in his telegram
to the Patriarch of Constantinople also emphasized, "For our Patriarchate it is
impossible to accept a change in the Church Calendar since it will place us in a very
disadvantageous position in the holy places of pilgrimage in relationship to the Roman
Catholics because of the danger of proselytism." 
Patriarch Meletius IV was not above resorting to
deception in order to attain his anti-Orthodox goals. In his letter of July 10, 1923 he
attempted to deceive Archbishop Seraphim of Finland into believing that the New Calendar
had been accepted for church use, "in agreement with the general opinion and
resolutions of the Orthodox Churches." Patriarch Tikhon was also led astray in
the same manner. Under the false impression that the calendar reform had been accepted by
the entire Orthodox Church, he published an edict introducing the New Calendar in the
jurisdiction of the Russian Church. This innovation was decisively rejected by the people.
When the truth finally became apparent the Patriarchal resolution was repealed.
Metropolitan Anthony of Kiev, in the name of the Russian Hierarchs Abroad, declared that,
"The calendar reform can not be accepted by the Russian Church inasmuch as it
contradicts the holy canons and ancient tradition of Church practice sanctified by the
Patriarch Demetrius of Serbia informed Meletius in his
letter of June 8/21, 1923 that he would agree to the resolution of the congress concerning
the change of calendar only "on the condition that it be accepted simultaneously in
all the Orthodox Churches." Archbishop Kyrill of Crete, in his letter and
telegram of August 23/September 5, 1923 suggested "to postpone the acceptance of the
resolution until an agreement be made by all the Churches, in order to avoid schism in the
Orthodox Church." Only Metropolitan Miron (Curista) of Bucharest announced, in
his letter of December 17, 1923, that the Rumanian Orthodox Church accepted the decision
of the congress, specifying that it would be put into practice in 1924.
The fact that the local Churches were subjected to
external pressure with the goal of forcing them to accept the decisions on calendar reform
is evident in the following revealing announcement of Archbishop Chrysostomos
(Papadopoulos) of Athens: "The Rumanian and Serbian ambassadors to Athens constantly
questioned the Archbishop ofAthens concerning the delay of the adoption of the congress's
resolutions." In one report of the Church of Greece after the New Calendar was
instituted there in 1924 we read, "Unfortunately, this change [of the calendar] was
not accomplished by means of inquiry and preparation, but rather primarily under the
influence of extreme factions." The crude interference of civil authorities in
the adaptation of the New Calendar for church use in Greece, Rumania and Finland is proven
by the well known wave of violence used against those Orthodox Christians who dared to
remain faithful to the Faith of their Fathers.
Even Archbishop Chrysostomos (Papadopoulos) of Athens,
himself one of the most active propagators of calendar reform, found it expedient to
discuss the Church Calendar question again at the synod meeting of the bishops of the
Church of Greece in connection with the persistent demands of Patriarch Photius of
Alexandria to call an Ecumenical Council.
As a matter of fact, the Constantinople Patriarchate
itself, in connection with the sixth resolution of the "Pan-Orthodox"
Congress, desired to call an Ecumenical Council in 1925. However, the Serbian Church,
after the bitter experience of the congress of 1923, expressed the desire that all the
autocephalous Orthodox Churches take part; that serious preparation be done before the
Ecumenical Council take place by commissions of the autocephalous Churches, and that a
general preparatory conference or pro-synod be held.
In fact, in connection with preparations for the
Ecumenical Council an inter-Orthodox commission was held in 1930 at Vatopedi Monastery on
Mount Athos. According to Metropolitan Ireneaus of Kesandria, the representative of the
Serbian Patriarchate, Metropolitan Nicholas (Velimorovitch +1956), a well educated and
righteous hierarch, stated that the Serbian Church would not participate in the
inter-Orthodox commission unless it was assured that it would have nothing in common with
the "Pan-Orthodox" Congress at Constantinople which adopted resolutions
concerning the calendar change. "If this condition is not met the Serbs will condemn
the Ecumenical Patriarchate," reported Metropolitan Irenius. According to
Chrysostomos, the former Metropolitan of Florin (+1955), the first hierarch of the Greek
Old-Calendar Church, the representatives of the Serbian and Polish Churches considered the
leaders of the local Orthodox Churches who had adopted the New Calendar to be "in
essence schismatics," and refrained from prayerful communion with them.
Nonetheless, in spite of the reaction against the
decisions of the Congress of 1923 concerning the calendar reform, and in spite of the
categorical refusal to accept its other anti-canonical resolutions, the so-called
"New-Julian Calendar" was gradually accepted by the governing bodies of many
local Churches. Meletius' successor, Metropolitan Gregory VII, who was surrounded by
followers and disciples of Meletius, introduced the New Style into the jurisdiction of the
Patriarchate of Constantinople in 1924. The Church of Greece accepted the New Calendar on
March 1, 1924. Archbishop Chrysostomos (Papadopoulos) of Athens must have forgotten the
words he wrote while still an Archimandrite in a report given to the Greek government by
the five member commission on the question of calendar reform in January, 1923: "Not
a single one of them [local Orthodox Churches] can separate from the others and adopt the
New Calendar without becoming schismatic in relation to the others." The Rumanian
Church adopted the "New-Julian" Calendar on October 1, 1924 and as a reward was
granted the status of Patriarchate. As mentioned above, Meletius Metaxakis was forced,
in his capacity as Patriarch of Alexandria, to introduce the New Calendar into the Church
of Alexandria by Arabs in America, without whose material subsidies the Antiochian
Patriarchate could not exist, according to a statement made by Metropolitan Alexander of
Emess in July, 1948.
This depressing list of facts could be further expanded,
but that which has been reported is sufficient to prove the tragic consequences of the
"Pan-Orthodox" Congress at Constantinople. The adoption even in part of the
congress' anti-canonical resolutions on the Church Calendar reform destroys the centuries
old liturgical unity of the Orthodox Church, and invites division in the local Churches
themselves between adherents of the patristic Church Calendar and those who adopt the
The "Pan-Orthodox," or actually, as we have
shown, anti-Orthodox congress at Constantinople was the first break in the link of
Orthodox unity in our century. The congress admitted the Trojan horse of ecumenism into
the Orthodox Church, from whose womb newer and newer false prophets of Babel continue to
emerge, striving to destroy the sacred altars of Orthodoxy in order to construct the
temple of heresy and error on Her ruins.
Endnotes for Part II
1) Delimpasis, A.D., Pascha of the Lord, Creation,
Renewal, and Apostasy, Athens, 1985, pp. 650-651 [In Greek].
2) Ibid, p.652.
3) Ibid, p.651.
4) Mpatistatou, D. Proceedings and Decisions of the
Pan-Orthodox Council in Constantinople, Athens, 1982, p.5 [in Greek].
7) Ibid p 6.
8) Ibid pp. 13-14.
9) Ibid, pp. 6-7.
10) Ibid, p.20.
11) Troitsky, S. "Concerning the Question of Second
Marriages For Priests, Church Herald, September 1949, p.1-2 [in Bulgarian].
12) Archimandrite Seraphim, An Orthodox View of the
Old and New Style Calendar, typewritten [in Bulgarian].
13) Proceedings and Decisions... op. cit. p.36.
14) Ibid, pp 11, 23.
15) Ibid, p. 29
16) Archimandrite Seraphim, Collected Essays,
p.31 [in Bulgarian].
17) The Ecumenical Patriarch Meletios Metaxakis
(1871-1935) a) the Masons, b)the Innovators, c)the Ecumenists OEM, 1990, I-XII, Chaps.
18) The 37th Apostolic canon, the 5th canon of the First
Ecumenical Council, the 19th canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, the 6th canon of the
Seventh Ecumenical Council.
19) Proceedings and Decisions..., op. cit, pp.
20) The Ecumenical Patriarch..., op. cit. Chaps.
21) Chapters and Decisions..., op. cit. p.86.
23) Ibid, p.6.
24) The Inspiration and Moving Spirits of the
Innovations: The Two Luthers of the Orthodox Church, OEM, Chap. 17, p. 74.
25) Ibid, p.88.
26) Proceedings and Decisions..., op. cit. p.69.
28) Ibid, pp. 211-222.
29) Paragraph eight of this resolution reads, "The
determination of the Paschal new moon must be based on astronomical calculations, in
accordance with modern scientific information, Proceedings and Decisions..., p.212.
30) Proceedings and Decisions..., op. cit. p.212.
31) Ibid, p 214.
32) Ibid, p. 215.
33) Ibid, pp.215-218.
34) Ibid, pp. 210-220.
35) Ibid, p 221.
36) BEPES, 33, 153.
37) Archbishop Chrysostomos, The Reform of the Julian
Calendar in the Church of Greece, Athens, 1933, pp. 31-38 [in Greek].
38) quoted from OEM, I-XII, 1990, paragraph 18-21, p.
154, adn. 12.
39) Orthodoxia, 1926, p. 62, quoted from
Delimpasis, op. cit. p. 672.
40) Church Messenger, September 1923, No. 41,
41) same as above
42) Delimpasis, op. cit. p. 672.
43) Church Messenger, 1923, No. 41, p.6.
44) Orthodoxia, 1926, p. 63 and Delimpasis, op.
cit., p. 672.
45) see Church News, No. 19 and 20, 1/14-15/28.
46) Orthodoxia, 1926, p. 63 and Delimpasis op.
cit., p. 672.
47) Ibid, pp. 64-65.
48) Ibid, pp. 68-69.
49) Ibid, pp. 65-68.
50) Delimpasis, op. cit., p. 673.
51) The Church of Greece, The Calendar Question,
Athens, 1971, pp. 7-8, and OEM, 1989, Chap. 17, p. 69.
52) Delimpasis, op. cit. p. 673.
53) See the above resolutions of the congress, p. 5.
54) See S. Troitsky, "Let us Fight Together Against
Danger," Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, 1950, No. 2, pp. 46-47 [in
55) See OEM, 1989, Chap. 17, p.69.
57) As we mentioned, the New Calendar was adopted only
for the Menaion cycle of set feasts, contrary to the decision of the congress, where a
change in Paschalia was studied, the date of Christ's Pascha continues to be determined
according to the ancient calendar, the Alexandrian Paschalia.
58) Journal of the Government of the Greek Kingdom,
the first chapter, 24/25. 1. 1923, No. 8, see also OEM, 1989, Chapter 17, p. 73.
59) Archimandrite Seraphim, Collected Essays, pp.
60) same as above
BEPES The Library of the Greek Fathers and
Ecclesiastical Writers, given by the Apostolic Service of the Church of Greece.
OEM Orthodox Origins and Martyria,
published by the Holy Synod, tri-monthly.
From Orthodox Life, Nos. 1 & 2, 1994