Notes

1. ,  Ορθόδοξος Ένστασις καί Μαρτυρία Vol. II, No. 17 (October-December 1989), pp. 67-78.

2. This article was a section of a marvellous work by the Confessor-Hierarch entitled, Τό Εκκλησηαστικόν Ημερολόγιον ως κριτήριον της Ορθοδοξίας [The Church Calendar  as a Criterion of Orthodoxy], consisting of eighty-seven densely-typed pages and completed on July 1/14, 1935, at the Holy Monastery of St. Dionysios, in Olympos, to which he had been exiled.

3. There were references to the Congress in footnotes  5 (p. 68), 6 (pp. 69-70, in detail),

7 (p. 70), 8 (p. 70), 14 (p. 73), 15 (p. 73), and 17 (p. 74) of the article in question (also see footnotes  1 and 2 in the present article).

4. Meletios  Metaxakis  (1871-1935). From the village of Parsas, Lasitheon, Crete, he was meddlesome, a troublemaker, a great innovator, and beyond doubt a Freemason. He served as Metropolitan of Kition, in Cyprus (1910-1918), Metropolitan of Athens (1918-1920), Patriarch of Constantinople (1921-1923), and Patriarch of Alexandria (1926-1935). In 1908, together with the then Archimandrite Chrysostomos (Papadopoulos), he was expelled from the Holy Land by Patriarch Damianos of Jerusalem for activity against [the Brotherhood of ] the Holy Sepul- chre. Metropolitan Methodios (Kontostanos) of Kerkyra (1942-1967) wrote about him: “But Meletios Metaxakis, this outcast from the Holy Land, from Kition, from Athens, from Constantinople, and subsequently from Alexandria, an unstable,  restless, power-hungry spirit, an evil

demon, did not balk at attempting to impose himself on the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, even all

the way from Alexandria” (see Dionysios M. Batistatos [ed.], Πρακτικά καί Αποφάσεις του εν Κονσταντινουπόλει Πανορθοδόξος Συνεδρίον 10.5-8.6.1923 [Proceedings and Decisions of the Pan-Orthodox  Congress in Constantinople,  10 May-8 June 1923] [Athens: 1982], pp. iv and v. See also Monk Paul of Cyprus, Nεοημερολογιτισμός-Οικουμενισμός [New Calendarism and Ecumenism] [Athens: 1982], pp. 48-59).

5. See Alexander J. Zervoudakis, `Διάσημοι Τεκτ.: Μελ'ετιος Μεταξάκης ¸ [“Famous Freemasons: Meletios Metaxakis”], Tεκτονικόν Δέλτιον: Οργανόν της Μεγάλης Στόας της Ελλάδος [The Masonic Bulletin: Journal of the Grand Lodge of Greece], Vol. XVII, No. 71 (January-February 1967), p. 25.

6. Ibid.

7. “Permission for his initiation was requested (No. 130, 12 March 1910), Marios Polatos says in Διακόσια Χρόνια Ελληνικού Τεκτονισμού[Two  Hundred Years  of Greek Freema sonry] (Athens: 1962), p. 373, which is a  mistake, according to what the author has since ascertained,” ibid., p. 49, n. 83.

8. “In this regard, the esteemed Brother Evangelos Asteris, a 33rd degree Mason, the Worshipful Master of the ‘Zeno’ and ‘Hermes’ Lodges in the jurisdiction of Egypt, related to me that Archimandrite Brother Nicanor Kanellopoulos, Worshipful Master of the ‘Beïcha’ Lodge, told him that Patriarch Meletios of Alexandria was present with him at two or three functions of the ‘Alexander the Great’ Lodge, No. 35, in Alexandria, in 1930 or 1931. The same information was given to the Worshipful Master of the ‘Society of Friends’ Lodge, the esteemed Brother Panagiotis G. Kretikos, uncle of the ever-memorable Brother Emmanuel P. Ladikos, a 33rd degree Mason in Egypt, who, off the record, recounted to Brother Kretikos that ‘they had notified Patriarch Meletios, when he was preparing to leave Athens for Alexandria, that all of the Freemasons in Egypt would organize a general Masonic reception for him. Meletios then sent them a telegram, asking them to refrain from this undertaking, in order to avoid creating problems from the side of those opposed to Freemasonry,’” ibid., p. 50, n. 84.

9.   Ibid., pp. 49-50 (emphasis ours).

10.  Metropolitan  renæus of Cassandreia,Υπόμνημα εις την Ιαράν Σύνοδον της Ιεραρχίας της Ελλάδος, συγκλειθείσαν 14.6.1929 [Memorandum to the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy of Greece, convened on 14 June 1929] (Athens: 1929) (40 pages).

11. Freemasonry constitutes a “secret society.” Secret societies are “associations and orders that keep their purposes and customs secret”  (Μεγἀλη Ελληνική Εγκυκλοπαιδεία Vol. XVII, p. 903).

12. Regarding his election to successive  Sees, see the summary in A.D.  DelembasisΠάσχα Κυρίου (Athens:  1985): pp. 648-649 (as Metropolitan of Athens), and pp. 660-664 (as Patriarch of Constantinople).

13. See the “Resolutions of the Pan-Orthodox Congress” in Batistatou, Praktikå ka‹ ÉApofãseiw, pp. 211--222. Resolutions:1. concerning the correction of the Julian Calendar and the determination of the date of Pascha “on the basis of astronomical calculations,” 2. concerning conditions for participation [by the Orthodox Church] in  consultation regarding the creation of a more correct calendar that would be acceptable to all Christians and concerning the reduction of the number of days in the week and a fixed date for the celebration of Pascha.

3.              concerning the marriage of Priests and Deacons after Ordination.

 concerning the second marriage of widowed Priests and Deacons. 5. concerning various matters: the age at which clergy should be Ordained, the criteria for the competence of pastors to serve the Church, the cutting of the hair and the outer clothing of clergy, the keeping of monastic vows, impediments to marriage, the celebration on non-working days [weekends] of Saints’ Days that fall in the middle of the week, the Fasts, 6. concerning the celebration of the sixteen-hundredth anniversary of the First Œcumenical Synod at Nicæa and the convocation of a Pan-Orthodox Synod, and 7. concerning  sympathy for Patriarch Tikhon of Russia, who was in prison. These innovations of Meletios Metaxakis were not received in silence. Even the Masons write of this:

“But he met with strong resistance when he wanted to implement certain American ways in Constantinople, as well as his innovative ideas regarding the calendar and the Paschalion, the mariage of clergy, and other ideas that he promoted at the Pan-Orthodox Congress, which created

problems and an outcry” (see Zervoudakis, “Μελἐτιος Μεταξάκης,”  p. 43  [emphasis ours]).

• Archbishop Chrysostomos (Papadopoulos) of Athens also does not conceal the reaction that

resulted: “Unfortunately, the Eastern Patriarchs who refused to take part in the  Congress rejected all of its resolutions in toto from the very outset. If the Congress had restricted itself only to the issue of the calendar, perhaps it would not have encountered the kind of reaction that it did” (see Archbishop Chrysostomos of Athens, Η Διόρθωσις του Ιουλιανού Ιμερολογίον

εν τη Εκκλησία της Ελλάδος  [The Revision of the Julian Calendar in the Church of Greece] [Athens: 1933], pp. 31-32 [emphasis ours]). • Specifically, with regard to the “Congress’s” resolution on the calendar, “it was rejected by almost all of the Orthodox world” (see [Metropolitan] Germanos of Sardis and Pisideia, `Τό Ημερολογιακόν Ζήτημα¸ [“The Calendar Question”], Ορθοδοξία, No. 3 (30 June 1926), pp. 59-70; see also Delembasis, Pãsxa Kur¤ou, pp. 671-674). Very telling are the words of Patriarch Photios of Alexandria, who, writing to Archbishop Chrysostomos of Athens (Protocol No. 2664, 1/14 August 1923), speaks “about all of the other issues, both the decrees that are being hurled from Constantinople with a zeal not according to knowledge, to the detriment of the whole Church, and the machinations and threats that are being made, with the rapacious ferocity of our eternal enemies, against the most holy Mother of the Churches...” (see Archimandrite  Theokletos A. StrangasΕκκλησιαστική Ελλάδος Ιστορία [History of the Church of Greece] [Athens: 1970], Vol. II, pp.1161-1162  [emphasis ours]).

14.  The  Greek  word  that  we  have  rendered  as  “outsider”   is  έπηλυς, -ῡδος (επί±ηλυθή -ἠλυθον<ήλθον). (The literal meaning of this word is “one who has come to a country from elsewhere,” an “alien,” or a “foreigner,” as opposed to a “native.” The point that Metropolitan Irenæus seems to be making is that Patriarch Meletios, as a modernist and ecumenist, was really a stranger to the traditions and mores of the Orthodox Church—Trans.)15. See Athanasios Comnenos Ypsilantis, Tå metå tØn AÜ  lvsin [The  Aftermath of the Fall of Constantinople] (Constantinople: 1870), pp. 111, 113, and 114; Patriarch Dositheos of Jerusalem, Τὀμος Αγάπης κατά Λατίνων[Tomos Agapes  Against the Latins] (Iași: 1689)], pp. 538-540; idem, Περί τών Ιεροσολύμοις Πατριαρχευσάντων-Δωδεκαβίβλος [Twelve Books Concerning the Patriarchs of Jerusalem], Book X, Chapter 8, §6 (Bucharest: 1715), p. 1167 ([Thessaloniki: B. Regopoulos,  1983], p. 57); Meletios  of Athens, Εκκλησιαστική Ηστορία[Church History] (Vienna: 1784), Vol. III, pp. 402, 408; Philaret (Bapheides), Metropolitan of Didymoteichos, Εκκλησιαστική Ηστορία [Church History] (Constantinople: 1912), Vol. III, Part11, pp. 124-125; Constantine N. Sathas Βιογραφικόν σχεδίασμα περί του Πατριάρχου Ιεριμίου Β BÄ [A Biographical  Sketch of Patriarch Jeremiah II] (Athens: 1870), pp. 91-92; Archi- mandrite Gerasimos Karavangelis, Επιστιμονική διατριβή περί της αορτής του Πάσχα[A Scientific Treatise Concerning the Feast of Pascha] (Constantinople: 1894), pp. 121-122; Nicholas Voulgaris, Η μεταρρύθμισις του Ιουλιανού Ημερολογίου[“The Reform of the Julian Calendar”], a three-part article in the Trieste newspaper, N°a ÑHm°ra, Vol. XXII, Nos. 1120-

1122  1896); John N. Karmiris, , Ιερεμίας Β Πατριάρχης Κωνσταντινουπόλεως [“Jer emiah II, Patriarch of Constantinople”], in the Θρησκευτική καί Ηθική Εγκυκλοπαιδεία Vol. VI (Athens: 1965], col. 781.

16. “The previous unity and coöperation were sundered and shattered as a result of evil, or rather, sinful, actions...; the change [of the calendar] was not accomplished after study and preparation, but primarily under the influence of outside factors.... Between those who follow the Old Calendar and those who follow the New, there is a permanent difference of thirteen days with regard to the celebration of all of the so-called fixed Feasts, without exception. This is an  unprecedented situation in the annals of the Church, because in spite of the  diversity  of calendars in the early centuries and the unsettled state of the festal calendar, there was never any difference in time between celebrations of one and the same event (e.g., the repose of a Saint), as happens today. The discord becomes more pronounced on the great Feasts of the Nativity, Theophany, and the Dormition of the Theotokos. Some are fasting, while others are celebrating. This discord leads to the question: Who is celebrating—we  or the Church? The answer ‘we’ destroys the sanctity of the Feasts, making them an individual affair for each person. The answer

‘the Church’ postulates one celebration,  for the Church is one.... The sole exception is the Orthodox Archdiocese of Finland, which, with the consent of the Œcumenical Patriarchate, always celebrates Pascha with the Catholics and Lutherans in Finland, according to the Gregorian Calendar.” (See The Church of Greece,Τὀ Ημερολογιακό Ζήτημα Εισήγησις της Εκκλησίας της Ελλάδος πρός την Πανορθόδοξον Μεγάλην Σύνοδον] [Athens: 1971], pp. 5, 8, 10-11.)

17. “In October of 1924, the New (or Gregorian) Calendar was uncanonically introduced into the Romanian Church by her ‘Primate,’  Metropolitan Miron  Cristea (1886-1939),  a former Uniate hierarch in Transylvania, very well-educated and energetic, in the mold of Meletios (Metaxakis), and was received by all with virtually no reaction. Only the Skete of Pocrov, under the leadership of its Abbot, Hieromonk (later Metropolitan) Glicherie, refused to recognize the calendar change. The Romanian Patriarchate, both in 1926 and in 1929, celebrated Pascha with the Latins, constituting an infringement of the Orthodox tradition of centuries. The common celebration of Pascha with the Latins was sinful, because this was intentional on the part of Patriarch Miron Cristea; he fully implemented the New (or Gregorian) Calendar even when it came to the reckoning of Pascha, ignoring the other local Orthodox Churches, which—even after the calendar  change—‘(with the exception of Finland) celebrate Pascha according to the decree of the Synod in Nicæa, calculating its date on the basis of the Julian Calendar and accepting March 21, for the sake of convention, as the vernal equinox.’ Moreover, the action of Patriarch Miron was wholly ill-advised, because he failed to take into account the bitter experience of the Romanian people, who, on the one hand, had been so beleaguered by Uniate propaganda, and, on the other hand, had a former Uniate for their Patriarch. From a pastoral point of view, this was a totally reckless act! Indeed, on the second occasion that this was done, Patriarch Miron Cristea, having the undivided support of the Uniate (Greek-Catholic) Prime Minister, Julius Maniu, and several others among the clergy, compelled all of the Romanian Metropolises to proceed with the common celebration of Pascha with the Papists, a fact which evoked great commotion in the ranks of the Romanian Church. Metropolitan Gurias of Bessarabia (a region of Romania between the Rivers Prut and Dniester, north of the Black Sea, 44,420 sq. km. in area, now annexed to the Soviet Union [at the time of writing, in 1981—Trans.]) openly criticized Miron and, ignoring the Patriarchal decree, ordered his churches to celebrate with the other autocephalous Orthodox Churches. Patriarch Miron’s action also scandalized these other Orthodox Churches, many of which reacted in protest. As well, the White Russian clergy of Bucharest (also known as the Russian Church Abroad, under the Karlovtsy Synod) took a particularly strong position during those trying days, ignoring the Patriarchal order and celebrating Pascha according to the traditional canonical decrees. Even in the Parliament there were stormy discussions regarding this issue, and both the Patriarch and the Prime Minister were harshly censured by Representatives Trifu  (Nationalist Party) and N. Lupu (Agrarian Party). The uncanonical and  un-Orthodox elebration of Pascha with the Latins deeply scandalized the pious  Romanians, many of whom returned to the Old Calendar. Among them were three Hieromonks, as well as two Romanian Hieromonks who had returned to  Romania from the Holy Mountain. Hieromonk Glicherie, who had taken a leading position in the Old Calendar movement from the beginning, began to build churches in the vicinity of the Neamţ Monastery. The first was established in the village of Vânători. By 1936 he had built about forty large churches, the majority of them in Moldavia” (Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Fili, Η μαρτυρική Εκκλησία τών Γ.Ο.Χ. Ρουμανίας [The Martyric Old Calendar Orthodox Church of Romania] [Fili, Attica: 1981], pp. 11-13). [The foregoing translation,  by Archimandrite (now Archbishop) Chrysostomos, to which we have made some slight modifications, originally appeared in The Orthodox Word, Vol. XVIII, No. 1 [102] [January-February 1982], pp. 6-7—Trans.]

18. See Batistatou,  Πρακτικἀ καί Αποφάσεις, pp. 66, 84-88 (emphasis ours).

19. Ibid.

20. See the periodical Εκκλησιαστική Αλήθεια, published in Constantinople, No. 19 (26 May 1923), pp.166-167 (emphasis ours). It should, of course, be noted that the ecumenist activities of Meletios Metaxakis had begun much earlier. Concerning these activities, see

Delembasis, Pãsxa Kur¤ou, pp. 625, 661. “At that time, he (Meletios  Metaxakis) was in America, where he engaged in schismatic activities and communed uncanonically with heretical Protestants there. On 17 December 1921, ‘vested, he took part in a service in an Anglican church, knelt in prayer with the Anglicans before the holy table, which he venerated, gave a sermon, and blessed those present in the church’ of the heretics” (Strangas, Éκκλησίας Ελλάδος Ιστορία, Vol. II, p. 1118).

21. The judgments of other writers regarding Patriarch Meletios Metaxakis are also of interest, since they reveal what kind of man he was: • The aforementioned Freemason,  Alexander J. Zervoudakis, wrote this about the “pernicious Patriarch”: “The struggle that he had in overcoming the reactions that he constantly encountered in his endeavor to impose radical, but ben-eficial, changes suddenly  brought about an unexpected collapse,” that is, his death on July 27-28, 1935 (“Μελέτιος Μεταξάκης”  p. 48 [emphasis ours]). • Metropolitan Nicholas of Nubia, Meletios Metaxakis’ successor in Alexandria, said about him: “Optimism frequently impelled him to undertake bold and hazardous schemes, from which he had to be forcibly restrained by the Holy Synod” (ibid. [emphasis ours]). • The Athenian periodical Ζωή wrote, among other things,

on the occasion of the death of Meletios Metaxakis: “He made himself a singular figure in the

Church, in which his political persona was absorbed in and subjugated to his ecclesiastical one. Frustrated  by conservatism,  he manifested liberal tendencies, which oftentimes proved uncontrollable, although—to use his own phrase—‘many hitches forced him to moderate’ these tendencies. Nevertheless, he had no trouble in adapting, or at least attempting to adapt, the Church and ecclesiastical affairs to expediency, regarding even the institutions of the Church as easily adaptable to expediency and the demands of the age. ...He turned his passion, whenever  he had no other arena for his laborious efforts,  to the institutions of the Church, seeking to provide  an outlet for his restless initiatives through changes in the external life of the Church, before beginning the necessary work for its internal  renewal” (Zωή No. 1195 [10 August 1935] [emphasis ours]).