A letter written by
Father (now Bishop) Ephraim of Holy Transfiguration Monastery,
Boston, in 1968. Revised form published in 1975 (Paper # 2 - St.
Nectarios Educational Series).
Introduction
Dear Doctor:
I pray that this letter finds you well in the
grace and peace of our Savior.
When we first received your letter concerning
the new calendar and the manner of its adoption, we were misled by
Fr. Meyendorff's statement that the change had taken place as a
result of the adoptions of the Vatopedi Synod of 1923. We did not
check to see whether in fact such a synod had taken place and we
took it for granted that it had. What was new to us was Fr.
Meyendorff’s contention that the new calendar had once been
"adopted" by a synod of the Orthodox Church. When our
elder, Fr. Panteleimon, read our original answer to you, however,
he informed us that there was no such thing as a Vatopedi Synod of
1923. It was the Synod of Constantinople in 1923. The Synod of
Vatopedi was held in 1930—seven years after the change to the
new calendar by the Greek Church. This slip on the part of Fr.
Meyendorff, however, is an understandable one, since few are those
who know just how some churches came to change to the new
calendar. Most of the material is in Greek anyway, to begin with.
The question, however, remains: did the Synod
of Constantinople of 1923 adopt the new calendar? The answer is
no, because it is clear that that Synod made no adoptions
whatsoever, but only proposals. In fact, it is even clear that
many Churches were even against having the new calendar placed on
the agenda for discussion, and, in fact, many other proposals for
the agenda were actually vetoed right on the floor. In connection
with this, Vladika Averky of Holy Trinity Monastery, Jordanville,
wrote the following concerning the late Metropolitan Anastassy:
". . . while still an Archbishop and administering the
Orthodox Russian communities in and around Constantinople, (Vladika
Anastassy) courageously and resolutely opposed the innovations
calculated to overthrow the sacred canons, such as the
introduction of the new calendar, a married episcopate,
twice-married priests, the abolition of fasts, shortening of the
divine services, permission for the clergy to wear secular dress,
and so on, proposed (emphasis mine) by the ‘All-Orthodox
Congress’ in Constantinople, under the presidency of the
Ecumenical Patriarch Meletios IV, (Metaxakis) of sorry memory.
This decisive action on the part of the then Archbishop Anastassy
evoked the warm admiration of all lovers of Orthodoxy, beginning
with the Patriarch of Antioch who expressed it in a special letter
to the President of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox
Church Outside Russia. " ("Orthodox Life",
July-August, 1956, p. 6).
The fact that no adoptions were made by the
Constantinopolitan Council is also brought out by a telegram which
the Patriarch of Alexandria, Photios, sent to the Ecumenical
Patriarch when he found out that the Synod of Greece was
contemplating a change to the new calendar. I quote: "As a
result of your Holiness's telegram, the Sacred Synod that is here
with us came together and decided the following: taking into
consideration the letters from the Churches of Roumania and
Serbia, we abide in these things which have been dogmatized in
former Synodal Congresses, and we reject every addition or any
change of the calendar before the convocation of an Ecumenical
Synod, (emphasis mine) which alone is capable of discussing
this question, concerning which Ecumenical Council we propose a
speedy convocation. Cairo, January 15, (old calendar) 1924.
Patriarch Photios." Patriarch Photios also telegraphed the
Patriarchs of Antioch, Jerusalem and Archbishop of Cyprus, and all
joined their voices in agreement with him and protested against
this arbitrary action of the Synod of Greece. It is clear from his
telegram that neither he, nor apparently the other Patriarchs knew
of any "adoption" of the new calendar by any previous
council. Rather, the exact opposite is true. Significant also is
the fact that he proposed that an Ecumenical Council be called to
discuss the problem, and not just a "Pan-Orthodox"
Council.
Ecumenical
Councils and Pan-Orthodox Councils
At this point, perhaps a word of explanation is
necessary, as regards the differences between an "Ecumenical
and a "Pan-Orthodox" Synod. To begin with, the word
"ecumenical" comes from the Greek word oikoumene which
means "inhabited world." However, this term was applied
especially to the Roman and later, the Byzantine Empire, since it
was assumed by the "Ecumenical" Council at the time,
meant an imperial council—a council attended by bishops of the
whole empire, in contrast to a local, diocesan council. For this
reason also, the councils were called by the emperors, who also
paid all the expenses involved. The decisions of these councils
were universally binding—that is, if, in fact, the decisions
were in accord with the faith and practice of the Church, and if
they were accepted as truly "Ecumenical" Councils (some
councils called themselves by the name "Ecumenical" but
were never accepted as such by the Church). In addition, the
Councils were always made up of orthodox bishops who came together
to combat an evil—either in the person of its proponents, or as
expressed in writings—which threatened to disrupt the
traditional faith and practice of the Church.
Therefore, it should be understood that when
Patriarch Photios of Alexandria called for an Ecumenical Council,
this by no means implied a gathering at which all
"Christian" denominations, including Protestants and
Roman Catholics, would be represented. He meant precisely that
bishops of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church (i.e. the
Orthodox Church) should come together to settle an important
internal matter, i.e. the calendar issue. Those who would claim
that an Ecumenical Council could not take place until all the
heretical sects of "Christendom" unite and come together
in council in fact deny the very existence of the One, Holy,
Catholic and Apostolic Church. When the Arians, Nestorians,
Monophysites, etc., separated themselves from the Church, this did
not prevent her from continuing to have Ecumenical Councils. In
fact, historically, this is the only reason Ecumenical Councils
were called: to combat heresy or schism or any other deviation
from the faith and practice of the Church.
The
"Pan-Orthodox" Councils to Date
In contrast to this, the gathering that have
come together thus far under the title "Pan-Orthodox"
have had no such purpose, nor, in fact, have they come to any
decisions whatsoever. Strictly speaking, they have not even been
"PanOrthodox" gatherings but only "Pro-Synods,
" that is, purely preparatory gatherings which are still
trying to agree on what should or should not be discussed at the
proposed "Pan-Orthodox" synod, when and if it ever takes
place. An Ecumenical Council does not have to have anyone else
decide for it what it is going to discuss, because the object of
its discussion (e. g. heresy) is very likely threatening to tear
the Church apart at the seams. There is, therefore, no need (nor
time) for the Council to quibble over what the subject of
discussion will be. If an Ecumenical Council were to be called
today, for instance, it would have to deal with the following
urgent matters: (1) the lifting of the anathema by Constantinople
(in view of the fact that the anathema was, like the decisions of
the local Constantinopolitan councils of the 14th century,
accepted by the whole of the Orthodox Church, and especially in
view of the fact that Rome has not yet renounced the heresy—but
even added others since then—of the Filioque which was condemned
in the text of the anathema), (2) the uniate practices of several
"Orthodox" bishops and priests who have prayed together
with heretics or have been present at heretical services, or who
have even given the Holy Mysteries to heretics, and (3) the
calendar issue. Significant is the fact that Patriarch Photios
(together with the other bishops who voiced their protest with
him) completely disregarded the "Pan-Orthodox" Synod as
an institution, in spite of the fact that one had taken place only
one year previously. Significantly, also, Metropolitan Eirenaios
of Cassandria (diocese of Greece) referred to this council under
Metaxakis as the "anti-Orthodox Council" of 1923.
The real issue, however, is that the calendar
was changed by a few in spite of the opposition of the vast
majority of the Orthodox, and that it was engineered by men who
were not particularly interested in whether or not what they were
doing was right, or whether it would scandalize their people.
Meletios Metaxakis, who at various times served as Archbishop of
Athens, Ecumenical Patriarch, and Patriarch of Alexandria, was a
known reformer and Freemason. He became Ecumenical Patriarch
"by the grace of Venizelos" (the then Prime Minister of
Greece—another reformer) and not "by the grace of God.
" When Venizelos fell in 1923, the faithful of Constantinople
rose up in protest against Metaxakis. Some even jumped the wall of
the Patriarchate, found him and gave him a beating, and the man
was forced to flee for his life. It was after this that he became
Patriarch of Alexandria in 1926, (again through political means),
which incidentally was also the period during which that
Patriarchate changed to the new calendar (in Constantinople he was
Meletios IV; in Alexandria he became Meletios II, —what next?).
Metaxakis was even given a Masonic funeral (Athenagoras of London
was an eyewitness as his archdeacon). What Metaxakis wanted was an
Anglican Church with an eastern tint, and the faithful people in
Greece knew it and they distrusted everything he did. While in
Athens, he even forbade the chanting of vigil services (I) because
he considered them out of date and a source of embarrassment when
heterodox—especially Anglicans—visited Athens. The people
simply ignored him and continued having vigils secretly.
Besides advocating the new calendar at
Constantinople, Metaxakis also wanted a shaven clergy, no rassa,
marriage after ordination for both priests and bishops, shorter
services, etc. (Most of these things have been adopted in
America—it seems only we here have been faithful to the Synod of
Constantinople).
Another indication that nothing—including the
new calendar was adopted at Constantinople is that Archbishop
Chrysostom Papadopoulos of Athens had to lie in order to convince
the Synod of Greece concerning some anathemas that had been hurled
against the new calendar by Jeremias II of Constantinople in 1583,
(the Constantinopolitan Councils of 1587 and 1593 also condemned
the Gregorian Calendar). Papadopoulos told the Synod that the
anathemas were a forgery (some years before his election as
Archbishop, Papadopoulos had written an excellent essay concerning
the impossibility of changing the church calendar—in it he
quoted the anathemas of Jeremias). The essay is found in Pyrsos
Encyclopedia, printed in Athens. In fact, even as Archbishop, just
one year before the Church of Greece changed to the new calendar,
he wrote the following in a related report: "No Orthodox
Autocephalous Church can separate itself from the rest and accept
the new calendar without becoming schismatic in the eyes of the
others." ("Report to the Committee of the Department of
Religion" Jan., 16, 1923) Some years later it was established
beyond a shadow of a doubt that the anathemas of Jeremias were
authentic, and that the Archbishop was, in fact, lying only in
order to quiet the troubled consciences of some of the bishops. If
the new calendar had in fact been adopted in Constantinople in
1923, Papadopoulos could have used this as a reason for changing.
That he did not is clear proof that the Council held by Meletios
Metaxakis made no adoptions.
Why
Was the Change Made?
As Archbishop, Papadopoulos was pressured both
by Metaxakis and the government. Hence it is clear that the change
was made not out of religious motives (since Papadopoulos himself
admitted that any church which changed would become schismatic),
nor as Fr. Meyendorff says in order to follow the adoptions of a
synod, but it was made at the urging of parties that were known to
be indifferent to the Church's needs (such as the Greek
government) or known innovators like Metaxakis, and the people
resented it and many remained old calendar.
At the Council of Vatopedi of 1930, the
Churches that are now new calendar had already changed by
then—hence even here no claim can be made that the changes were
made on the basis of synodal decision (Incidentally, Vatopedi is
the only Monastery on the Holy Mountain which follows the new
calendar. It changed because the government of Venizelos promised
the Monastery that if it adopted the new calendar, its holdings
and possessions would not be confiscated. They were confiscated
anyway.) At this council, the representatives of the Serbian and
Polish Churches (the Churches of Russia, Georgia, and Bulgaria
were not represented at the Council; Russia and Georgia were not
present because, at the time, they were weathering the third wave
of persecutions under Stalin, Bulgaria was not present because the
"Bulgarian Schism'' was still in effect ) asked for a
separate chapel. When the Greeks insisted that they all celebrate
together the slavs refused, excusing themselves by saying that the
language was different, as well as the typicon, and that there
would be confusion. The Greeks kept insisting and the Slavs kept
refusing, and in fact, to the end of the Council, the two did not
concelebrate, and it became clear that the Slavs considered the
calendar issue important enough at the time to separate themselves
from the Greeks. When they said that their "typicon" wee
different, the calendar obviously weighed heavily as a part of
that difference. At this council also Bishop Nicholas of Ochrid
(who later came to America and is now buried at St. Tikhon's
Monastery) vehemently defended the old calendar. In fact, the
Serbian Church even supported the old calendarist movement in
Greece by sending them Chrism across the border secretly.
Signs
From God About the Traditional Calendar
Many signs and wonders from God also took place
among the people, so that it might become clear that our Lord
Himself did not disdain to be found among the simple and
unlettered, but fervent and faithful souls whom Metaxakis and
Papadopoulos mocked and derided for becoming agitated over such
trivial matters. One of the most astounding signs from God took
place during the all-night vigil for the feast of the Exaltation
of the Precious Cross, in the year 1925. In the little country
chapel of St. John the Theologian at the foot of Mt. Hymettue
(which was then miles outside of Athens, but which is now deep
within the city limits—so much has the city grown. The section
is called St, John Holargos) over two thousand people had gathered
to celebrate the feast according to the old calendar reckoning.
When Archbishop Papadopoulos got wind of it, he sent a message to
the Minister of Interior Affairs, who in turn sent the police to
disperse the crowd and arrest the priest. When the police arrived
and saw the size of the crowd, they decided to wait until the
morning to arrest the priest. At midnight, just when the
procession for Litya was taking place, the people who were
standing outside in the court of the little chapel suddenly saw a
giant cross forming in the heavens directly above their heads. The
Cross, which was lying horizontally, stretched from the little
chapel to above the peak of Mt. Hymettus, and was in the form of
the Byzantine Cross, with three straight cross-bars. When the
people saw it—it was most brilliant and radiant in
appearance—they all cried out in fear. The procession and the
service came to a stop, and the people fell on their knees weeping
and chanting Kyrie eleison. The police, also, became so
terrified that they literally threw down their weapons and with
tears began to pray with the others. For a half hour the Cross
remained thus in the sky and then slowly began to raise itself
until it finally stood straight up and down, and then it slowly
disappeared. The next day, the Athenian newspapers printed a full
report with sketches showing how the Cross appeared above the
chapel. Such a sign has not taken place since the vision of St.
Constantine, and also since the year 346, when the Cross was seen
in the heavens stretching from Golgotha to the Mount of Olives,
when St. Cyril was bishop of Jerusalem. The reaction to the
appearance of this Cross over Mt. Hymettue was characteristic. The
pious became more pious; the others simply shrugged their
shoulders or tried to explain it away as a phenomenon brought
about by some natural causes. It was this way when our Savior
worked miracles in the presence of thousands; why should it be
different when He worked this miracle? We ourselves know some of
the people who were at that vigil and who are still alive today.
One of them became a nun and received the name Martha. She,
incidentally, still follows the old calendar.
In Greece, the real power of the old calendar
movement became known during the German occupation. Since the
official, new calendar Church no longer had the support of the
government in persecuting the old calendarists (many died in
prison, from starvation or ill treatment), the old calendarist
movement spread like wildfire. In Athens alone they had 500 tiny
chapels and churches, with a priest for every one of them! After
the war and the return of the government, the persecution was
resumed and the movement again slackened. Even so, they have a
giant convent of four hundred nuns (about 1946-7 it had six
hundred) and a large monastery with about 125-250 monks. [Here Fr.
Ephraim is referring to the Convent of the Entry of the Theotokos
and the Monastery of the Transfiguration of the Savior, both in
Attica, Continental Greece, and both of which were founded by
Bishop Matthew of Bresthena (later Archbishop of Athens and all
Greece) and are under the "Matthewite" Synod—Ed., OrthodoxFaith.com]
Has
the Calendar Issue Been Settled?
One other point: if the calendar issue was
settled once and for all at Constantinople, why was there talk
about raising the question at the second Rhodes Conference? In
fact, the Church of Greece threatened to boycott the meetings if
the questions were raised, but the representatives of the
Jerusalem Patriarchate insisted that the calendar be placed upon
the agenda for discussion, and with good reason. The Jerusalem
Patriarchate is especially interested in settling the calendar
issue because of its position as a place of pilgrimage. When
Athenagoras met Pope Paul in Jerusalem, he went afterwards to
Bethlehem to attend the service for Christmas (which, of course,
is celebrated there according to the old calendar). In the
meantime, the new calendarists were celebrating Epiphany in
Constantinople. By the time Athenagoras returned to Istanbul,
Epiphany had already been celebrated. In other words, Athenagoras
himself, because of this calendar confusion, celebrated two
Christmasses but did not celebrate Epiphany that year. Also, many
pious pilgrims came from Greece to celebrate Christmas in
Bethlehem, not knowing that the Jerusalem Patriarchate follows the
old calendar (some of the pious do not even know that there is a
calendar issue. They are the truly blessed souls). They arrive in
Bethlehem and discover that it is only St. Spyridon's day and that
Christmas is two weeks away. They have only arranged to stay for a
few days, and few are those who have made the provisions or have
the money to wait two weeks. In their dismay, they beg the priests
there to chant a few Christmas troparia and, of course, the
priests refuse, because not only is it not Christmas according to
their reckoning, but they are also in the midst of the fast. The
pilgrims return to Greece confused and disheartened since they did
not get to celebrate Christmas, even in Bethlehem, and Christmas
has already been celebrated in Greece. Therefore, that year they
do not celebrate Christmas anywhere. This happens annually
there—hence Jerusalem's concern.
And another thing: Metaxakis also officially
recognized the "Living Church" in Russia. This gives you
another indication about what kind of man he was. The calendar
issue was, for him, an insignificant matter in relation to the
great plans he had for Orthodoxy. The people knew this too, and
anyone who was pious would never think of obeying anything he or
his confederates commanded.
However, the question remains, is the new
calendar in itself a heresy, a deviation laying aside all the
secret or manifest motives its proponents may have, whether these
motives be good or bad ? The answer is no. It would be crass
heresy for us to say that this calendar is Orthodox and that one
is heretical. Even the anathemas which Jeremias II had against the
new calendar were aimed at stemming the tide of Uniatism which was
seeping the Orthodox communities in Italy and Austria. What is
important is liturgical unity, and this is what the Fathers
struggled for in centuries past (In his time, St. John Chrysostom
was a new calendarist and the Irish were old calendarists.)
Liturgical
Unity is Lost
Yet, even liturgical disunity is not a heresy
(but then neither is murder, slander or fornication—yet the
Church does not simply brush these off as matters not worthy of
consideration), but it still is a very great evil that has crept
into the liturgical life of the Church. On February 4, the Church
celebrates the memory of the New Martyr, St. Joseph of Aleppo, who
was martyred by the Moslems in the year 1686. When the cadi (the
Moslem judge) told the martyr: "Come now, man, and become a
Moslem, so that you may depart from the false faith and come to
the true one, so that I may have you by my side, and so that you
may become a great ruler," the martyr Joseph replied as
follows: "O what a faith you have, so that you try to incite
others also to believe in it! Thrice-wretched and ill-fortuned
ones that you are! And where did you find this faith which you try
now to call true? You wretched ones don’t even know when your
ramazan (month of fast) is, nor when your bayram (religious feast)
is. You only sit about, waiting to see the moon, so that you can
begin your ramazan. . .and then again you keep watch to see the
moon so that you can have your bayram. And if it should chance to
be cloudy, some of you have it before and others of you after, and
all the nations have you as a joke and they laugh at you," O
hapless Orthodox, because you can't even agree amongst yourselves
when to fast and when to feast.
As it stands now—if one goes by the present
methods which are used by the new calendarists in the celebrating
of Pascha—there is only one serious obstacle to making that
change to the new calendar: the fast of the Apostles. The canons
concerning Pascha state that Pascha can fall only between the 23rd
of March and the 25th of April—never in May. This was done in
order to provide for the feasts that follow Pascha also, because
fifty days after Pascha comes Pentecost and one week after
Pentecost is Sunday of All Saints. On the Monday following Sunday
of All Saints begins the fast of the Apostles. But with the new
calendar, Pascha falls into May at times. This causes the feasts
that follow Pascha to be pushed back so far, so as to completely
obliterate the fast of the Apostles. In fact, on some years Sunday
of All Saints even falls after the feast of the Apostles with the
new calendar. According to the new calendar, (ever since the
change was made), Pascha has already fallen in May eight times,
the last time in 1964, and will do so again in 1975.
The
Abolishment of Fasting Periods
Now if you dislike fasting, or don't think that
it's important enough to concern you, your problem is solved. On
the other hand, if you are an Orthodox Christian with passions and
lusts and failings and yet still desire to attain to that heavenly
kingdom, you will not be so willing to surrender this weapon. If
you are a Christian like these who lived in Cappadocia in St.
Basil’s time, you will even seek to extend the length of the
fast out of divine and burning love to attain freedom from
passions and thus, a more pure love for our dearest Savior.
As monks we are very well aware of the
inadequacy of mere physical fast—a fast from foods (although in
the actual time of the fast my insatiate flesh would incline me to
leave out the adjective "mere"), and yet, as monks
again, we are very much aware of its definite benefaction in the
struggle against the passions that constantly beset us. Even if
you get annoyed with someone, at least you don't have the strength
to punch him in the nose, and at least that's somewhat of an
improvement, even though it's a left-handed one. The question is
this: We are Christians, we are living in hostile territory; we
want to get to the other side, but an enemy stands between; will
we ever get to the other side if we keep disarming ourselves ? The
enemy wants to kill us if possible, and there are only two
solutions; kill him instead and cross over to the other side, or
lay down your weapons and join him and forget about the other
side. "We don't want to fast, it's too hard in America"
(In one of his encyclical letters, Metropolitan Philaret stressed
how easy it is to keep a fast here in America*—which is so true
what with all the fresh, canned and frozen foods available
everywhere throughout the whole year, in contrast to the "old
country" in days gone by. But there goes weapon number one);
"the church services are too long, too monkish, too
tiresome—shorten them" (Even though the Apostle says
"pray unceasingly." There goes weapon number two);
"The Church is a social as well as religious center—let's
have picnics, bowling nights, ski trips, hay rides, beach parties.
" (Blessed are they who mourn.... ", And take heed to
yourselves lest at any time your hearts become burdened in
debauchery and drunkenness and cares for this life... "
"We have here no abiding city.. . " "For sufficient
is the time past for those to have accomplished the desire of the
pagans, walking as they in lasciviousness, lusts, drunkeness,
revelings, carousing and unlawful idolatries. " "All
that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the
eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the
world.... " "How can we cry for our sins (what sins ?)
when we're having such a wonderful time, sponsored by the Church
at that?" There goes weapon number three. ) Only one weapon
remains; our pure and undefiled Faith. But, Doctor, how long will
that Faith last if the faithful think as they do in the above
instances? One by one we lay down our weapons, because this isn't
important and that isn't important, and after all, we're only
human.
Nevertheless, there are problems that face the
Church when it continues in the old calendar, and there are
problems when a change to the new is advocated. But how can any
thing be solved when you have "fanatical" new
calendarists refusing even to discuss the problem? (At Rhodes,
Greece kept insisting that as regards to the calendar there is
nothing to discuss!) Perhaps there is only one solution that
by-passes all of this and would make things immensely easier for
the Church. This would be if a universal, non-religious calendar
were adopted throughout the world. This would, in effect, force
the Church back to the old calendar, since the new calendar would
no longer be new and t he universal calendar would be too radical
a change for almost everyone.
However, as our Fr. Daniel says, if the
liturgical unity was broken, it was only because, in fact, the
bond of love did not exist even from before. The change to the new
calendar was a thoughtless and reckless endeavor that completely
ignored the opinions and feelings of the other Churches. Now that
the damage has been done, I don't know how it's going to be
remedied. In the official Church of Greece, there is a strong
movement calling for a return to the old calendar. This movement
is speaking in the name of Church Unity and also considers that a
return to the old calendar would help to counteract the uniate
tendencies that exist in many quarters of that same Church. Here
again, the calendar has become a symbol of traditional Orthodoxy
(which in actual fact, it is, since those who are most fanatically
new calendar also happen to be the most "ecumenical"
minded).
The fathers here greet you and your family and
pray that you are well, as of course I do also.
Ephraim monk and my guardian angel
P.S. I just remembered another interesting
point. Metaxakis as Archbishop of Athens was also instrumental in
the break that took place between the Greeks and Russians here in
America. As soon as the Greeks formed a separate jurisdiction,
Metaxakis placed them under the Synod of Greece. When, later, he
became Ecumenical Patriarch, he placed the Greek Church in America
under the Ecumenical Patriarchate. It would be interesting to find
out if he tried to put the Greek Archdiocese here under the
Alexandrian Patriarchate when he became Meletios II of Alexandria.
He also had expressed the desire to become Patriarch of Jerusalem.
* The full text of Metropolitan Philaret's
statement is as follows: (from "Orthodox Life",
Nov.-Dec. pp. 4-5) A crying violation of devoutness at the present
time is manifested in the breaking of holy fasts which has become
firmly rooted in our society. Vain is the thought of certain
people that fasts are essential only for monks and priests; no,
they are unconditionally obligatory upon all Orthodox Christians.
Blessed Father John of Kronstadt advised not to enter into close
relations with those who did not keep the holy fasts, while St.
Seraphim of Sarov did not even consider as Orthodox those
Christians who ignored fasts. Since we live in America, where by
the way, it is so easy and also beneficial for physical health to
keep the fasts, this demand of the Holy Church remains
unalterable, cannot be waived by anyone and is binding upon all
Orthodox Christians.
Another equally crying violation of piety is
represented by the now beloved of Russian society so called
charity balls and Soiree, especially those organized during hours
of Divine Services on the eve of Sundays and Holy Days. St. John
of Kronstadt, himself a performer of charity, taught that charity
in the form of Soirees and balls was not Christian charity, but
merely inane entertainment and pandering to passions. We must all
unservingly explain to our flock the necessity of fasts and about
the mentioned balls and soirees, so destructive to the salvation
of souls.
