That is true. But that doesn't necessarily mean that they are wrong simply because they are traditionalists. I mean, lately this board has embraced ecumenism at a level that I sometime feel goes too far.
As far as I'm concerned (whatever that is worth), the biggest crime of the nasty "extremists" (beyond the normal human failings they share with humanity in general - including New Calendarists (NC) and those in communion with them) is their desire to be Orthodox, with no ideological hyphenation.
I think NC's should ask themselves just why it is these pesky folks will have little to do with them. Do they (NC's) recognize some difference of faith between themselves and the Old Calendarists (OC's)? If their answer is "yes", then there is a problem which can only be resolved by accusing the OC's of heresy - yet I've never seen this (which is telling in itself, given how much ink has been spilled denouncing the OC's...not to mention in some cases, the blood.) However if these NC's really do not recognize a difference in faith, then why the separation? Did a bunch of cranks just get up one morning and decide "hey, we don't like you anymore" and walk away, taking their bag of marbles with them? That's the impression I think some might get, given the dismissive tone of many OC critics.
The truth is, the OC's are separated from the NC's because the former have violated the liturgical unity of the Church; and not simply on the basis that this was a "bad thing", but on the basis of previously existing canons prohibiting such a move. The problem is doubly terrible, given the express purpose of this calendar change (ecumenism - and yes, that "bad kind" of ecumenism...one need only read the Patriarchal Encyclical of the EP upon proposing the NC, to see it is steeped in ecclessiological falsehood.) Of course, the decades which were to follow only made the problem worse (perhaps it could be described as the further "flowering" of a bad seed...one of the lowest points being in 1965, when the Ecumenical Patriarchate "lifted" the Church's anathemas against Papism.)
If Orthodoxy is the religion that historically considered a violent end preferable to consenting to a "pinch of incence", then it is hard to imagine how the above do not constitute valid reasons for heirarchs to withdraw from the communion of the ecumenists, or those who humour them.
I think a big problem today is that we are all somewhat cynical towards God and religion in general. We've all been affected in subtle ways by secular attitudes, which tend to relativize anything. We're certainly not in the headspace to naturally empathize with the Holy Martyrs. I mean really...it's only a stupid pinch of incence! A pinch of incence to some ridiculous statue we don't really
believe in anyway. Is not living a relatively peaceful, long life, not worth a little tolerance
, not so much stricture and integrism?
There's a lot in the Fathers which is hard to hear, just as there is a lot in the sayings of our Lord Jesus Christ, which if taken seriously
are hard to hear - if only because they're so damning. Given how terribly we fall short, how cowardly and shifty we are when push comes to shove, there are really only two basic reactions...
- justify one's self, seek to change or belittle the rules
- admit you fall terribly short, confess the propriety of the rules, and hope you will be justified by God.