PDF Archive search engine
Last database update: 17 November at 11:24 - Around 76000 files indexed.
PRINCIPLES OF LEARNING AND LEARNING THEORY Principles of Learning and Learning Theory Hannah R. Hiles University of North Carolina at Greensboro 1 PRINCIPLES OF LEARNING AND LEARNING THEORY 2 What is learning? > Major Learning Theories: Gagné’s Hierarchy Much of our understanding of education and the teaching process comes from Robert Gagné, an early 20thcentury experimental psychologist who was primarily interested in learning and instruction. It was Gagné who gave us the most fundamental basis for the process of teaching and what the instruction process looks like. Gagné’s Hierarchy of Learning presents eight ways to learn, with each stage building on the lower levels, ensuring that the upper levels require greater skill and ability to conquer. From the bottom up they begin with Signal Learning. As it is at the very bottom of the hierarchy it is part of Pavlov’s “classical conditioning,” or the act of conditioning a subject to provide a desired response in conjunction with a predetermined signal. Next comes StimulusResponse Learning – a more advanced version of classical conditioning. It incorporates the use of schedules and rewards in the learning process. Chaining comes next, wherein a student begins to learn the ability to connect prior lessons together in an organized sequence. After Chaining comes Verbal Association. A higherlevel form of Chaining, Verbal Association is the same idea, but with those prior lessons being vocal in nature as opposed to physical. Note that only halfway up the hierarchy, we are finally at a point where the student is at a point where they are beginning to incorporate verbal skills – the magnitude of Gagné’s hierarchy and just how “basic” his most fundamental lessons are cannot be overstated. Discrimination Learning, Concept Learning, and Rule Learning are next and are very linked together. Discrimination Learning is the process of a student being able to form appropriate responses in an organized and precise way. Concept Learning follows this by PRINCIPLES OF LEARNING AND LEARNING THEORY 3 requiring that the student makes those same responses but now with the addition of categorization – that they respond the same way to the same stimuli, regardless of order or organization. Rule Learning eventually comes in, the second to last piece of Gagné’s hierarchy. The most complex part of Rule Learning is that it requires the student to not only learn relationships between situations and higher concepts but to also predict future situations and concepts (ie, to understand social rules even if they are in a social situation that is new). The final part of Gagné’s Hierarchy is Problem Solving. Gagné considered this the highest level of learning. Because it requires entirely independent cognition and no external stimuli, the student has to have mastered all previous levels in order to problem solve effectively. In Problem Solving, the student must be able to face complicated rules and situations and not know the answers – instead, he or she must know ways of getting to the answers (Singley 1989). Gagné saw that by working their way up through the levels, students could eventually have mastery of the task they were studying. This method also allowed for students to move at a pace that worked for their own abilities, as well as letting them stop and start again at any point and presenting the entire learning process as a journey rather than a means to an end (Clark 2004). > Major Learning Theories: Bloom’s Taxonomy This learning theory comes from a 1956 report that came to be known as “Bloom’s Taxonomy,” a form of learning through instruction that takes into account the intake of information through Cognitive (knowledgebased learning), Affective (emotionbased), and Psychomotor (actionbased). Much of instructional design that takes guidance from Bloom looks specifically at the Cognitive model of Bloom’s Taxonomy, and the six individual components that Bloom organizes in a hierarchy (similar to Gagné’s own hierarchy). For Bloom, the PRINCIPLES OF LEARNING AND LEARNING THEORY 4 hierarchy comes in the form of Remembering, Understanding, Applying, Analyzing, Evaluating, and Creating. It’s important when looking at Bloom’s hierarchy to see that, as with Gagné, each step leads to the next. The student begins with remembering materials – they can recall and repeat facts and answers from their longterm memory with ease. Once they can remember information they can proceed to understand it – one can memorize sums and figures or dates in history without actually understanding what they mean, but Bloom saw this second level of Understanding as an important moment in the educational process. Applying is the student’s use of the information they have come to understand – this will vary depending on the information they have, but the more they use the information at hand, the deeper their understanding of it will come. This leads directly into Analyzing, where a student can look at the work they are doing (their “application” in the previous state of the hierarchy) and determine cause and effect. This work of analyzing their lesson moves organically into Evaluating – if A causes B, and B is a problem, how can the student solve B? This stage of Evaluation is similar to Gagné’s final level of Problem Solving – it is the process of a student looking for the work they are doing and determining where the issues are, then finding for themselves what the solutions may be. Finally, the student can move into Creating. Unlike Gagné, Bloom didn’t see the educational process as stopping at Problem Solving – for him, the pinnacle of mastering a skill or learning something new came when the student was able to then take that information and do something unique with it. Bloom’s first edition of the Taxonomy had this final stage as “Knowledge,” but in 2001 (two years after his death), it was updated to “Creating” or PRINCIPLES OF LEARNING AND LEARNING THEORY 5 “Synthesizing”. This is the student’s ability to take unique and individual parts and put them together into a larger and more unified representation of the lesson or information they have been learning – a synthesis of their learned knowledge (Wineburg 2009). > Major Learning Theories: Behaviorism, Cognitivism, and Constructivism Behaviorism, Cognitivism, and Constructivism are three additional members of learning theory that cannot be neglected. Going back to Gagné’s “signal learning” and Pavlov’s “classical conditioning,” Behaviorism looks at the most simple behavioral changes in an organism. As Jordan et al point out, Behaviorists are quick to defend that they don’t believe learners don’t think, rather “they [researchers] mainly choose to ignore inaccessible mental processes and focus on observable behaviour” (2008). Cognitivism is a step up, branching into the mental processes of how we observe and then process our environments and what happens to us. While Behaviorism may be the kneejerk reactions, Cognitivism in learning relies on “developing effective ways of building schemata and processing information” (Jordan). Finally, in Constructivism, we see yet a further advancement in the realm of cognition. Instead of simply processing information as in Cognitivism, Constructivism is a school which is based on the educator taking a passive role in their pupil’s learning – instead of dishing out answers, they may use questions to inspire their students to probe deeper into their own understanding of the materials, and find their own answers within. Jordan et al note that while the flow between Constructivism and Cognitivism can be difficult to differentiate, Constructivism ultimately “focuses on what people do with information to develop knowledge” (2008).
Construction technique of the Piano Nobil plan Main axes of circulation Main axes of circulation Main axes of circulation Hierarchy displayed in difference in peak heights Hierarchy displayed in the different sized windows Hierarchy displayed in the different sized windows Hierarchy displayed in the different sized windows
PERBANDINGAN METODOLOGI REDUKSI VARIABEL ANTARA AXIOMATIC DESIGN DENGAN ANALYTICAL HIERARCHY PROCESS DALAM PENGAMBILAN KEPUTUSAN, TINJAUAN DARI SUDUT PANDANG PENGENDALIAN KUALITAS BERKELANJUTAN Sri Enny Triwidiastuti Universitas Terbuka Email Korespondesi:firstname.lastname@example.org ABSTRAK Reduction of variables required for selecting and specifying some of the most important variables without losing the overall information is needed in decision making.
No Access for hierarchy When the above error is received, this means that a hierarchy characteristic needs to be created for the required node.
A person that is both neither part of their hierarchy, yet knows of its existence and activities.
(NOTE to Madelyn – I didn’t know what to put for cost center hierarchy – this is what I was trying to tell you to test since I didn’t know what value to put).
Desktop GPU Performance Hierarchy Table http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gpu-hierarchy,4388.html Anand Tech:
Issue #7 September, 2017 Making An Example Promoting Liberty, by Non Facies Furtum (p. 2) Policing as a Private Affair, Article by J. Allen Barnaby (p. 3-4) Give Anarchy a Chance, article by Noah Leed (p. 4-7) Communism Kills, pt. 1: Monumental Social Closure and Left-progressive Bias, Libertarian Sociology 101 column, By Richard G. Ellefritz, PhD (p. 7, 11) Violence and Politics Are Inseparable, article by Sean O'Ceallaigh (p. 8) Why Homeschooling Works, by Amelia Morris (p. 8) Ruby Ridge: 25 years later. A Summary for the Next Generation, article by Jason Boothe (p. 9-10) So You Want to Privatize Everything?, article by Matthew Dewey (p. 11-13) Inflating Away Our Technological Gains, article by James Butcher (p. 13-15) Going Anti-State and Abandoning Politics, article by Mike Morris (p. 15, 21) Your Dog, Lawful Plunder and the Regulatory State, article by Nick Weber (p. 21- 24) What If You Were A White Nationalist?, submission by “Orthobro” (p. 24 - 28) 1 Making An Example Promoting Liberty, article by Non Facies Furtum ...harmful ideas or act immorally. Make it uncomfortable to be evil, and to support evil. This can manifest itself in ways such as telling a companion that you’re going to stop spending time with him if doesn’t stop watching CNN, arguing diligently and impolitely with your cousin who always says “I’m just a centrist, bro.” and “ Obamacare saves lives!”. If some attractive woman asks you out on a date wearing a “thin blue line” t-shirt, deny her. Of course this ability to shun people with foolish or unhelpful ideologies does not preclude one from also doing positive work to support those who are actively changing things for the better in the world. If you know someone who is passionate about liberty and could inspire people with their talent for writing, speaking, or organization, encourage them to create something. Donate or volunteer with people at some sort of local charity event which would decrease dependence on the state for some people. In general, I encourage everyone reading this to make a credible difference in their social circle by living in a way that sets an example. Inspire people with your positivity and passion for valuable social change, and do not waste your time on people who will work against you and will not listen to the reason of your arguments. Be clear with your arguments, accurate with your evidence, passionate about your lifestyle, and deliberate with how you spend your time. This will help us secure a free future. Voluntaryism is still a new ideology to many, even though its principles are simple and already nearly universally valued in many ways. It is important work to spread the word about its immense value and moral correctness, but this will not be sufficient to bring about a truly free society. When the people who do not change things and who just go through life living at the level of the least common denominator or an average life see new styles of life that work better than others, they will gradually change their ways. Until then, they will live a “path of least resistance” lifestyle. It is important for those of us who have arrived at the objective moral truth of voluntaryism to set an example of just how much freedom and respect for property rights and self-ownership can lead to a successful and joyful life. What many voluntaryists spend most of their time doing is spreading knowledge of the arguments, reason, and evidence that support voluntaryism, non-aggression, and liberty as the most useful and morally correct principles. This is incredibly important and necessary work, but often it is not enough to get most people to change their ways, or even consider accepting the arguments. Living by example opens those around you up to new ideas, and inspires many people more than do valid logic and clear evidence. One important aspect of living a voluntaryist lifestyle is remembering that non-aggression is not synonymous with tolerance. One of the most powerful moral tools that one has is their ability to decide with whom one spends their time. By this I mean that in the same way shop-owners can refuse to do business with people who are known to have been thieves or people who have aggressive tendencies, every individual can and ought to shun those who have... Resilientways.net Resilientways.net Resilientways.net Resilientways.net Resilientways.net 2 Policing as a Private Affair, Article by J. Allen Barnaby of the Free Association Center Policing, the protection of person and property, can and should be handled privately for reasons both ethical and prudential. This simple truth is often hard for most to swallow, especially those looking to rationalize the various forms of centralized control they'd like to continue exerting over the entire populace within a certain geographic area. Decentralized policing services can and should be provided by the individual landowners or users who truly find any particular protection service more valuable than its cost. The competitive pressure made possible by decentralizing decision-making aligns the incentives of security providers much more closely with those of the marginal customer relative to a centralized political system where some fraction of the population enforces their preferences upon the whole. A political process allows those holding its reins to externalize the costs of services onto unwilling dissenters who may have better options on the table in its absence. But what about the poor, you ask? The working poor almost invariably rent homes and travel on roads owned by others. Those owners make their livings providing low-cost services to the poor and have strong incentives to pay for cost-effective crime deterrence on their properties in order to prevent damage and provide their customers relatively safe passage to and from their businesses in order to continue making their living. Insurance companies (think homeowners' and life insurance) can and would discriminate between customers who take various deterrence measures and those who don't, charging owners and individuals higher premiums depending upon their varying risk profiles. By making assets more profitable year in and year out, the benefits of protection services become capitalized into the value of the properties themselves. We must acknowledge, however, that we do not have Utopia on the table from which to choose, so we must make a comparative judgment between centralized and decentralized provision of protection. Centralization poses grave risks of abuse, and as will be explained below, offers little relative benefit to the poor and powerless in practice. Regime economists of course, even those espousing free market rhetoric across any number of other areas, readily object to the proposition that policing can be provided without centralizing said service by force. They teach us that policing is a prototypical "public good," and that the "optimal amount" of policing services can't be provided without some kind of forced centralization. The first problem with this approach generally is that, while positing that decentralized decision-making might lead to the under-provision of a service, it completely ignores that centralization is even more likely to lead to an over-production in terms of cost while offering little assurance against under-production in terms of the actual service quality enjoyed by those unable to wield political power for themselves. What's worse is that those who advance this position usually offer the pretext that without centralization, the poor and ostensibly powerless would lack access to quality service, even as their proposed solution often fails to serve this very group. The second problem with the public goods rationalization is that "prototypical" services like policing don't even obviously meet the theoretical requirements of a public good on their own terms. We're told policing is non-excludable, meaning that the cost of keeping non-payers from enjoying the benefits of the protection service prohibits the optimal level of protection from (cont. 4) 3 being provided to paying subscribers as well. However as a practical matter, policing is clearly excludable. Among other strategies, police agencies can simply publish the properties for which they intend to defend by force, allowing even relatively short-sighted criminals to avoid their subscribers and incentivizing them to case unprotected non-payers instead. Within most political jurisdictions currently, county and city jurisdictions haphazardly perform this function already, but as we have seen above, flexible police jurisdictions determined by market demand would better serve individuals living amongst a diverse local population by most closely aligning incentives. Private, decentralized policing is also largely rivalrous in consumption, in stark contradiction with the second requirement of a public good. While defending one house in a neighborhood from the threat of a ballistic missile would generally require defending the whole neighborhood from the same threat, thereby rendering the defense of each additional house in the neighborhood essentially cost-less once the first is adequately defended, providing a deterrent from most crimes, as well as investigation and restitution services, are generally costly to extend to each additional person or property. It's up to those that value their freedom to resist all who would employ the mere force of arms to centralize decision-making within a privileged political class. This goes double for the seemingly fundamental State services of policing and dispute resolution. As a practical matter, subjecting service providers of all kinds to competition and holding them to principles of natural justice will place significant limits on centralization of all kinds. Such restraints also hinder the growth of political power, a force to be resisted at all costs by the true friends of man and liberty. Give Anarchy a Chance, article by Noah Leed Many of us were heartened by the recent story of how a human chain was formed to save nine struggling swimmers caught in a rip current off the Panama City Beach on the Florida coast. Two boys had become stranded offshore, and as other members of the family swam out to their aid, those swimmers also struggled in vain to get to shore. Others on the beach went from being onlookers to being "on duty" as they linked arms to form an eighty-person human lifeline, pulling those stranded in the current back to safety. Words like "heroic" and "miraculous" come to mind as apt descriptions of what occurred, but there is one word most people wouldn't consider using here, a word that in fact perfectly describes how this family was saved: they were saved by anarchy. Most tend to use that word as a synonym for chaos and lack of structure or organization, but in the political sense it simply means lack of a formal or mandated authoritative hierarchy. It means self-organization rather than centrally planned organization. It is immediately important to note that such self-organization necessarily rests on whatever moral foundation might underlie it. People will organize themselves, or not, according to the system of values they have in common. So in that sense, there is indeed an important hierarchy at play in anarchy, the hierarchy of values and morals that has evolved over the countless generations that preceded ours. Some might differ in what constitutes that foundation (using terms such as "The Enlightenment" or "Judeo-Christian") but there can be no doubt that beneficial forms of anarchy are deeply rooted in history. We don't make up values on the fly. To be sure, this human chain didn't just magically materialize and arise spontaneously without any inputs of (cont. 5) 4 of leadership. It required someone to first have an idea for the chain, and then for that person and others to communicate the idea and to facilitate its realization by recruiting and coordinating willing volunteers. But the point is, the manifestation of this life-saving team required no pre-existing hierarchy or formal organizational structure or authority, and required no threat of punishment or other enforcement mechanisms to make it work. Those who wanted to participate simply did so, and those who didn't, didn't. Whatever minimal elements of leadership and hierarchy (i.e., non-swimmers closest to shore/stronger swimmers in deeper waters) That were needed had to arise in the moment, voluntarily and organically. And they did. It's a shame that the word "anarchy" has never been given a chance to gain more popular use in contexts that actually reflect this true definition. As thinking adults, the moment we hear that word we are likely to not really think about what it might mean. Instead, by default, we give it the emotional weight and negative connotations that were likely loaded into our heads the few times we heard the word in common use as children: anarchy is what results when people riot, or when tornadoes tear up towns, or when nobody does the dishes (or cleans his bedroom right now!). So we are used to seeing the word "anarchy" incorrectly thrown around to describe things like the gang-rule and barbarism that overtakes failed states like Somalia. That is not anarchy. Rarely is the word used in any but negative and unappealing contexts. Perhaps, though, the word deserves equal time in getting fair use to describe the positive voluntary social organization and human cooperation that arises almost instantaneously in group scenarios such as the Panama City Beach rescue (or, say, United Flight 93). And further, perhaps we should consider the potential negative outcomes that might have resulted if anarchy had been suppressed in the case of this rescue, as well as in other situations. Representative democracy is highly thought of as a way to structure the governing institutions that help order our society and address its problems. How well would a microcosm of political democracy have worked on that Panama City Beach? In the name of "fairness" we might want to consider all reasonable alternatives to the human-chain idea, and we might want to vote on which idea to deploy and on who should lead the group, and we might want to consider potential costs as well as benefits of our options, and we might want to consult or defer to authorities and experts and public servants on the details of executing the plan...after another vote, of course. But by taking time to formalize the life-saving process and make it soundly democratic, that democracy would probably have failed the nine people that anarchy managed to save. In case anyone thinks I'm just bashing government here, imagine the utter failure that might result from assigning the task to a meeting of middle-managers mired in the typical bureaucracy of a huge corporation! Direct and efficient (and risky) action and full accountability can get stifled in the hierarchies of any large and complex organization, whether public or private, because large organizations commonly breed a certain amount of ass-kissing and ass-covering (not to mention foot-dragging, finger-pointing and thumb-sucking). It's just the nature of large organizations. The large organization will have many structures, rules and policies that have evolved to "safely" (ass-covering, again) give guidance in most situations, but not in all. A bureaucracy is always obedient first and foremost to itself, at the risk of sacrificing those stray few who might be in situations that fall outside its rigid regulatory regimes. To best respond to certain situations -- like an entire family stuck in a rip current -- agents of larger organizations must be given (cont. 6) 5
The Matthewite Bishop Kirykos Kontogiannis Is Himself An “Old Calendarist Ecumenist” Bp. Kirykos Kontogiannis is responsible for the Matthewites separating from communion with the ROCOR in 1976 on the charge of “old calendarist ecumenism.” He is also the one who warred against the theological dialogue between the Matthewites and the Kiousis Synod from 1985 to 2005, again on the charge of “Old Calendarist Ecumenism.” Bp. Kirykos also even severed communion with the holy Archbishop Andrew (Anestis) of Athens and the remaining Matthewite hierarchs, and created his own personal schism (the “Kirykite” faction), again on the charge that all other Matthewite hierarchs had supposedly fallen into “Old Calendarist Ecumenism.” But now it has been proven that this charge has always been false, because Bp. Kirykos is HIMSELF exactly what he would describe an “Old Calendarist Ecumenist.” Thus it becomes apparent that Bp. Kirykos’ reasons for schism were entirely personal, in order to promote his egotistic self‐esteem, and also as a rage of anger that he did not get elected as Archbishop of Athens instead of Nicholas. There are many proofs that Bp. Kirykos is an Old Calendarist Ecumenist. The main proof is the fact he united with the Romanian Victorite hierarchy, which traces its apostolic succession from Bp. Victor Leu (+1980) who was consecrated in 1949 by three ROCOR hierarchs, whereas Bp. Kirykos believes that the ROCOR was void of grace from 1924 onwards, and claims that anyone who believes the ROCOR had grace during this time is an “Old Calendarist Ecumenist.” Bp. Kirykos received the Romanian hierarchy into communion without re‐consecrating them, without reading a cheirothesia or prayer of absolution, but by a simple recognition! This very act is a clear sign of “Old Calendarist Ecumenism” as Bp. Kirykos himself would describe it. Another proof of Bp. Kirykos’s “Old Calendarist Ecumenism” is his recent official glorification of St. John the Romanian of Hozeva, a priest of the Jerusalem Patriarchate, who was ordained in 1947 by a bishop of the Jerusalem Patriarchate, and never severed communion with the Jerusalem Patriarchate. According to Bp. Kirykos’ own definition, St. John the Romanian was most definitely an “Old Calendarist Ecumenist.” Yet, by glorifying him and consecrating a chapel in his honour, Bp. Kirykos has proven himself to also be an “Old Calendarist Ecumenist,” thereby negating all the reasons for the schisms he has caused in the past. This therefore proves that Bp. Kirykos’ schism (the “Kirykites”) is nothing more than an egotistic parasynagogue. And it cannot be said that Bp. Kirykos was unaware that St. John the Romanian was ordained and belonged to the Jerusalem Patriarchate, because no sound hierarch glorifies a Saint without first reading the Saint’s life! And a copy of St. John the Romanian’s life was found in Bp. Kirykos’ own archive, in one of his recent folders which contained the decision of his Synod to glorify St. John the Romanian. In that book, it is clearly written in Greek that “The Patriarch of Jerusalem approved the ordination and on the 13th of May, 1947, the feastday of St. Glycheria, he was ordained as a hierodeacon by Bishop Irenarchus. On the 14th of September of the same year, he was ordained as a hieromonk and abbot of the Romanian Church in Jordan. His ordination took place in the Church of the All‐ holy Sepulchre.” A scan of the section follows: Below are photographs of Bp. Kirykos’ glorification of St. John the Romanian: Bp. Kirykos believes that the Jerusalem Patriarchate lost grace in 1924, yet at the same time he believes grace was somehow “provided” for the ordination of St. John the Romanian in 1947, and that the latter therefore performed valid mysteries and belonged to the True Church, despite having been a member of the Jerusalem Patriarchate until his very repose! In other words, grace doesn’t exist anywhere until Bp. Kirykos fancies to “grant” it a whole 61 years later! This theory that the Holy Spirit sanctifies only “wherever Kirykos wants” is NOT an example of Orthodox ecclesiology. On the contrary, it is a satanic, egotistic blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. It is not an Ecclesiology, but rather a “Kirykology.” It is an ecclesiological heresy that is not based on the Holy Fathers, but rather on the egotistic whims of a deluded man, Mr. Kirykos Kontogiannis, who for 30 years has prevented the unity of the Genuine Orthodox Christians, and has even caused several schisms (including his current Kirykite schismato‐heretical parasynagogue), supposedly due to saving the Church from “Old Calendarist Ecumenism,” whereas in actual fact among “Old Calendarist Ecumenists” is none other than Bp. Kirykos himself! May God enlighten him to repent, and for his followers to denounce his treacherous schism and work towards the unity of the G.O.C.
‘Places’ contains the hierarchy of place names, from continents and nations down to individual buildings and land features.
To the pious Orthodox Greek people, The Faith of our Fathers is at trial. The enemies – and many are cunning – lurk outside the National and Ecclesiastical bastions. They who betray the precious treasure of our National and Religious ideology and cast their eyes away from the valuable pearl of Orthodoxy make use of every treachery and machination to demolish the unshakeable bulwarks of our National and Ecclesiastical glory and repute. Materialists, Communists, Chiliasts [i.e., Jehovah’s Witnesses], Theosophists, Masons, and other manifold internal and external enemies, undermine the unshakeable and unbreakable bulwarks of our National and Ecclesiastical constitution and indestructible power. These insolent and cunning enemies, due to the tolerance of the State and the inactivity of the Church, succeeded in penetrating into all of the levels of Greek Society. These effluent haters of our National and Ecclesiastical ideology, attempt, under the guise of progress and individual freedom, to corrupt the National and Ecclesiastical conscience of Greek Society. Thus we ring the warning bells. Greek Orthodox civilians, awaken, be alert in regards to the unyielding forefront of the Nation and the Church, so that these guile‐minded and manifold enemies do not dissipate the valuable treasure of our ancestral and glorious heritage. Do not be sluggish; do not be afraid of imprisonment for the sake of defending the endangered Orthodox Faith, and the National Traditions which are everywhere undermined. The enemies are many and resourceful. The Church’s institutions are unprotected, the Ecclesiastical bulwarks are defenseless, the National Traditions are ignored, the National ideals are under persecution. And on the contrary, the soul‐destroying teachings of the Materialists and the subversive doctrines of the Communists are methodical and persistent. The poisonous and growing net of the different antinational and antireligious propagandas choke the very heart of the Nation and Church. The poisonous and malodorous fumes of faithlessness, of materialism, destructive selfishness, fill the atmosphere of Greece to the point of suffocation. Unfortunately, the alleged resistance is inconclusive, the defense of the Ecclesiastical institutions and National traditions is lifeless and listless, the struggle against the disease‐causing germs, that corrode our National and Ecclesiastical organism, is powerless and useless. For this reason, the ramparts of our National ideology and the bulwarks of Orthodoxy began, one after the other, to fall to the torrential and precipitous irrepressibility of our opponents. The appointed leaders and guardians for the defense of our National and Ecclesiastical Traditions, are faint‐hearted and do not have the courage or guts to resist head on. The resistance and defense cannot be obtained without a national pulse and loyalty to the ideals of the homeland and the religion. We require that national and religious zeal that our fathers had, with which they glorified the Church and Nation. The leaders of the Nation and the Church should have that Greek genius and that religious pulse, by which the Orthodox Greek race increased in works, being reborn in the baptismal font of Hellenic Christian culture. Yes, faith is needed in struggles; we need moral solidity; we need spiritual courage; an iron will, bravery, and unshakable hope, are necessary for the success of the struggle. These are all qualifications that are created by faith in the ideals of the homeland and the religion. But the appointed guardians of the Ecclesiastical ramparts, lacking faith and moral courage, not only fail to show the required resistance against the opponents, not only fail to dig new trenches that are able to compete against the contemporary polemics, but they also, with a completely clear conscience, raze to the ground whatever the veteran strugglers built through our National and Ecclesiastical Traditions. An example is the recently disposed citadel of the Traditional Patristic Calendar, which, like an unbreakable barrier, appreciably separated the Orthodox from the heretics and infidels. The cunning enemies of Orthodoxy tried many times to destroy this defensive bastion, but they kicked towards centers. This is because they always had to confront the Doorkeepers and Housemaster of the Church, sleeplessly watching over the unyielding bastions of Orthodoxy. Indeed, the Fathers of the Church were themselves not unaware of theory in which the Gregorian calendar was considered more perfect, time‐wise, than the Julian. Yet they never ceased defending the Traditional Patristic Calendar! This is because they honored the tradition of the Seven Ecumenical Councils and the perpetual practice of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Inasmuch as the Holy Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council interlocked the Julian calendar with the Paschal Canon, the Orthodox Festal Calendar, and the Sunday Cycle of Gospel Readings, it served as a component of Divine worship and a unifying link between universal Orthodoxy, as well as an irremovable bastion against heresy and infidelity. Yet this irremovable bastion was shattered without a fight, and not by the age‐old enemies of Orthodoxy, but by those appointed as its guardians, the Ecclesiastical Doorkeepers and Housemasters. For this reason, the current administrators of the Church of Greece, breaking apart the unity of Orthodoxy through the calendar innovation, and dividing the Orthodox Greek nation into two opposing calendar parties, did not only break the Ecclesiastical Tradition that was instilled by the Seven Ecumenical Councils and ratified by the age‐old practice of the Eastern Orthodox Church, but they also broke the dogma regarding the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Thus, the current administrators of the Church of Greece, by their unilateral, uncanonical, and irresponsible introduction of the Gregorian calendar, tore themselves off from the entire body of Orthodoxy, and declared themselves in essence [κατ’ οὐσίαν] schismatics compared to the other Orthodox Churches, which stand upon the ground of the Seven Ecumenical Councils and the Orthodox institutions and traditions, and upon the Churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Serbia, Poland, the Holy Mountain [of Athos], the God‐trodden Mt. Sinai, etc. That these things are so, is also confirmed by the excellent lawyers, theologians and professors of the National University, when it appointed a committee to study the calendar issue, and one of the members happened to be the [current] Archbishop of Athens, [Chrysostom Papadopoulos], who at that time was a Professor of Ecclesiastical History at the National University. Here is what that Committee stated regarding the calendar issue: “All the Orthodox Churches, even if they are Autocephalous in their internal administration, do not fall apart because they are united to each other through the Dogmas and Synodical Decrees and Canons…No Orthodox Autocephalous Church can separate itself from the rest and accept the new calendar without becoming schismatic in the eyes of the others.” Accordingly, since His Beatitude, the Archbishop of Athens, through his own signature, declares himself a schismatic, what further need do we have of witnesses, so that we can prove that he and his like‐minded hierarchs have made themselves schismatics, by breaking apart the unity of Orthodoxy through the innovation of the calendar, and splitting the Ecclesiastical and National soul of the Orthodox Greek people? This same Beatitude, in one of his works regarding the calendar issue, commenting on one of the epistles of Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremias II, says the following: “The letter of Patriarch Jeremias II indicates in an excellent manner the position which the Orthodox Church immediately took against the Gregorian modification of the calendar. The Church considered it yet another of the many innovations of Old Rome, a universal scandal, and an arbitrary affront to the Synodical Canons and Constitutions. The reform of the calendar is not only a matter of astronomy but also pertains to the Church... Hence, the Pope had no right to reform the calendar, [for in so doing] he proved that he esteems himself superior to the Ecumenical Councils. Consequently, the Orthodox Church has not been in favour of the reform of the calendar...” Apart from these violations of the canons, there are also important moral issues, which stem from that very Archdiocese, requiring the cleansing of the clergy of every rank, for the elevation of the workers of the Church and the increase of the prestige of the Orthodox Greek Church. Therefore, we leave it up to the Orthodox Greek people, to judge whether His Beatitude, the Archbishop, disagrees with himself, and whether or not he tramples the Orthodox Constitutions and Sacred Canons, and whether or not he is fit to be the President of the Orthodox Greek Church, the highest feature and the most glorious post, which is meant to protect the Orthodox Christian and National ideology. We always disagreed with this innovation of the calendar, but we submitted to the decision of the majority of the hierarchy by ecclesiastical economy, on the one hand, so as to prevent an ecclesiastical schism, and on the other hand, because we had the hope that the Hierarchy, wanting to prevent the division of its flock, would have hastened to return to the Orthodox calendar cycle. But since the schism was caused even without us, in the realms of the Church, between the Orthodox Christians themselves who became divided because of the new calendar, and since the Hierarchy after an entire twelve‐year period, not only did not take heed to return to the Orthodox calendar for the sake of the unity of the flock and the pacification of the Church, but it also persecuted the Old Calendarists! Therefore, we were compelled by the suggestion of our consciences, to declare to His Beatitude, the Archbishop, that we sever every communion with him, because he is a Schismatic even according to his own confession, and we make a fervent petition to the portion of the Greek people who accepted the new calendar in good faith, thinking that this is not contrary to Orthodoxy, as was declared by the innovative Archbishop of Athens in the past, that they too denounce the Gregorian calendar, as unorthodox, and let us trumpet out to the Schismatic Archbishop, the words of wise Joseph Bryennius: “We shall never renounce Thee, O beloved Orthodoxy! We shall never be untrue to thee, O revered tradition of the Fathers! We shall never forsake thee, O Mother Piety! In Thee were we born; and in Thee do we live; and in Thee shall we repose. And if the times require, we shall die ten thousand times for Thee!”
R G B 102,123,129 C M Y K 7, 5, 0, 49 PANTONE Solid coated cool grey R G B 166, 178, 191 C M K Y 13, 7, 0, 25 only determine hierarchy.