Calendars, pros and cons

[Scott Pierson]

If one where to put all the benifits to switching to the new calander on one side of the scale and then put all the troubles that switching has caused on the other side which side would be more heavy so to speak?

Even if switching to the new calender had some benifits was it worth causing schism, and even death ( their have been Martyrs for the old calendar). Didnt the people who came up with the concept even consider the fact that they might be scandalizing millions of people for something of only limited benfit ( a "more accurate" calender)? Usually people who support the NC. say "its only a calander why do people worry so much about it". If however to them its only a minor issue why change it and upset the people who think its a major issue? Bassically people are saying its worth risking a schism and scandalizing people over something they admite they dont think is really that important. I tend to think that some of the Hierarchs who supported the change DO think it was more important then they lead the Orthdox on to believe... They wanted modernization and better "eccumenical relations" at all costs.

I'm certainly not saying that new calendar jurisdictions are evil or heretical. I go to a new calender Church myself. I just think the calendar change has only hurted the Church and given us no real benifit in exchange.

[Kosta]

As a new calendarists i agree with you 100 percent.
First off the calendar change was initiated by a heretical bishop. Patriarch Meletius Metaxas was a mason (no dispute there) who not only changed the calendar (a calendar anathemized by a few pan-orthodox councils) but approved the abolition of all fasts, married bishops and second marriages for priests (all passed at the 1922 congress). He had to step down due to a riot by the Instanbul flock. He was elected patriarch of many sees uncanonically. He declared the validity of anglican orders, all in an attempt at reunion with the archbisop of canterbury,
Secondly the revised julian calendar is now even more astronomically inaccurate. Thirdly a few years before the calendar change the Church of Greece advised to retain the old calendar until a pan-orthodox congress can convene and create a new Orthodox calendar which is both astronomically and liturgically accurate while still preserving the paschal calculations of nicea. That way its unified and no overlapping of fasting and non fasting days.

[Alex Haig]

Firstly, I should declare myself to be using the Revised Calendar.

I think that the calendar should reflect nature since it is a record of the changing seasons, we should state that 21st June is the Summer Solstice (Northern Hemispere) or whenever the Solstice is defined to be, then the rest of the calendar should follow on from that. It is for this reason I think we should stop using the Revised calendar and use the Gregorian (or a more accurate one if discovered).

The main inconsistancy, as far as I can see, is those using the Revised Calendar but still calculating Pascha by the Julian: surely Pascha should be on the same Calendar as the rest of the year? People argue that it is to make sure Jewish Passover happens before Pascha but surely the only logical thing is to calculate Jewish Passover on the Revised Calendar too?

I'm sorry that I pose more questions rather than answering any.

With love in Christ

Alex

[Kosta]

That the calendar should reflect nature has never been a criteria for a religious calendar in any culture. When winter occurs in the north it is summer in certain areas south of the equator. Judaism (islam as well) has never viewed astronomical accuracy to be important.

The utmost importance of a Church calendar is to have a sound liturgical cycle, the Julian is the best suited for this over all the others. (to be fair the revised julin calendar has the benefit that the Annunciation of the Theotokos does not fall on Good Friday although there are church rules when this occurs).
This is why monastics prefer the Church Calendar, it is of vital importance for them, that a fast day does not overlap with a non fast day or even eclipses it altogether, as happens certain years with the apostles fast. It must also observe the canons for the LUNAR calculations of Pascha. Pascha is not based upon a solar calendar but upon a lunar cycle.
Also the feast of jewish passover must be taken into consideration if a new "truly" orthodox calendar is to be created.

One thing about our new calendar using churches is their reluctance to undertake the task of creating a liturgically sound calendar which would also be astronomically accurate! Its either the gregorian calendar "as is" or nothing at all.
Thus we must concede to the old calendarists what is already known, that the new calendar issue is for a form of ecumenical syncretism with the western churches. This can be the only logical explanation, because a completely new accurate(both liturgically and astronomical church calendar) is simply common sense not to mention that the Church of Greece in 1918 actually wrote a resolution on this matter!!


Even though "our" churches have for about the last 30 years claimed that Pascha does not need to fall after the first day of the day of azyme; that this is not part of the calculation, (using some believeable yet spurious scholarship), they're lying.
The jews calculate their passover on the day of the first full moon following the vernal equinox. Orthodox not wanting to celebrate Pascha on or before the first day of passover calculates Pascha on the first sundAay FOLLOWING the first full moon after the vernal equinox. Another words if the full moon falls on a sunday Pascha is moved up and celebrated on the next sunday (which means the final day of jewish passover ends on Lazarus saturday and pascha and passover never coincide regardless) .

[Alex Haig]

That the calendar should reflect nature has never been a criteria for a religious calendar in any culture. When winter occurs in the north it is summer in certain areas south of the equator. Judaism (islam as well) has never viewed astronomical accuracy to be important.


Why is this the case? While obviously there is the Northern/Southern Hemispere problem why doesn't nature have its part in the calendar?

With love in Christ

Alex

[Kosta]

That christmas needs to be celebrated in winter is simply a western european custom (with pagan origins).

Likewise, Easter was a spring fertility goddess, and most protestants dye their eggs pastel colors to symbolize the blooming flowers which occur in spring, this is why some in the west believe it must be held in spring, its a "cute" custom. But not the reason Pascha falls in spring.

Of course Christmas wont be celebrated in any other season, other than in winter. Because any attempts to radically change the calendar means you will get firebombed. The world's retail economy depends on Christmas. And if you tamper with it, armies and assasins will be gunning for you. I'm saying this sarcastically but it has a grain of truth to it.

Whats important is the integrity of the liturgical cycle. The interval between the various christian feasts.

Using Christmas as the example, on whatever day it happens to falls on , the Annunciation must then be celebrated 9 months prior. And 8 days AFTER Christmas we commemorate the Circumscision of the Lord, since the torah calls for all males 8 days old to be circumscised, etc etc. Pascha on the other hand is based on the moon not on earths rotation around the sun. So if the astronomical calendar is off, then you must set a fixed date for the equinox. As an example you dont want a strict Lenten fast day to coincide with the day the church "originally" set aside to remember the parable of the publican and pharisee where the pharisee shows off his fasting. (this day in the orthodox calendar is strictly a non-fast day.)

The gregorian calendar doesnt take into consideration fast and non fast days because roman catholics dont fast, thus overlapping of these feasts means nothing for the west. While astronomical inaccuracy is not a problem with the gregorian calendar its an innacurate liturgical calendar. The gregorian calendar is like 15 seconds off a year but this wont become a problem for another 2000 years.

There is no problem with an accurate astronomical calendar but it must be devised to be in accordance with a proper liturgical cycle. This is where the problem lies, no heirarch speaks of this. the calendar controversy remains either the julian or revised gregorian or the gregorian "as is".

[Alex Haig]

Pascha on the other hand is based on the moon not on earths rotation around the sun. So if the astronomical calendar is off, then you must set a fixed date for the equinox.

But is this actually based on the equinox or on a fixed date of the year? Under the Julian Calendar, the date on the equinox changes 3 times every 4 hundred years (I presume), does the calculations for Pascha take this into account?


As an example you dont want a strict Lenten fast day to coincide with the day the church "originally" set aside to remember the parable of the publican and pharisee where the pharisee shows off his fasting. (this day in the orthodox calendar is strictly a non-fast day.)

The date of the Sunday of the Publican and Pharisee is dependent on the date of Pascha so could never fall in the Great Fast.

With love in Christ

Alex

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Kosta, you wrote:


Whats important is the integrity of the liturgical cycle. The interval between the various christian feasts.

Thank you for this posting. I felt it was a very helpful look at the issue of liturgical questions in the calendar issue.

INXC, Matthew

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Kosta and others,

Just to provide proof, however, that no calendar is perfect: this coming year the Old Calendar has Holy Saturday and the feast of the Annunciation on the same day, which is hardly liturgically ideal!

INXC, Matthew

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Kosta and others,

Just to provide proof, however, that no calendar is perfect: this coming year the Old Calendar has Holy Saturday and the feast of the Annunciation on the same day, which is hardly liturgically ideal!

INXC, Matthew

Wow! Holy Saturday Matins is already the most challenging service of the year for our parish. We do the Royal Hours on Friday morning. Then we change the covers from black to white (covering the white covers again with black so they can be removed Holy Sat morning). Then we have the Vespers with the plaschenitsa which most people try to attend. By that point we're basically in some sort of hyper-exhaustion. Only the basic 'crew' shows up for the Matins and we only have enough people to do an in-door 'procession' with the plaschenitsa. (However a nice tradition that spontaneously developed with the plaschenitsa is that everyone, women included, instead of the conventional 6 men, in turns joins in, as we do three circles inside the church.) Annunciation probably means adding the section around the reading of the Festal Gospel & added tropars for the Feast at the canon, plus stichiri at the Praises.

It's sometimes surprising however how exactly when you reach your breaking point in these services grace steps in to help. I think on that night we'll ask & need the special prayers of the Theotokos.

Liturgy may not be too different (3 added readings from the Old Testament, plus Festal epistle & Gospel?) as it already is a Vesperal Liturgy.

Actually if we manage to survive this it should be very interesting.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Kris]

Peace,

I have not read all the previous posts in detail, so forgive me if I am repeating what has already been said.

I am under the Patriarchate of Constantinople and therefore under the New Calendar, which I follow in submission to my Bishop. However, I have deep reservations about this innovation.

In addition to causing a rift in the Church of Christ, a conflict that doesn't seem like it will fade until the Traditional Calendar is restored, the New Calendar has a number of other problems.

The main problem is the fact that the Fast of the Apostles, one of the four important fasts of the Church, is significantly reduced; some years not occuring at all. Last year I fasted for only two days, whereas my brothers and sisters in the Holy Land, Russia, Serbia, etc. fasted for two weeks.

The only way one could solve such a problem would be to either return to the Traditional Calendar or to adopt the Gregorian Paschalion (as the Church of Finland has done). The former would solve conflict, the latter would deepen it. I know which I prefer.

Yes, the New Calendar is more astronomically accurate, but that is of little or no importance in a religious context. And using one calendar for Pascha and another for the rest of the year is silly (if not even heretical).

Adopting the New Calendar has not brought us any closer to union with the heterodox (which was the intention of the reformers), since it has done nothing to bring them closer to Orthodoxy (them becoming Orthodox being an essential prerequisite for any union).

So, other than causing violence, death, division, mistrust and the removal of a fast (not to mention that I can no longer buy Christmas presents during January sales :-)), what exactly have been the benefits?

All I see if bad fruit; so it seems to me that the tree is rotten.

Please pray for me, a sinner.

[Ryan]

I yet to meet anyone who thinks the New Calendar was a good idea. I currently attend a Greek Archdiocese parish, and even the priest says to me that the Old Calendar should never have been changed.

I'm not too familiar with the politics of this- what are the chances of the Old Calendar being restored in the Ecumenical Patriarchate? What would have to be done to make this happen? Can individual parishes adopt the Old Calendar for themselves?

[Kris]

I yet to meet anyone who thinks the New Calendar was a good idea. I currently attend a Greek Archdiocese parish, and even the priest says to me that the Old Calendar should never have been changed.

I'm not too familiar with the politics of this- what are the chances of the Old Calendar being restored in the Ecumenical Patriarchate? What would have to be done to make this happen? Can individual parishes adopt the Old Calendar for themselves?

Peace,

Since the Ecumenical Patriarchate was one of the jurisdictions that pioneered the calendar reforms, I have a feeling that would be one of the last jurisdictions that would restore the Old Calendar. I think only an overwhelming rejection of the New Calendar among the people could instigate a reversal of the reform. Considering that the majority of the Ecumenical Patriarchate's adherants live in America, Western Europe and Australia, where people are mostly indifferent or supportive of the calendar reforms, I don't see this happening any time soon.

The Greek government would also be quite a powerful factor in this I think (it shouldn't be, but it is), so a "revolt" within the Church of Greece could possibly have an impact on the EP.

I know the OCA gave each parish the option to adopt the New Calendar or keep the Old, but I think this is unique to the OCA.

In XC,
Kris

[Herman Blaydoe]

I know the OCA gave each parish the option to adopt the New Calendar or keep the Old, but I think this is unique to the OCA.
Actually ACROD allows the same option to old parishes but all new parishes are New Calendar, and if an older parish does adopt the NC it is not allowed to switch back.

[Michael Astley]

Who are ACROD?

Fr Andrew Phillips has written a splendid piece on this, which I have in Orthodox Christianity and the English Tradition, and which may be read online here (http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/ocet08.htm).

[Peter Farrington]

In the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate the British Orthodox Church all use the New Calendar, while the rest of the Patriarchate is Old Calendar (very old in fact, Pharonic!).

This doesn't seem to have caused any problems. I think we believed it would be necessary/useful for our mission to British people, and I believe that it has worked out like that.

Peter

[John Charmley]

Dear Peter,

I am grateful to Michael for directing us towards that article in Orthodox England, which is an excellent explanation of the history and importance of this issue.

I am struck, in reading it, by analogies in my own experiences within the Anglican Church. Those of us of a conservative or traditionalist caste of mind are, I fear, always put on the uneasy defensive when our hierarchs go and do something which offends against our traditional understanding of our Faith, and my sympathy goes out to those in that position within the Orthodox Church.

For more than twenty years, as a very traditionalist Anglican, I was faced with wave after wave of this, and it leaves one uneasy whatever one does. Disagreeing with one's bishop can lead to disobedience, and good Christians are called to obedience; so even finding the language within which to couch one's disagreement can be a problem - let alone the fact that some bishops have a very low threshold of tolerance for any sort of dissent.

On the other hand, obedience to something which runs counter to the traditional teaching of the Church is painful; something, of course, obedience can be, and speaking for myself, I adopted the line that the more painful, the better for my humility - even to the point at which I would go to my local church rather than another a few miles away where the services were Book of Common Prayer.

It seemed to me that there was a distinction between two classes of issue - for which I am sure someone here has a better nomenclature - the one was what I came to call 'inessential tradition', that is something that was traditional but seemed not to encroach on the substance of the Faith - so in my local case that was something like the service book; I had always treasured the BCP, but it was not of the essence of the Faith. Then there were 'essential traditions' - and here something like the ordination of women caused a great difficulty.

In the end, for me, the more the Church of England moved down the modernist liberal road towards a form of sacralised social work, the clearer it became to me that I was no longer within it.

Even asking how traditionalists cope with such changes seems to me, even now, rather Protestant - surely the answer is clear? They obey their hierarchs and, if necessary, mortify their spirit in obedience. As I read Fr. Andrew's excellent article, its tone reminded me so strongly of that of organisations within Anglicanism like Forward in the Faith, that it brought this train of thought to mind.

I see, from the outside, the strains this causes within Orthodoxy, and wonder whether, as part of its sojourn in these western lands, this will be part of the wave of its future; I have a suspicion that anyone who thinks that the issue of women priests will go away, or not be an issue in 25 years time may be fooling him or herself.

I am interested, Peter, in the difference in tone within the Coptic patriarchate, where it seems as though Pope Shenouda is prepared to take an eirenic view on the matter of the calendar. Still, when one operates on one as old as the pharoahs, I suppose it gives one a sense of perspective lacking to those of us using a calendar less than 2000 years old!


In Christ,

John

[Peter Farrington]

Hi John

It is clear from the protocol of union between the British Orthodox Church and the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate that Pope Shenouda and the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate wanted and expected the British Orthodox Church to be British and culturally sensistive, even while an integral part of the Patriarchate.

So it is understood that, for instance, advice given in confession will be culturally relevant and will not merely seek to reproduce advice that is culturally relevant in a Middle Eastern and especially Egyptian context.

This may well be scandalous for some, though the Synod of bishops and all the priests and people I know have no problem with such differences. It is well known, for instance, that British Christians have a different attitude towards alcohol than Coptic Christians. This is not least because of our different climates. Should there be a universal rule for all? I don't believe so.

In the same way I think that the calendar is viewed as rather a culturally conditioned element of Church life. Within each Church there is a need for coherence, but the Patriarchate, as a home for a variety of cultural and ethnic expressions of Orthodoxy, has room for diversity.

Indeed I think that the presence and celebration of diversity in the Oriental Orthodox communion, with a unity of faith, is a model for the response to the different culture of the British Orthodox Church. If we can be the same Church with Armenians, Syrians, Ethiopians etc, then adding in some British and French is not a big deal.

Peter

[Herman Blaydoe]

Who are ACROD?American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese, under Metropolitan Nicholas of Amissos in Johnstown PA. The little diocese with the BIG name! It used to be the "Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Diocese of America".

[Andrew]

The New Calendar is good if it is instituted to sanctify the US/British/etc. civil calendar. I have no problem being on this calendar... I'd rather all the Orthodox be under one calendar, but in my eyes it's fine that different Bishops under different circumstances use different dates. I think one essential thing is to keep all Orthodox celebrating the Holy Week at the same time, though.

But anyways, my opinion on these matters doesn't amount to much. I'm fine either way, New or Old.

[Peter Farrington]

I think I have pretty much the same view, Andrew, in that for me it was not a deal breaker one way or the other. Just as I don't get to tell my bishop what liturgy we should be using.

But I do think that the NC is useful for mission in the UK.

Nativity is the only time I have thought it would be nice to be out of step, but I always find myself thinking that what is needed is to fight back and create a space for the Christian celebration and not give up the field of battle entirely.

Peter

[John Charmley]

Dear Peter,

Although I see the other side, I think you are correct - not least with regard to mission. Not so much because the NC makes it easier (which I doubt) but because to many outside of Orthodoxy the feelings expressed against the NC look both unChristian and out of proportion; they can seem, to the uninitiated (i.e. about 98% of the population of the UK), to smack of the Pharisaical. Of course, having read the learned posts here, I can now be better informed and see why the feelings are aroused - but the expression of them in the way that has happened at times does not make a good impression on those on the look out for bigotry and closed minds.

That is not to say that the arguments in favour of the OC are not compelling - indeed reading what has been posted here has given me much food for thought. But if they were more often expressed as they are here - and without the vitriol against the Patriarch who instituted it here - it would be a more impressive example of Christian witness; even as it has been here.


In Christ,


John

[Peter Farrington]

Dear John

I think the important thing in relation to the experience of the British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate, and perhaps also with relation to the Finnish Orthodox Church within the Ecumencial Patriarchate, is that there is the practice of open-heartedness towards diversity with regard to the calendar.

I still think it does have a missiological value. I am thinking especially that my own local community will be doing something for St George's Day and St Alban's Day, among others, and these dates only have value for most British people on the NC. When we send a greeting to all the St Alban's Churches in my own county, for instance, they will be confused if they do not receive it on his NC feast day.

But I am not an ideologue when it comes to the calendar and would use whatever my bishop instructed. Indeed when the BOC united with the COP I rather expected that we would have to use the OC and wasn't disturbed by it.

As ever

Peter

[Kusanagi]

Quite possibly because the Old Greek Calendarist consider him one of their own saints, because St Nicholas followed the old calender and the new. But gave preference it seems over the new.
I could be wrong on this.

[Vasiliki D.]

Quite possibly because the Old Greek Calendarist consider him one of their own saints, because St Nicholas followed the old calender and the new. But gave preference it seems over the new.
I could be wrong on this.

We need to be careful when talking about the elders in Greece and the Old/new calendar. There are a group of Old Calendar people who maintain that those who worship with the New Calendar are 'broken off' to the Body of Christ ... those who teach this are in disagreement with God's wishes ... there are two highly revered Elders of our times who (on Mount Athos) joined this Old Calendar movement and were antagonists to the New Calendar. They came to realise that this was not God's wishes ...

Now, while most of the Elders DO follow the old Calendar they DO NOT antagonise those who are with the New Calendar since they know it is the will of God for this to be permitted ... when God is ready, I am sure that He will reunite us New Calendar folk with the Old Calendar ... I believe this.

[Paul Cowan]

I think there is special about Orthodoxy to be "set apart" from the world. I converted to Orthodoxy 8 years ago and until 4 years ago did not know there was such a thing as old and new calendars. I am ready to follow the old calendar, but am under the jurisdiction of the new. So I too pray for the uniting of the two calendars.

Paul

[Vasiliki D.]

I think there is special about Orthodoxy to be "set apart" from the world. I converted to Orthodoxy 8 years ago and until 4 years ago did not know there was such a thing as old and new calendars. I am ready to follow the old calendar, but am under the jurisdiction of the new. So I too pray for the uniting of the two calendars.

Paul

I often wish I was part of the Old Calendar since it is Byzantine in its nature and I have much respect for the development of Christianity in that time. However, God granted me to be born in Australia and i was raised in the orthodox church that is following the New Calendar. I believe I do not have the right to leave this arm of orthodoxy ... it does not stop me for praying for the unity of Old and New, however, co-existing does not appear to be a sin as there are Saints from both :-) So, if God is happy with it so am I.

[Kusanagi]

We need to be careful when talking about the elders in Greece and the Old/new calendar. There are a group of Old Calendar people who maintain that those who worship with the New Calendar are 'broken off' to the Body of Christ ... those who teach this are in disagreement with God's wishes ... there are two highly revered Elders of our times who (on Mount Athos) joined this Old Calendar movement and were antagonists to the New Calendar. They came to realise that this was not God's wishes ...

Now, while most of the Elders DO follow the old Calendar they DO NOT antagonise those who are with the New Calendar since they know it is the will of God for this to be permitted ... when God is ready, I am sure that He will reunite us New Calendar folk with the Old Calendar ... I believe this.

Yes but i feel due to these issues that is what could be causing St Nicholas Planas to be not well known, or it could be because St Nicholas wants to remain hidden.

Well i do know unfortunately of how some of the supports act in both the old and new prevents the union of the calendars. I read in the Russian Golgotha book, i believe it is from that the new calendar wanted to be in communion with the old and the old calendarist can keep their calendar but sadly they didnt want anything to do with the union.

But anyway I think it makes it something extra special when you do eventually find a saint that is so well hidden. My friend told me she had such spiritual joy when she found an icon of St Xenia of Kalamata and told me it is not easy to locate such an icon. I am sure the same can be applied to those that do eventually find St Nicholas.

[Jonathan Michael]

I often wish I was part of the Old Calendar since it is Byzantine in its nature and I have much respect for the development of Christianity in that time. However, God granted me to be born in Australia and i was raised in the orthodox church that is following the New Calendar. I believe I do not have the right to leave this arm of orthodoxy ... it does not stop me for praying for the unity of Old and New, however, co-existing does not appear to be a sin as there are Saints from both :-) So, if God is happy with it so am I.

When I desired to enter Orthodoxy I was in China, and so looked up the Orthodox parish priest "local" to my hometown back in England. I must admit that I was quite pleased that it just so happened to be on the Old Calendar. Later, when I found out where I could worship in Beijing, I found myself also being on the Old Calendar (as part of the Moscow Patriarchate) with no option to choose a New Calendar parish. Whatever reasons conspired to bring me into contact only with the Old Calendar, I certainly know it isn't because one is "better" than the other. I trust that God chose to bring me into Orthodoxy this way because it is what was best for me.

But, anyway, Happy Feast of the Theophany for all those who celebrate it today!

[Vasiliki D.]

I certainly know it isn't because one is "better" than the other. I trust that God chose to bring me into Orthodoxy this way because it is what was best for me.

Not including the non-Canonical Old Calendar, Jonathan, in all honesty, if we all thought this way there would be less bickering between the canonical Old Calendar churches and the canonical New Calendar churches of God. There is a reason in His wisdom that He has permitted this distinction (notice that I dont call it a split - I dont see this as a split from the authentic Body of Christ).

In His time, if He wills it, we may come together again and celebrate under the one calendar. In the meantime, we must not cause divisions for each other and work together to worship God and seek His salvation in our life!

[Dimitris]

I think there is special about Orthodoxy to be "set apart" from the world.
Hallo!

I wonder if we, as Orthodox, should really aim to be "set apart" from the world. According to the new calendar, yesterday, January 6th, was the feast of Epiphany and in the Epistle of the feast we read: "we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age" (Titus 2:12). So there is the command to live in the present age, not somehow apart or away from the rest of the world. Isn't the wish of being set apart a kind of triumphalism and arrogance, which we should in any way avoid?

A calendar, in my eyes, is nothing Godly inspired, it's just a tool to measure time. So why shouldn't we improve that tool if we have the possibility to? Aren't the sophisticated possibilities with which we observe the world actually God-given? Why should we then ignore the results of these observations?

Another issue is the fact, that if we continue to follow the old calendar, we will at some time celebrate Christmas in summer and Easter in Autumn - not in the next 100 years, but as Orthodox we should have a sense for past, present and future. I know this is actually the case in the southern hemisphere like Australia. But our Saviour and God lived in the northern hemisphere where also the "original area" of Orthodoxy was and I cannot believe it was just by accident that He was born during the season where the days were dark and shortest of the year and began to increase again and was resurrected during the season when after the winter time nature came alive again. I cannot imagine to celebrate Christmas when days are becoming shorter and to celebrate Easter when nature dies and sets for winter rest. (So you see, I would have a hard time if I lived in the southern hemisphere of earth ;)).

[Paul Cowan]

Hallo!

I wonder if we, as Orthodox, should really aim to be "set apart" from the world. According to the new calendar, yesterday, January 6th, was the feast of Epiphany and in the Epistle of the feast we read: "we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age" (Titus 2:12). So there is the command to live in the present age, not somehow apart or away from the rest of the world. Isn't the wish of being set apart a kind of triumphalism and arrogance, which we should in any way avoid?



Sorry, I should have not tried to put two ideas into one post. I am having a hard time lately expressing myself.

What does it mean "we are in the world but not of the world"? This is what I mean to be set apart. We live in this place of sensuality but do not have to participate with it. We engage with people every day, but do not have to do as they do. We are known by the fruit we bare. We are supposed to be the light in the room not under the bushel. We are supposed to be different so people will come to us to see what we have and we say "come and see".

If we are not "set apart" or maybe a better term is try to maintain a higher standard of morals, though we be sinners, then how are we different than the pagans? I am not suggesting we close ourselves up and shun others. I am saying IN Orthodoxy, we are "different" and that makes us more accountable before God because this particular Talent he gave is precious.

Just as Israel was set apart as His chosen people; so too I think is Orthodoxy. And no I am not saying other people are less than us. Heaven forbid. I am just saying we are called to act different.

Paul

[Herman Blaydoe]

Are we not working to reclaim Creation? To set Creation apart as well? In the world but not of the world, reclaiming life from the dominion of death. If we do not touch the world, we cannot reclaim it. We do not do the reclaiming, but He chooses to work through us.

Or so it seems to this bear of little brain.

Herman the Pooh

[Vasiliki D.]

Apostle Paul tells us that Creation "SISTENAZI" (I will follow up with the reference) ... "it sighs with us".

In addition, Revelation and the Book of Isaiah are proof enough to show that Orthodox prayers keep Creation from "turning" on us sooner (ie. It is the prayers of the Orthodox that "reclaim" Creation from falling WITH the continual fall of huamnity (ie. as the faith grows weaker so too does Creation - SISTENAZI)

See also Creation "turning" on us in Isaiah 24:19-22:

19 ταραχῇ ταραχθήσεται ἡ γῆ, καὶ ἀπορίᾳ ἀπορηθήσεται ἡ γῆ· 20 ἔκλινεν ὡς ὁ μεθύων καὶ κραιπαλῶν, καὶ σεισθήσεται ὡς ὀπωροφυλάκιον ἡ γῆ, καὶ πεσεῖται καὶ οὐ μὴ δύνηται ἀναστῆναι, κατίσχυσε γὰρ ἐπ᾿ αὐτῆς ἡ ἀνομία. 21 καὶ ἐπάξει ὁ Θεὸς ἐπὶ τὸν κόσμον τοῦ οὐρανοῦ τὴν χεῖρα καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς βασιλεῖς τῆς γῆς· 22 καὶ συνάξουσι καὶ ἀποκλείσουσιν εἰς ὀχύρωμα καὶ εἰς δεσμωτήριον, διὰ πολλῶν γενεῶν ἐπισκοπὴ ἔσται αὐτῶν.

It is only after the Second Coming of Christ that He will "reclaim" His entire Creation that is us (with our bodies) and the creation around us only because He said that ALL of creation was made for us (prior to our fall) so then if it is all for us it can not be destroyed even after the Second Coming ... it merely undergoes a change to its "Schema" (Book of Isaiah) so ultimately at some point or other it will be reclaimed FOR the Saints ...

[Ryan]

There is a difference between living in the world, and "friendship with the world," which, St. James tells us, is "enmity towards God". I believe the motives behind the New Calendar sprang from this latter attitude. The New Calendar was introduced as part of an agenda to compromise the Church as a distinctive body. Living "in the world" does not imply altering the ecclesiastical calendar to fit the secular one (which have completely different purposes anyway) any more than it implies changing dogma to accommodate worldly views.

Arguments can be made that the Old Calendar should have been changed for reasons of astronomical accuracy, but this was not the key motive behind the New Calendar we have today, and it should have been done much more cautiously and with the assent of all the Orthodox Churches.

[Vasiliki D.]

There is a difference between living in the world, and "friendship with the world," which, St. James tells us, is "enmity towards God". I believe the motives behind the New Calendar sprang from this latter attitude. The New Calendar was introduced as part of an agenda to compromise the Church as a distinctive body. Living "in the world" does not imply altering the ecclesiastical calendar to fit the secular one (which have completely different purposes anyway) any more than it implies changing dogma to accommodate worldly views.

Arguments can be made that the Old Calendar should have been changed for reasons of astronomical accuracy, but this was not the key motive behind the New Calendar we have today, and it should have been done much more cautiously and with the assent of all the Orthodox Churches.

What I dont understand with style of argument is that in the Old Testament we have many examples where the action was not necessarily right, it was still a path that God approved for His people to follow ...

Maybe I am hoping for too much to be open to the possibility that some times what we see as WRONG right now God sees right for later down the track and maybe I am hoping too much in trusting in the fact that God knows what is better for the future than what we do ... I am wondering if anyone has ever come across this style of belief or if it is acceptable with the church?

[Jonathan Michael]

Yes, of course; what you say, Vasiliki is just another way of confessing what St. Paul says in Romans: that God brings "all things together for the good of His people". A specific example of this, and there are many, is Joseph's brothers selling him into slavery; the wrong decision, done from the wrong motives, but through God made into good. That is why Jospeh, upon being reunited with his brothers, says: "do not be distressed or angry with youselves because you sold me here; for God sent me before you to preserve life... it was not you who sent me here, but God."

So, yes, this could be a similar situation with the New Calendar; I do agree with Ryan that it seems to have been introduced with the wrong motives but.... who knows what God will make of it; it's still been less than 100 years, and God doesn't always work in human time. And besides, even with the New Calendar, we can still say that "time" has been reclaimed by the Church. Within the Church, the New Year is not Jan 1st - whichever calendar we use - but Sep 1st. So there is a difference. And when the secular world arbitarily celebrates the new year on Jan 1st, those under the new calendar celebrate St. Basil's day. The dates of the church are not given over to months named after Roman gods and numbered, but they're given over to Christ, His Mother, and all the Saints.

Jonathan, writing on the Feast of the Nativity (OC)/Synaxis of the Forerunner St. John (NC).

[Vasiliki D.]

Yes, of course; what you say, Vasiliki is just another way of confessing what St. Paul says in Romans: that God brings "all things together for the good of His people". A specific example of this, and there are many, is Joseph's brothers selling him into slavery; the wrong decision, done from the wrong motives, but through God made into good. That is why Jospeh, upon being reunited with his brothers, says: "do not be distressed or angry with youselves because you sold me here; for God sent me before you to preserve life... it was not you who sent me here, but God."

So, yes, this could be a similar situation with the New Calendar; I do agree with Ryan that it seems to have been introduced with the wrong motives but.... who knows what God will make of it; it's still been less than 100 years, and God doesn't always work in human time.

Many Saints were sinners - made bad choices - but ultimately ended up Saints. Many Saints had different purposes (ascetic versus FFC, theologian, martyr) regardless of the different character, regardless of the different era 9time) ultimately ended up Saints a person God blessed regardless of what other people thought.

St. Nicholas slapped that guy in front of the entire council - NO ONE approved! God vindicated him for all to witness and learn from ...

The New Calendar churches produce Saints ... God is there and anyone who disagrees with God should be careful. Glory to God for his Will to be done always and as we pray on Sunday ... let us pray for the unity of His Body only.

Job 40:2 "Shall the one who contends with the Almighty correct him? He who rebukes God let him answer it"

Job 40:4 " Behold I am vile; What shall I answer you? I lay my hand over my mouth."

Job 40:5 "Once I have spoken, but I will not answer; Yes, twice, but I will proceed no further"

[Ryan]

What I dont understand with style of argument is that in the Old Testament we have many examples where the action was not necessarily right, it was still a path that God approved for His people to follow ...

Maybe I am hoping for too much to be open to the possibility that some times what we see as WRONG right now God sees right for later down the track and maybe I am hoping too much in trusting in the fact that God knows what is better for the future than what we do ... I am wondering if anyone has ever come across this style of belief or if it is acceptable with the church?


Obviously God can and has brought good out of evil many times, and the New Calendar may be no exception in the future. But so far, it seems to me that the fruits of the New Calendar have for the most part been evil, namely, the Old Calendarist schisms, the festal disunity within the Church, and the various liturgical problems. Perhaps in the future something good can come of the New Calendar to balance out all the problems it has introduced, but until then, in my opinion, it remains an indefensible innovation that should be reversed as soon as possible.

[Dimitris]

But so far, it seems to me that the fruits of the New Calendar have for the most part been evil
You could also see it the other way round: The continued use of the old calendar could have caused all these troubles.

I don't feel at all comfortable with that personifications of the calendars. "The good old calendar" and "the evil new calendar". It sometimes even seems to me like idolizing a tool that was invented by man to measure time.

[Vasiliki D.]

Job 40:2 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NKJV&passage=Job+40%3A2) "Shall the one who contends with the Almighty correct him? He who rebukes God let him answer it"

Job 40:4 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NKJV&passage=Job+40%3A4) " Behold I am vile; What shall I answer you? I lay my hand over my mouth."
Job 40:5 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NKJV&passage=Job+40%3A5) "Once I have spoken, but I will not answer; Yes, twice, but I will proceed no further"

I don't feel at all comfortable with that personifications of the calendars.

I agree Dimitri. Especially when so miracles are worked through the Orthodox Churches that are following the New Calendar ... myrrh streaming icons, miraculous visitations, healing and visitations of the saints ...

IF this debate was about dogmatical issues such as "Is God a Holy Trinity", the "Ever-Virginity" of the Holy "Theotokos" etc then agreed, the point of view you hold with regards to those issues affects your salvation ... the calendar DOES NOT affect your salvation.

Christ's promise to the governing bodies of the Church is that "What is Bound on Earth is Bound in Heaven". He never said to the Apostles, and those following the Apostolic succession - "What you bind on Earth is Bound in Heaven ONLY IF ... ". Philosophically, there is room for errors in their Earth binding decisions which regardless WILL be adopted (approved) in Heaven also ... let's be careful. We must not judge the decisions of the Hierarchs - not ALL are called to be Apostles, not all are called to be prophets ... let each of us follow our calling ... I am certainly NOT called to be a Hierarch and therefore have not right to judge their decisions made.

[Ryan]

You could also see it the other way round: The continued use of the old calendar could have caused all these troubles.

Such a view would only make sense, in my opinion, if one ignores the fact that the New Calendar was introduced unilaterally, at the initiative of a Freemason intent on effecting a union between the Church and heterodox elements. It was also the New Calendarists who allowed the state to coerce and repress dissenters. So it seems to me that to say that "the continued use of the old calendar caused all these troubles" is to blame the victim. Many respected elders (eg Elder Philotheos Zervakos) issued stern warnings about the possible ramifications of introducing the new calendar- the responsibility for a breach of tradition lies in the ones who introduce it, not the ones who resist it.


I don't feel at all comfortable with that personifications of the calendars. "The good old calendar" and "the evil new calendar". It sometimes even seems to me like idolizing a tool that was invented by man to measure time.

It's not a question of idolizing, but simply respecting all the traditions of the church. I can think of some sound reasons for considering a revision of the Old Calendar, but these were not primary motives behind the New Calendar. For the record, I attend a New Calendar church.

[Ryan]

IF this debate was about dogmatical issues such as "Is God a Holy Trinity", the "Ever-Virginity" of the Holy "Theotokos" etc then agreed, the point of view you hold with regards to those issues affects your salvation ... the calendar DOES NOT affect your salvation.

Is the way a priest dresses at liturgy a dogmatic issue? Is it really essential to salvation? Probably not... nevertheless, I think it would be perfectly legitimate to express outrage if a given diocese forced its priests to wear business suits.

I don't think anyone here is saying that one cannot be saved in a new calendar church (I attend one myself) but that does not mean that the introduction of the new calendar wasn't an error.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear friends,

The matter of the calendar is a complex one. Try as people on both 'sides' of the issue may, it cannot be reduced to any utterly simple, quenches-all-arguments statement. My own personal conviction is that one position is 'simpler' (without really caring to enter into the discussion terribly, I cannot myself see any significant justification for the adoption of the new calendar); but this can in no way suggest a presumed answer. These tend to be born out of a desire, above all, not to address the question.

But as to one specific point: everything undertaken in the Christian life affects one's salvation. It is part of the heresy of modern reductionism, to presume that only a few things 'matter theologically', matter dogmatically, and everything else is essentially relative. However one wishes to speak on the question of the calendar, let us not fall into this trap. If the way one dresses, one moves, etc., affect our life in Christ, how much more the very means by which we give order to the entire scope of our liturgical engagement with the whole of human-divine reality!

If discussion on this topic is to be fruitful, rather than (as it so often is) simply a back-and-forth of our own views and thoughts, let us begin above all by hubmling ourselves, seeking to explore, understand, and conform our understandings to the mind of the fathers.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Andreas Moran]

Especially when so miracles are worked through the Orthodox Churches that are following the New Calendar ... myrrh streaming icons, miraculous visitations, healing and visitations of the saints ...

This raises an interesting point but I would like to know exactly what miracles are known to have occurred on the new calendar (I can only think of the appearance of the snakes in Kefalonia on the feast of the Dormition) and if there any saints who followed the new calendar exclusively. Annual events such as the Holy Light in the church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem at Pacha and the reversal of the flow of the River Jordan at Theophany occur according to the old calendar. (I know almost all Orthodox Churches observe Pascha on the old calendar.)

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Andreas, you wrote:


I know almost all Orthodox Churches observe Pascha on the old calendar.

Simply as a matter of clarification, it is worth noting that the keeping of the Paschal cycle is not itself related directly to the question of the 'old' versus 'new' calendars, since the Paschal cycle is determined by the cycles of the moon fairly independently of the calendar date -- whatever this may be. There is a separate issue of 'old' versus 'new' Paschalion; but the Church has, with the exception only of the Ecumenical Patriarchate's autonomous Church in Finland, rejected any movements towards the latter.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Father David Moser]

Simply as a matter of clarification, it is worth noting that the keeping of the Paschal cycle is not itself related directly to the question of the 'old' versus 'new' calendars, since the Paschal cycle is determined by the cycles of the moon fairly independently of the calendar date -- whatever this may be.

That could be said in a technical manner, but the fixed calendar and the Paschal Cycle are closely intertwined and interdependent. The dates used for cycles of the moon in the Paschal cycle are determined by a table prepared by the fathers of the Church which uses the Julian calendar dates for its computation. By using a process dependent upon Julian dates for Pascha and Gregorian dates for the fixed feasts, a number odd conflicts are produced. One of the canonical requirements is that Pascha does not fall during the month of May - and when one uses the new calendar, Pascha does occasionally fall during the month of May. The problems with the feast of St George which presumes that Pascha has recently passed (because it could never fall prior to Pascha on the old calendar) is another example. I believe (but am not certain) that KyrioPascha (when Annunciation falls on Pascha) is not possible on the new calendar and yet that particular confluence of feasts is considered to be of great importance. And then there is the more frequently encountered issue of the Apostles fast (or as happens on the new calendar that the fast ends before it begins).

So, while you might be able to say that the use of the Julian/Gregorian calendar for the fixed feasts is not an identical issue with the Paschal Cycle, I do believe that the two issues are intimately and directly related since the Paschal calendar is by design dependent upon the fixed calendar and the fixed calendar is by design dependent on the Paschal Cycle.

Many of the conflicts between old and new calendar could be eliminated if, instead of using the old calendar computations for Pascha and the new calendar dates for the menaion, we would use either new calendar Pascha and new calendar menaion or old calendar Pascha and old calendar menaion. The problem is not with the "calendar" itself, but with the fact that using two separate calendars messes up the intricate connection between the Paschal cycle and the fixed cycle.

Fr David Moser

[Eric Peterson]

Of course there are New Calendar saints. Elder Cleopa of Romania, Elder Iakovos of Evia, Fr. Dimitri Gagastathis, to name but a few. It would be ridiculous to assert that the use of the New Calendar is a hindrance to holiness.

[Robert Hegwood]

So far as I can see it there are two major factors to consider with regard to the new calendar.

1. Its major clunkishness between its fixed and movable parts as noted by Fr. David.

2. The manner in which it was implemented.

Given the testimony of miracles and Saints we cannot say that the new calender for all its flaws is heretical. Ugly in places yes, heretical no, even if its initiating forces were pushing in that direction. Nor can we say that the desire to have better syncronization between the natural year and the liturgical calendar is a bad thing.

But the way it was implemented was far out of keeping with all Orthodox tradition and mindset. It senselessly invited schism. That aspect of it can be roundly and soundly condemned by all without fear of contradiction. But be that as it may, for the time being it is a situation that has been on the ground too long and we are stuck with it for a bit longer.

What is needed is a pan Orthodox council to settle the matter...to move us back as a body to the Old Calendar, or to fix the gross irregularities of the new one and to find willing concensus on the matter with other Orthodox bodies. Until that day we should be patient with the situation and prayerful for our bishops and priests who must administer the liturgical life of the Church.

[Herman Blaydoe]

What is needed is a pan Orthodox council to settle the matter...to move us back as a body to the Old Calendar, or to fix the gross irregularities of the new one and to find willing concensus on the matter with other Orthodox bodies. Until that day we should be patient with the situation and prayerful for our bishops and priests who must administer the liturgical life of the Church.

I think it is worth noting all that is necessary to fix the "gross irregularities" is to make a relatively minor adjustment to the calculation of Pascha. There is a committee in existance now with Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox participation to look at the matter. The Catholics and Protestants seem open to the idea of changing how Easter is calculated and I think that the present Orthodox method could be modified without damaging the Faith since it is rather artificial to begin with, using an artificial date for the Spring Equinox. The only real obstacle are those who insist on using the Julian Calendar and see any hint of "change" to be a threat to the entire Faith. I personally think that God is bigger than any man-made calendar, and especially not beholden to a calendar originally formulated by pagans. Julius Caesar was not a Christian and who do you think the Julian Calendar is named for?

But I am only a bear of very little brain, and find some of the reasonings for defending the Julian Calendar far beyond my ability to comprehend.

Herman the new calendar Pooh

[Eric Peterson]

I hardly think it's necessary to "fix" anything with the Paschalion now. It's not like a June Pascha is on the horizon like an asteroid about to crash into earth.

[Andreas Moran]

It would be ridiculous to assert that the use of the New Calendar is a hindrance to holiness.

Being a spiritual 'grandson' of Elder Sophrony, I wouldn't disagree.


Of course there are New Calendar saints. Elder Cleopa of Romania, Elder Iakovos of Evia, Fr. Dimitri Gagastathis, to name but a few.

Have any of these actually been canonised?

The fixing of the date of Pascha has to take into account the canons which forbid Pascha to be on or before the Jewish Passover. The Julian calendar properly avoids this. The new calendar does not, which is why the Finnish Church (EP) behaves uncanonically which is to be deplored, and is why western Easter is wrongly calculated. Such is the reason for maintaining the Julian calendar, notwithstanding he after whom it was named.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Andreas:

You wrote:


The fixing of the date of Pascha has to take into account the canons which forbid Pascha to be on or before the Jewish Passover. The Julian calendar properly avoids this. The new calendar does not, which is why the Finnish Church (EP) behaves uncanonically which is to be deplored, and is why western Easter is wrongly calculated. Such is the reason for maintaining the Julian calendar, notwithstanding he after whom it was named.

What Fr Dn Matthew wrote above is correct: on the New Calendar the Paschal cycle is still according to the way in which it is kept by those who follow the Old Calendar. That is why for all of us in Orthodoxy (except for the church of Finland) Pascha is on the same day.

This is also why in some Orthodox jurisdictions the New Calendar is sometimes called the Revised Julian Calendar. It has revised the Menaion cycle to accord with what in the west is the civil calendar; but for the Paschal cycle it follows the same lunar based computations as the Julian does.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Andreas Moran]

Thank you, Father, for that clarification.

[Herman Blaydoe]

he fixing of the date of Pascha has to take into account the canons which forbid Pascha to be on or before the Jewish Passover. The Julian calendar properly avoids this. The new calendar does not, which is why the Finnish Church (EP) behaves uncanonically which is to be deplored, and is why western Easter is wrongly calculated. Such is the reason for maintaining the Julian calendar, notwithstanding he after whom it was named.

Actually that is not what the canon says. Canon 7 declares: "If a bishop, a priest, or a deacon celebrates the holy day of Pascha before the vernal equinox. with the Jews. let him be deposed." Adjustments to "western" Easter could be made to ensure this doesn't happen, after all it is not a "fixed" date to begin with.

You might find out more than you want to be aware of here (http://www.oca.org/Docs.asp?ID=133&SID=12).

Knowledge can be a scary thing at times.

Herman the Pooh

[Jonathan Michael]

This is also why in some Orthodox jurisdictions the New Calendar is sometimes called the Revised Julian Calendar. It has revised the Menaion cycle to accord with what in the west is the civil calendar;

Yes, and I think this is because there are canons specifically stating that to use the Gregorian calendar (for observing the Menaion cycle) is uncanonical; is that right?

In any case, because the new calendar is simply the Julian Calendar "corrected" so that it is the same as the Gregorian means that it retains the inaccuracies that caused the (Old) Julian Calendar to be 13 days behind the Gregorian today. Sure, it will take a few hundred years before the New Calendar slips behind the Gregorian calendar again, but by Orthodox standards that's still a short term fix.

[Herman Blaydoe]

In any case, because the new calendar is simply the Julian Calendar "corrected" so that it is the same as the Gregorian means that it retains the inaccuracies that caused the (Old) Julian Calendar to be 13 days behind the Gregorian today. Sure, it will take a few hundred years before the New Calendar slips behind the Gregorian calendar again, but by Orthodox standards that's still a short term fix.

Specifically in the year 2800, unless He comes back before then. Either way, it won't be your or my problem, and perhaps a better solution will be found by then, but it will diverge much more slowly, since it does not retain ALL the inaccuracies that the Julian calendar does.

I have been trying to stay out of this one, but I have to say that I don't understand how a calendar designed by a pagan empire can be considered "holy". A calendar is nothing more than man's attempt to mark the metre of God's celestial dance. The Julian calendar is out of synchronization. the Gregorian calendar is not perfect because we are trying to reconcile three totally independent cycles, the Earth's rotation upon its own axis, its rotation around the Sun, and the Moon's rotation around the Earth, periodic adjustments will always be necessary. But it seems reasonable to this bear of little brain that being in harmony and keeping the beat with God's dance has theological significance. BWDIK.

Herman the Pooh

[Herman Blaydoe]

I hardly think it's necessary to "fix" anything with the Paschalion now. It's not like a June Pascha is on the horizon like an asteroid about to crash into earth.

Of course it doesn't need to be "fixed", it is a moveable feast! And changing how Pascha is determined would not affect the Paschalion per se. Lent would be as long, Pentecost would still be 7 weeks later, the Sunday of the Sunday of the Publican and the Pharisee will still be 10 weeks before and Palm Sunday will always be just before. What in the Paschalion would change?

Herman the wondering Pooh

[Jonathan Michael]

I have been trying to stay out of this one, but I have to say that I don't understand how a calendar designed by a pagan empire can be considered "holy".

Usually quotation marks are used to quote someone, although it doesn't seem to be the case this time. No one has specifically called the Julian calendar "holy", though the point has been made that the Church herself does reclaim time and marks it in a different way from the world. Those who follow both calendars do this though, if they use their respective calendars to mark the feasts of the Church and her Saints rather than just to "mark time".

That last point is probably quite important. It would be better for all of us to follow the Gregorian calendar if all we needed it for was to mark time. And of course, most of us do use the Gregorian calendar for everyday use. But it doesn't follow that the Church calendar needs to be changed so that the "marking of time" is more accurate. Most of the legitimate concerns over the implementation of the new calendar revolve around this issue: whether there was any justification in implementing it in the first place.

I think the comments on this thread by those who canonically follow the old calendar have been rather restrained. I'm not sure the worth in keep mentioning that the calendar is named after a pagan emporer. The new calendar is named after the same pagan emporer and is corrected so that it matches with a calendar named after a schismatic pope. Of course, you haven't said that the new calendar is "holy"; but then no one on this thread has said that about the old calendar either.

What some people have mentioned is that certain miracles (the reversal of flow of the River Jordan and the Holy Paschal Fire) occur according to the Julian calendar, even today, many years after the implementation of the new calendar. That's just a matter of fact.

[Vasiliki D.]

(Galatians 4:10-11) 10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. 11 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.

At least do you all agree that the following (typical) statement represents a basis where you all DO agree?:

"The Orthodox Church is internally divided over the issue of the Church calendar. Some, beginning in 1923, have decided to follow the so called "New" (Gregorian) Calendar, which is the same calendar -- excepting the period of Great Lent and Pascha --adopted by the Roman Catholics and Protestants. Other Orthodox churches adhere to the traditional Julian calendar (although their adherence to this calendar does not necessarily mean they oppose ecumenism or are "traditionalists")."

[Vasiliki D.]

Many "dogmatic" Old Calendarists (henceforth OCs for short) identify the New Calendar that the Church of Greece and New Calendarists in general (henceforth NCs for short) follow with the Gregorian/Papic/Frankish Calendar, whereas the Old (Julian) Calendar they themselves follow they consider it to be the traditional genuine Ecclesiastical Calendar.

But that is not the case. The New Calendar which we follow is not Gregorian, Papic or Frankish, as they call it, but Julian. And here is the proof:

Firstly: If we open any high-school textbook on cosmography we will see on the subject of calendars the difference between the Gregorian and Julian Calendars from a purely calendarist point of view.

In other words, we know that one year is made up from precisely 365.242217 solar days. The length of the civil year based on the Julian Calendar is 365 days and 1/4 of a day, because every 4 years one day is added, namely the 29th of February. Therefore the Julian Calendar exceeds the true year, i.e. is greater than the true year, by 365.25 - 365.242217 = 0.007783 solar days. This difference within a period of 400 years comes to 3.1132 days. Therefore the true date falls short by 3.1132 days every 400 years. In order to correct this error, Pope Gregory XIII, with the aid of the astronomer Lillio, ordered the day after the 4th of October 1582 to be called 15th of October and not 5th of October. In order that this error would not be repeated in future, he also ordered that in a period of 400 years they should not take 100 leap years, as is done by the Julian Calendar, but only 100 -3 = 97. Thus, according to the Gregorian Calendar, in a period of 400 years the date falls short now only by 0.1132 days.
4,000 years must pass before the date falls short by 1.132 days.

In order to correct the Julian Calendar, Pope Gregory ordered that the years of the centuries (i.e. 1600, 1700, 1800) are not leap years unless the number of hundreds is divisible by 4. Thus, the year 1600 was a leap year according to the Gregorian Calendar, because the number of hundreds 16 is divisible by 4; according to the Julian Calendar it is still a leap year because the whole number 1600 is divisible by 4. However, the years 1700, 1800, 1900 are leap years according to the Julian Calendar, because these numbers, 1700, 1800, 1900, are divisible by 4, whereas they are not leap years for the Gregorian Calendar, because the numbers of the hundreds, namely 17, 18 and 19, are not divisible by 4.
Thus, after 1600 years that have passed approximately since the First Oecumenical Synod, we the NCs, since we follow the Julian Calendar and will have as leap years those years that are divisible by 4, we will have a new difference of 13 days, whereas the Gregorian Calendar will not have such a difference, because every 400 years it will have 97 leap years and not 100.

Here is the difference between the New Calendar and the Gregorian Calendar, from a calendarist point of view. They will have 97 leap years every 400 years, we will have 100.

However, Pope Gregory did not stop at this calendarist modification. He also adjusted his Easter upon his calendar, not taking into account the Passover of the Jews and the decision of the First Oecumenical Synod regarding the Christian Pascha and the Jewish Pascha.

Page 9 of "the Rudder" of our Church, there are four things that must be satisfied for the celebration of Pascha:

a) Vernal equinox
b) First full moon after this equinox
c) After the Nomicon Pascha
d) the first Sunday after a) - c).
The Gregorian or Papic Calendar takes into consideration only a), b) and d). It totally ignores c), the legal pascha of the Jews. Thus Papics can happen to celebrate their Easter together with that of the Jews or before the Jewish Pascha despite the 7th canon of the Apostles and despite the historical fact that Christ resurrected after the Pascha of the Jews. However, we NCs take into consideration all 4 points on the Christian Pascha, namely a) - d), and thus differ from the Gregorian or Papic Calendar not only from a calendarist but also from an ecclesiastical point of view. In other words, we celebrate our Pascha after the Jewish Pascha, in accordance with the decisions of the First Oecumenical Synod.
Therefore we conclude that from a Calendarist and an Ecclesiastical point of view both we the NCs and the OCs differ from the Gregorian Calendar.

Both NCs and OCs follow the Julian Calendar from a Calendarist and from an Ecclesiastical point of view!

Why then do some OCs identify the New Calendar, the one we follow, with the Papic Gregorian, since there is such a great difference from a calendarist and an ecclesiastical point of view between the two calendars?

We guess their objection: "Why promote the moving forward of the 13 days?"

To which we answer: This promotion by itself does not violate the Julian Calendar, but only the calendar almanac of this Calendar. Our Calendar was and has remained Julian. The OCs have Julian. So do we. Only that our Julian Calendar is corrected, adjusted; this is why it is commonly referred to as revised Julian.

Why though alter the calendar almanac of the Julian Calendar?

We know from the Rudder of our Church that the Fathers of the First Oecumenical Synod that established the Paschal celebration based on the vernal equinox had vernal equinox then on the 21st of March. This we know from the Rudder (see p. 9). After the passing of approximately 1600 years however from then till today, we deviated from that date with the result of having vernal equinox on the 8th of March. This is also mentioned in the Rudder (p. 9). With a "leap" of 13 days thus, we, the so-called "New Calendarists", have as vernal equinox the one the Holy Fathers of the First Oecumenical Synod had. This way we have the old date of the vernal equinox, the 21st of March, whereas the OCs have the new date of this equinox, namely the 8th of March. Therefore, rather ironically the NCs follow the old date, whereas the OCs the new date. We follow the old calendar almanac, the OCs follow the new calendar almanac. We are based upon the old Julian Calendar of the First Oecumenical Synod, the OCs are based upon the new Julian Calendar.

As a consequence, the so-called NCs are in reality old calendarists and the so-called OCs are in reality new calendarists!

[Father David Moser]

To all who are currently active in this discussion.

The comments here have become increasingly partisan and although nothing has really "crossed the line" there have been some which have pushed the envelope a bit. I would like to ask that everyone step back and take a deep breath before posting on this topic and work to stick to the topic of the "pros and cons" of following the Old or New calendar, rather than who is more (or less) right (or wrong). This kind of discussion can easily spiral quickly out of control and degenerate into a flame war and so now, before the whirlpool of calendarism gets too strong to resist is the time to break out of the pattern. Thank you all for your consideration and cooperation.

Fr David Moser

[Herman Blaydoe]

Usually quotation marks are used to quote someone, although it doesn't seem to be the case this time. No one has specifically called the Julian calendar "holy", though the point has been made that the Church herself does reclaim time and marks it in a different way from the world. Those who follow both calendars do this though, if they use their respective calendars to mark the feasts of the Church and her Saints rather than just to "mark time".

But that is what a calendar does. It simply marks the time for seasons, feasts, and fasts.


That last point is probably quite important. It would be better for all of us to follow the Gregorian calendar if all we needed it for was to mark time. And of course, most of us do use the Gregorian calendar for everyday use. But it doesn't follow that the Church calendar needs to be changed so that the "marking of time" is more accurate. Most of the legitimate concerns over the implementation of the new calendar revolve around this issue: whether there was any justification in implementing it in the first place.

The justification is that it better tracks with the universe that God set in motion. Whether or not that was the justification used by the Patriarch, it was the justification used by the Pope that requested it.


What some people have mentioned is that certain miracles (the reversal of flow of the River Jordan and the Holy Paschal Fire) occur according to the Julian calendar, even today, many years after the implementation of the new calendar. That's just a matter of fact.

Except that the FACT is the Paschalion is the same on both calendars. Who is to say that the miracles wouldn't happen all the same if the calculation was changed? The fact is not proof of anything and that is as matter of fact as you can get.

Or so it seems to this bear of little brain.

Herman the Pooh

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

The Orthodox Church suffered two grievous divisions during the twentieth century. One because of the Revolution in Russia, the other because of the Calendar.

With the first we have seen a recent healing. The reason for this healing was that amidst the differences between the Church in Russia and in the west the point had been reached where we were able to see in each other fundamentally the same Church. Healing was motivated by this increasing recognition. Of course though a certain amount of movement occurred first from both in order to reach this point.

Possibly this also is a precedent for the Calendar division.

The Church Calendar is not simply a mechanical means of measuring time. Rather the Church Calendar marks Church time as sacred and as sacramentally renewed time. As part of this however the Church has continually used the structures of time formed by the society it has found itself in. And in turn these structures themselves have been influenced and reformed to some extent by the Church.

For example Pascha as the central day of the resurrection follows this pattern: Pascha commemorates the day following the Jewish Passover according to the Hebrew lunar calendar. However by determining that the resurrection should always be commemorated on a Sunday the Church effectively made sacred the first day of the Roman week. In turn in many Christian countries the name of the first day of the week was changed to reflect the celebration of the resurrection.

The Church Calendar then is not a mechanical measurement of time; it is not for nothing that we refer to the patterns of time within the Calendar as 'cycles', for the movement of time of the Church Calendar is not from a to b and onwards but rather time experienced as active participation in Christ. It also is time experienced continually as never ending movement towards Christ. This is time experienced as sacramental reality. This sense of sacramental time however is chiefly liturgical. One senses that the loss of the understanding of sacramental time is directly proportional to the loss of liturgical participation but put positively is also experienced in proportion to liturgical participation.

As already stated the Church has continually used different civil structures of time over its history. This is a fact and should thus allow us to acknowledge that in one sense the Calendar is relative and not absolute. However what has remained if not absolute at least of utmost importance is how the Church always related to such civil calendars in a way which allowed for the full expression of its understanding of time. In this light there is no good reason to deride the Julian Calendar. Its venerableness & respect are due precisely to the way in which it transformed a civil calendar to the point that for a time it was mutually both a Church and civil calendar marked by the Church. Such an interplay though between Church & society, which is what chiefly marks the Julian Calendar, was only due to the unique circumstances of the time. With the massive changes in society in regards to the Church the Julian is no longer society's civil calendar in any realistic way (which is a much stronger argument than just saying that the Julian is astronomically incorrect- this completely misses the point of those who hold to the Old Calendar since for them it is basically a Church calendar, not a scientific one). In a correct way I think those who follow the New Calendar can point to the Julian Calendar as being unprecedented in the way in which it is so disconnected from the civil calendar. That they are uncomfortable with this in a Church way is given ground by the very logic provided by the Julian Calendar in its interplay with the civil calendar of its day.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Carlos Antonio Palad]

The gregorian calendar doesnt take into consideration fast and non fast days because roman catholics dont fast, thus overlapping of these feasts means nothing for the west. While astronomical inaccuracy is not a problem with the gregorian calendar its an innacurate liturgical calendar. The gregorian calendar is like 15 seconds off a year but this wont become a problem for another 2000 years.

The Roman Catholic Church has always had its own fast days, and until 1966 fasting as prescribed for the universal Church was quite strict (especially because there was no concept of "oikonomia" to make fasting less severe for some people, except for the seriously ill). Even today, some Catholics voluntarily fast or at least do penance on Fridays and Wednesdays, even outside Lent.

When the Gregorian calendar was made in 1582, and for hundreds of years afterwards, Catholics were required to fast strictly on all days of Lent except Sundays, and this fasting meant abstention from meat products AND having only one full meal a day -- much stricter than Orthodox fasting.

I'm also puzzled by the assertion that the Gregorian calendar was made with no regard for feasting and fasting days. Aside from the fact that the Roman Catholic Church never had the same fasts as the Eastern Churches, this problem of overlapping feast and fast days occurs only when the two calendars -- the Revised Julian for fixed feasts, the Julian for the Paschal cycle -- are juxtaposed, as the "New Calendar" Orthodox do. However, when the Gregorian calendar is used at all times, even for Pascha (as the Finns do), the cycle of Orthodox feasts and fasts does not suffer from any overlapping.

[Carlos Antonio Palad]

Is the following list correct? By the way, by "New Calendar" is meant the Revised Julian calendar with Julian Paschalion.

CHURCHES UNDER THE OLD CALENDAR:

1) Russian Orthodox Church and its autonomous Churches (ROCOR, UOC-MP, Estonia-MP, Moldova-MP, Belarus, Japan, China, Latvia)
2) Serbian Orthodox Church
3) Georgian Orthodox Church
4) Ukrainian and Belarusan Orthodox Churches in the diaspora under the EP
5) Jerusalem Patriarchate and Church of Sinai
6) Mount Athos (not a "church" by itself, as everyone knows, but still sufficiently significant to be separately listed here)



CHURCHES OF MIXED CALENDARS (e.g. significant numbers of parishes, cathedrals, monasteries using either New or Old Calendars):

1) Orthodox Church of America -- predominantly New Calendar, but with the Alaskan diocese and with a large number of parishes in the US West Coast and in Canada still under the Old Calendar. The main OCA cathedral in Washington DC uses the New Calendar for English Divine Liturgies and the Old Calendar for Slavonic Divine Liturgies (it has one DL in each of these two languages every Sunday as well as for some feasts).

2) Orthodox Church of Poland -- predominantly Old Calendar, but with many parishes and cathedrals in the western portions of Poland using the New Calendar. The Metropolitan himself serves liturgy on New Calendar Christmas, and the main cathedral in Warsaw has Divine Liturgies in either calendar.

3) ACROD (under EP) -- still predominantly Old Calendar (Met. Nicholas always serves according to the Old Calendar) but with new parishes and some old parishes using the New Calendar

4) Orthodox Church of Czech and Slovak Lands -- predominantly Old Calendar, but with at least one eparchy using the New Calendar.

5) "Rue Daru" or the Russian Orthodox Exarchate in Western Europe under the EP -- predominantly New Calendar, but with many of the older and bigger parishes (especially in France) under the Old Calendar. The Rue Daru cathedral itself uses the Old Calendar and Church Slavonic in the upper church, and the New Calendar and French in the lower church.

CHURCHES UNDER THE NEW CALENDAR:

1) Patriarchate of Constantinople (except for Mount Athos and many of the Slavic churches under its jurisdiction; its Greek "Old Calendar" monastery and parishes in the USA, received into communion in 1998, shifted to the New Calendar in 2004)

2) Patriarchate of Alexandria
3) Patriarchate of Antioch (at least one parish in Australia -- formerly ROCOR -- is on the Old Calendar)
4) State Church of Greece
5) Orthodox Church of Cyprus
6) Bulgarian Patriarchate (although a few diaspora parishes remain on the Old Calendar)
7) Romanian Patriarchate
8) Orthodox Church of Albania

CHURCHES UNDER THE GREGORIAN CALENDAR (even for Paschalion):

1) Finnish Orthodox Church

****************************************

I have read that the Estonians under Constantinople and the MP diocese in Holland use the Gregorian Paschalion. True or not?

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Carlos,

Yes- the above list is correct. Although I don't know what the answer is to your last question about the Estonians under the EP and the MP in Holland.

About: (from your previous post)


I'm also puzzled by the assertion that the Gregorian calendar was made with no regard for feasting and fasting days. Aside from the fact that the Roman Catholic Church never had the same fasts as the Eastern Churches, this problem of overlapping feast and fast days occurs only when the two calendars -- the Revised Julian for fixed feasts, the Julian for the Paschal cycle -- are juxtaposed, as the "New Calendar" Orthodox do. However, when the Gregorian calendar is used at all times, even for Pascha (as the Finns do), the cycle of Orthodox feasts and fasts does not suffer from any overlapping.

I'm quite sure that Fr David Moser already made this point in a previous post of his on this thread.

The point is correct that with an 'un-mixed' Calendar; either completely Julian or completely Gregorian, there is not the problem of the fast of Sts Peter & Paul completely disappearing in some years. Also the hymnography of various Menaion Feasts- Holy 40 Martyrs of Sebasteia during Great Lent & St George in the after Pascha period- would relate to the season at hand. The hymongraphy of the first at points refers specifically to Great Lent while the Feast of St George refers to the Paschal season- which is only assured on the Julian calendar.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Vasiliki D.]

What has not been made clear from the start of this thread is WHICH Old Calendar/New Calendar issue are we reviewing with regards to putting forward Pros/Cons. At present, it seems to be a mish/mosh of historical events. They way I understand it, we have two KEY events:

1) A schismatic and un-canonical "Old Calendar" break away from the Church of Greece. Those from this group then went overseas to other "Old Calendar" churches to become priests and thefore through this "Loop Hole" return back into Church of Greece as "canonical". There thinking then mixing into legitimate and canonical Old Calendar groups who were and are in communion with the Church of Greece and thereby, over tiem, poisoning the mindset of these proper Old Calendar groups.

OR

2) The internal ROCOR and OCA calendar issues - resolved recently.

If we can define which of the two we talk about ... then it makes it easier to start to think along the lines of Pros and Cons because the situations are unique and have different issues that need to be considered when discussing pros and cons.

[Herman Blaydoe]

What has not been made clear from the start of this thread is WHICH Old Calendar/New Calendar issue are we reviewing with regards to putting forward Pros/Cons. At present, it seems to be a mish/mosh of historical events. They way I understand it, we have two KEY events:

1) A schismatic and un-canonical "Old Calendar" break away from the Church of Greece. Those from this group then went overseas to other "Old Calendar" churches to become priests and thefore through this "Loop Hole" return back into Church of Greece as "canonical". There thinking then mixing into legitimate and canonical Old Calendar groups who were and are in communion with the Church of Greece and thereby, over tiem, poisoning the mindset of these proper Old Calendar groups.

OR

2) The internal ROCOR and OCA calendar issues - resolved recently.

If we can define which of the two we talk about ... then it makes it easier to start to think along the lines of Pros and Cons because the situations are unique and have different issues that need to be considered when discussing pros and cons.

Actually I don't believe we were specifically talking about either "issue" as you describe them. The first sounds like a conspiracy theorist's fevered delusion. The second, well, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

ROCOR has been pretty much OC pretty much all along (they may have sheltered an NC parish or group or two over the years temporarily, or my memory is faulty). I guess there has been less hostility to NC churches in certain pockets of the ROCOR, since the most reactionary elements have schismed into a couple of smaller groups (ROAC and ROCiE) in protest of the reconciliation with the Moscow Patriarchate (mayhaps THAT is the "resolution" you are thinking of?). When the OCA adopted the NC many years ago, it was a rather nasty business but I believe there are both OC and NC churches in the OCA now. I don't know of any recent resolutions concerning the calendars. If there was something else it is news to me, and I have been following these recent events relatively closely.

Herman the confused Pooh

[Vasiliki D.]

Actually I don't believe we were specifically talking about either "issue" as you describe them. The first sounds like a conspiracy theorist's fevered delusion. The second, well, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
Herman the confused Pooh

I wanted to point out Herman that this response is more structured as an opinion and is quite rude too ... I just want to point out that the first point is not a "conpiracy theorists fevered delusion" and is a credible and accurate comment made about the behaviour of the break away "Old Calendar" group from the Church of Greece and the FACT is many of these people found a "LOOP HOLE" in the system and in a "cunning" fashion did go overseas to canonical Old Calendar churches ... become priests and returned to Greece to cause problems ... Please refrain from such comments as I do not wish to be an argumentative person for the sake of argument ... I wish to pursue these topics with respect and an open mind and this will be my last post of this nature. I only wish to post in a non-offensive way - thank you :)

[M.C. Steenberg]

Neither of the two 'issues' recently described really relates to the proper focus of this thread, which has from the front been on the question of what is 'good' or 'bad' (i.e. pros and cons) of either calendar - i.e. practical issues of commemorations and liturgical cycles, as well as spiritual implications - and how these might be related to how certain local churches and jurisdictions have responded to the implementation of the new calendar in some areas.

I hope participants will remain on such a focus, and not allow the conversation to move toward all-too-familiar disputes over canonical legitimacy of groups vis-a-vis calendar reforms and adoptions, etc.

INXC, Deacon Matthew

[Vasiliki D.]

This is my final post for this thread and it is not about pros and cons but merely a reply to a PM challenging my previous post; I assume others might also wonder ... so, please find this Bibliography:

"Old and New Calendar: Why those who left the Church due to the Calendar are deceived" (Archimandrite Joel Yannacopoulos, Pamphlet distributed by Orthodoxos Syllogos, Athens, Greece, 1976)

and my list is further extensive. I also use the Church of Greece and Greek Orthodox Church of Austaralia as my guide ... and I TRUST in what my church tells me ... and then I draw my own conclusions ... I dont wish to bore the people here with my bibliography. God Bless herman ...

[Ryan]

I also use the Church of Greece and Greek Orthodox Church of Austaralia as my guide ... and I TRUST in what my church tells me ... and then I draw my own conclusions ...

To which someone on the OC might reply, "I trust the church of Moscow/ Serbia/ Jerusalem etc." But of course the church is not simply a collection of local churches. Big changes like the calendar change should be approached in a conciliar manner, consulting the entire church, and it was a lack of conciliarity that characterized the introduction of the new calendar. The Ecumenical Patriarch and the others were plentifully warned about the dire consequences of unilaterally changing the calendar, and they went ahead with it anyway. And, as deplorable as the Old Calendarist schisms are, I doubt that many of them would be nearly as entrenched in their errors if the New Calendarists had not used violence against them. Those in canonical Orthodox churches who criticize the NC are not being poisoned by Old Calendarist propaganda; it's just that the NC was introduced for the wrong reasons and in the wrong way.

[Father David Moser]

I would like to echo Fr Matthew's caution here. As soon as we talk about "right" and "wrong" or "heretical" or "canonical" in relation to te calendar topic, then we start walking down that slippery slope towards the all too familiar calendar dispute which inevitably devolves into name calling, accusations and other unchristian behavior.

Please let's keep the focus of this discussion on the effects of use and interactions of old or new calendar on the liturgical cycle or the life of the Church or on one's own spiritual life.

Please refrain from judging others, judging hierarchs and even whole national Churches or local jurisdictions. If you can't compose your comments without using "right" or "wrong" or "heretical", "schismatic" or "canonical" then perhaps you need to rethink whether or not to post at all.

Fr David Moser

[Jonathan Michael]

One thing I am grateful for by being under the Julian Calendar is that the secular new year's eve is in the midst of a fasting period and so I can avoid those particular "festivities" in good conscience.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

One thing I am grateful for by being under the Julian Calendar is that the secular new year's eve is in the midst of a fasting period and so I can avoid those particular "festivities" in good conscience.

This isn't meant at all as a criticism- I also enjoy the peacefulness the Julian Calendar provides over the Christmas holidays. But from my personal experience I would add that the majority of our Russian people in the west with married children, friends, relatives, etc do not follow the Fast at this time. I would say this applies to all of the Slavic churches on the Julian Calendar; eg Ukrainians, Serbs; it is mainly the converts who are able to maintain the fast at this time (and even then this is not always possible due to family invitations).

As a monastic I have much more freedom in this regard. I can make a choice from a position most of my parishioners are not in. But that leads to a question about the Julian Calendar. As I indicated in a previous post part of the Julian Calendar's beauty in the past lay in the fact that it was also the civil calendar. Or better, the Church & civil calendars were purposefully synchronized through a process that went on over the centuries. In effect there was no such thing as a Julian Calendar as we now often think of this since the Church did not have its own separate calendar. Rather as just stated when the Julian Calendar was society's calendar it was an inseperable interplay of Church & society. For example in the old Russian Menaion for Dec 25 there is a moleben printed out for Peter the Great's victory over the Swedes at Poltava. What becomes clear from this is that this is a celebration of the Church, of society and of Russia. Detach one of these and the whole point collapses.

The Julian Calendar has amply shown its value throughout the history of the Church. But the point above about the famous 'Christmas parties & dinners' our people have dealt with for over a century is rarely considered as a point of reflection concerning what the Church calendar should be in itself.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Vasiliki D.]

But that leads to a question about the Julian Calendar. As I indicated in a previous post part of the Julian Calendar's beauty in the past lay in the fact that it was also the civil calendar. Or better, the Church & civil calendars were purposefully synchronized through a process that went on over the centuries. In effect there was no such thing as a Julian Calendar as we now often think of this since the Church did not have its own separate calendar. Rather as just stated when the Julian Calendar was society's calendar it was an inseperable interplay of Church & society.

That explanation, right there, is in effect the PRO of celebrating orthodoxy with the revised Julian Calendar in the Greek Orthodox church as it is more closely in synch with the Gregorian Calendar and will shortly sync itself back to an "Old Calendar" style rythm ... oh, and we get to eat cheese and milk on New years eve - unless you are a BASIL or VASILIKi in which case you are highly encouraged to commune and therefore end up fasting more often than you like to ;-)

[Kusanagi]

One thing I am grateful for by being under the Julian Calendar is that the secular new year's eve is in the midst of a fasting period and so I can avoid those particular "festivities" in good conscience.

Not only that when celebrating Christmas on the Julian Calendar, I am in time for the January sales to buy presents ;)

[Vasiliki D.]

Not only that when celebrating Christmas on the Julian Calendar, I am in time for the January sales to buy presents ;)

So, that is ONE materialistic PRO in favour of Old Calendar :-)

[Andreas Moran]

Well, I don't know where I am! Because I knew I was going to be in Moscow for OC Christmas, I fasted (ha! - sort of!) according to the OC though my jurisdiction is NC. Returning from Russia only a few days ago, we missed Theophany on the NC. But now we have an OC calendar church nearby, so we can go there for Theophany (save it will be on Sunday, not Monday because the priest has to work). We celebrate St Seraphim of Sarov today because that's what my wife is used to. But for other occasions between now and Lent we shall observe the NC because that's what the monastery here is on and that is our main place of worship. It's all very messy but it means we get to be in the monastery for most great feasts but my wife can observe Russian saints' days on the OC as she is used to. Or are we wrong to 'mix and match'? I'd rather be on the OC when all said and done.

[Anthony]

I too have this discrepancy between observing with my jurisdiction or with my local parish. I recently opted to go with the parish (though not with complete consistency) - but it is interesting to see how others treat similar situations.

[Andreas Moran]

Or are we wrong to 'mix and match'?

I went to the monastery this morning and managed to have a word with Archimandrite Zacharias (not an easy man to get hold of!)
I asked him about this. He said to follow the calendar of the place where you happen to be; as to commemorating saints at home, do what you and your wife feel works for you - the saints are out of time and space anyway.

[Kusanagi]

that reminds me I wanted to share this:

I wrote once to a Fr George in USA, asking about the calendar issue. He gave me a quote from Fr Cleopa.
Is there a saint calendar in the book of saints?
Has a calendar ever saved anyone?
The simple answer is no, so there shouldn't be so much fuss over a calendar. Besides Saints work miracles always not just no their feast day as long as you pray to them with faith.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

But this discomfort is a good sign. There was time- and not too long ago- when the problem rarely came up because we lived in two largely separate worlds.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Vasiliki D.]

that reminds me I wanted to share this:
I wrote once to a Fr George in USA, asking about the calendar issue. He gave me a quote from Fr Cleopa.
Is there a saint calendar in the book of saints?
Has a calendar ever saved anyone?
The simple answer is no, so there shouldn't be so much fuss over a calendar. Besides Saints work miracles always not just no their feast day as long as you pray to them with faith.

That is what I find very comforting and aligned with how my instinct is guiding me too ... I think that it is irrelevant which calendar you are following provided you are with the canonical church! That IS important! Salvation not man made rules ... this is an important PRO for either calendar - the PRO is that you can become SANCTIFIED in either the New or the Old Calendar - it is belonging to the Church of Christ laid out by the Apostles that is important.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Vasiliki D wrote:


That is what I find very comforting and aligned with how my instinct is guiding me too ... I think that it is irrelevant which calendar you are following provided you are with the canonical church! That IS important! Salvation not man made rules ... this is an important PRO for either calendar - the PRO is that you can become SANCTIFIED in either the New or the Old Calendar - it is belonging to the Church of Christ laid out by the Apostles that is important.

There is a thought in here that is important: " you can be sanctified on either calendar". However there is a critical need to show more clearly how this can be so.

This is directly connected to the second point concerning the calendar being part of "man made rules", and as not connected essentially to the Apostolic understanding of the Church. Here we have a much more problematic understanding since all that is part of the Church is essential to Her life and witness. In terms of the Church it makes no sense to explain the worth of both calendars on the basis that a church calendar is not important to Her life.

What then needs to be grappled with more clearly is what is the meaning of the calendar we have in the Church. Does it have worth or not? What is its purpose?

Only from here I would say can there be any understanding of the place of two calendars in one Church.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Andreas Moran]

Did you know?

The English tax year still follows the Old Calendar! (Why do they say the English are eccentric??)

[Vasiliki D.]

Did you know?

The English tax year still follows the Old Calendar! (Why do they say the English are eccentric??)

All the English men I know are not eccentric but rather conservative often characterised as ''missing out'' because too afraid to rock the boat ;)

[Andreas Moran]

Vasiliki D. Originally Posted by Andreas Moran
Did you know?

The English tax year still follows the Old Calendar! (Why do they say the English are eccentric??)

All the English men I know are not eccentric but rather conservative often characterised as ''missing out'' because too afraid to rock the boat ;)

You haven't been meeting the right Englishmen!

[Peter G.]

I totally agree how the Old Calendar is the right one to follow according to our Holy Fathers. The problem with the old calendrists is that they anathemize everyone else. Even amongs them they have so many splits, Mathewites, Florinites, Cyprianites etc...Now why is that happening? They anathemize each other non stop with zeal. Mount Athos follows the old, almost all the Patriarchates follow the old and we're all in communion with each other. An NC Orthodox can go to a ROCOR or church and receive Holy Communion but won't be able to do that if they go to traditional OC. As a matter of fact one of the Bishops of the OC (they have so many by the way) told someone, in order to receive communion she needed to be Chrismated once again because she goes to the new. Another lady went to the same OC church for years and she wanted to get communion so she went to a NC church because the OC church was to far for her and someone saw her receive communion there and told the Bishop so he never communed her again. What's that all about?

[Olga]

... and told the Bishop so he never communed her again. What's that all about?

Hubris. Some food for thought:

http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?p=38635#poststop

http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?p=62219#poststop