Calendars: interaction of old and new

[Father David Moser]

Mike, each year St. Mark and St. George - my brother-in-law and my son's namedays - are celebrated on different days according to the Paschal date. If they fall before Easter then they are celebrated a couple of days later.


A shift in the days of their celebration would occur only if their feastdays were to fall during Passion Week. In this case the celebration itself would be transferred to Bright Week. The reason for this is that due to the festive nature of the services for these saints the typikon considers it unsuitable to serve their feasts during the sober time of Passion Week.

Normally however most of the time due to the late date of their feastdays (St George- April 23; St Mark- April 25) their celebration would occur after Pascha anyway.



I'm beginning to think you need the equivalent of a Master's Degree in Theology just to keep track of half of the Orthodox calendar (and a Doctorate to keep track of the rest of it).

Actually it isn't as complex as it seems. This movement of the feasts of St George and Mark is only an artifact of the use of "dual" calendars (the use of the Julian calendar for Pascha and the use of the Gregorian calendar for the fixed menaion) This "dual calendar" useage is only a recent development in the Orthodox Church and is not universal. For example, while the Ecumenical Patriarchate uses the "dual calendar" the Russian Patriarchate uses the Julian or "Old" calendar exclusively. Thus in the Russian Church it is impossible for St George's feast (April 27 os/May 6 ns) to fall before Pascha (in 2040 it falls on Pascha - but that's as close as it gets so far as I can tell, and 2040 is a long ways away yet.) So you see, for those Churches that maintain the Julian calendar for all their feasts (rather than just Pascha), there is never any need to move the feasts thus eliminating a great deal of artificial confusion. This is also the reason that service for the feast of St George is so full of Resurrectional and festal images - it always fell during the Paschal season (until th calendar change). (of course then those of us on the old calendar have to deal with Christmas 13 days after everyone else...)

Fr David Moser

[Effie Ganatsios]

Actually it isn't as complex as it seems. This movement of the feasts of St George and Mark is only an artifact of the use of "dual" calendars (the use of the Julian calendar for Pascha and the use of the Gregorian calendar for the fixed menaion) This "dual calendar" useage is only a recent development in the Orthodox Church and is not universal. For example, while the Ecumenical Patriarchate uses the "dual calendar" the Russian Patriarchate uses the Julian or "Old" calendar exclusively. Thus in the Russian Church it is impossible for St George's feast (April 27 os/May 6 ns) to fall before Pascha (in 2040 it falls on Pascha - but that's as close as it gets so far as I can tell, and 2040 is a long ways away yet.) So you see, for those Churches that maintain the Julian calendar for all their feasts (rather than just Pascha), there is never any need to move the feasts thus eliminating a great deal of artificial confusion. This is also the reason that service for the feast of St George is so full of Resurrectional and festal images - it always fell during the Paschal season (until th calendar change). (of course then those of us on the old calendar have to deal with Christmas 13 days after everyone else...)

Fr David Moser

I didn't know that Fr. David. Thank you for the information. How complicated we have made our lives.

How do old calendar countries e.g. Russia, cope with non-religious activities that involve other countries. Do they use the new calendar?

Effie

[Father David Moser]

How do old calendar countries e.g. Russia, cope with non-religious activities that involve other countries. Do they use the new calendar?


Russia is not really an "old calendar country" - the secular state runs on the Gregorian calendar just like the rest of the world. The Russian Church, however, uses the "old calendar" to determine when the Church feasts fall. Take for example the most widely recognized "difference" - Christmas. For the Russian Church Christmas (the Nativity of the Lord) still falls on Dec 25 - but Dec 25th on the Church calendar corresponds with Jan 7 on the civil calendar (since the Gregorian/civil calendar is 13 days ahead of the Julian/Church calendar).

For me, this simply means that I live "in the world" on the civil calendar, but "in the Church" I order my life around the Church calendar. Sometimes there is a conflict (like coping with Christmas/New Year holiday parties while still in the fast) but usually its pretty simple.

Fr David Moser

[Michael Stickles]

OK - let me see if I'm actually starting to get a grip on this.


A shift in the days of their celebration would occur only if their feastdays were to fall during Passion Week. In this case the celebration itself would be transferred to Bright Week. The reason for this is that due to the festive nature of the services for these saints the typikon considers it unsuitable to serve their feasts during the sober time of Passion Week.

Now, Saint Chloe's celebration day (February 18) is listed on the namedays website as one which can change from year to year. But it can't fall during Passion Week, since Pascha can't occur that early. It can, however, fall during the first week of Great Lent, which I believe is the most strict fasting time. So, is the first week of Great Lent treated similarly to Passion Week as far as transferring celebrations?

Also, as for the calendars -- that seems to solve something I had wondered about. I remember noting on one site (which uses the "New Calendar") that the Apostle's Fast sometimes gets "squeezed out" when Pascha comes late (since it would end before it starts), and I couldn't figure out why it would have been set up that way. But, if the "Old Calendar" is used, the Feast of St. Peter and St. Paul would come 13 days later (namely, July 12), so the Apostle's Fast would never end before it started. So, it wasn't "set up" that way; that was a side-effect of the switch by some to the New Calendar?

In Christ,
Mike

[Kris]

So, it wasn't "set up" that way; that was a side-effect of the switch by some to the New Calendar?


Exactly, and an unfortunate side-effect at that.

[Father David Moser]

OK - let me see if I'm actually starting to get a grip on this.
Now, Saint Chloe's celebration day ... is the first week of Great Lent treated similarly to Passion Week as far as transferring celebrations?

Not really - and in fact saints are not often moved out of passion week either unless there is some overriding reason. I really don't know any of the whys around St Chloe. There are saints who's celebrations are set as moveable days to coincide, for example with a Sunday. The feast of the New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia is set for "the Sunday closest to Jan 25 (Feb 7 civil)" or to sometimes to avoid a certain day such as the feast of St John of San Francisco which is set for the Saturday closest to June 19 (July 2 civil) - the reason for this is to avoid the "loss" of the feastday service to the Apostle Jude on which day is also the "realtime" anniversary of the death of St John. Some parishes will transfer the celebration of their altar feast to the nearest Sunday to provide for better attendance. But in any case, such transfers can only be made with the ruling bishop's blessing.


Also, as for the calendars -- that seems to solve something I had wondered about. I remember noting on one site (which uses the "New Calendar") that the Apostle's Fast sometimes gets "squeezed out" when Pascha comes late (since it would end before it starts), and I couldn't figure out why it would have been set up that way. But, if the "Old Calendar" is used, the Feast of St. Peter and St. Paul would come 13 days later (namely, July 12), so the Apostle's Fast would never end before it started. So, it wasn't "set up" that way; that was a side-effect of the switch by some to the New Calendar?

Exactly - I think you are beginning to have it figured out.

Fr David Moser

[Panayota K.]

The terminology used in the news release is nothing more than the usual media shallowness and ignorance of the true issue of the calendar.

Fr David Moser

What is the true issue of the calendar, father?

[Father David Moser]

What is the true issue of the calendar, father?

Here is a quote from a senior priest of my diocese wherein he describes briefly some of the liturgical issues that we run into with the Gregorian (or "Revised Julian") calendar.


The relationship of the liturgical calendar to the times and seasons
of God's creation primarily applies to the Paschal season.

Since the Revised Julian Calendar maintains the Julian Paschalion with
its fixed date of the vernal equinox (March 20), it is subject to the
same drift away from the astronomical equinox as does the Julian
calendar.

What is really a shame, however, is that the Revised Julian Calendar
completely trashes Church Typikon, which is based on a perpetually
repeating cycle of 532 years (a 28 year solar cycle multiplied by 19
year lunar cycle).

Because it is subject to the Paschal Drift, the Revised Julian
Calendar permits anomalies, such as the shortening or elimination of
the Apostles' Fast in many years.

It also allows circumstances which are impossible according to the
Typikon of the Church, such as the occurrence of the Feast of the
Annunciation during the first week of Great Lent.

Fr. Peter Jackson wrote on another "new calendar" anomaly:

"On the traditional calendar the commemoration of the 40 Martyrs of
Sebaste always falls during Great Lent. So, much of the hymnography
for this day make reference to the fast: “O Passionbearers of Christ,
ye have rendered the all-august Fast most splendid by the memorial of
your glorious suffering; for being forty, ye sanctify the Forty Days.”
But on the new calendar, this commemoration often falls outside of the
forty days of Great Lent, so hymns like these are reduced to
nonsense."

The same could be said of the hymns to the Great-Martyr George, whose
memory, on the traditional calendar, is always celebrated in the
Paschal season, which is reflected in the hymns of the day. On the new
calendar, the Feast of this Saint falls frequently into the last two
weeks of Great Lent, making these hymns nonsensical.

D. seems to be perfectly happy with the Revised
Julian Calendar, which allows Pascha to continue to drift further into
the calendar year--so that, eventually, the Apostles' Fast will be
completely eliminated, and the Dormition Fast begin to be shortened or
eliminated as well, and the date of Pascha--meant to coincide with
Spring--drifting into summer or autumn, or later.

With love in Christ,
Prot. Alexander Lebedeff

[Herman Blaydoe]

Father, your blessing,

You might want to check your math (http://www.smart.net/~mmontes/ec-cal.html).

At the website Calculation of the Ecclesiastical Calendar (http://www.smart.net/~mmontes/ec-cal.html), there are some interesting observations, particularly:


An interesting upshot of the algorithm is that the cycle of Easter dates (in the Gregorian Calendar) repeats every 5,700,000 years - and no sooner! (See the Calendar FAQ for why the period has this particular length.) Using the algorithms, I have calculated the distribution of the Gregorian Easter dates over various periods of time. You may view the frequency of the date of Easter over one complete 5,700,000 year cycle, or over the first complete 400 year Gregorian Calendar cycle, or over a more contemporary timespan of 1875 to 2124.
and

There are many reasons to expect that all methods of determining the date of Easter will not be valid in the far future. The prime physical reason is that the length of the day is increasing, thus the number of days in a year is slowly decreasing. The current rate of increase in the length of the day implies that the Gregorian calendar will need to neglect a leap year sometime in the 4th or 5th millenium. The Julian calendar is not exempt from these issues either.

Herman the "math is hard!" Pooh

[Ben Johnson]

Father, your blessing,

You might want to check your math (http://www.smart.net/~mmontes/ec-cal.html).

At the website Calculation of the Ecclesiastical Calendar (http://www.smart.net/~mmontes/ec-cal.html), there are some interesting observations, particularly:


and
The Julian calendar is not exempt from this issues either.

Herman the "math is hard!" Pooh
As far as the length of the day incresing, are you referring to the moon slowly moving away from the earth and tidal friction slowing down the earth's rotation?
Just curious.
--Ben

[David Hawthorne]

Here is a quote from a senior priest of my diocese wherein he describes briefly some of the liturgical issues that we run into with the Gregorian (or "Revised Julian") calendar.


Thank you for posting this, Father, it is an excellent summary of some of the liturgical problems caused by a hybrid calendar. Why do the New Calendarists only go halfway, though? It seems all these problems would be non-existent if they changed to the Western Paschalion? I read a New Calendar Abbot recently who said we Orthodox do not follow our own canons regarding the dating of Pascha. He seemed more concerned about the actual astronomical date of the equinox no longer corresponding to the Julian calendar whereas Old Calendarists seem more concerned about Pascha's timing in regards to the Jewish Passover.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Thank you for posting this, Father, it is an excellent summary of some of the liturgical problems caused by a hybrid calendar. Why do the New Calendarists only go halfway, though? It seems all these problems would be non-existent if they changed to the Western Paschalion? I read a New Calendar Abbot recently who said we Orthodox do not follow our own canons regarding the dating of Pascha. He seemed more concerned about the actual astronomical date of the equinox no longer corresponding to the Julian calendar whereas Old Calendarists seem more concerned about Pascha's timing in regards to the Jewish Passover.

No calendar is "perfect" because it is trying to harmonize totally independent processes over time. Once and a while you have to "skip a beat" in order to stay in step with the celestial dance. This separation of "church" and "civil" calendars is artificial and silly. Throughout history, the was no separate "civil" and "church" calendar. The Church just used the civil calendar which happened to have been put in place by a pagan emperor. But it was/is impractical to force the world to use an inaccurate calendar for civil affairs, so the world chose a more accurate calendar. Greece recognized there should be "one" calendar so the "church" and "civil" calendars are the same. God orders the universe, He conducts the celestial dance. We are merely trying to keep the beat. I still have never been able to figure out why keeping a more accurate beat is somehow "evil'. Why aren't we using the same calendar that Jesus used, the Jewish calendar? Oh yeah, something about the Jewish nation essentially destroyed in 70AD and Emperor Constantine wasn't about to institute a calendar that had essentially been out of use for three centuries (not to mention not actually used by the REST OF THE WORLD!). So the Church used what was available the civil calendar of the Empire. Why can't we be so practical today? Really?

Herman the ephemerically-challenged Pooh

[David Hawthorne]

No calendar is "perfect" because it is trying to harmonize totally independent processes over time. Once and a while you have to "skip a beat" in order to stay in step with the celestial dance. This separation of "church" and "civil" calendars is artificial and silly. Throughout history, the was no separate "civil" and "church" calendar. The Church just used the civil calendar which happened to have been put in place by a pagan emperor. But it was/is impractical to force the world to use an inaccurate calendar for civil affairs, so the world chose a more accurate calendar. Greece recognized there should be "one" calendar so the "church" and "civil" calendars are the same. God orders the universe, He conducts the celestial dance. We are merely trying to keep the beat. I still have never been able to figure out why keeping a more accurate beat is somehow "evil'. Why aren't we using the same calendar that Jesus used, the Jewish calendar? Oh yeah, something about the Jewish nation essentially destroyed in 70AD and Emperor Constantine wasn't about to institute a calendar that had essentially been out of use for three centuries (not to mention not actually used by the REST OF THE WORLD!). So the Church used what was available the civil calendar of the Empire. Why can't we be so practical today? Really?

Herman the ephemerically-challenged Pooh

Sorry, Herman, I did not mean to come across as artificial and silly. My point in the post was that a hybrid Typicon with a New Calendar Menaion and an Old Calendar Paschalion seems artificial. It should be all one or the other to avoid the inconsistencies created by the hybrid situation. The real question is which calendar makes more sense practically AND ecclesiologically in light of the canons relating to the dating of Pascha as well as the overall structure and hymnography of the Typicon? Are the Jews, Muslims, Chinese, Zoroastrians, etc. silly for having separate "church" and "civil" calendars? The question of which calendar to use should be a civil one wherein both sides present their case with the intention of which course is the best to preserve the integrity of our worship and church life.

[Kosta]

Here is a quote from a senior priest of my diocese wherein he describes briefly some of the liturgical issues that we run into with the Gregorian (or "Revised Julian") calendar.

Thats a great article with intelectual reasoning behind it. Probably one of the best reasons to change back to the Church calendar. Under the hybrid system we and none of our children and grandchildren after us will ever experience a KyrioPascha.

If the need for astronomical accuracy becomes an issue the Church can develop a truly Orthodox calendar respecting both the liturgical function of the calendar and astronomical accuracy in like 800 years from now

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

David Hawthorne wrote:


Are the Jews, Muslims, Chinese, Zoroastrians, etc. silly for having separate "church" and "civil" calendars? The question of which calendar to use should be a civil one wherein both sides present their case with the intention of which course is the best to preserve the integrity of our worship and church life.

And yet a fundamental question implicit in much of what we offer in answer to this but rarely gone into in any depth is: "what in fact is the proper relation of the Church calendar to the civil?"

Here again the obvious point is rarely noticed that in previous times this question would have been moot since the Church and civil calendar in fact were one. The split between the two only occurs in very recent times.

A very important question that needs more looking into then is whether this connection between the Church & civil calendar is fundamental to an aspect of the Church Calendar or not.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Father David Moser]

And yet a fundamental question implicit in much of what we offer in answer to this but rarely gone into in any depth is: "what in fact is the proper relation of the Church calendar to the civil?"

Here again the obvious point is rarely noticed that in previous times this question would have been moot since the Church and civil calendar in fact were one. The split between the two only occurs in very recent times.

When the Church exists in a state where it is the primary influence upon the civil culture, then the civil calendar should be joined to the Church calendar as an icon of the symphony of Church and state. However, there are no secular civil states left which are Orthodox (one could argue, I suppose that Greece or Russia or Serbia for example remain Orthodox cultures - but the civil state is divorced from that and functions perhaps sympathetically, but not symphonically.) Thus the divergence of the civil and Church calendars are only representative of the divergence of the civil and sacred lives of nations. Most of the world, since the early years of the 20th century, has been functioning under the presumption of the separation of Church and state, not the symphonic union of Church and state, thus the calendar split is only indicative of this movement.

Fr David Moser

[David Hawthorne]

For the Typicon to function properly it seems that the Menaion and Paschalion have to be on the same calendar. The New Calendar jurisdictions have kept the Old Calendar Paschalion while changing to a New Calendar Menaion. Is there something inherent in the Paschalion that is the reason it has not been changed as well? If the only issues are astronomical accuracy and staying in sync with the civil calendar then we should all switch completely to the Gregorian Calendar. If there are other ecclesiologically more important issues built into the fabric of the dating of Pascha (and its interaction with the Menaion) that will not allow the change then why create a hybrid calendar? Many other cultures and religions get along quite nicely with separate religious and civil calendars, why not us as well?

[Herman Blaydoe]

For the Typicon to function properly it seems that the Menaion and Paschalion have to be on the same calendar. The New Calendar jurisdictions have kept the Old Calendar Paschalion while changing to a New Calendar Menaion. Is there something inherent in the Paschalion that is the reason it has not been changed as well? If the only issues are astronomical accuracy and staying in sync with the civil calendar then we should all switch completely to the Gregorian Calendar. If there are other ecclesiologically more important issues built into the fabric of the dating of Pascha (and its interaction with the Menaion) that will not allow the change then why create a hybrid calendar? Many other cultures and religions get along quite nicely with separate religious and civil calendars, why not us as well?

Calendars are created by humans for humans. God does not need a calendar. Even the Orthodox date of Pascha is somewhat arbitrary. It was set by the Church and it can be changed by the Church. There would be nothing inherently wrong to change the method by which Pascha is set to harmonize a more accurate calendar, just as was done before.

The purpose of a calendar is to mark the seasons, to keep step with the celestial dance set in motion by God Himself. What does saying "I don't care what the universe does, we're gonna dance the way WE want to" say about our attitude to God? Just a thought, not a sermon.

Herman the chrono-logical Pooh

[David Hawthorne]

Calendars are created by humans for humans. God does not need a calendar. Even the Orthodox date of Pascha is somewhat arbitrary. It was set by the Church and it can be changed by the Church. There would be nothing inherently wrong to change the method by which Pascha is set to harmonize a more accurate calendar, just as was done before.

The purpose of a calendar is to mark the seasons, to keep step with the celestial dance set in motion by God Himself. What does saying "I don't care what the universe does, we're gonna dance the way WE want to" say about our attitude to God? Just a thought, not a sermon.

Herman the chrono-logical Pooh

I understand your thought, Herman, but I don't see how this has worked out historically. There is more than one purpose to the Church calendar if we take all the canons and decisions of the Fathers into consideration. Here is what I am looking at:
When the Fathers determined the method for calculating the date of Pascha they gave us certain guidelines that they must have known would, given time, be in conflict with each other.
There is the issue of the equinox which relates to astronomical accuracy and also the strict injunction that our Pascha is not to be celebrated at the same time as or before the Jewish Passover since the Christian Pascha is the completion of the Jewish Passover.
Over the next millenium and more, the astronomical date of the equinox continued to drift about 11 days while the Jews retained their same method of calculating the timing of the Passover. Although everyone knew of the drift (having had to correct the civil calendar long before Nicea- was there already a drift by then?), the Church apparently gave priority in practice to the canons dealing with the spiritual significance of not celebrating before or with the Jewish Passover rather than the physical significance of the actual date of the equinox.
When approached with the opportunity to correct the calendar by the West, our Fathers unanimously rejected the Gregorian calendar for Church use for eccesiological rather than astronomical reasons.
Since on this basis the reckoning for Pascha cannot be changed (unless the Jews change the way they date Passover?) and since the Pascalion and Menaion together constitute one integrated whole calendar, how can we change it?

[Michael Astley]

For the Typicon to function properly it seems that the Menaion and Paschalion have to be on the same calendar. The New Calendar jurisdictions have kept the Old Calendar Paschalion while changing to a New Calendar Menaion. Is there something inherent in the Paschalion that is the reason it has not been changed as well? If the only issues are astronomical accuracy and staying in sync with the civil calendar then we should all switch completely to the Gregorian Calendar. If there are other ecclesiologically more important issues built into the fabric of the dating of Pascha (and its interaction with the Menaion) that will not allow the change then why create a hybrid calendar? Many other cultures and religions get along quite nicely with separate religious and civil calendars, why not us as well?

If I may be indulged...

I see a parallel here with an element of my Anglican past. In late mediaeval, Catholic England, the people seldom received communion. In most places, the norm was for the mass to be offered and for the priest alone to receive, with the people only receiving communion at Easter. The result of this was a curious development in the devotions of the people, to compensate for the fact that they only rarely received communion. Processions of the sacrament were great occasions and featured more highly in the people's experience than the actual reception of the sacrament.

In The Stripping of the Altars, mediaeval Christian historian Eamonn Duffy writes of the "squints" in the walls of churches. These were small holes/slits cut in the walls and screens of the chapels within a church, in order to enable priests offering simultaneous masses at different altars within the church to see their brother priests. This was to facilitate the most bizarre exercise. Those familiar with the western mass will know that, after the dominical words "This is my body...", the priest elevates the bread for the adoration of the people. Well these holes (some of which survive to this day) were placed there so that priests could see their fellow priests offering the mass, and they would "stagger" the elevations nto ensure that they did not happen at the same time. This was to allow any lay people who may have been present to run from altar to altar to catch a glimpse of the consecrated bread being elevated. The people had been so far removed from regular reception of communion that they had to resort to this.

Protestantism objected to this, (and rightly so), as it was perceived as sacerdotalism. Different churches dealt with it differently. The Anglican church included in its articles of religion the following statement:


"The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them."

This was clearly a condemnation of the situation that had become prevalent in earlier times. It was not saying that devotions and processions should not happen, but merely that they were not the reason for the sacrament's existence and so should not cloud that reason. However, today, many Evangelical Anglicans, completely disregarding the original intention beind this statement, use it as an argument against their co-religionists of an Anglo-Catholic tradition, who still have the processions and other devotions surrounding the sacrament. Meanwhile, these Evangelical objectors often have communion only once a fortnight or even once a month, as opposed to their Anglo-Catholic brethren, who often offer the mass with communion every day. The point of all of that is to say that these objectors take the plain words, remove them from the context in which they were written, and read them legalistically to justify their custom of eschewing such devotions. Meanwhile, their own people seldom have the opportunity to receive communion, which is precisely the problem that the statement was condemning in the first place!

It is an example of self-serving, legalistic casuistry at its finest, and I am afraid that I see a parallel in Orthodoxy where the calendar is concerned.

My understanding of the New Calendarists' retention of the Church calendar for the paschalion while using the Meletian calendar for the solar cycle is that it is reflective of the same sort of legalism. When the Gregorian calendar was anathematised, this was accompanied by a strong focus on the condemnation of the departure from the Church paschalion. The menologion did not receive the same degree of specific focus. Those who follow the Meletian calendar are not actually following the Gregorian solar cycle but merely something very close to it, (so similar that the two are identical for the first 800 years). So essentially, for the first eight centuries, they are using the Gregorian solar calendar but are able to call it by a different name, thus escaping the anathema. While it is clear from the expression and context of those anathemas from the late 16th century, that a departure from the use of the Church calendar is frowned upon, a legalistic reading of the wording of the anathemas means that it is possible for the New Calendarist churches to change the solar cycle to the degree that they have without technically transgressing the written norms, provided that they retain the Church paschalion and ensure that there is some difference, however minuscule, between what they use and the condemned Gregorian calendar. It is a case of getting away with as much change as possible while taking care to conform to the minutiae of the letter of the law, while the intention behind those anathemas and the spirit in which they were written is quietly forgotten.

My own view (http://miadoradoscxiam.blogspot.com/2009/11/calendar-and-conscience.html) on this sort of approach to Orthodox Church life is probably clear from the wording I have used so I needn't make it explicit here. However, that's my understanding of the answer to your question. I am open to correction.

In Christ,
Michael

[Michael Astley]

The purpose of a calendar is to mark the seasons, to keep step with the celestial dance set in motion by God Himself. What does saying "I don't care what the universe does, we're gonna dance the way WE want to" say about our attitude to God? Just a thought, not a sermon.

Time is as much a part of creation as anything else, and is subject to the effects of the fall along with eveyrthing else in creation. I don't think we can take the current motions of the bodies of the universe and the resultant inconstant time as reflective of God's intention for his creation any more than we can look at death due to cancer as being reflective of God's will for his creation. Through the grace of God, of which the Church is a channel, fallen creation is redeemed and hallowed. That includes time. To my reckoning, the sacntification of time through a constant and harmonised calendar according to which the people of God celebrate the feasts, fasts, Saints and mysteries of salvation, is far preferable to one that slavishly follows a desire for astronomical accuracy based on an inconstant element of creation which, by its nature, can never be measured with absolute accuracy.

In Christ,
Michael

[Herman Blaydoe]

I understand your thought, Herman, but I don't see how this has worked out historically. There is more than one purpose to the Church calendar if we take all the canons and decisions of the Fathers into consideration. Here is what I am looking at:
When the Fathers determined the method for calculating the date of Pascha they gave us certain guidelines that they must have known would, given time, be in conflict with each other.
Not really. They were not mathmeticians, they were simply trying to get everyone in agreement at the time.


There is the issue of the equinox which relates to astronomical accuracy and also the strict injunction that our Pascha is not to be celebrated at the same time as or before the Jewish Passover since the Christian Pascha is the completion of the Jewish Passover.
A lot of people say that but I don't think that is quite correct. The spirit of what the council was trying to say is that we are NOT to use the same calculations as the Jews for Pascha because they had diverged from the Scriptural method.


Over the next millenium and more, the astronomical date of the equinox continued to drift about 11 days while the Jews retained their same method of calculating the timing of the Passover. Although everyone knew of the drift (having had to correct the civil calendar long before Nicea- was there already a drift by then?), the Church apparently gave priority in practice to the canons dealing with the spiritual significance of not celebrating before or with the Jewish Passover rather than the physical significance of the actual date of the equinox.

Well, interesting thing, is that the equinox has no relation to the "stars" but is merely determined by the Earth specifically passing a specific point in its orbit around the Sun, when the duration of the day and night are equal. Using the position of the stars to mark that particular time is more a convenience than a necessity. The equinox itself does not, in fact it cannot by definition, "drift". It is its relative position to the marking stars that drifts. The equinox is a dividing point of the seasons, and happens when it happens regardless of when we want it to happen or claim it happens. It will never happen in the "summer" or the "winter" because by definition it cannot. It is and always will be the midpoint between the two. So what happens when the artificial and arbitrary date picked for the Julian Paschalion drifts outside the orbit of the equinox (and it will happen eventually)? Why not face up to it now rather than leave it as an SEP (somebody else's problem)?

When approached with the opportunity to correct the calendar by the West, our Fathers unanimously rejected the Gregorian calendar for Church use for eccesiological rather than astronomical reasons.

I wonder. Perhaps it was more political than ecclesiological or are we conflating the two?

Since on this basis the reckoning for Pascha cannot be changed (unless the Jews change the way they date Passover?) and since the Pascalion and Menaion together constitute one integrated whole calendar, how can we change it?
See, that is the problem I have. We are specifically told NOT to reckon Pascha "with the Jews", so this very reasoning seems to violate the findings of the Council, since that means using the very calculation (with the Jews) they are telling us not to use! Tis a conundrum, it seems chono-illogical to this bear of little brain.

Herman the "just askin' the question" Pooh

[Herman Blaydoe]

Time is as much a part of creation as anything else, and is subject to the effects of the fall along with eveyrthing else in creation. I don't think we can take the current motions of the bodies of the universe and the resultant inconstant time as reflective of God's intention for his creation any more than we can look at death due to cancer as being reflective of God's will for his creation. Through the grace of God, of which the Church is a channel, fallen creation is redeemed and hallowed. That includes time. To my reckoning, the sacntification of time through a constant and harmonised calendar according to which the people of God celebrate the feasts, fasts, Saints and mysteries of salvation, is far preferable to one that slavishly follows a desire for astronomical accuracy based on an inconstant element of creation which, by its nature, can never be measured with absolute accuracy.

In Christ,
Michael

But doesn't God Himself use His creation to proclaim His greatness? Where not those who studied the stars taught by a star to worship the Orient on high? It is God's dance, we are simply trying to keep the beat. I still cannot see why that is a bad thing.

Herman the "keep on dancin'" Pooh

[Michael Astley]

Exactly, Herman! The Church calendar did not spring from nothing, but is based on those stars, planets, and moons in their orbits. Yet it does not stop there. It brings harmony where they cannot. Indeed, they that worshipped the stars were taught by a star to worship the Sun of Righteousness, not to remain fixated on the stars.

At least that is how I understand the application of the tropar to our present discussion.

In Christ,
Michael

[David Hawthorne]

Not really. They were not mathmeticians, they were simply trying to get everyone in agreement at the time.


A lot of people say that but I don't think that is quite correct. The spirit of what the council was trying to say is that we are NOT to use the same calculations as the Jews for Pascha because they had diverged from the Scriptural method.



Well, interesting thing, is that the equinox has no relation to the "stars" but is merely determined by the Earth specifically passing a specific point in its orbit around the Sun, when the duration of the day and night are equal. Using the position of the stars to mark that particular time is more a convenience than a necessity. The equinox itself does not, in fact it cannot by definition, "drift". It is its relative position to the marking stars that drifts. The equinox is a dividing point of the seasons, and happens when it happens regardless of when we want it to happen or claim it happens. It will never happen in the "summer" or the "winter" because by definition it cannot. It is and always will be the midpoint between the two. So what happens when the artificial and arbitrary date picked for the Julian Paschalion drifts outside the orbit of the equinox (and it will happen eventually)? Why not face up to it now rather than leave it as an SEP (somebody else's problem)?


I wonder. Perhaps it was more political than ecclesiological or are we conflating the two?

See, that is the problem I have. We are specifically told NOT to reckon Pascha "with the Jews", so this very reasoning seems to violate the findings of the Council, since that means using the very calculation (with the Jews) they are telling us not to use! Tis a conundrum, it seems chono-illogical to this bear of little brain.

Herman the "just askin' the question" Pooh

On my way to an appointment but I do appreciate you thoughtful responses, Herman-
A brief (hopefully not rude reply):
The ancients were mathematician enough to come up with the calendar so I am not sure what you were getting at with the first point...
You are right about the definition of the equinox, sorry I was using the wrong terminology, there.
The phrase "with the Jews" means "at the same time as" rather than "in the same manner as". With the Gregorian Paschalion Easter does sometimes occur before or at the same time as the Passover which is in contradiction of our canons.
Many Orthodox believe that the acceptance of the New Calendar was originally more political (ecumenism) and its rejection in the 16th century by all the Orthodox was more ecclesiological (maintaining the integrity of the complete Typicon).
Out of curiousity, though, why do the New Calendar jurisdictions keep the Old Calendar Paschalion if the reason is not canonical?

[Herman Blaydoe]

Exactly, Herman! The Church calendar did not spring from nothing, but is based on those stars, planets, and moons in their orbits. Yet it does not stop there. It brings harmony where they cannot. Indeed, they that worshipped the stars were taught by a star to worship the Sun of Righteousness, not to remain fixated on the stars.

At least that is how I understand the application of the tropar to our present discussion.

In Christ,
Michael

But it DOES "stop" there, since you are not allowing any further adjustments, you are trying to "stop" time. What is time, if not the measurement of change? The Julian calendar was not ordained by God. It was not the calendar that our Lord Himself actually used. It was chosen at the time as the best solution for the time. The Church took a calendar instituted by a pagan emperor and used it to order the Church. They took the civil calendar and adapted the cycle of services to it. Why iis what was right then wrong now?

Herman the dizzy Pooh

[Michael Astley]

But it DOES "stop" there, since you are not allowing any further adjustments, you are trying to "stop" time. What is time, if not the measurement of change? The Julian calendar was not ordained by God. It was not the calendar that our Lord Himself actually used. It was chosen at the time as the best solution for the time. The Church took a calendar instituted by a pagan emperor and used it to order the Church. They took the civil calendar and adapted the cycle of services to it. Why iis what was right then wrong now?

Herman the dizzy Pooh

I ask forgiveness for prolonging this tangent. I would only say that I disagree with your assertion that those of us who retain the use of the Church calendar are trying to stop time. I would simply say that we are measuring time in a harmonious fashion.

My own personal feelings surrounding the Meletian calendar aren't really based on questions of astronomical accuracy or the rightness or wrongness thereof. If asked to present an argument for the continued use of the Julian calendar, that is not the reasining that I would give, (although I may mention what I said above as a supporting aside). I was merely trying to respond to your question in this (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=86114&postcount=18) post.

As I said earlier, my reasons needn't be gone into here (because they do not relate directly to the main topic of this thread) but they may be read on my blog, to which I linked earlier. I hope not to derail the conversation any more.

In Christ,
Michael

[Herman Blaydoe]

On my way to an appointment but I do appreciate you thoughtful responses, Herman-
A brief (hopefully not rude reply):
The ancients were mathematician enough to come up with the calendar so I am not sure what you were getting at with the first point...

Except that they did not "come up with" the calendar. They used the one they had, then picked a formulaic date that everyone agreed with. Not much math involved really.


You are right about the definition of the equinox, sorry I was using the wrong terminology, there.
The phrase "with the Jews" means "at the same time as" rather than "in the same manner as". With the Gregorian Paschalion Easter does sometimes occur before or at the same time as the Passover which is in contradiction of our canons.
Are you sure? Perhaps a careful reading of the canon itself is in order? Just askin'.


Many Orthodox believe that the acceptance of the New Calendar was originally more political (ecumenism) and its rejection in the 16th century by all the Orthodox was more ecclesiological (maintaining the integrity of the complete Typicon).
I am not convinced that politics did not play on both sides of the issue.

Out of curiousity, though, why do the New Calendar jurisdictions keep the Old Calendar Paschalion if the reason is not canonical?
Convenience? Not willing to fight over it? Taking the easy way out? I do think that today's Church, if it had half the courage and spirit-filled wisdom of the early Church, could solve this problem in a God-pleasing manner and I am not convinced that manner requires the continued use of a pagan calendar, but it doesn't and that makes me sort of sad.

Herman the melancholy Pooh

[Herman Blaydoe]

If I may be indulged...

My understanding of the New Calendarists' retention of the Church calendar for the paschalion while using the Meletian calendar for the solar cycle is that it is reflective of the same sort of legalism.When the Gregorian calendar was anathematised, this was accompanied by a strong focus on the condemnation of the departure from the Church paschalion.
What is legalism and what is rationalizing? Here is the little semantic hand grenade I shall toss into the discussion. The Gregorian calendar was NOT, I repeat, NOT anathematized, the Gregorian Paschalion was. You even say so in your blog. So we do not use the Gregorian paschalion, so that is not legalism. Fact is, even the western churches are willing to admit that their paschalion is in need of correction. So why not simply come up with a CORRECT Paschalion that simply incorporates the corrected calendar? Why is this so hard to figure out?

To each his own I suppose, but when you claim legalism, I counter rationalization: keep it so that we don't have to deal with it. The Church of the first council was more courageous than that.


My own view (http://miadoradoscxiam.blogspot.com/2009/11/calendar-and-conscience.html) on this sort of approach to Orthodox Church life is probably clear from the wording I have used so I needn't make it explicit here. However, that's my understanding of the answer to your question. I am open to correction.

In Christ,
Michael

Sorry if I have stepped on some toes with my little questioning dance, but I think the real answer requires Truth, honesty, and courage, and not merely opinion and personal preference and avoiding hard questions.

Herman the steel-toed Pooh

[Michael Astley]

My toes, for one, are all intact, Herman. :-)

I agree with your assessment of what is needful in these matters but would add faithfulness and obedience to the list.

In Christ,
Michael

[Kosta]

One thing is clear, astronomical accuracy is not the intention of a liturgical calendar. Three pan-orthodox councils made that clear. What was anathemized was the papal paschalion, a menologion based on the papal calendar and a belief that astronomical accuracy is needed for a viable liturgical calendar. Ecumenists who are wordly-minded and want to create some kind of pan-european christian religion have fueled this heresy for an astronomical correctness based on the pope's calendar and nobody elses .

[Herman Blaydoe]

One thing is clear, astronomical accuracy is not the intention of a liturgical calendar.
Astronomical accuracy is the only point of a calendar, liturgical or otherwise, by definition. Astronomical events are what a calendar tracks, it is what it is based on. Otherwise it is really not a calendar. A day is a complete rotation of the Earth on its axis. That is an astronomical event. A year is how long it takes the Earth to rotate around the Sun. Counting how many times the Earth rotates around its axis and how many times it circles the Sun and where the moon happens to be is the method by which we keep track of when to plant crops, how much interest we have earned, and when to celebrate Pascha. Astronomical events are the convenient yet arbitrary way we have decided to mark the time because it consists of easily observable, repeating, countable, cycles. Unfortunately, God did not syncronize the rotation of the Earth in its orbit around the Sun, or perhaps because of sin and certainly due to tidal deceleration, they are no longer in sync, and we have to make adjustments from time to time to keep them harmonized.

Three pan-orthodox councils made that clear. What was anathemized was the papal paschalion, a menologion based on the papal calendar and a belief that astronomical accuracy is needed for a viable liturgical calendar.
Perhaps we are not reading what they actually said carefully enough? I am not sure they said what you think they said and I can only wonder if they really meant to be the absolute final and last word on the subject.

Ecumenists who are wordly-minded and want to create some kind of pan-european christian religion have fueled this heresy for an astronomical correctness based on the pope's calendar and nobody elses.
I find this argument ad hominem and baseless. I don't care about a pope's calendar, I only want an accurate calendar and I have yet to read a cogent and reasonable argument that an accurate calendar is against God's will, it generally boils down to "we don't want to be Catholic". Sorry, but that is not much of an argument.

I still do not know why what the early Church did before as good is evil now, just because the Catholics happened to do it first. I don't know why the Church HAS to use a separate and anachronistic calendar, instituted by a pagan empire. So other religions have their own calendars, so what? We are not "another religion", we are the True Faith, I don't care what they do. Using a calendar that does not do what a calendar is supposed to do is not "truth". It smacks of the reasoning of the ecclesiology of a retreating army. It is a policy of retreat and retrenchment, not advancement and victory in a martial and spiritual sense. Perhaps it is time to illuminate the darkness rather than avoid it. In the great cycle of time, perhaps it is time for the Church once again to engage and confront the world, rather than run and hide from it. But then, that might just be me.

Herman the obstreperous Pooh

[Dimitris]

In this whole discussion, why don't we look on the intentions of the first Ecumenical Council regarding the date of Pascha? I think it is valuable to read the letter from emperor Constantine to those who where not present at the synod:

They [the Jews] do not possess the truth in this Easter question; for, in their blindness and repugnance to all improvements, they frequently celebrate two passovers in the same year. We could not imitate those who are openly in error. How, then, could we follow these Jews, who are most certainly blinded by error?

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.x.html, bold markings by me
Of course, emperor Constantine was no authorative teacher, not a bishop nor a synod, but he was highly respected and it can in my opinion be assumed that he describes the intentions of the Ecumenical Council in the right way. Most obviously, it was without even doubting frowned upon and considered unacceptable to remain on old facts when they have been proven wrong. So when this was the intention of the synod then, why is this such a big deal now for decades and centuries within the Orthodox Church?

[Michael Stickles]

What was anathemized was the papal paschalion, a menologion based on the papal calendar and a belief that astronomical accuracy is needed for a viable liturgical calendar.

I did a little digging and came up with a question on this. The specific anathema from the 1583 pan-Orthodox council (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/prot_rc_heresy.aspx#sigillon) reads:


7) That whoever does not follow the customs of the Church as the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils decreed, and Holy Pascha, and the Menologion with which they did well in making it a law that we should follow it, and wishes to follow the newly-invented Paschalion and the New Menologion of the atheist astronomers of the Pope, and opposes all those things and wishes to overthrow and destroy the dogmas and customs of the Church which have been handed down by our fathers, let him suffer anathema and be put out of the Church of Christ and out of the Congregation of the Faithful.

The decrees of the councils regarding Pascha are easy enough to find, but I haven't found anything there "making it a law that we should follow it" regarding the Menologion. Only one of the canons I found regarding commemoration of the saints addresses anything with respect to dates, and that was a note that martyrs are not to be commemorated on weekdays during Lent. Does anyone know what, specifically, the "law" referred to by the anathema actually is?

In Christ,
Michael

[Herman Blaydoe]

I did a little digging and came up with a question on this. The specific anathema from the 1583 pan-Orthodox council (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/prot_rc_heresy.aspx#sigillon) reads:



The decrees of the councils regarding Pascha are easy enough to find, but I haven't found anything there "making it a law that we should follow it" regarding the Menologion. Only one of the canons I found regarding commemoration of the saints addresses anything with respect to dates, and that was a note that martyrs are not to be commemorated on weekdays during Lent. Does anyone know what, specifically, the "law" referred to by the anathema actually is?

In Christ,
Michael

Some inconvenient yet interesting information some people would rather overlook can be found here: Date of Pascha (http://www.dneoca.org/articles/dateofpascha0593.html).

Herman the inconvenient Pooh

[Kosta]

I did a little digging and came up with a question on this. The specific anathema from the 1583 pan-Orthodox council (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/prot_rc_heresy.aspx#sigillon) reads:



The decrees of the councils regarding Pascha are easy enough to find, but I haven't found anything there "making it a law that we should follow it" regarding the Menologion. Only one of the canons I found regarding commemoration of the saints addresses anything with respect to dates, and that was a note that martyrs are not to be commemorated on weekdays during Lent. Does anyone know what, specifically, the "law" referred to by the anathema actually is?

In Christ,
Michael

The menologion is basically the feast days of the saints. The revised julian calendar does not violate the Sigillon of 1583, but it is an anomaly. There wasnt really a reorganization of the saints feast days by the adoption of this hybrid calendar to synchronize with the west.

When St George's feast day falls on Lent it is moved till after Pascha, in the traditional calendar this feast is strictly an immoveable feast day. This is what makes the revised hybrid calendar an anomaly, soon after thousands of years many saints feasts and the festal menaion would have to all become moveable feast days to avoid so overlapping. If we adopt the papal calendar on the other hand we fall on this anathema. I read the condemnation of the other pan-orthodox council in the 1590's and the mention of the menologion was dropped (unfortunately i can no longer find it, if someones knows of the decree please post it), probably because our saints feast days are very different with rome and was no longer seen as a concern. Any input i would like also.

What was the reason for devising the nicene formula for Pascha? First off so the asian dioceses celebrate Pascha on a Sunday like everyone else (aka quartodeciman controversy). Secondly there can be a uniform date for all and not rely on the jews who at that time erred frequently in their calculations. Sometimes they would celebrate passover after the equinox and the next year before the equinox, some jews didnt agree with each other. Following these jewish errors made Pascha to be celebrated twice in one calendar year. Nicea decreed Pascha always fall after a FIXED date for the equinox, eliminating this problem and at the same time not interfere with immoveable feast days. The privelege of calculating pascha fell on the alexandrian patriarch, never was the actual equinox used only a fixed date using the 19 year metonic cycle Thirdly to follow the timeline of the gospels that the ressurection of Christ happened after the start of passover not before. So if the first full moon (start of passover) fell on a sunday, Pascha is celebrated the following sunday.

Now as i said before, the drifting of the julian calendar is only a problem because the ecumenists tell us so, and the adherents of such an argument border on falling on this anathema of 1583: " ...and wishes to follow the newly invented paschalion and the new menologion of the atheist astronomers of the pope..." When i meant astronomical accuracy i mean the neccesity for some that the calendar drift is a major problem and should be rectified even if it means disrupting the liturgical cycle and fasting periods etc. The Sigillon is saying that the astronomical accuracy of the "atheist astronomers" are to be disregarded. By the way even the gregorian has some drift but only like 10 seconds a year.

The most harsh condemnation of the papal calendar comes from the sigillon of 1756:

Cyrill, by the Grace of God Archbishop of Constantinople - New Rome and OEcumenical Patriarch
Due to new abominations, created by papists in regard to the question of changing our Pascha and Calendar.

Removal from the Church

The most honorable clerics of our Great Church of Christ, other most God-fearing Hierarchs and most saintly hieromonks, singers in churches of our city, followers of Paul, who says: "If someone would annunciate contrary to what we annunciated to you, even that be an angel from heavens, anathema on him"; if he is a hierarch or a faithful one, to be removed from God, dammed, and after death not to rot but to dwell in eternal torment. Let stone and iron scatter and decay - they never and by no means. Let them inherit Giza's leprosy and Judas's hanging; let them dwell on earth like Cain, moaning and shivering; and let the wrath of God be on their heads and their share be with the traitor Judas and god-fighting Judeans; let the earth open and swallow them, like once Dathan and Abiron; let the Angel of God chase them with a sward in all the days of their lives, and let them succumb to all the damnations of the Patriarch and the Synod under the eternal removal and in torment of eternal fire.

Amen.

[Herman Blaydoe]

The menologion is basically the feast days of the saints. The revised julian calendar does not violate the Sigillon of 1583, but it is an anomaly. There wasnt really a reorganization of the saints feast days by the adoption of this hybrid calendar to synchronize with the west.

Thank you. It is good when misinformation is corrected.


When St George's feast day falls on Lent it is moved till after Pascha, in the traditional calendar this feast is strictly an immoveable feast day. This is what makes the revised hybrid calendar an anomaly, soon after thousands of years many saints feasts and the festal menaion would have to all become moveable feast days to avoid so overlapping.

Oops. Sorry but there is more misinformation here. While there is indeed an anomaly, the reason will be discussed in another post but the last sentence is simply wrong as will come clear later.


If we adopt the papal calendar on the other hand we fall on this anathema. I read the condemnation of the other pan-orthodox council in the 1590's and the mention of the menologion was dropped (unfortunately i can no longer find it, if someones knows of the decree please post it), probably because our saints feast days are very different with rome and was no longer seen as a concern. Any input i would like also.

Sorry but this too is a subtle twist that is wrong. The calendar is not under the anathema as has already been made clear. It is the Paschalion that is the issue not the calendar. Can we stick to the facts please?


What was the reason for devising the nicene formula for Pascha? First off so the asian dioceses celebrate Pascha on a Sunday like everyone else (aka quartodeciman controversy). Secondly there can be a uniform date for all and not rely on the jews who at that time erred frequently in their calculations. Sometimes they would celebrate passover after the equinox and the next year before the equinox, some jews didnt agree with each other. Following these jewish errors made Pascha to be celebrated twice in one calendar year. Nicea decreed Pascha always fall after a FIXED date for the equinox, eliminating this problem and at the same time not interfere with immoveable feast days. The privelege of calculating pascha fell on the alexandrian patriarch, never was the actual equinox used only a fixed date using the 19 year metonic cycle Thirdly to follow the timeline of the gospels that the ressurection of Christ happened after the start of passover not before. So if the first full moon (start of passover) fell on a sunday, Pascha is celebrated the following sunday.

No argument with that.


Now as i said before, the drifting of the julian calendar is only a problem because the ecumenists tell us so, and the adherents of such an argument border on falling on this anathema of 1583: " ...and wishes to follow the newly invented paschalion and the new menologion of the atheist astronomers of the pope..."

You know, this is not an argument, merely an ad hominem. Name-calling and character assassination are not practices appropriate for Christians. Let us simply avoid them, shall we?


When i meant astronomical accuracy i mean the neccesity for some that the calendar drift is a major problem and should be rectified even if it means disrupting the liturgical cycle and fasting periods etc. The Sigillon is saying that the astronomical accuracy of the "atheist astronomers" are to be disregarded. By the way even the gregorian has some drift but only like 10 seconds a year.

I will deal with this issue in another post, but I warn you, you will not like the answer.


The most harsh condemnation of the papal calendar comes from the sigillon of 1756:

Cyrill, by the Grace of God Archbishop of Constantinople - New Rome and OEcumenical Patriarch
Due to new abominations, created by papists in regard to the question of changing our Pascha and Calendar.

Removal from the Church

The most honorable clerics of our Great Church of Christ, other most God-fearing Hierarchs and most saintly hieromonks, singers in churches of our city, followers of Paul, who says: "If someone would annunciate contrary to what we annunciated to you, even that be an angel from heavens, anathema on him"; if he is a hierarch or a faithful one, to be removed from God, dammed, and after death not to rot but to dwell in eternal torment. Let stone and iron scatter and decay - they never and by no means. Let them inherit Giza's leprosy and Judas's hanging; let them dwell on earth like Cain, moaning and shivering; and let the wrath of God be on their heads and their share be with the traitor Judas and god-fighting Judeans; let the earth open and swallow them, like once Dathan and Abiron; let the Angel of God chase them with a sward in all the days of their lives, and let them succumb to all the damnations of the Patriarch and the Synod under the eternal removal and in torment of eternal fire.

Amen.

1. This was not an Ecumenical Council.

2. Nobody is avocating using a "papal" paschalion, and as will come clear, not even the "papists" are doing so, much less these mysterious bug-a-boo "ecumenists" whoever they are.

Herman the bug-a-boo Pooh, more to follow when I have a little time

[Herman Blaydoe]

Those with weak constitutions, high-blood pressure or a low tolerance for facts that conflict with their current world-view should not read any further. The following may well exceed the maximum recommended daily dose of irony and could cause irrational anger, headache, increased heart-rate, confusion, and for those with heart conditions, may result in apoplexy, or at the very least, a questioning of their world-view which may prove painful.

In the year 2100, those who follow the Julian calendar will have a problem to deal with. They will have to tell their people that the date of Christmas has changed. Instead of being celebrated on January 6th, as has been done since all who are alive can remember, it will be celebrated on January 7th. Many people will complain, "wait a minute, you said the Church does not change and here you go changing things! We ALWAYS have celebrated on January 6, and now you are changing it!" They will explain that it isn't "really" changing, it is still on December 25th (OC), but December 25th has changed and is now on January 7th because of the calendar drift. And many people will say " but you said the drift isn't important! Accuracy doesn't matter! So why are you changing the date? Why can't we still celebrate on Jauary 6th like we always have?"

And here is the ironic part. The western traditions freely acknowledge that their method for calculating Pascha needs correction and would happily work with us to come up with a better method, but the Orthodox refuse to discuss the issue. The only reason we keep to an archaic and flawed calculation because those who follow the Julian calendar refuse to allow it to be fixed. The "fix" does NOT require us to use the anathemized "papal" Paschalion because nobody (not even the Pope) really wants to use it anymore. But forcing everybody to use a calendar that nobody actually uses is problematic.

And the method we Orthodox currently use actually VIOLATES the spirit of the canon as set forth by the Ecumenical Council!? By artificially bending our calculation to avoid "celebrating with the Jews" we are actually accomodating and using the offensive modern Jewish calculation which is exactly what the canon tells us NOT to do!

And guess what, to the average rank and file parishioner, it would make no difference whatsoever. Pascha changes every year! And many, if not most, Orthodox do not know (or even care) HOW it is calculated, as long as it happens on a Sunday 47 days after the start of Great and Holy Lent.

So, in reality, it has nothing to do with masons, "ecumenists", Illuminati, Templars, or {insert favorite conspiracy theory here}. If we were to have the courage to do what the early Church did, we would:
1) Use the calendar used by most of the world
2) Establish the reckoning of Pascha in a manner that will actually obey rather than violate the spirit of the Ecumenical Councils
3) Re-establish the harmony of the liturgicon because everyone would be using the same calendar not a "hybrid"

This would NOT use the "Gregorian" paschalion because the "Gregorians" acknowledge that it is flawed and want to fix it, but can't because their Orthodox brethren refuse to help.

Those who use the Julian reckoning WILL eventually have to "change" what they do because the day they celebrate Christmas will no longer be January 6 on the calendar even their people use day-to-day. Change cannot be avoided. But nobody will be upset if Pascha "changes" because it "changes" every year anyway!!! The "how" is opaque to most people, so revising it would make no difference in that respect.

And for the person who is going to throw in the "Holy Fire" argument: The miracle of the Holy Fire happens based on when the Orthodox celebrate Pascha. We don't celebrate Pascha due to the miracle. I will make you a deal. If we correct the reckoning of Pascha, and if the Holy Fire does not occur, then I, for one, will happily go back to the Julian reckoning and not say another word. But if the Holy Fire still comes down, expect a great big loud "I told you so!" from a certain Pooh.

Herman the ironic Pooh

[David Hawthorne]

Those with weak constitutions, high-blood pressure or a low tolerance for facts that conflict with their current world-view should not read any further. The following may well exceed the maximum recommended daily dose of irony and could cause irrational anger, headache, increased heart-rate, confusion, and for those with heart conditions, may result in apoplexy, or at the very least, a questioning of their world-view which may prove painful.

In the year 2100, those who follow the Julian calendar will have a problem to deal with. They will have to tell their people that the date of Christmas has changed. Instead of being celebrated on January 6th, as has been done since all who are alive can remember, it will be celebrated on January 7th. Many people will complain, "wait a minute, you said the Church does not change and here you go changing things! We ALWAYS have celebrated on January 6, and now you are changing it!" They will explain that it isn't "really" changing, it is still on December 25th (OC), but December 25th has changed and is now on January 7th because of the calendar drift. And many people will say " but you said the drift isn't important! Accuracy doesn't matter! So why are you changing the date? Why can't we still celebrate on Jauary 6th like we always have?"

And here is the ironic part. The western traditions freely acknowledge that their method for calculating Pascha needs correction and would happily work with us to come up with a better method, but the Orthodox refuse to discuss the issue. The only reason we keep to an archaic and flawed calculation because those who follow the Julian calendar refuse to allow it to be fixed. The "fix" does NOT require us to use the anathemized "papal" Paschalion because nobody (not even the Pope) really wants to use it anymore. But forcing everybody to use a calendar that nobody actually uses is problematic.

And the method we Orthodox currently use actually VIOLATES the spirit of the canon as set forth by the Ecumenical Council!? By artificially bending our calculation to avoid "celebrating with the Jews" we are actually accomodating and using the offensive modern Jewish calculation which is exactly what the canon tells us NOT to do!

And guess what, to the average rank and file parishioner, it would make no difference whatsoever. Pascha changes every year! And many, if not most, Orthodox do not know (or even care) HOW it is calculated, as long as it happens on a Sunday 47 days after the start of Great and Holy Lent.

So, in reality, it has nothing to do with masons, "ecumenists", Illuminati, Templars, or {insert favorite conspiracy theory here}. If we were to have the courage to do what the early Church did, we would:
1) Use the calendar used by most of the world
2) Establish the reckoning of Pascha in a manner that will actually obey rather than violate the spirit of the Ecumenical Councils
3) Re-establish the harmony of the liturgicon because everyone would be using the same calendar not a "hybrid"

This would NOT use the "Gregorian" paschalion because the "Gregorians" acknowledge that it is flawed and want to fix it, but can't because their Orthodox brethren refuse to help.

Those who use the Julian reckoning WILL eventually have to "change" what they do because the day they celebrate Christmas will no longer be January 6 on the calendar even their people use day-to-day. Change cannot be avoided. But nobody will be upset if Pascha "changes" because it "changes" every year anyway!!! The "how" is opaque to most people, so revising it would make no difference in that respect.

And for the person who is going to throw in the "Holy Fire" argument: The miracle of the Holy Fire happens based on when the Orthodox celebrate Pascha. We don't celebrate Pascha due to the miracle. I will make you a deal. If we correct the reckoning of Pascha, and if the Holy Fire does not occur, then I, for one, will happily go back to the Julian reckoning and not say another word. But if the Holy Fire still comes down, expect a great big loud "I told you so!" from a certain Pooh.

Herman the ironic Pooh

The first point simply does not make sense to an Old Calendarist. We know the dates have been growing further apart for centuries. No one will be shocked in 2100 when another day of separation occurs.
As for the last paragraph concerning the Holy Fire, been there, done that (in 1969-1970). I hope this inconvenient truth does not pooh-pooh the Pooh but check out the third paragraph in this link. Afterwards check your local Old Calendar parish for service times as promised :-)
http://www.holyfire.org/eng/doc_LitHavoc.htm

[Michael L.]

In the year 2100, those who follow the Julian calendar will have a problem to deal with. They will have to tell their people that the date of Christmas has changed. Instead of being celebrated on January 6th, as has been done since all who are alive can remember, it will be celebrated on January 7th. Many people will complain, "wait a minute, you said the Church does not change and here you go changing things! We ALWAYS have celebrated on January 6, and now you are changing it!" T
Herman the ironic Pooh

Am I missing something? My church calendar already has the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus scheduled for January 7th 2010 not January 6th!

[Michael Stickles]

I'm not sure my original question was understood, so just to be more clear:




7) That whoever does not follow the customs of the Church as the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils decreed, and Holy Pascha, and the Menologion with which they did well in making it a law that we should follow it, and wishes to follow the newly-invented Paschalion and the New Menologion of the atheist astronomers of the Pope, and opposes all those things and wishes to overthrow and destroy the dogmas and customs of the Church which have been handed down by our fathers, let him suffer anathema and be put out of the Church of Christ and out of the Congregation of the Faithful.


I wasn't wondering how (if at all) the institution of the new calendar violated this. What I'm actually asking is, where can this "law" be found? I could not find it in an online copy of Schaff's The Seven Ecumenical Councils, though I might be using the wrong search terms. Or maybe it comes from a different source (though it sure appears that "they" refers to the Councils)?

In Christ,
Michael

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Michael Stickles wrote:



The decrees of the councils regarding Pascha are easy enough to find, but I haven't found anything there "making it a law that we should follow it" regarding the Menologion. Only one of the canons I found regarding commemoration of the saints addresses anything with respect to dates, and that was a note that martyrs are not to be commemorated on weekdays during Lent. Does anyone know what, specifically, the "law" referred to by the anathema actually is?

I think that the 'Menologion' referred to simply means the manner of keeping to the monthly calendar. In other words this refers to the calendar/monthly date.

On another note though a basic rule concerning canonicity is that it is the Church which stands above the canons to apply them & intepret them as She sees fit. The canons do not stand above the discernment and guidance of the Church.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Andreas Moran]

Michael Stickles wrote:



I think that the 'Menologion' referred to simply means the manner of keeping to the monthly calendar. In other words this refers to the calendar/monthly date.

On another note though a basic rule concerning canonicity is that it is the Church which stands above the canons to apply them & intepret them as She sees fit. The canons do not stand above the discernment and guidance of the Church.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

How do we receive the discernment and guidance of the Church since any one person, from priest to patriarch, who may be consulted can be in error?

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Anyway...I'm glad to see there's a discussion going on here!

My steady belief about the Calendar it is that it is a Church calendar. This can be seen for example in its liturgical nature and in how it harmonizes the Paschal and Menaion (monthly/date) cycles. Where daily services are done and then this is combined with the fasting rule for the day (which is always connected to the liturgical calendar for us) this really comes out.

I do not believe then that the Calendar is meant to be mechanical. For such concepts as a mechanical measurement of time did not previously exist; they would not have been understood. Instead all events- whether natural and astronomical- were seen as being sacred. Again this can be seen from within the liturgical context where at Vespers we always chant Psalm 103 which recounts creation but as an act of God. In other words the Calendar is meant to redeem time and this is one of its fundamental characteristics which should not be lost.

As to whether the calendar can be changed though: I admit from what is presented here that such a thing is possible if it keeps to its basic principle of being a Church calendar. Indeed the Calendar has been altered previously and will probably be so again. The calendar in other words is not absolute and possibly we can say that this is due to the fact that time itself on this plane is never completely stable. (we would probably also be helped to keep in mind that before the various great schisms in the Church that from Britain in the west to Persia in the east various calendars were in use; our calendar is only one of many variations and follows the Byzantine/east Slav tradition).

Connected to this is the fact that the Church on its calendar does also redeem our time. For example on the Russian church calendar the date of the civil New Year is celebrated with a special moleben. In a somewhat similar fashion Royal birthdays & coronations were also marked in this way. And then nowadays on the church calendar it is appointed that a memorial service be done for fallen soldiers on May 9- Victory Day (WWII). In other words I do not think that it is correct to think of our Church calendar as representing a sort of marking sacred time in a way completely separate from this world.

A second factor at work though is the fact that within the Orthodox Church the use of two calendars (three if you include Finland) is basically a calendar schism. By any measure this is tragic. Much of this arose from differing understandings of how to live Orthodoxy. But if precedent is any measure then what in the past meant that difference is always something in opposition, in the future a time could arrive when these become acceptable points along a spectrum. Then- as has happened many times in the past with the Church- these different points could be brought together in balance rather than in opposition.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Herman Blaydoe]

The first point simply does not make sense to an Old Calendarist. We know the dates have been growing further apart for centuries. No one will be shocked in 2100 when another day of separation occurs.
As for the last paragraph concerning the Holy Fire, been there, done that (in 1969-1970). I hope this inconvenient truth does not pooh-pooh the Pooh but check out the third paragraph in this link. Afterwards check your local Old Calendar parish for service times as promised :-)
http://www.holyfire.org/eng/doc_LitHavoc.htm

Interesting. I would certainly love to see any other verifiable corroborating information. Where is the record of any Orthodox Church celebrating Pascha on a different day than the rest of the Orthodox world (outside of Finland of course)? IF this alleged event actually happened, the mere fact that the Orthodox Church was obviously not "of a mind" on the event could certainly be factor enough for the alleged "discrepancy". I'm really going to need more information to conceed that one. Archbishop Chrysostomos is not considered a reliable source by many respected Orthodox authorities.

Herman the doubtful Pooh

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

How do we receive the discernment and guidance of the Church since any one person, from priest to patriarch, who may be consulted can be in error?

I don not think that there is any one answer to this. All of the standard answers apply: humility, obedience, etc.

But from our standpoint of looking how this is achieved I believe that as I remarked at the end of my previous post: we need to keep in mind that the Church is really a spectrum of distinct persons. Seen individually each of these persons could be seen as being opposition in regards to what they do and say and represent. But in reality within the Church each of these differing persons serve to balance and adjust the other (this is one reason why schism is so dangerous- small like minded groups slowly go over the edge due to no opposition).

All of this though when seen together represents the Church. When you stand back you see it moving in a certain direction. If we are sensitive to that then we will get on board. In other words to maintain spiritual safety we have to discern where the Church is going by developing a sensitivity concerning this.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[David Hawthorne]

Interesting. I would certainly love to see any other verifiable corroborating information. Where is the record of any Orthodox Church celebrating Pascha on a different day than the rest of the Orthodox world (outside of Finland of course)? IF this alleged event actually happened, the mere fact that the Orthodox Church was obviously not "of a mind" on the event could certainly be factor enough for the alleged "discrepancy". I'm really going to need more information to conceed that one. Archbishop Chrysostomos is not considered a reliable source by many respected Orthodox authorities.

Herman the doubtful Pooh

I am sorry I was a little sloppy in my last post. My reading of the article was that the Jerusalem Patriarchate had switched to the New Calendar Menologion and not wholesale to the Gregorian Calendar including the Paschalion as Finland has done. So my example is not 100% what you were asking for but I think it was still to the point in that the Holy Fire did not descend anyway. I agree also about any calendrical change should occur with us all "of a mind". Unfortunately there is a lot of bad blood on both sides of the issue which is why I am also not surprised that a respected Old Calendar authority is not respected by many New Calendar authorities either. Both sides need to make more efforts to be fair with each other, I think. The book which the quote was from is also a very good apologia from the Old Calendar perspective and worth looking into.
Sorry for the confusion!

[Michael Astley]

Am I missing something? My church calendar already has the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus scheduled for January 7th 2010 not January 6th!

You're not missing anything. The Julian and Gregorian calendars are currently 13 days apart. Therefore, the 25th of December in the Julian calendar falls on the 7th of January in the Gregorian calendar. It used to fall on the 6th of January when the calendars were 12 days apart but this hasn't been the case for over a century.

There will be an additional day of drift fron 2100, which will place the calendars 14 days apart, causing Christmas to fall on Gregorian 8th of January. It just means people will have to think in terms of -14 rather than -13: hardly the end of the world.

In Christ,
Michael.

[Ryan]

At some point, the Church should probably revise the calendar, including the Paschalion, for reasons of astronomical accuracy. The problem with the current "revised Julian calendar" is that it was introduced in a non-conciliar manner, for purposes having mostly to do with relativism and accommodation to the West. Since the inaccuracy of the Julian calendar won't be a serious issue for a very long time yet, I think it would make sense right now for all the Orthodox to return to the Julian calendar for the sake of unity. Then, in time, we can move forward together to revise the calendar on genuinely Orthodox grounds, and do it in a way that doesn't alienate large portions of the faithful.

[Kosta]

At some point, the Church should probably revise the calendar, including the Paschalion, for reasons of astronomical accuracy. The problem with the current "revised Julian calendar" is that it was introduced in a non-conciliar manner, for purposes having mostly to do with relativism and accommodation to the West. Since the inaccuracy of the Julian calendar won't be a serious issue for a very long time yet, I think it would make sense right now for all the Orthodox to return to the Julian calendar for the sake of unity. Then, in time, we can move forward together to revise the calendar on genuinely Orthodox grounds, and do it in a way that doesn't alienate large portions of the faithful.

I agree. A few have been calling for this, unfortunately to deaf ears.

[Kosta]

Those with weak constitutions, high-blood pressure or a low tolerance for facts that conflict with their current world-view should not read any further. The following may well exceed the maximum recommended daily dose of irony and could cause irrational anger, headache, increased heart-rate, confusion, and for those with heart conditions, may result in apoplexy, or at the very least, a questioning of their world-view which may prove painful.


In the year 2100, those who follow the Julian calendar will have a problem to deal with. They will have to tell their people that the date of Christmas has changed. Instead of being celebrated on January 6th, as has been done since all who are alive can remember, it will be celebrated on January 7th. Many people will complain, "wait a minute, you said the Church does not change and here you go changing things! We ALWAYS have celebrated on January 6, and now you are changing it!" They will explain that it isn't "really" changing, it is still on December 25th (OC), but December 25th has changed and is now on January 7th because of the calendar drift. And many people will say " but you said the drift isn't important! Accuracy doesn't matter! So why are you changing the date? Why can't we still celebrate on Jauary 6th like we always have?"

Not an issue at all. Never met someone celebrating on the old calendar that doesnt know this.


And here is the ironic part. The western traditions freely acknowledge that their method for calculating Pascha needs correction and would happily work with us to come up with a better method, but the Orthodox refuse to discuss the issue.

This is ecumenism! The need to be tied to western christianity at the hip. Just like Constantine said to disregard the jews in calculating Pascha, same applies to the romans. The method for Pascha is that of Nicea, theres no need for another method.


And the method we Orthodox currently use actually VIOLATES the spirit of the canon as set forth by the Ecumenical Council!? By artificially bending our calculation to avoid "celebrating with the Jews" we are actually accomodating and using the offensive modern Jewish calculation which is exactly what the canon tells us NOT to do!

Completely false. We do follow Nicea. If theres any similarities its because in 367 a.d. the jews corrected their calculations and also use the 19 year metonic cycle and a more similar calendar to the julian than the gregorian. (if thats what you had in mind). And yes the 19 year cycle is part of the Nicene tradition, although some ecumenists today hide the patristic evidence for this.



This would NOT use the "Gregorian" paschalion because the "Gregorians" acknowledge that it is flawed and want to fix it, but can't because their Orthodox brethren refuse to help.

This is the ecumenist attitude ive been refering to. Why should we take into consideration the romans, the early christians didnt take into consideration the jews. Those who like the new calendar simply want to celebrate with their heterodox friends and partake of the commercialization.

Western christians dont fast neither so they can care less about the liturgical aspects of a calendar that this would take into consideration.

On the other hand the revised calendar will eventually celebrate Pascha on Aug 15 , thats where trouble will come in

[Jonathan Michael]

I am sorry I was a little sloppy in my last post. My reading of the article was that the Jerusalem Patriarchate had switched to the New Calendar Menologion and not wholesale to the Gregorian Calendar including the Paschalion as Finland has done. So my example is not 100% what you were asking for but I think it was still to the point in that the Holy Fire did not descend anyway. I agree also about any calendrical change should occur with us all "of a mind". Unfortunately there is a lot of bad blood on both sides of the issue which is why I am also not surprised that a respected Old Calendar authority is not respected by many New Calendar authorities either. Both sides need to make more efforts to be fair with each other, I think. The book which the quote was from is also a very good apologia from the Old Calendar perspective and worth looking into.
Sorry for the confusion!

I had never heard of this occurrence before either, however there are also miracles associated with the celebrations of fixed feasts, which more strongly confirm the use of the Julian calendar.

I believe it to be true that the miracle of the River Jordan's reversal in flow at the Blessing of the Waters occurs on every Theophany according to the Julian Calendar, not the revised calendar. There are videos of this miracle.

[M.C. Steenberg]

The Calendars

Dear all,

I have read through this thread with interest.

I would like to offer just a few thoughts

Firstly, a fraternal and pastoral one: it is Lent—let us strive to ensure that we don’t let the passions get the better of us here or elsewhere. It is always a great temptation in these periods.

Secondly, my own chief thought on the matter of calendars has been that their first role for the normal Christian faithful person (i.e. not a bishop, who is empowered to enter into discussions about what calendars may be used, how, etc.) is that of engendering obedience. I am, as we all are, able and called to ask questions, to probe for understanding, to query details; but ultimately I am called to be obedient to the liturgical order given to me by the Church and by my bishop. The calendar is a central part of this, since it orders the flow of fasting, feasting, celebrations, commemorations and the whole liturgical life of the community. And so I am called, as by all things in the Church, first and foremost to obedience, to conforming my will and heart to and through that handed to me by her, rather than seek to project and impose will—whatever it may be—upon it.

Thirdly, in coming to an understanding of calendars as used liturgically by the Church, I don’t find myself able to agree with the claim that calendars are chiefly astrological. Clearly they involve astronomical elements (e.g. the turning of the earth vis-à-vis the sun, which marks out days; the orbit of the moon, which marks months); but the Church’s usage of calendars is to take the basic, cyclical framework provided by God’s creation (the sun, moon, stars) to order and shape her liturgical life.

This is perhaps an ideological difference between the way the Church approaches calendars, and the way they are more commonly approached in other contexts—leading to their continual revision and correction. Outside the Church, there is no common life to regulate and order, to which to give shape; and so the result is that calendars are focused solely on the accurate measurement and definition of the passing of time in an astrological sense. It is up to whomever wishes to use this data, to employ it to give shape or form to life or activities. And in this context, it is entirely understandable (and wholly justifiable) that the striving after astronomical accuracy should be as precise as possible. When it is learnt that calculations are in error, that lags have caused inaccuracies, these should be corrected; and this is precisely what we see. Since the sole function of such calendars is astronomical precision, it would be ridiculous to maintain a system known to be in error, if one more accurate was possible. But again, this is because calendars in this extra-ecclesial context are wholly astronomical in function; any order they may bring to life and living are up to another body to create through them.

The Church uses calendars quite differently. Taking the basic cyclical framework provided by creation, it employs them wholly for the right ordering of the life of faith and worship. They are the backbone of liturgical life. In this sense, there is an astronomical foundation to the calendar as used by the Church (it does, in fact, use days, weeks, months, years; it does acknowledge the changing of the seasons), but this is as a more-or-less basic structure. What is far more significant is the liturgical framework built around this basic cycle, and which sanctifies it precisely by making of a natural pattern a thing liturgical and divine.

The Church is well aware that the calendar it has traditionally used is, in astronomical terms, inaccurate. I’ve never met anyone who argued that advances in astronomical accuracy and knowledge don’t render it possible to be more precise, in these regards, than the systems used to craft the old Church calendar (though there are some arguments to be made for seeing it as less errant in some ways that often assumed). But again, this isn’t the main purpose of the calendar. Its purpose is the ordering of liturgical life, which it does quite well; and, in fact, which there are substantial arguments for suggesting it does better than more astronomically accurate calendars that have superseded it in other contexts.

This is a rather long way of saying that I do not find arguments for a Church usage of one calendar or another, grounded in questions of astronomical precision, at all compelling or convincing. This simply isn’t what the Church does with calendars.

The question that has faced the Church is whether or not advances in civic computations of time—which are not liturgical—should or should not cause her to take up the new ‘pattern of time’ offered by such advances, now used by the secular society around her, and re-fashion her liturgical ordering around it. This was done once, some well argue (i.e. the liturgical calendar did not fall out of heaven: it was crafted by the Church off the basic civil calendar of the day), so it can be argued it can be done again. And we all know that some parts of the Church have indeed done so. But there are also arguments to be made against this re-fashioning: firstly, there is the basic question of whether it is necessary. Does the Church need to follow the world in this regard? Is ‘keeping time’ in synch with the saeculum missionary, or counter-missionary? And secondly, there is the technical question of whether the liturgical life that the Church has fashioned over two millennia can effectively be grafted onto a different way of keeping time. By and large the calendars are similar, simply off-set; but there are certain, well-known and well-worn issues that are more dramatic: the shift in Pascha, the shrinking of certain fasts, etc.

The point here is that in no case is the real question, for the Church, astronomical. The question that has faced the bishops is whether the Church (a) should and (b) can take a new social ordering of time and use it as the structure on which to graft its liturgical ordering.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Dimitris]

Dear Kosta,

This is the ecumenist attitude ive been refering to. Why should we take into consideration the romans, the early christians didnt take into consideration the jews. Those who like the new calendar simply want to celebrate with their heterodox friends and partake of the commercialization.
I don't think this triumphalistic view fits to Orthodoxy. As Orthodox we should pray that those who are heterodox find their way (back) to the Orthodox Church. And why shouldn't we as preliminary work try to fix something that is least dogmatic and that everyone knows isn't correct as it is now?


On the other hand the revised calendar will eventually celebrate Pascha on Aug 15 , thats where trouble will come in
Er, you are aware that this is the same problem as with the Julian calender, aren't you?

Dear Father Deacon Matthew,

This is a rather long way of saying that I do not find arguments for a Church usage of one calendar or another, grounded in questions of astronomical precision, at all compelling or convincing. This simply isn’t what the Church does with calendars.
However, this will lead that in some thousand years Christmas will be celebrated in summer and Easter in winter. A rather strange idea to me....

Dear David,

We know the dates have been growing further apart for centuries. No one will be shocked in 2100 when another day of separation occurs.
Are you so sure about this? On another discussion platfom I once was involved in a discussion with a woman who stated that in her church Christmas was always celebrated on January 7th. I tried to explain her that Christmas in her chuch as in every other orthodox church is celebrated on December 25th, but due to the calender shift it is currently celebrated on January 7th in terms of the civil calender in those churches which use the old calendar, and that in about 90 years her church will celebrate Christmas on January 8th in terms of the civil calendar. Her answer was "No, you are crazy, my church has never celebarted christmas on December 25th, it has and will celebrate Christmas always on January 7th, forever".

[Herman Blaydoe]

Thank you Father Deacon for a reasonable summation of the issues, without ad hominem attacks, or resorting to fanciful "facts" and creative mathematics. If I may respond to your very pertinent questions.


The point here is that in no case is the real question, for the Church, astronomical. The question that has faced the bishops is whether the Church (a) should and (b) can take a new social ordering of time and use it as the structure on which to graft its liturgical ordering.

The Church certainly CAN establish a common calendar, since that is what it did. It can also revise that calendar. It is, after all, simply a convenient method to order the liturgical cycle. It was the civil calendar of most of the world of its day and it was as accurate as the science of the day could make it.

But I still have not seen a reasonable argument as to why the Church must maintain an archaic calendar that does not do what a calendar does nor even obey the canons of the Church. Eventually the arbitrary and artificial fixed date of the Vernal Equinox will no longer fall within the range of dates in which the vernal equinox actually happens, and will drift away aimlessly through the seasons, like a ship that has lost its anchor. In Jerusalem, that symbolically central city, the Feast of St. John the Baptist in June and the Nativity itself will lose its incredibly beautiful theological symbolism (John 3:30 He must increase, but I must decrease) since from the Feast of St. John the days grow shorter and from the Nativity the days grow longer. The ridiculous claim that Pascha will happen in August using the revised calendar is simply wrong. Revising the Paschalion in accordance with the canons of the Ecumenical Councils will keep it right where it belongs, AFTER the Vernal Equinox, whereas the current Julian reckoning, will eventually result in it happening BEFORE it!

So, in summary, the Church should revise its calendar, not to conform to society, but merely to preserve and obey the canons of the ecumenical councils, to avoid celebrating "with the Jews", to keep Pascha attached to (and after) the Vernal Equinox, and to maintain the theological symbolism it was meant to preserve. The Julian Calendar does not do this, and no hysterical cries of "ecumenism" or irrational distortions of math will change that.

Or so it seems to this bear of little brain.

Herman the Pooh

[Michael L.]

However, this will lead that in some thousand years Christmas will be celebrated in summer and Easter in winter. A rather strange idea to me....



I believe that the Southern hemisphere has this current arrangement and I presume that Christmas and Easter are less holy there!!

[Dimitris]

Why did I know that this "argument" would come?

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Herman,

You've certainly got your position entrenched! But I've enjoyed reading your reflections.

I'm not convinced, personally that the Church 'has' established a common calendar with that of the secular world, on a truly liturgical level. It certainly has done so in the simple sense of certain portions adopting the revised calendar; but whether or not this has actually worked in terms of securing a functional liturgical cycle is not at all clear cut. There are some ongoing problems with how the Church's liturgical cycle fits around this calendar's precision of time -- most notably surrounding the Apostles' Fast -- which are not cut-and-dry one way or the other. Is there an issue with the way the liturgical cycle fits on this calendar? Unquestionably yes. Is this issue insurmountable? Perhaps not. But I'm not certain it is helpful or accurate to be too presumptive in insisting that it has worked and does work, simply because it has been adopted; nor too dismissive of those who have genuine questions and points to make in this regard.

The issue of calendar(s) has long since become an emotive rallying point. This makes it very difficult to discuss, since either those supporting the old calendar quickly start branding everyone support of the new as intrinsically 'ecumenists'; or those supporting the new start branding those who question it as antiquarian and out-of-touch.

In such situations it is always helpful to take a step back, remember the right framework of obedience and humility, and seek more openly to understand what calendars are and what they mean to Orthodox liturgical life, and how this should inform our discussion of the merits, strengths, weaknesses and problems encountered on any calendar system as it used by the Church.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Father David Moser]

The issue of calendar(s) has long since become an emotive rallying point. This makes it very difficult to discuss, ...

In such situations it is always helpful to take a step back, remember the right framework of obedience and humility, and seek more openly to understand what calendars are and what they mean to Orthodox liturgical life, and how this should inform our discussion of the merits, strengths, weaknesses and problems encountered on any calendar system as it used by the Church.

I would like to point out that this this discussion over the past couple of days seems to be getting increasingly passionate and personal. I would ask that all the participants refocus on the issues that Fr Matthew pointed out above. Please note that "ecumenism" (whether positive or negative) is not one of those issues. Also it might be good to refocus on this discussion as a discussion not a debate. We are not here to convince everyone else that "I am right and you are wrong" but rather to share experience and learning so that all can come to a broader understanding of how the calendar (both Church and civil) affects our lives and is useful in the spiritual life of the Church.

So please, let's back off the passion a bit and keep this discussion sobor.

Fr David Moser

[Herman Blaydoe]

I believe that the Southern hemisphere has this current arrangement and I presume that Christmas and Easter are less holy there!!

Not at all. The events of salvation history occurred at a specific place and time: in and around Jerusalem. In a spiritual sense, it can be considered the "center" of the world, even as the Heavenly Jerusalem can be considered the center of the Universe. In the region of and around Jerusalem, where Christ was born, where He preached, died, and resurrected, was in the northern hemisphere. Both the holy days of the Feast of John the Baptist and Nativity were picked somewhat arbitrarily, not due to chronology, but to iconically represent John 3:30. The Julian calendar throws this away because eventually, in Jerusalem, the length of the days from John to Christ will no longer decrease and the days from Christ to John will no longer increase. A little thing perhaps, but should it be discarded so callously?

[Herman Blaydoe]

There are some ongoing problems with how the Church's liturgical cycle fits around this calendar's precision of time -- most notably surrounding the Apostles' Fast -- which are not cut-and-dry one way or the other. Is there an issue with the way the liturgical cycle fits on this calendar? Unquestionably yes. Is this issue insurmountable? Perhaps not. But I'm not certain it is helpful or accurate to be too presumptive in insisting that it has worked and does work, simply because it has been adopted; nor too dismissive of those who have genuine questions and points to make in this regard.

Of course it can be fixed. The problem is not the "New" calendar, it is the old and arbitrary way that Pascha is currently reckoned that actually now violates rather than upholds the canons that is the problem. Fix that and everything else is restored to God's own glorious harmony.


The issue of calendar(s) has long since become an emotive rallying point. This makes it very difficult to discuss, since either those supporting the old calendar quickly start branding everyone support of the new as intrinsically 'ecumenists'; or those supporting the new start branding those who question it as antiquarian and out-of-touch.

We are the people of Truth and light, not falsehood and darkness. A serious, unemotional re-examination of the real intent of the canons is in order, don't you think? Not to justify preferences, but to determine what does, indeed, uphold the ideals and teachings of the Church, to establish good order and unity.


In such situations it is always helpful to take a step back, remember the right framework of obedience and humility, and seek more openly to understand what calendars are and what they mean to Orthodox liturgical life, and how this should inform our discussion of the merits, strengths, weaknesses and problems encountered on any calendar system as it used by the Church.

Absolutely. We should not allow "traditions of men" to subvert the message of Christ, to do the things that uphold Christ in the world and not simply because "that is the way we have always done it". That is what got the Jews in trouble, wasn't it?

Little thoughts from a little brain.

Herman the Pooh

[Michael Stickles]

I would tend, on the whole, to agree with Herman. It seems like the logically optimum solution would be to revise the Paschal dating method and synchronize the Menologion to either the civil or the Revised Julian calendar. This would of course require some serious discussion on the meanings of the canons related to the calculation of the Paschal date (since whether this solution really is a solution depends on how they are interpreted).

However, there are other important factors beyond the outcome of theological debates. Currently, despite some "sniping over the fences", there seems to be a more-or-less amiable truce between those following the old and new calendars. Any attempt to standardize all to a common system, be it the old calendar (Julian plus old Paschalion), the new calendar (Revised Julian plus old Paschalion), or a completely overhauled system (Revised Julian or similar plus a revised Paschalion), has the potential to call up an incredible amount of passionate resistance.

So, while discussion of these things can be of benefit (I've learned some new things already while following this thread), I would rather see things stay exactly as they are, despite the various problems (real or imagined) with the current calendars, than see an explosion of passion and ill will which could be far more damaging than our current "disunity".

In Christ,
Michael

[Jonathan Michael]

Not at all. The events of salvation history occurred at a specific place and time: in and around Jerusalem. In a spiritual sense, it can be considered the "center" of the world, even as the Heavenly Jerusalem can be considered the center of the Universe.

So why not use the same calendar as the Patriarchate of Jerusalem?

[Dimitris]

With all due respect, Jonathan, do you really regard this as serious and sober contribution to this discussion?

[Herman Blaydoe]

So why not use the same calendar as the Patriarchate of Jerusalem?

Um, well, like, because he is not my bishop and my bishop told my parish to use the calendar we are using? After all it should not be a matter of individual choice, should it? I think we have all agreed on that.

And once we realize and admit that all calendars need an occasional adjustment from time to time, we will all be a lot closer to using one calendar for our ONE Church. Wouldn't that be nice?

Just a little thought from a bear of little brain,
Herman the Pooh