From the old calendar to the new calendar

[S. David]

Beloved in Christ,

In our church in Jerusalem, we are facing a severe problem regarding the date of the Nativity, where the Christian sociaty is diverse between Greek Orthodox, catholic and protestant. Each one of us has relatives and relations from others, so, it is univetabale to calibrate the Nativity socially in 25-12 according to the new calender. However, the Greek Orthodox Church refuses to calibrate the Nativity Litrugically in this date, where it is done every year on 25-12 according to the old calender. As a result, we are (The Greek Orthodox) lost between the Nativity according to the new and old calenders. How to solve this problem? I mean where is the problem from switching from old to new calender?

In Christ

[Herman Blaydoe]

The only technical problem would be that the method for setting the date of Pascha would need to be revised along with it since it is based on the Old Calendar, and THAT is a very sensitive subject. Personally I think this could be a good thing, in that we would finally actually obey the canons on the subject, unlike what we do now. This does NOT mean we would have to use the "Gregorian" method for setting Easter, it also has serious problems. We would have to come up with a fully Orthodox method that the west would probably be happy to adopt as well.

The only other thing to be aware of (I suspect you are already fully aware) is that change does not come easy to Orthodoxy.

[Eric Peterson]

I'm not sure how you're "lost." I mean, in America and the Western world by and large, there is also this issue, and people work through it as best they can. Sometimes that means visiting family on New Calendar Christmas, and then celebrating Old Calendar Christmas with one's Orthodox friends. For those already on the New Calendar, it's the same for Easter. For Americans on the New Calendar, Thanksgiving is settled much the same way. Eat your turkey so grandma doesn't get offended, and then continue with the fast the next day.

[Kosta]

How is it that same family members and relatives in Jordan are of different faiths? How did this come to be? When did protestantism enter the picture, and do christians have muslim family members, which can interfere with each others religious observances? For instance as a greek here in America i have a few dozen family members, and all are still Orthodox so such a dillema would be new to me.

[Eric Peterson]

Well, there are times when sections of the family convert to other religions. Sometimes this happens when members of a Protestant family become Orthodox. Other times, sadly, sections of an Orthodox family become something else. Sometimes there are mixed marriages. My impression is that this situation is perhaps more common in the West, and particularly amongst "Western" Americans, some of whom change religious affiliation more than once in their lives.

[Vasiliki D.]

I have been to Jerusalem and I also have a Palestinian God-child ... I think that people from countries like America, Australia, England etc need to pause before they start judging these people ... it is a completely different world in their countries. Completely different! Something that Western society finds very hard to comprehend and are also very quick to judge with their own modern mind ...

[S. David]

Beloved in Christ,

We used to visit our Non-Orthodox relatives in their date, and then they visit us in our Nativity date, but, recently this no more exists, where we see even the Orthodox themselves visit each other in 25-12 according to the new calender. I really do not know how to solve this issue, specially the Orthodox people here is not ready to hear from the Church for several reasons, one of them is the Greek-Arab issue in the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate.

As mentioned ealrier, this mixture comes from marriage basically, where my grandfather, for example, married in the catholic church because the Orthodox Church refused to marry him, because his wife (my grandmother) is direclty blood-related to him, a case which was forbidden in his days.

The question in mind is: Greece and others follow the new calender in calibrating the Nativity, but they calibrate the Easter according to the old calender. Is this wrong? why? in other words: Can we say this is a solution?

In Christ

[Yolanda]

Greece and others follow the new calender calibrate the Easter according to the old calender
__________________________________________
this is the crux of the problem

[Kosta]

The Jerusalem Patriarchate will never use the new calendar, its just not practical. There would be fistfights and riots between the factions, too hard to share the churches amongst great crowds of pilgrims. It would be a disaster. Again im quite saddened that the latins have meddled in the affairs of anothers jurisdiction and have caused such divisions, recruiting arabs to a heterodox priesthood in order to proselytise against the Orthodox and promote phyletism.

[S. David]

I think the problem arises when some people said that the two faiths: Orthodox and latin catholic, agreed to celebrate the Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the new calender, and the Easter according to the old calender. Indeed, it is the case: the latin catholic celebrates the Easter with us. However, I am not sure who did assign this agreement, because the Greek Orthodox Pariarchate strictly refuses to celebrate the Nativity accorrding to the new calender.

I say that we can agree with others to seperate between the civil calender and church calender, and hence celebrate all the feasts according to the Church calender. Of course this needs alot of efforts to be done.

In Christ

[Herman Blaydoe]

I say that we can agree with others to seperate between the civil calender and church calender, and hence celebrate all the feasts according to the Church calender. Of course this needs alot of efforts to be done.

What needs to be done is to revise the Paschalion so that it once again obeys the canons, since it really doesn't now. But changing calendars, for some reason is a very difficult thing for a society to do, and even the Old Calendar will have to be revised eventually so at best we are merely pushing the problem off for others to deal with. Why not simply fix it now using a better calendar and better reckoning for Pascha? Other than because people will riot because they don't realize that God is not "on" a calendar instituted by pagans?

[Eric Peterson]

As I understand it, the ecclesial bodies traditionally in the Holy Land cannot change their practices because of the old Ottoman Status Quo agreement.

[Kosta]

This problem is mostly arab nationalism, where many Orthodox palestinians are pitted between the Church, heterodox groups lead by native clergy, and those seeking to serve the agenda of their muslim peers. Just a few days ago 13 Orthodox leaders decided to boycott Christmas next week because of land that was leased to Israel. Land leased out, which the muslim sympathizers falsely claim was sold to Israel. This was the same false charge againsy Ireneous. You can criticise if the terms of the lease was disadvantageous, a bad business descision but instead they believe it was sold off forever. Why does the egyptian muslim organization known as the PLO care about church land? Thats our land from the time of the byzantine empire, not muslim land nor jewish land. If Palestinian muslims want to lease it they can outbbid the jews, thats how it works. You dont spread rumors and start celebrating with the heterodox instead.

[Paul Cowan]

Dear Kosta,

How does this relate to old calendar versus new calendar? I don't see the connection except the number of priests was 13.

[Kosta]

No not priests neccesarily, 13 palestinian Orthodox leaders, doesnt neccesarily mean they were (all) priests, informed the PA they will boycott Christmas and for the organization to do likewise. Armenians in the Holy Land celebrate Jan7 and the Copts who are closely related to palestinianns do the same. Where do you think this confusion comes from? The original poster in post #7 said they are not ready to listen to the Patriarchate because of greek-arab relations. This is also fueled by the meddling of Antioch who refuses to admit that the indigenous palestinians were greek-speaking byzantine citizens (not syriac speaking), whose language was eclipsed by arab invaders, and during that time greek could only be used in the liturgy. Thus the church remained greek-speaking but over the centuries the laity was arabized, beoming the exclusive language. Antioch likes the idea of a pan- middleastern church, sees an obstacle in the anti-ecumenist Jerusalem Patriarchate who doesnt view jacobites and copts as "sister" churches.

[S. David]

Please let us focus on the main problem, which is the fixed feasts according to the new calender or the old calender and why. Based on that, can anyone write in details the differences between the two calenders, and where they come from, and what are the main problems we run into because of adopting the new calender.

In Christ

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Please let us focus on the main problem, which is the fixed feasts according to the new calender or the old calender and why. Based on that, can anyone write in details the differences between the two calenders, and where they come from, and what are the main problems we run into because of adopting the new calender.

In Christ

I cannot reply in detail to this. However the main point that is raised is that the Church calendar is based on the way in which it is meant to harmonize the fixed daily feasts (the menaion or daily cycle) with the Paschal cycle.

Those who argue for the OC usually say or imply that the harmony found before the calendar change is essential to the nature of the calendar as a Church calendar.

Those who argue for the NC usually say or imply that this previous connection between the two cycles is not essential to its character.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[S. David]

I cannot reply in detail to this. However the main point that is raised is that the Church calendar is based on the way in which it is meant to harmonize the fixed daily feasts (the menaion or daily cycle) with the Paschal cycle.

Those who argue for the OC usually say or imply that the harmony found before the calendar change is essential to the nature of the calendar as a Church calendar.

Those who argue for the NC usually say or imply that this previous connection between the two cycles is not essential to its character.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Bless father,

So, we can not seperate between the fixed and moved feasts by adopting a calender for each of them, because this leads to "situations" which were not meant to occur.

The question again is: what is the practical solution to such a dilemma? In countries where the dominant are Orthodox like Russia, celebrating on Jan 7 causes no problems, but it is a "social" issue in the mixed-Christians sociaties.

In Christ

[Paul Cowan]

In countries where the dominant are Orthodox like Russia, celebrating on Jan 7 causes no problems, but it is a "social" issue in the mixed-Christians sociaties.

In Christ

In the US, I can't tell you how difficult it is to convince my employer Pascha was not on the same date as his Easter and I need a couple extra days off. I am NC. Protestant countries and their dates will never jive with those who follow the OC. (Old calendar or Orthodox church, take your pick).

We are called to be persecuted. It is a small thing to try to convince my boss I need a few extra days off during the year that do not fall on "standard" days off. If nothing else, I will call in "sick" those days.

Paul

[Dimitris]

Those who argue for the NC usually say or imply that this previous connection between the two cycles is not essential to its character.
With all respect, Father Raphael, I don't think that is the argument of those who favour the new calendar. I don't recall anyone in favour of the new calendar saying that there is no basic requirement to keep the paschal cycle and the daily cycle connected in a harmonical way. Instead, new calendarists claim there also has to be a connection between the calendar (man made thing) and the actual celestial movements (God made thing).

[Owen]

Ever since Man first decided to try making calendars (look back to Stonehenge as an example of one way of doing this), the attempt has been to reconcile the inherently incommensurate cycles of the natural (God-made) order with the reality of a whole number of days. There is nothing "God-made" about having the Vernal Equinox fixed on a given day in March; it would be far better if said given day in March were made to fall on the Vernal Equinox. Thus, the ecclesiastical calendar-makers, whether Old or New, have got it all upside-down and backwards. We cannot rectify--let alone sanctify--time without relying on the God-given, incommensurate cycles of the heavens as first principles in the design of a calendar.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

With all respect, Father Raphael, I don't think that is the argument of those who favour the new calendar. I don't recall anyone in favour of the new calendar saying that there is no basic requirement to keep the paschal cycle and the daily cycle connected in a harmonical way. Instead, new calendarists claim there also has to be a connection between the calendar (man made thing) and the actual celestial movements (God made thing).

Note though that I said "with this previous connection". I mean with the connection between the two cycles as it now exists on the OC.

I'm not trying to say what I believe. I'm trying to convey what defenders would likely say in support of each.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Dimitris]

Dear Father Raphael,

you mean for example the connection between Easter, which leads to All Saints Day, and the apostle fast, don't you? (I am sorry if I am misunderstanding you, English is not a native language to me). But that is something which also new calendarists would admit has to be connected in a proper way. The difference now is, the old calendarists would just remain on the old calender also in regard of the daily cycle, thus remaining on the original connection between Easter and daily cycle, but taking into account the slow, yet constant shift of the church year in regard to the actual year. The new calendarists would prefer to make a re-consideration of the paschal date, based on actual astronomic conditions, and thus see themselves in the mentality of the First Ecumenical Council, which came to the conclusion that the Paschal date until then was calculated in a wrong way and required everyone to calculate it according to the up-to-date methods at that time.

Again, maybe I am completely misunderstanding you and we are talking about the same thing. ;-)

[Herman Blaydoe]

Note though that I said "with this previous connection". I mean with the connection between the two cycles as it now exists on the OC.

I'm not trying to say what I believe. I'm trying to convey what defenders would likely say in support of each.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

With all respect, THIS particular New Calendar defendin' Pooh certainly never said such a thing. What needs to happen is that the manner of determining Pascha needs to be fixed, plain and simple. It needs to be brought into accord with the Ecumenical Canons it now violates, and instead of being tied to an artificial Vernal Equinox based on an outdated calendar, we ought to simply use the real Vernal Equinox, which anchors the calendar. If everyone used the New Calendar, all the problems tied to using the outdated calendar take care of themselves.

But even though we conflate them on a regular basis, they really are two different things, as I believe I have already laid out at length in several other threads on the subject. Do I need to summarize again here?

Herman the Pooh

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Father Raphael,

you mean for example the connection between Easter, which leads to All Saints Day, and the apostle fast, don't you? (I am sorry if I am misunderstanding you, English is not a native language to me). But that is something which also new calendarists would admit has to be connected in a proper way. The difference now is, the old calendarists would just remain on the old calender also in regard of the daily cycle, thus remaining on the original connection between Easter and daily cycle, but taking into account the slow, yet constant shift of the church year in regard to the actual year. The new calendarists would prefer to make a re-consideration of the paschal date, based on actual astronomic conditions, and thus see themselves in the mentality of the First Ecumenical Council, which came to the conclusion that the Paschal date until then was calculated in a wrong way and required everyone to calculate it according to the up-to-date methods at that time.

Again, maybe I am completely misunderstanding you and we are talking about the same thing. ;-)

No- I'm not sure that we're saying different things.

To be clear- I'm not saying here what I believe to be proper. I'm just saying that one thing that comes into play is that those who defend the OC & the NC see the relationship of mechanical, measurable time to the Calendar in different ways.

Of course though as one of those hot button issues we need to be careful in discussing such things here at the Forum. Our guidelines are not to engage in arguments that achieve little or nothing; nor is it to push matters into a resolution that only our hierarchs can properly take up.

Rather it is to put forward what we believe to be the Patristic and Orthodox/ascetic understanding of the Calendar. We can also listen to what others are saying and try to understand their underlying point.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[S. David]

I read somewhere that the holy fathers in the first Ecumenical Council were aware of the shift in the calender from the corresponding natural phenomena, specially the vernal equinox, where it was ocurred in March 23 when the Julian calender existed, I think on year 50 B.C, and March 21 in the time of the first Ecumenical Council, but the holy fathers ingored this shift. Is this right? and how can we interpret this ignorance in that case?

In Christ

[Michael Stickles]

I'm not aware of anything like that (which doesn't necessarily mean anything). I do know that Schaff's The Seven Ecumenical Councils, in the Excursus on the Subsequent History of the Easter Question (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.xi.html), notes that the Romans and Alexandrians used two different dates for the Equinox (Rome used March 18; Alexandria, March 21), which caused problems in harmonizing the celebration of Pascha - perhaps that could be what you read, or something like it?

In Christ,
Michael

[Herman Blaydoe]

I read somewhere that the holy fathers in the first Ecumenical Council were aware of the shift in the calender from the corresponding natural phenomena, specially the vernal equinox, where it was ocurred in March 23 when the Julian calender existed, I think on year 50 B.C, and March 21 in the time of the first Ecumenical Council, but the holy fathers ingored this shift. Is this right? and how can we interpret this ignorance in that case?

In Christ

I am pretty sure it was not "ignored". The Patriarch of Alexandria carries the title "Judge of the Universe" as part of his office. This is because Alexandria was looked to by the Empire to set the calendar every year in accordance with the understanding of astronomy of the day, and the anchor of the year IS the vernal equinox. Once the Byzantine Empire collapsed, this was no longer an option, so it is no wonder that Pope Gregory looked to his own devices to provide as best a solution as he could at the time.

[Dimitris]

Recently I came across Psalm 8 which in my opinion perfectly fits into this topic. It says: "When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? (...) Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet: All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field; The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas." (verses 3-4, 6-8)

So we confess God as the one, who created all celestial objects including their motion, on the other hand it is said, that man has dominion over those works. So there is no need to worry about observing God's creation and putting this observations into a good order, it is perfectly legitimated by this Psalm.

[Marcin Mankowski]

Instead, new calendarists claim there also has to be a connection between the calendar (man made thing) and the actual celestial movements (God made thing).

The Old Calendar was codified by the Church and used by all Orthodox until XX century,
I believe that it could not take place without inspiration of Holy Spirit as the
holidays are real events taking place also in spiritual dimension.

The reform led to many scandals and divisions, and to change of perception - the Church
calendar became less sacred and more utilitarian.

The New Calendar is not more accurate astronomically for a simple reason - the seasons
move in relations to the stars because the Earth axis is wobbling. So the season year
shifts in the relation to the astronomical year defined as by the movement of our planet
around the Sun.

In addition one cannot adjust holidays to the seasons because they happen in
opposite times in northern and southern hemispheres.

Personally I would be happy to see the restoration of Orthodox liturgical unity
by return to what was before.

[Herman Blaydoe]

The Old Calendar was codified by the Church and used by all Orthodox until XX century, I believe that it could not take place without inspiration of Holy Spirit as the holidays are real events taking place also in spiritual dimension.

People don't like change, no Holy Spirit required. Great Britain and the American Colonies did not adopt the Gregorian calendar until 1752.


The reform led to many scandals and divisions, and to change of perception - the Church calendar became less sacred and more utilitarian.

Sacred. A calendar established by a pagan empire is more sacred than the calendar used by the People of God for over 6000 years? Not sure I get that one.


The New Calendar is not more accurate astronomically for a simple reason - the seasons move in relations to the stars because the Earth axis is wobbling. So the season year shifts in the relation to the astronomical year defined as by the movement of our planet around the Sun.

In addition one cannot adjust holidays to the seasons because they happen in opposite times in northern and southern hemispheres.

Well the New Calendar IS more accurate, even if it is not exact and still needs occasional adjustments. The Vernal Equinox, which anchors the Paschal Cycle also anchors the Earth's orbit around the Sun. It is quite easy to determine, it is when there is 12 hours of day and 12 hours of night, regardless. Just be glad we still don't use the Jewish calendar, the adjustments IT makes to keep the seasons in place are very involved, including adding months and jubilees and all that.

It really does not matter about hemispheres. Christ acted in the world in a specific place, Jerusalem, and was crucified in a specific season. There are theological principles that can be derived from that. It happened in the Spring because it happened in Jerusalem. Even if it is not Spring in Australia, even Australians can figure out that it was Spring in Jerusalem (sorry Olga, just being facetious). So, while it is not important that it be Spring in Sidney, it is still important that it be Spring in Jerusalem. Got it?


Personally I would be happy to see the restoration of Orthodox liturgical unity by return to what was before.

And I would be happy to see the restoration of Orthodox liturgical unity by the Church doing what it did before. Instead of mindlessly following what was before (the Jewish calendar was the calendar that chronicled Christ's life), the Church courageously chose to use the most accurate and useful calendar of its day, which happened to have been established by pagans, but it was the civil calendar of the "world".

I would be happy to see the restoration of Orthodox liturgical unity by the Church no longer violating the canons of the Church in calculating the date of Pascha as it does now. But I fear the Church today simply no longer has the courage and fortitude of the Church of the Martyrs, the Church of the Ecumenical Councils, which was able to make decisions as ONE CHURCH, even if it got a bit raucous at times. We just avoid decisions these days.

Herman the at times raucous Pooh

[Marcin Mankowski]

Christians are no less People of God than Old Testament Jews. And yes, both the Jewish calendar and Church calendar are sacred. Someone called the later "Icon of Time", the time was made sacred by it like wood and paint of a holy icon.


A calendar established by a pagan empire is more sacred than the calendar used by the People of God for over 6000 years? I fear the Church today simply no longer has the courage and fortitude of the Church of the Martyrs, the Church of the Ecumenical Councils ...

Those who successfully resisted calendar reform in Russia gave quite a few of martyrs while the architect of the Calendar reform gave the support to the other side (renovationist Living Church of Russia).

[Herman Blaydoe]

Christians are no less People of God than Old Testament Jews.

Well of course they are, Christians are the CONTINUING People of God, but they chose not to use the calendar that the previous People of God used even though it was "sacred".


And yes, both the Jewish calendar and Church calendar are sacred. Someone called the later "Icon of Time", the time was made sacred by it like wood and paint of a holy icon.

Why can't the Gregorian (or Revised Julian as it is sometimes called) be sacred too? What makes a calendar originally and forcibly imposed by an originally pagan Roman Empire more deserving of sacredness than the "New Calendar"? It is the liturgical cycle that is sacred, the Menaion and the Paschalion and the Pentacostarion, not how the dates are calculated. However, if the Jewish calendar is of any indication, maintaining a continuity with the seasons WAS important. That is why they added months on certain years and had jubilees and all that. That is why the Imperial Church designated the Patriarch of Alexandria as the "Judge of the Universe", a title he carries to this very day, because Alexandria was in charge of keeping the calendar accurate for the Empire. But when the empire fell, the accuracy of the calendar suffered. And now the Vernal Equinox does NOT happen when the night and day are equal, but 13 days LATER. The accuracy that tied the liturgical cycle to the celestial dance is no more, and now the link between how the Heavens proclaim God's handiwork and how we worship Him is broken. Instead of proclaiming the glory of God, now the old calendar proclaims "we don't care about Your creation, we are going to do what we want to do regardless of how You ordered the Universe". We may want to rethink that "icon".


Those who successfully resisted calendar reform in Russia gave quite a few of martyrs while the architect of the Calendar reform gave the support to the other side (renovationist Living Church of Russia).

There have been saints from the Churches under the New Calendar as well. Russia does not comprise the entirety of Orthodoxy despite what some people seem to think. People resist things because they don't like change. The Old Believers resisted the liturgical changes rather forcefully put in place by Patriarch Nikon and produced quite a few martyrs as well. Doesn't make them right. Should we all return to being Old Believers as well? They would say exactly the same thing, don't you think?

Herman the curious Pooh

[Olga]

May I make the point that the use of differing calendars might be an anomaly and an irregularity, but is in no way a heresy. If the use of the new calendar was indeed heretical (a violation or distortion of doctrine), then the intercommunion between the canonical Churches which use the Julian calendar and those which use the new calendar would not be possible or permissible. For the newer members here, I mention this from the perspective of someone who has had long experience of both calendar "camps".

As Herman rightly mentioned, the Paschalion and all that flows from it are identical in all Orthodox churches, irrespective of which calendar is used for their fixed feasts. Might I also mention that there are instances of feasts of specific saints which are celebrated on different days on the calendar within different churches, for reasons which have nothing at all to do with which calendar that church uses. The one which immediately comes to mind is that of Great-martyr St Catherine. The Greeks and the Slavs celebrate her memory on different days.

Olga who has a foot in both calendar camps.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Just this past Thursday, the Serbs marked the leave taking of Theophany while the Russian church marked this on Friday. The Serbs do this so that they can mark the celebration of St Sava (their national saint) in a more full way.

I also have had my foot in 'both camps'. I personally have come to see the beauty & force of the OC but agree entirely that the NC is not a matter of being a heresy.

A last point about this, that I only realized through the discussions here- that in fact the separation between the civil and Church calendars, which those who defend the OC often point to in its favour (or even as being inherent to the OC), only occurred in modern times as the result of governments adopting the civil calendar.

Before this for over a thousand years Church and civil holidays always coincided. So in fact if we who hold to the OC are honest, we will see that this is in fact one of the positive, not negative, points of the NC. Perhaps it's even more canonical than what we defend with the current separation of the OC from the civil. Maybe what we do on the OC is even an innovation!

In Christ
-Fr Raphael

[Marcin Mankowski]

there are instances of feasts of specific saints which are celebrated on different days on the calendar within different churches, for reasons which have nothing at all to do with which calendar that church uses. The one which immediately comes to mind is that of Great-martyr St Catherine. The Greeks and the Slavs celebrate her memory on different days.

There is a big difference about celebrating a memory of a saint like St Catherine, that even could be observed more than once during the year or privately and a major holiday like Christmas that is also preceded by a long fast and is linked intricately to other holidays.

[Marcin Mankowski]

Before this for over a thousand years Church and civil holidays always coincided. So in fact if we who hold to the OC are honest, we will see that this is in fact one of the positive, not negative, points of the NC. Perhaps it's even more canonical than what we defend with the current separation of the OC from the civil. Maybe what we do on the OC is even an innovation!

Coincided in Christian countries. Countries with different religions might have different calendars. Would it be good to adopt theirs, depending on the locality? In addition secular government might make a calendar completely incompatible with church services as it was attempted during French or Bolshevik Revolutions.

[Father David Moser]

Why can't the Gregorian (or Revised Julian as it is sometimes called) be sacred too?

First off: a red herring - the "Gregorian" calendar and the "Revised Julian" calendar are not the same - so which do you want to use.

Second and more to the point - the Gregorian calendar can indeed be sacred. The problem is not whether one uses the Julian or the Gregorian calendar. The problem is when you try to use both together. Pick one or the other and stick with it. And it would be nice if the whole Church decided to pick the same one.

Fr David Moser

[Kosta]

Just this past Thursday, the Serbs marked the leave taking of Theophany while the Russian church marked this on Friday. The Serbs do this so that they can mark the celebration of St Sava (their national saint) in a more full way.

I also have had my foot in 'both camps'. I personally have come to see the beauty & force of the OC but agree entirely that the NC is not a matter of being a heresy.

A last point about this, that I only realized through the discussions here- that in fact the separation between the civil and Church calendars, which those who defend the OC often point to in its favour (or even as being inherent to the OC), only occurred in modern times as the result of governments adopting the civil calendar.

Before this for over a thousand years Church and civil holidays always coincided. So in fact if we who hold to the OC are honest, we will see that this is in fact one of the positive, not negative, points of the NC. Perhaps it's even more canonical than what we defend with the current separation of the OC from the civil. Maybe what we do on the OC is even an innovation!

In Christ
-Fr Raphael

I've always said that seperation of church and state is an innovation, adopted by Orthodox people out of ignorance for being immersed in westernism.. One of the reasons the greek church adopted the NC is because the Annunciation would no longer coincide with Greek Independance Day. It was the state that recommended that the two holidays not be seperated. Personally i believe the state should have left the celebration of greek independance day on the old calendar. But if civil and church holidays always coincided does it really matter anymore since the Church's future is no longer in the west but in places where holidays are heterodox and christians are a minority ?

[Herman Blaydoe]

First off: a red herring - the "Gregorian" calendar and the "Revised Julian" calendar are not the same - so which do you want to use.

Whichever my bishop tells me to use is fine with me actually. The Gregorian and Revised Julian don't diverge in the year 2800. We can make another adjustment at that time, it should really be no big deal, if Christ has not returned by then. Or we can BOTH compromise and just use the Gregorian calendar since we both "give up something". I see no problems with that.


Second and more to the point - the Gregorian calendar can indeed be sacred. The problem is not whether one uses the Julian or the Gregorian calendar. The problem is when you try to use both together. Pick one or the other and stick with it. And it would be nice if the whole Church decided to pick the same one.

Fr David Moser

Whichever one we can agree to that does not violate the canons of the Church is fine by me, which means we need to "fix" the calculation of Pascha which is probably the most important thing. If we use the actual Vernal Equinox as the Holy Council intended, that is, rather than an arbitrary date that happens 13 days later, then 14, then 15, as Pascha drifts away from the anchor of the real Vernal Equinox.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Coincided in Christian countries. Countries with different religions might have different calendars. Would it be good to adopt theirs, depending on the locality? In addition secular government might make a calendar completely incompatible with church services as it was attempted during French or Bolshevik Revolutions.

Speaking of red herrings, I like mine pickled. We only need to pick one calendar, like the early Church did. They did not pick the Jewish calendar, they did not go with different calendars in different places. They used the Roman Imperial calendar because it was the most convenient and most accurate calendar available at the time. Why can't we just do exactly what they did? Why not use the real Vernal Equinox as the Church intended rather than an artificial date? Why not match the Liturgical Cycle of worship to the celestial dance that God put in motion to proclaim His Glory? Now THAT is a proper and sacred icon, don't you think?

Herman the "does anybody really know what time it is?" Pooh

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Herman wrote:


Why not match the Liturgical Cycle of worship to the celestial dance that God put in motion to proclaim His Glory? Now THAT is a proper and sacred icon, don't you think?

This is precisely what those who refer to the OC point to as its most important basis- that it marks sacred time in a special way whereas modern time has been desacralized for us, and only dead mechanical time remains in this world.

The issue then to me seems to make of the Church calendar something that refers to the sacredness of time that is all around us again. Whether it's OC or NC or whatever how to recover this sense.

In Christ
-Fr Raphael

[Father David Moser]

Herman the "does anybody really know what time it is?" Pooh

Does any body really care?

Though I can't imagine why;
we'll all have time enough to die.

Fr David

[Andreas Moran]

This is precisely what those who refer to the OC point to as its most important basis- that it marks sacred time in a special way whereas modern time has been desacralized for us, and only dead mechanical time remains in this world. The issue then to me seems to make of the Church calendar something that refers to the sacredness of time that is all around us again. Whether it's OC or NC or whatever how to recover this sense.In Christ-Fr Raphael

I think the importance of this way of looking at things is further highlighted if we consider the ways in which the secular western world has 'desacralized' the computation of time such as the designation of Monday as the first day of the week. I personally do care that secular authorities find such ways to create a gulf between the sacred and the world. The so-called NC was the result of such 'desacralization'. I do not think adherence to the NC puts one's salvation in doubt but it is regrettable that in such ways the Church and the world in which it exists become less and less in synch.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Does any body really care?

Though I can't imagine why;
we'll all have time enough to die.

Fr David

The same sort of thing occurred to me as 'I was walking down the street one day'

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I think the importance of this way of looking at things is further highlighted if we consider the ways in which the secular western world has 'desacralized' the computation of time such as the designation of Monday as the first day of the week. I personally do care that secular authorities find such ways to create a gulf between the sacred and the world. The so-called NC was the result of such 'desacralization'. I do not think adherence to the NC puts one's salvation in doubt but it is regrettable that in such ways the Church and the world in which it exists become less and less in synch.

Something similar was also on my mind in my previous post. The normal way of putting it used to be that the NC existed to be contemporary with modern time; while the OC was an exact counter to this, taking time itself out of the grasp of the modern world and keeping it with the Church where its real significance could be treasured and maintained. Thus the absolutely impermeable divide between the two.

However what if we could return to an Orthodox understanding of sacred time permeating and transforming our time?

Just a thought.

In Christ
-Fr Raphael

[Andreas Moran]

Something similar was also on my mind in my previous post. The normal way of putting it used to be that the NC existed to be contemporary with modern time; while the OC was an exact counter to this, taking time itself out of the grasp of the modern world and keeping it with the Church where its real significance could be treasured and maintained. Thus the absolutely impermeable divide between the two.

However what if we could return to an Orthodox understanding of sacred time permeating and transforming our time?

Just a thought.

In Christ
-Fr Raphael

That might work if all local churches had the same calendar.


Though I can't imagine why;
we'll all have time enough to die.

'I was walking down the street one day'

Orthodoxy through Patristic, Monastic, Liturgical, and Pop Lyric Study

[Herman Blaydoe]

This is precisely what those who refer to the OC point to as its most important basis- that it marks sacred time in a special way whereas modern time has been desacralized for us, and only dead mechanical time remains in this world.

While that makes a great soundbite, it is actually ironic in the extreme. It is actually counter to what both the ancient Jews and the young Church thought. Accuracy and conformance to God's Creation was important to them.


The issue then to me seems to make of the Church calendar something that refers to the sacredness of time that is all around us again. Whether it's OC or NC or whatever how to recover this sense.

In Christ
-Fr Raphael

How does using a calendar that breaks the relationship between our worship and how the Universe declares the glory of God establish sacredness? Using an arbitrary Vernal Equinox date 13 days after the actual event to calculate the supreme holy day of Pascha seems exactly like "dead mechanical time" to this bear of admittedly little brain. But what do I know.

Herman the "It's later than you think" Pooh

[Father David Moser]

"It's later than you think"

Only if you're going from the old calendar to the new - if you're going from new to old, its sooner than you think.

Fr David

[Andreas Moran]

Why not use the real Vernal Equinox as the Church intended rather than an artificial date? Why not match the Liturgical Cycle of worship to the celestial dance that God put in motion to proclaim His Glory? Now THAT is a proper and sacred icon, don't you think?

Herman the "does anybody really know what time it is?" Pooh

I thought we did. Thus, this year, the vernal equinox is on 20 March. The first full moon after is on 6 April. The first Sunday after that is 8 April but that falls within the Jewish Passover which is 6-14 April and we have to have Pascha after the Passover so the first Sunday after Passover is 15 April. So, not an artificial date.

[Kosta]

Easter is calculated using the moon not the solar calendar. The reason we cant use the 'real' equinox is because the fixed feast days would drift and not be kept in proper alignment. In other words the Church never intended to use the 'real' vernal equinox since it would have been impossible to keep the fixed feast days with the moveable feast days and still have proper fasting seasons and so on. Most fixed feasts were added decades and even centuries after the Pascha formulation, the church always used a fixed date for the equinox.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Sorry Andreas and Kosta, but you are both wrong. The Vernal Equinox does vary somewhat, in that, due to the wobble of the Earth on its axis, it can happen either on March 20 or 21, so March 21 is chosen as THE date to make things a little easier. But it does NOT "drift" beyond those two days. That is what the adjustments for leap years is all about, to keep it from drifting. The Gregorian Calendar does a better job of compensating than the Julian. The Julian date IS drifting. The Orthodox calculation for Pascha uses the Julian 21 March date, NOT the Gregorian. Both the OC and NC churches use this calculation, which is why we both celebrate Pascha together, and it is what causes the apparent inconsistencies with the NC Menaion. And it is wrong, it violates the very canon people think it obeys.

It is rather complicated and confusing for sure. The thing is, we are not supposed to USE the Jewish calculation of Passover, THAT is what the canon is about, that is what is misunderstood. Check out this link: The Date of Pascha (http://www.holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/ossorguine-pascha.html).

[Kosta]

It is the fixed feasts that would drift if the equinox was calculated using actual observation. So we would be celebrating the Annunciation on Pentecost. The julian calendar is off by a few minutes each year while the gregorian is off by only a few seconds, so the problem isnt noticeable in the western calendar.

The revised julian calendar is the opposite, Pascha drifts into the future while the fixed feasts remain static. The Church added fixed feasts to the calendar before and after Nicea(mostly after), so its impossible that they meant to use the actual observation of the equinox as this would render a liturgical calender illogical. If the Church meant to use the actual observation of the moon, then they disregarded their own canon as soon as it was recieved.

The link you posted makes this point, that by the 6th century tables were devised to calculate Pascha using a 19 year cycle which we still use. Theres no evidence that the church ever used the real equinox, ive never come across any evidence that they intended or actually did use the actual equinox.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Kosta, the issue becomes moot once Pascha and the Menaion are celebrated on the SAME calendar regardless, so switching the calculation of Pascha to the NC once the whole Church is using the NC would certainly solve all the problems. It is the artificial use of two calendars used to mollify the OC'ers that causes the apparent inconsistencies. It is ironic that the OC adherents use that as an argument against the NC.

At the time that the calendar was set for the Church, the date chosen and the Vernal Equinox were close together. Due to the inherent inaccuracies of the Julian calendar that is no longer adjusted as it was under a united Christian empire (by the astronomers in Alexandria under the Alexandrian Patriarch, the "Judge of the Universe"), the dates are diverging significantly. Since we are no longer using the Judge of the Universe, we ought to consider using an accurate calendar. That is what the Church of the Martyrs did, as best they could in the time they were in. Why would doing that now be somehow wrong?

[John Bundstein]

OK folks this OC/NC debate is fun but to my simple mind there are a couple of things that don’t seem to wash for me, so if you can set me straight please do. There has been talk of the REAL Vernal Equinox am I missing something? There is a fake one running around? Or is someone just pulling my leg? There was a comment by Herman in posting #33, “And now the Vernal Equinox does NOT happen when the night and day are equal, but 13 days LATER.” Is that OC reckoning? It is my understanding that the sun crosses the plain of the Earth’s equator when God wills it, not on some arbitrary humanly decided date, March 21/22 NC/March 18/19 OC. I know that my poor little mind gets very confused trying to keep the two sets calendar dates together so maybe I am missing something here or someone is trying to pull the fluff over my eyes. Lets face it to a large extent what calendar date we call is case of “you call it Either, I call it eIther when in fact in sacred time it is Neither/neIther.”

And frankly personally I love it that the OC Nativity does not fall on the civil holiday that is December 25 NC. I really dislike the festival of greed that, that date has become. So the OC reckoning of the date gives me the time, space and peace to begin to contemplate the wonder and sacredness of THE DAY of Our Lords’ incarnation.

For me it doesn’t really make much difference which calendar is used (once the trauma of the change is gotten through, though I don’t see myself as rioting to get my 13 days back). But my Bishop says to use the OC so I do. And I think I would dislike going back to Nativity falling on that civil holiday again with the NC.

[Herman Blaydoe]

A couple of issues: first off, it should be less about personal preference and more about what best preserves the iconic symbology, yes?

From the article I provided a link to earlier: "Since the First Ecumenical Council (325 AD), this principle for determining the Paschal date (nearest Sunday after the first full moon occurring no earlier than the vernal equinox) was the mandatory rule for the whole Christian Church and remains so even to this day, both for the Eastern and Western Christians."

and

"For the Fathers of the Fourth century, the vernal equinox was the primary determinant for calculating the date of the Paschal feast. The Seventh Apostolic Canon reads: “If any bishop, presbyter or deacon shall celebrate the holy day of Pascha before the vernal equinox, with the Jews, let him be deposed from the holy ranks.” Thus the time of the vernal equinox determines the full moon after which, on the first Sunday following, the Pascha should be celebrated."

However: "When the Western Pascha does not coincide with the Eastern, the difference can be either one week or as great as four or five weeks. This happens because the vernal equinox, according to the Julian calendar that serves as the basis for Paschalia calculations, occurs thirteen days behind the actual one, followed by the Gregorian calendar. Thus March 21 according to the New Style (March 8 Old Style) is the vernal equinox. Western Christians consider this the beginning of the Paschal moon. Thirteen days later, on April 3 New Style (March 21 Old Style) begins the time for calculating the Paschal moon for the Eastern Christians, for their Paschalia. Therefore, when the full moon occurs between March 21 and April 2 (New Style, of course) this is the Paschal moon only for the Western Church, since according to the Eastern Paschalia the vernal equinox has not yet occurred. In this case, the Orthodox Pascha is based on the following moon, a month later. This then would be the first full moon after March 21 according to the Old Style, but in fact it is really the second full moon following the astronomically actual vernal equinox (March 21 New Style)."

There is more information available at the link. It can make the little brain of this particular Pooh hurt as well, but there it is.

Herman the brain-hurting Pooh

[Kosta]

OK folks this OC/NC debate is fun but to my simple mind there are a couple of things that don’t seem to wash for me, so if you can set me straight please do. There has been talk of the REAL Vernal Equinox am I missing something? There is a fake one running around? Or is someone just pulling my leg? There was a comment by Herman in posting #33, “And now the Vernal Equinox does NOT happen when the night and day are equal, but 13 days LATER.” Is that OC reckoning? It is my understanding that the sun crosses the plain of the Earth’s equator when God wills it, not on some arbitrary humanly decided date, March 21/22 NC/March 18/19 OC. I know that my poor little mind gets very confused trying to keep the two sets calendar dates together so maybe I am missing something here or someone is trying to pull the fluff over my eyes. Lets face it to a large extent what calendar date we call is case of “you call it Either, I call it eIther when in fact in sacred time it is Neither/neIther.”


March 21 or so is set for the vernal equinox. Meaning its a date marked on the calendar, so with the Julian calendar having drifted 13 days its now April 3. My objection to using the actual equinox is i have never found evidence that this was the intension of the Fathers. If it were they abandoned it soon after they adopted the canon itself! There concern was to have a functioning liturgical calendar, not having Theophany celebrated during Lent which would be the case if we used the actual vernal equinox.

[Herman Blaydoe]

March 21 or so is set for the vernal equinox. Meaning its a date marked on the calendar, so with the Julian calendar having drifted 13 days its now April 3. My objection to using the actual equinox is i have never found evidence that this was the intension of the Fathers. If it were they abandoned it soon after they adopted the canon itself! There concern was to have a functioning liturgical calendar, not having Theophany celebrated during Lent which would be the case if we used the actual vernal equinox.

No, this cannot happen. The solar year is the solar year and the Vernal Equinox anchors the solar year by definition. Unfortunately the Julian calendar has slipped its anchor and is slowly drifting. Over the centuries it has broken the link between our liturgical worship and the Universe He set in motion. The earlier Church was not as concerned because centuries ago, it wasn't an issue and in the intervening centuries, we have had other issues to deal with while it slowly became a bigger and bigger divergence. Then it became a political football and we continue to punt the problem down the field. But for these reasons, simply everybody going back to a defective calendar seems like less and less a good idea. Somebody will need to deal with it, why not us? Do we indeed lack the courage and drive of the Church of the Councils? Are we really caught in the ecclesiology of a retreating army? I sincerely hope not.

Herman the hopeful Pooh

[Marcin Mankowski]

The solar year is the solar year and the Vernal Equinox anchors the solar year by definition. Unfortunately the Julian calendar has slipped its anchor and is slowly drifting. Over the centuries it has broken the link between our liturgical worship and the Universe He set in motion. ... Somebody will need to deal with it, why not us? Do we indeed lack the courage and drive of the Church of the Councils? Are we really caught in the ecclesiology of a retreating army?
Herman the hopeful Pooh

Not true. Julian Calendar is LESS accurate in relation to the solar year because the seasons are drifting as they are set by the wobbling axis of the Earth. And even if they did not drift the seasons of the southern hemisphere are already reversed.

Besides why this hurry after so many centuries? Why the creator of the reform Meletios Metaxakis was thinking that it is so urgent, that he could not wait for the largest Orthodox nation to be free from Communism? Instead he gave support to the renovationist Living Church. What were his real motives? Perhaps he did not want to miss his window of opportunity?

It is quite likely that we are not in danger of exchanging seasons with Argentina or Australia because the Second Coming will come much sooner as many signs are already here. And if not, a few centuries will not make a noticeable difference.

[Marcin Mankowski]

Not true. Julian Calendar is LESS accurate in relation to the solar year because the seasons are drifting as they are set by the wobbling axis of the Earth. And even if they did not drift the seasons of the southern hemisphere are already reversed.

Oops, I meant GREGORIAN Calendar

[Herman Blaydoe]

Sorry Marcin, but that is incorrect. Where do you get this idea? There is no drifting of the seasons under the Gregorian calendar, but it is very true of the Julian. The whole reason the Gregorian calendar came about was to prevent this very thing. The only variation is that occasionally the actual Vernal Equinox happens on 20 March instead of 21 March due to the vagaries of the axial rotation. And I covered the seasons in the southern hemisphere issue in a previous post.

[Marcin Mankowski]

Sorry Marcin, but that is incorrect. Where do you get this idea? There is no drifting of the seasons under the Gregorian calendar, but it is very true of the Julian. The whole reason the Gregorian calendar came about was to prevent this very thing.

What I meant was the actual physical drift of seasons. The axis of Earth wobbles so when the Earth makes a full circle around the Sun the axis is in a little different position.

So you cannot have a perfectly accurate calendar in relations to the seasons and to the stars. BTW astronomers use the so called Julian year.

Astronomically the New - Gregorian Calendar is less accurate.

[Andreas Moran]

I noticed this in our service last evening, from Ps. 104:

'He appointed the moon for seasons: the sun knoweth his going down.'

[Herman Blaydoe]

What I meant was the actual physical drift of seasons. The axis of Earth wobbles so when the Earth makes a full circle around the Sun the axis is in a little different position.

I'm still not sure what you are saying. The "longest day" will always be in the summer. The longest night will always be in winter. The equinoxes will happen at the midpoints between the two. The Gregorian calendar was an adjustment to the Julian to make sure it stays this way since the Julian calendar does not adequately compensate for the difference between the number of times the Earth rotates on its axis and the time it takes to orbit the Sun.


So you cannot have a perfectly accurate calendar in relations to the seasons and to the stars.

It doesn't have to be perfect, but it does need to be adjustable. The Julian calendar is not adjustable enough.


BTW astronomers use the so called Julian year.

True, so do navigators and bankers. However the Julian year is not directly related to the Julian Calendar, oddly enough, other than picking a particular reference point to start from (Monday January 1, 4713 BC). It is simply an easier way to figure out how many days there are between January 10 1910 and August 15 2010.


Astronomically the New - Gregorian Calendar is less accurate.

That is an incorrect conclusion. It is NOT that the GC is less accurate, it is simply less convenient for calculations of time intervals that span across the calendar shift, particularly since different places shifted at different times. For keeping track of the year, for keeping the Vernal Equinox where it needs to be, that is when hours of daylight = hours of night, the Gregorian calendar is more accurate. That is the reason it came to be, because Pope Gregory noticed that the tables used to calculate Pascha were using a date that was 10 days later than the actual event (at that time). Can we please put that shibboleth to rest?

Herman

[Dimitris]

BTW astronomers use the so called Julian year.
Which has not more or less in common with the Julian calender than with the Gregorian calendar. So what?

Astronomically the New - Gregorian Calendar is less accurate.
It won't become more correct the more you repeat it. ;) One year - from an astronomical point of view - has 365,2422 days. One year in the Julian calendar has 365,25 days; one year in the Gregorian calendar has 365,2425 days. So which calendar is more accurate?

[Father David Moser]

This forum is not about the astrophysics of the calendar. I do understand that a certain amount of natural observation is integral to Herman's argument, however, let's not allow the astronomy to take over the discussion. Let's please keep things focused on the patristic/liturgical/monastic aspect.

Fr David Moser

[Daniel R.]

One of the main problems I have with the New Calendar is the fact it was introduced by a modernist Patriarch without the consent of the other Churches neither the mother Church of Zion where the Lord Resurrected, nor the Astronomical Centre of Alexandria nor the remaining of the original of the three/five Patriarchy the see of Antioch nor greatest in number of the Churches the Church of Moscow, not forgetting Georgia and Romania and all the other Churches. And now if the root of the New Calendar be not good how can it's fruits be (i.e. the calendar itself).

It would have been a lot better to simply stay on the Traditional Church calendar until the time came for a proper discussion with all the Churches when through much prayer, fasting and reading of the Holy Fathers, a decision could have been made as to whether to keep the old calendar or device a new one, the role of which I think would fall to Alexandria not New Rome.

In Christ.
Daniel,

[Herman Blaydoe]

Be that as it may, it happened. It is a "done deal" and ought to be dealt with in an honest forthright manner rather than simply pushed down to our descendents and simply going round and round about it until then.

The question is not what should have been done, but what should BE done. Does anyone here believe the status quo is the best solution? I have elucidated on several reasons why I believe it is not, the biggest one being the uncanonical calculation of Pascha which presents a problematic and ultimately ironic icon of our relationship to God (we don't care how You ordered the Universe, we are going to do things OUR way), but I admit that might just be me.

Not that I have any strong opinions on the topic

Herman the ironic Pooh

[Daniel R.]

Be that as it may, it happened. It is a "done deal" and ought to be dealt with in an honest forthright manner rather than simply pushed down to our descendants and simply going round and round about it until then. True but I was more stating the reason why I do not like the New Calendar.


The question is not what should have been done, but what should BE done. Does anyone here believe the status quo is the best solution? No but that is another reason to not like the New one ;) as to what should be done I think what I said should have happened should now happen.


I have elucidated on several reasons why I believe it is not, the biggest one being the uncanonical calculation of Pascha which presents a problematic and ultimately ironic icon of our relationship to God (we don't care how You ordered the Universe, we are going to do things OUR way), but I admit that might just be me. I just thought the trouble is the Universe as it now is fallen so who knows how God ordered it before then.

[Herman Blaydoe]

True but I was more stating the reason why I do not like the New Calendar.

Should iconography and theology be about what we like or don't like? I think not, but that might just be me.


No but that is another reason to not like the New one ;) as to what should be done I think what I said should have happened should now happen.

We might as well tell the world to go back to the Julian calendar for the civil calendar, that would solve the problem too, right? Does anyone honestly see that happening? Mayhaps that is one of the reasons that the Imperial Church decided to go with the Imperial civil calendar rather than switch the Empire back to the Jewish calendar? Why can't we do now exactly what the Church did then? Hmmmm?


I just thought the trouble is the Universe as it now is fallen so who knows how God ordered it before then

And yet we have the Psalmist singing that "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1) Please note the lack of the past tense. Even fallen Creation proclaims the glory of God for those who choose NOT to ignore it. We are not here to turn our back on "fallen creation" but to reclaim it. That was the whole point of the Gregorian calendar reform to begin with, regardless. Is that so hard to understand?

[Daniel R.]

Forgive me but I am too tired at the moment to reply to the rest of your post but in regard to this
Should iconography and theology be about what we like or don't like? I think not, but that might just be me.
By saying
I was more stating the reason why I do not like the New Calendar I meant "not like" as in "do not agree" not as in I do not like that colour of dog.

[Kosta]

One of the main problems I have with the New Calendar is the fact it was introduced by a modernist Patriarch without the consent of the other Churches neither the mother Church of Zion where the Lord Resurrected, nor the Astronomical Centre of Alexandria nor the remaining of the original of the three/five Patriarchy the see of Antioch nor greatest in number of the Churches the Church of Moscow, not forgetting Georgia and Romania and all the other Churches. And now if the root of the New Calendar be not good how can it's fruits be (i.e. the calendar itself).

It would have been a lot better to simply stay on the Traditional Church calendar until the time came for a proper discussion with all the Churches when through much prayer, fasting and reading of the Holy Fathers, a decision could have been made as to whether to keep the old calendar or device a new one, the role of which I think would fall to Alexandria not New Rome.

In Christ.
Daniel,


This sums up what i believe. We should return to the Church calendar and if neccesary come up with an authentic liturgical calendar. This gregorian calendar has been condemned by pan-Orthodox synods so its not a viable option. You also bring up a valid point, that the decision to change the calendar didnt even belong to the heretical patriarch Metaxakis. The keeper of the calender is the Patriarch of Alexandria.

[Herman Blaydoe]

This sums up what i believe. We should return to the Church calendar and if neccesary come up with an authentic liturgical calendar. This gregorian calendar has been condemned by pan-Orthodox synods so its not a viable option. You also bring up a valid point, that the decision to change the calendar didnt even belong to the heretical patriarch Metaxakis. The keeper of the calender is the Patriarch of Alexandria.

Ouch. No, not so much. I believe the it was the Paschalion used by the Catholics that has been condemned, NOT the calendar per se. Please. The "keeper of the calendar" does not mean he determines which calendar to use, but merely is responsible for maintaining the accuracy of the calendar, something that he hasn't really been able to do for several centuries, which is why it is as inaccurate as it is, and why Pope Gregory felt he needed to do something about it.

Again, we keep bringing up what "should have been". Can we get past that please? Whining about what should have been done is being used as an excuse to keep from doing what needs to be done.

Or so it seems to this bear of little brain

Herman the chronological Pooh

[Herman Blaydoe]

I meant "not like" as in "do not agree" not as in I do not like that colour of dog.

Ah yes. England and America are two countries separated by a common language. George Bernard Shaw

I have switched sides on this issue several times, but over the years I find that I cannot support the Julian calendar, not because I don't "like" it, but because I really really don't like the really really poor reasons used to defend it. Many of the reasons are based on erroneous or misunderstood information, even as we have seen here.

I see using an archaic, inaccurate calendar that breaks the link between the Universe that proclaims God's glory and our proclaiming of His glory. THAT'S what I don't agree with. Poor or erroneous justifications, I also don't agree with. Let's at least be honest, straightforward and well-informed with what we disagree with, least we disagree for the wrong reasons. Is that too much to ask?

Herman the "just askin'" Pooh

[Kosta]

Ah yes. England and America are two countries separated by a common language. George Bernard Shaw

I have switched sides on this issue several times, but over the years I find that I cannot support the Julian calendar, not because I don't "like" it, but because I really really don't like the really really poor reasons used to defend it. Many of the reasons are based on erroneous or misunderstood information, even as we have seen here.

I see using an archaic, inaccurate calendar that breaks the link between the Universe that proclaims God's glory and our proclaiming of His glory. THAT'S what I don't agree with. Poor or erroneous justifications, I also don't agree with. Let's at least be honest, straightforward and well-informed with what we disagree with, least we disagree for the wrong reasons. Is that too much to ask?

Herman the "just askin'" Pooh


These are my feelings of the new calendar. And i'm in a church that uses the new calendar. The reasons given for the calendar change are not convincing. That we should follow the actual visual observation of the Equinox as the canons teach is simply not true. This was never done, thats why we continue to use the same tabular calculations from 1500 years ago. Inspite of the ecumenists telling us that the 19 year Metonic- Callipic cycle was introduced later, they lie through their teeth, as the Fathers have commented that this cycle was agreed to at Nicea.

Notice how advocates of the new calendar claim how the revised julian calendar has solved the issue of the Annunciaton falling during Holy Week, but suppress the fact that in Orthodoxy when Pascha and the Annunciation coincide, this is a very special occasion called Kyriopascha and the Church has devised specific rubrics for this miraculous day. Unfortunately all of us on the new calendar will never get to experience this joy since we follow a liturgically 'retarded' calendar.

In their zeal to promote a pan-european secular christianity, they tell us the gregorian calendar is the only alternative. Come now, we can do better that that, cant we? The supposedly best liturgical and most accurate solar calendar is the one devised in the 16th century based on the fact that the earth was the center of the universe?

[Herman Blaydoe]

These are my feelings of the new calendar. And i'm in a church that uses the new calendar. The reasons given for the calendar change are not convincing. That we should follow the actual visual observation of the Equinox as the canons teach is simply not true. This was never done, thats why we continue to use the same tabular calculations from 1500 years ago. Inspite of the ecumenists telling us that the 19 year Metonic- Callipic cycle was introduced later, they lie through their teeth, as the Fathers have commented that this cycle was agreed to at Nicea.

When the Julian calendar and the tables were first formulated, there was an Empire in place to adjust them as necessary, that was the job of the Patriarch of Alexandria. Once the empire fell into disarray so did the ability to "fix" the calendar, thus inaccuracy crept in and could not be corrected.


Notice how advocates of the new calendar claim how the revised julian calendar has solved the issue of the Annunciaton falling during Holy Week, but suppress the fact that in Orthodoxy when Pascha and the Annunciation coincide, this is a very special occasion called Kyriopascha and the Church has devised specific rubrics for this miraculous day. Unfortunately all of us on the new calendar will never get to experience this joy since we follow a liturgically 'retarded' calendar.

How many times does this need to be explained? The so-called "problem" ONLY occurs because the more inaccurate calendar is being used to set the Paschalion and a DIFFERENT calendar is being used for other things. Put the Paschalion and Menaion on the SAME calendar, and POOF, the so-called problems go away. Can we put THAT shibboleth to rest as well? If we calculate Pascha based on the New Calendar along with everything else, there is NO PROBLEM.

So what's the problem?


In their zeal to promote a pan-european secular christianity, they tell us the gregorian calendar is the only alternative. Come now, we can do better that that, cant we? The supposedly best liturgical and most accurate solar calendar is the one devised in the 16th century based on the fact that the earth was the center of the universe?

Are you saying that what the Church of the Councils was not good enough and that we should do better? First time I have heard that, and I would NEVER presume to go that far. I am simply saying that we ought to do just what they did, no more and no less. That is, use the best, most widely used calendar of the day, and BLESS it (reclaim it) for the Church. To bless the times, to re-establish and better synchronize the link between our liturgical worship and the Universe which proclaims the glory of God, to re-create the icon established by the Church at Nicea, which the Julian calendar NO LONGER DOES. Why is this a bad thing? I have yet to read a reasonable argument based on actual evidence or basic facts that comes close. The Gregorian calendar is not the problem, using two different calendars is the problem and I think I have proposed some ideas why using the Gregorian calendar for that one calendar is not heretical or evil or bad or wrong. All I get in return are repetitions of the same old shibboleths based on proven-wrong information. The "Julian Year" is only peripherally related to the Julian calendar, as a matter of convenience, not because the Julian calendar is somehow more "accurate". Tying the moveable feasts to one calendar and immovable feasts to another calendar is what causes conflict, that is not solely the "fault" of the Revised Julian calendar. Unite us all on the RJV or the GC and use IT to calculate Pascha and the problem is solved. Especially since what we are doing now is what violates the Canons of the Church, NOT the GC or RJC!!

Do what the Church did. Obey the canons. That is what I think we ought to do. Why is that wrong?

Herman the wondering Pooh

[Herman Blaydoe]

Notice how advocates of the new calendar claim ...

Notice how some advocates of the old calendar claim that all advocates of the new calendar are somehow the "enemy" wanting to "change" things. Can we get beyond this divisiveness? Not everyone who thinks we should use a calendar that truly invokes the spirit of Nicea want to destroy the Church or to establish the "World Church of Antichrist™". Some of us simply want to worship as one holy catholic and apostolic Church, at Nativity as well as at Pascha and believe we can do this using the NC rather than the OC, and that there are some good reasons for doing so that are NOT based on distortions, misrepresentations, or misunderstandings and we don't need to submit to being brow-beaten into silence for thinking so.

[Father David Moser]

How many times does this need to be explained? The so-called "problem" ONLY occurs because the more inaccurate calendar is being used to set the Paschalion and a DIFFERENT calendar is being used for other things. Put the Paschalion and Menaion on the SAME calendar, and POOF, the so-called problems go away. Can we put THAT shibboleth to rest as well? If we calculate Pascha based on the New Calendar along with everything else, there is NO PROBLEM.

This is very true - the problem then exists because a segment of the Church has decided to change only a part of the calendar and "run with it" when it would have been better to wait and change everything all at once. Then there would be no problem in the past and in the future. Only the whole Church together can make a change to the paschalion - which is what needs to do. Pascha is the center of every cycle in the Church - so all the other "calendar" things should be in synch with the paschalion. Change to the Gregorian calendar for Pascha and everything else falls into place. But this is something that only the whole Church acting together can do - not this or that Patriarch or national Church acting on its own initiative. "How many times does this need to be explained?"



Notice how some advocates of the old calendar claim that all advocates of the new calendar are somehow the "enemy" wanting to "change" things.

I don't consider you an enemy. In fact, your argument about the heavens declaring the glory of God is a good one and something I consider worthy of consideration. I just think that the Church should be as one acting in unison - not a cacophony of individual ideas. Lets do this together.

Fr David

[Herman Blaydoe]

That would be indeed the best way to do things, in the spirit of Truth and love and unity. Amen.

[Andreas Moran]

Only the whole Church together can make a change to the paschalion - which is what needs to do. Pascha is the center of every cycle in the Church - so all the other "calendar" things should be in synch with the paschalion.

It seems this is not understood by the EP church in Finland.

[Kosta]

Herman,

Just to clarify i dont mean you when i refer to ecumenists or those that lie through their teeth. My rant is more geared towards those Orthodox that participated in Aleppo for a common easter date, then happily put this ecumenist formula on the SCOBA website.

Also some of my statements may seem confusing because im throwing criticism at three different points:

1. The false assumption that Nicea sanctions the actual day of the equinox, and not the fixed date of March 21. I want to show how out of sync the fixed feasts under the Julian calendar would have been, if the Fathers of the byzantine empire utilyzed the actual day the equinox occurs. If the actual day of the Equinox was used in the year 1200 for instance, it would have fallen on March 15th! This is why i said in a previous post, we eventually would be celebrating the Theophany during Great Lent!

2. The Revised Julian Calendar and how nonsensical it is. (I think we agree on this)

3. The Gregorian Calendar which utilyses a cycle devised in the 16th century to calculate Easter, and not what was decreed in Nicea. That this Paschalion was condemned by Pan-Orthodox synods as well. Im also critical that it seems you want to adopt this calendar for Orthodox usage. This is why i said why borrow this calendar, why not create our own accurate calendar, not one that was created in the midst of the persecution of Copernicus for teaching the heliocentric model. For the first time the west can actually have a calendar not based on the assumption that the sun and stars revolve around the earth instead of the other way around.

[Herman Blaydoe]

For #3, even the Catholics recognize that the way they figure "Easter" is wrong, they want to change it, so for us to do it the way they do now is not at all necessary. Thus we don't HAVE to use an anathematized Paschalion if all the Orthodox churches switched to the Gregorian Calendar. Not that it matters what the heterodox do so much, but getting back in step with the celestial dance God set in motion just seems worthwhile, at least to this bear of admittedly little brain.

Herman the skip a beat Pooh

[Alex Haig]

Dear Fathers, your blessing!
Dear in the Lord, my brothers and sisters

The main issue, as I see it, between the Julian and Revised calendars is the mistrust that has built either side. That there are sides at all shows a sinful division in Christ's Church. There seems to be three camps, either those passionately for the Julian or Revised calendars and a third group who do not feel strongly one way or the other and are willing to accept what they are told by the hierarchy.

The "passionates" on either side are inconsistent. Those Julianites describe the others as modernists and ecumenists for having given up "the calendar of the saints"; meanwhile Revisers reply with terms such as traditionalists. These are interesting terms since, as Orthodox, we are all called to be 'modern', 'ecumenical' and 'traditional' in the sense that we do not pretend we live in, for example, the eighth century Roman Empire, witness to the whole world and hold fast to the Tradition of the Church: these terms of slander are in reality the Christian calling (cf. 'my power is made perfect in weakness' 2 Cor 12.9).

Both sides are inconsistent: Revisers, as has been mentioned above, still use a Julian Paschalion; Julianists widely use two calendars, a secular and a religious, which in turn divides their lives. This problem, the division of Christ by two calendars, will only be solved when both sides are willing to accept humility, that is they are willing to accept that the other side holds truth and they are not the lone defenders of Orthodoxy.

I have mentioned a third group, those stuck in the middle who are willing to accept what they are told. For the most part, they are put off the argument by those on both sides and are often pushed away from the Church because of them: something for which both Julianists and Revisers will have to answer.

With love in Christ
Alexander

[Daniel R.]

And yet we have the Psalmist singing that "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1) Please note the lack of the past tense. Even fallen Creation proclaims the glory of God for those who choose NOT to ignore it. We are not here to turn our back on "fallen creation" but to reclaim it. That was the whole point of the Gregorian calendar reform to begin with, regardless. Is that so hard to understand?
I agree the heavens still declare the God's glory and the firmament the work of his hands, but that does not mean they are perfect. Now it is written in the hundred and third Psalm "He hath made the moon for seasons" and yet we do not use the moon alonefor Pascha as it must fall after the 21st (the Equinox). Another intresting point is the Julian calandar uses a year of 265.25 with the quaters adding up every forth year to form a leap year now the problem is the equinox to equinox year is shorter than this by 11 minutes and 15 seconds and so the day of the 21st moves from the equinox by a day about 131 years and every 1440 years. However, it must be noted that the year in terms of the time it takes for the earth to orbit the Sun is in fact is longer than the .25 this means that the Julian calendar is perfect in balancing this two ways of measuring the years which mayhap used to be both in sync.

One thing that I can't work out why does the Gregorian calendar does not just not have a leap year on the leap year nearest to the 131 and 1440 years from what I can work out this would be more accurate instead of all this not every hounded years unless dividable by four, unless I am missing something.

I think what we are agreed on is that the calendar change should not have happened as it did and the Church as a whole must decide what to do, whether to stay with the Julian or to come up with another one.
One of the main factors in this I think is whether the fathers set the day as the 21st or the Equinox itself, although it would be odd that no one noticed its moving a few days some time before the Christian Roman Empire was destroyed or even before breaking away of the see of Rome, which suggests the 21st the Liturgical Equinox was thought of as of more importance that the Equinox.

In Christ.
Daniel,

[Herman Blaydoe]

Now it is written in the hundred and third Psalm "He hath made the moon for seasons" and yet we do not use the moon alonefor Pascha as it must fall after the 21st (the Equinox).

There is a reason for this. Although the ancient Jews used a lunar calendar, they also tied it and reconciled it to the solar year and some rather involved adjustments need to be made to do so. Pascha is from the Passover which was tied to a specific month, Nisan, which occurs at a specific time, which is after the Vernal Equinox, although the Jewish calendar was revised later after the destruction of the Temple which makes it possible to have NO Passover one year and two Passovers in another year. This was the main concern of the Ecumenical canon of not celebrating Pascha "with the Jews", that is, using the revised Jewish method of calculating Passover.


Another intresting point is the Julian calandar uses a year of 265.25 with the quaters adding up every forth year to form a leap year now the problem is the equinox to equinox year is shorter than this by 11 minutes and 15 seconds and so the day of the 21st moves from the equinox by a day about 131 years and every 1440 years. However, it must be noted that the year in terms of the time it takes for the earth to orbit the Sun is in fact is longer than the .25 this means that the Julian calendar is perfect in balancing this two ways of measuring the years which mayhap used to be both in sync.

I really think you need to recheck your math. The length of time for the Earth to actually orbit the Sun is SHORTER THAN, not longer than the Julian calendar says, THAT is why the calculated Julian Vernal Equinox is now 13 days off. The Gregorian calendar attempts to keep the vernal equinox on or soon before March 21, hence it follows the vernal equinox year. The average length of this calendar's year is 365.2425 mean solar days. The whole reason the Gregorian calendar was instituted was to keep the Vernal Equinox on a specific day.

Think about that for a minute. The calendar that governs the civil world was specifically instituted to "fix" the date for the celebration of the Resurrection. That is why it exists. And here we go saying it isn't good enough for us. Irony overdose.


One thing that I can't work out why does the Gregorian calendar does not just not have a leap year on the leap year nearest to the 131 and 1440 years from what I can work out this would be more accurate instead of all this not every hounded years unless dividable by four, unless I am missing something.

Well I do think you need to check your math again, that might be part of it. No doubt at some point in the far future another adjustment will need to be made and we will get to go through all this fun again because humans is de craziest peoples.


I think what we are agreed on is that the calendar change should not have happened as it did and the Church as a whole must decide what to do, whether to stay with the Julian or to come up with another one.

Oh that they would regain the courage of the early Church and do so!


I think what we are agreed on is that the calendar change should not have happened as it did and the Church as a whole must decide what to do, whether to stay with the Julian or to come up with another one.

One calendar for the One Church would be nice. One calendar that follows God's celestial dance rather than our own artificial (off) beat would be super. Do we really want to say that we dance to the beat of a "different" (not God) drummer? Not so much thinks this bear of admittedly little brain.

Herman the "keep on dancing" Pooh

[Daniel R.]

This was the main concern of the Ecumenical canon of not celebrating Pascha "with the Jews", that is, using the revised Jewish method of calculating Passover. As far as I know the main reason was infact for three reasons one the Jewish passover takes place on the Friday which is the Day the Lord was crucified so it is wrong to have the resurrection before it. Second the Jewish passover was a type Christ is the fulfilment the Fulfilment should always be after the the type. Three the Jews rejected Christ and the Most Holy day ought not be celebrated at the same time as the Jewish passover which is no longer acceptable as it is now a rejection of the true Passover.



I really think you need to recheck your math. The length of time for the Earth to actually orbit the Sun is SHORTER THAN, not longer than the Julian calendar says, THAT is why the calculated Julian Vernal Equinox is now 13 days off. The Gregorian calendar attempts to keep the vernal equinox on or soon before March 21, hence it follows the vernal equinox year. The average length of this calendar's year is 365.2425 mean solar days. The whole reason the Gregorian calendar was instituted was to keep the Vernal Equinox on a specific day.
Nope the time it takes for the earth to orbit the Sun (that is the time it takes for the earth to from one of its perihelion and back again) is 365 days 6 hours and just under 14 minutes. But the beacuse of the earth's axis and a gradual change of that axis it appears from earth as 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, 45 seconds (that is the time between the between Northern Spring Equinox) but this is not the real time it takes for the earth to orbit the Sun.


Do we really want to say that we dance to the beat of a "different" (not God) drummer? Not so much thinks this bear of admittedly little brain. Well we have been for the last 1600 years so mayhap we are doing that which God wants not what has become beacuse of the fall of creation from how God wanted it.

In Christ.
Daniel,

[Herman Blaydoe]

As far as I know the main reason was infact for three reasons one the Jewish passover takes place on the Friday which is the Day the Lord was crucified so it is wrong to have the resurrection before it. Second the Jewish passover was a type Christ is the fulfilment the Fulfilment should always be after the the type. Three the Jews rejected Christ and the Most Holy day ought not be celebrated at the same time as the Jewish passover which is no longer acceptable as it is now a rejection of the true Passover.

But you are missing an important fact. What you say is true as far as it goes, but it leaves out the fact that the Jewish Pesach is no longer celebrated in accordance with the Biblical reckoning. Yes, Pascha is to happen after Pesach, but we are NOT to consider the "modern" revised way the Jewish Pesach is calculated now. It happens after the Biblical reckoning, disregarding the current reckoning (that is what "not with the Jews" means specifically for purposes of the canon). That it not happen until after the Biblical Pesach simply goes without saying.


Well we have been for the last 1600 years so mayhap we are doing that which God wants not what has become beacuse of the fall of creation from how God wanted it.

You have your rationalizations, I have mine I suppose. We have been doing a lot of things for a lot of years that God did not necessarily want us to do. I am not so sure that God would be displeased if we fixed the mess that currently exists, but obviously He is not as concerned about it as perhaps some of us may be. One calendar for the one church would be nice however. I will continue to pray for it. Persistence in prayer I know is something God honors.

[Kosta]

As a side note the way jews reckon Passover, was decided 45 years after Nicea. It was at a jewish council in about 369 a.d. where they came up with their calculations. They too use the 19 year cycle but their calendar is slightly different, it too drifts but not as much as the julian.
Nicea did indeed take the Passover into account, hence if the full moon falls on Sunday, Pascha is celebrated on the next Sunday. Its always the Sunday AFTER the full moon.

I also need to address another misconception brought up by Alex. How does following the christian feasts in accordance with when the Church holds her liturgies for those same feasts somehow conflict with the secular calendar? I have no conflict when Pascha falls later than the heterodox Easter. Just like I dont mind the winter fast when most of the secularists are eating and having christmas party after christmas party. Likewise i'm not conflicted that the Church hasnt added a major feast to coincide with Halloween.
Every devout person of faith is divided, but not over calendars, its over the fact that western culture requires the seperation of church and faith from every day matters. A topic for a different day and thread.

[Alex Haig]

I also need to address another misconception brought up by Alex. How does following the christian feasts in accordance with when the Church holds her liturgies for those same feasts somehow conflict with the secular calendar? I have no conflict when Pascha falls later than the heterodox Easter. Just like I dont mind the winter fast when most of the secularists are eating and having christmas party after christmas party. Likewise i'm not conflicted that the Church hasnt added a major feast to coincide with Halloween.
Every devout person of faith is divided, but not over calendars, its over the fact that western culture requires the seperation of church and faith from every day matters. A topic for a different day and thread.

Dear in the Lord Kosta

My point was meant to be that those following the Julian calendar must (with a few exceptions, for example the Holy Mountain) follow two calendars, or else have a really confused and mixed up composite calendar. Thus, today is Sunday 5th February or Sunday 23rd January depending on which calendar you use. It seems to me that trying to keep the two distinct is beyond many (certainly beyond me) and people come out with statements such as "Orthodox Christmas is celebrated on 7th January" which is not where the Fathers placed the feast. That those outside the Church make this mistake is understandable, but those within should know better: by saying 7th January one is departing from the tradition of the Church which has, since ancient times, celebrated Christmas on 25th December.

My previous post was not to ridicule either the Julian or Revised calendars but to point out that there are inconsistencies on both sides and that repentance is required if the Church is to be reunited. It is my opinion, and please excuse my boldness on this matter, that the real sin is neither the Julian nor the Revised calendar but the schism that has been created through the Church. This will only be healed when the extremists on both sides, whom I termed 'Julianites' and 'Revisers', show humility in the image of Christ.

With love in Xp
Alexander

[Kosta]

Dear in the Lord Kosta

My point was meant to be that those following the Julian calendar must (with a few exceptions, for example the Holy Mountain) follow two calendars, or else have a really confused and mixed up composite calendar. Thus, today is Sunday 5th February or Sunday 23rd January depending on which calendar you use. It seems to me that trying to keep the two distinct is beyond many (certainly beyond me) and people come out with statements such as "Orthodox Christmas is celebrated on 7th January" which is not where the Fathers placed the feast. That those outside the Church make this mistake is understandable, but those within should know better: by saying 7th January one is departing from the tradition of the Church which has, since ancient times, celebrated Christmas on 25th December.

My previous post was not to ridicule either the Julian or Revised calendars but to point out that there are inconsistencies on both sides and that repentance is required if the Church is to be reunited. It is my opinion, and please excuse my boldness on this matter, that the real sin is neither the Julian nor the Revised calendar but the schism that has been created through the Church. This will only be healed when the extremists on both sides, whom I termed 'Julianites' and 'Revisers', show humility in the image of Christ.

With love in Xp
Alexander

Oh ok, i agree.

[Andreas Moran]

by saying 7th January one is departing from the tradition of the Church which has, since ancient times, celebrated Christmas on 25th December.

I suspect that what Orthodox people (in Russia, for example) mean when they say this is that 25 December and the Feast of the Nativity of Christ falls on 7 January according to the calendar used outside the Church. Church calendars (the diary sort) in Russia show both dates (for example, '7 January old style 25 December').


the real sin is neither the Julian nor the Revised calendar but the schism that has been created through the Church

Whilst the word 'schism' can mean 'split' or 'difference', in Orthodox usage it is generally taken to mean a separation from the Church. As we know, Old Calendarist groups are schismatic in the second meaning of 'schism' but, in the interests of precision, I suggest the word 'schism' is avoided since it might give the impression that the canonical Orthodox Churches using the two different calendars are separated and, of course, they are not.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Alex Haig wrote:


Both sides are inconsistent: Revisers, as has been mentioned above, still use a Julian Paschalion; Julianists widely use two calendars, a secular and a religious, which in turn divides their lives. This problem, the division of Christ by two calendars...

As I've mentioned on the Forum before, this point is something that I came to see only during the discussions here. I simply hadn't given thought to the fact that before modern times, the Julian and civil calendars coincided, and that this was purposeful. Instead those who defend the OC often point to its strength as being precsiely that it is separate from the civil one. While those on the NC point to a sanctification of present time without quite saying that what they are actually doing is to follow past, traditional precedent in the overlaying of sacred for civil time.

In other words to develop on Alex's point: those on the OC defend the integrity of past usage in the Church without this really matching up with the precedent of past traditional practice. While those on the NC defend present usage as matching up with the past but in a modern mechanical sense that also doesn't exactly match up with the precedent of past traditional practice. In the first scenario what is defended is in many ways something that is conservative rather than traditional. And in the second sense what often is being defended is something modern or mechanical rather than traditional, although it too hearkens to past precedent.

In both cases then what is often lost sight of is that the Church calendar after centuries of careful development, was the overlaying or better permeating of the civil calendar with the Church calendar. To the point that by the 19thc, in almost all Orthodox countries, the Church calendar included a number of civil feasts which were regarded as affecting the spiritual/moral welfare of the whole country.

In N America we can lose track of this vital aspect of sacred time via the Church calendar, since our Church or understanding of the Church is so uprooted from our understanding of current civil society. But in countries like Russia for example this is scarcely possible where for example today in the Church marks not only the feast of the newmartyrs & confessors of Russia. But it also is the commemoration of those who suffered during the years of Soviet persecution.

In Christ
-Fr Raphael

[Andreas Moran]

before modern times, the Julian and civil calendars coincided as they did in England until 1752, and where the New Year began on 25 March.

[Archimandrite Irenei]

Dear friends,

I've only this morning read through the long discussion above, and have but a few thoughts to offer.

Firstly, there is, throughout, echoed the serious problem of thinking that the liturgical calendar is either meant to be defined by, or in any way meant to define, the cosmic order. The movement of the sun and the moon mark, as the Scriptures themselves say, the 'days and the seasons', but they do not serve as timekeepers for the Church's liturgical commemoration. As far as I can tell from the patristic witness, the only interest in the questions of astronomical/secular-calendar detail came in giving a starting point to the construction of a liturgical cycle; and then in settling points of variation in practice in those early generations, when saying something as apparently as simple as 'this shall happen on the first Sunday in spring' yielded different locations being divided because of different local figuring of dates. In this there was discussion in order to find a common witness and approach—but this seems to be the extent to which anything approaching concern with astronomical accuracy or interested the patristic and conciliar mind as to the establishment of a liturgical calendar.

The liturgical calendar is something else entirely from an astronomical tool, and it seems to me that the much-laboured discussion of equinoxes, timekeeping, etc., fails to miss the very point of the issue—that the function of the liturgical calendar is not to mark or reflect astronomical witness, but to impose upon the motion of human life (and in the human heart) an order that is defined by the unending witness of God and His Saints. The more that questions of astronomical measure and the like are raised to ground revisions to the liturgical calendar, the more I see the true point being missed altogether.

The liturgical calendar is an ascetical tool for shaping human life to the witness of God in His Saints. It is cyclical, precisely because such a witness breaks down the idea of ‘chronology’ and draws the faithful into the experience of eternity (so, for example, today’s date on the old style liturgical calendar defines today as the 26th of January not with respect to it being the such-and-such-thousandth iteration of orbits of the planet in succession, but the ‘today’ in which the faithful are drawn into the life of St Symeon of Sinai and St Xenophon); and though that cycle took as its starting point the cycle of annual time customary to the local calendars of the early Church, astronomical and chronological precision have little to nothing to do with the function of the liturgical calendar.

The Paschalion, which removes those commemorations associated with the Resurrection from the ordinary flow of time (i.e. removing them from fixed positions on the liturgical calendar, making them ‘movable’), does this precisely so as to mark out the breaking-through-time that is confessed of Christ’s defeat of death (the same breaking-through-time that is witnessed in the icon of Christ in Jerusalem lifting Adam and Eve out of Hades). These feasts are based on a figuring associated with the sun and moon only so as to provide a standard way of celebrating these feasts together, and to associate them in general terms with springtime (the time of new birth, of the ‘resurrection’ witnessed annually in God’s creation) – but there is no suggestion (or interest) in the Church’s witness that somehow this yields a specific timeframe, date or point in an annual chronology that is historically significant or necessary in terms of historical or astronomical accuracy.

This is not to say that the liturgical calendar cannot be revised: it can be and it has been (the Quartodeciman controversy in the early Church yielded precisely such a modification, to bring practice into uniformity throughout the churches)—but arguments for or against revision based on the question of chronology and astronomical measure fail entirely to grasp the point of what a liturgical calendar is and does.

INXC, Fr Irenei

[Herman Blaydoe]

There is certainly grounds for confusion here. The Liturgical calendar, as reflected by the Menaion, Paschalion and Pentecostarion, does not care WHEN 25 December actually happens, while formed to "a" calendar, it is, indeed independent and will go about its 574 year cycle. The Liturgical calendar will work just fine regardless of which calendar we use, as long as we all use the same calendar for everything. I think we have all agreed that there are NO essential, critical, theological reason baring the revision of the chronological calendar used. I would say there is simply no reason why we absolutely MUST use the Julian Calendar, at least I have not seen any put forward that was not based on less than accurate information.

I just believe that using an honest, actual Biblical event (14th of Nisan?) tied to its actual, repeating date in relation to the Vernal Equinox (as stated in the Ecumenical canon) is worthwhile, it establishes a lovely iconic link between our worship and that of the Universe He created, better than using an artificial date and calling it the "Vernal Equinox" when it is slowly drifting away from the actual event itself. However, that cycle is tied to SOMETHING. It originally was tied to the most convenient and accurate calendar available to the Church at the time. And the Paschalion is still tied to the Biblican reckoning of Pesach even if we don't actually use the ancient Jewish Solunar calendar anymore. That is what the Ecumenical Church did and that is what I think we should do. And centuries from now when the calendar has to "skip a beat" to better conform to the Celestial Dance to God's Glory, I hope we can do so in a God-pleasing and perhaps more "timely" and less contentious manner. A bear of little brain can dream, can't he?

Herman the Pooh

[Archimandrite Irenei]

That may be well and good, Herman; but you are still arguing a cause separate from the actual nature and purpose of the liturgical Calendar of the Church. If in your mind you desire that it conform to astronomic precision, you have that right -- but this is not the nature or purpose of the liturgical calendar as the Church understands it, or as she has maintained, expanded and lived it over the centuries of her life. The ecumenical Church has in fact never done this, at any point in her history.

INXC, ​Fr Irenei

[Herman Blaydoe]

Fr. Irenei, your blessing.

The purpose of the Liturgical calendar is what it is. It blesses the time, it reclaims it as part of God's creation, fallen as it has become, back for God's purposes, certainly. I remain a bit confused however. The Church did, instead of using the rather complicated Jewish calendar, use the most accurate and convenient calendar at its disposal, the civil calendar of the Empire. That was a point in history, was it not? Now, since that point, points have diverged. Instead of reclaiming we seem to be retreating; the ecclesiology of a retreating army. Is that the statement we really want to make?

At any rate, this particular Pooh will happily do as his bishop directs regardless but he will continue we could all celebrate the Nativity together and celebrate Holy Pascha in obedience to the Ecumenical Canon. That's all.

Herman the "just passing time" Pooh

[Archimandrite Irenei]

Dear Herman,

I still remain unconvinced that your conception of what the liturgical calendar is for, matches the Church's actual usage. 'It blesses the time, it reclaims it as part of God's creation ... back for God's purposes' is a pretty thing to say, but I see no evidence to support this being the Church's perception of her liturgical calendar's purpose or function. I also see no evidence, if I might go a little further, to suggest that the Church (e.g. in the patristic witness) sees the human delineation of time as something diminished or destroyed, or removed from God's purposes, or something that could or would be reclaimed for Him through a different ordering of an annual chronology.

There is certainly an argument to be made that human society has failed to recognise the sacred nature of history, of time, 'de-sacralising' it by making it something that is merely a measure of chronology and astronomy, rather than the context within which God interacts with His creation; but this would be an argument precisely against the linking of liturgical time to astronomical time.

Two very different things are done by the two different realities of the secular calendar and the liturgical calendar. The former is a scientific instrument that represents as accurately as possible the astronomical perception of time as it relates to matter; the latter is an ascetical tool that draws the human heart out of the confines of created time, into the eternity of God glorified in His economy and in His saints.

Time is not 'reclaimed' by Christianity: it is transcended. Liturgical experience does not exist to enter into time, but to move beyond it into the lived experience of eternity. This is precisely why astronomical accuracy is not a factor that determines the validity or 'accuracy' of the Church's liturgical calendar. The only attention that has been paid to such factors in the Church's history has been, as I mentioned in my previous posting, right at the front, where the common civil calendar of the day was taken as the starting point for assigning out the Feasts, and where local variations in determining dates prompted conversation within the churches so that a common approach could be agreed upon, that all Christians might worship and celebrate together in unity. But there was no attempt to base the festal cycle or liturgical commemorations on foundations of astronomical accuracy in their own right -- the calendar of the day was simply taken as a framework around which to construct something new.

INXC, Fr Irenei

[Michael Stickles]

There is certainly an argument to be made that human society has failed to recognise the sacred nature of history, of time, 'de-sacralising' it by making it something that is merely a measure of chronology and astronomy, rather than the context within which God interacts with His creation; but this would be an argument precisely against the linking of liturgical time to astronomical time.

... Liturgical experience does not exist to enter into time, but to move beyond it into the lived experience of eternity.

I'm a little confused by these, for it does seem to me that in the Fathers we can see on occasion an explicit link between the observance of the liturgical seasons and the astronomical cycles, and between the observation of time and the experience of eternity. In case I am not understanding them properly, let me present some of those I've read for review.

Eusebius, in his Church History (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iv.viii.vii.html), explicitly links time and eternity, even going so far as to consider the cycles of time and the seasons as "giving grace" to eternity:


... Eternity, then, in its whole extent, resists and refuses subjection to mortal reason.

But it does not refuse to acknowledge its own Sovereign and Lord ... And he himself, not binding it, as the poet imagined, with a golden chain, but as it were controlling its movements by the reins of ineffable wisdom, has adjusted its months and seasons, its times and years, and the alterations of day and night, with perfect harmony, and has thus attached to it limits and measures of various kinds. For eternity, being in its nature direct, and stretching onward into infinity, and receiving its name, eternity, as having an everlasting existence, and being similar in all its parts, or rather having no division or distance, progresses only in a line of direct extension. But God, who has distributed it by intermediate sections, and has divided it, like a far extended line, in many points, has included in it a vast number of portions; and though it is in its nature one, and resembles unity itself, he has attached to it a multiplicity of numbers, and has given it, though formless in itself, an endless variety of forms.

... And three multiplied with ten discovers the period of a month: and twelve successive months complete the course of the sun. Hence the revolutions of years, and changes of the seasons, which give grace, like variety of color in painting, to that eternity which before was formless and devoid of beauty, for the refreshment and delight of those whose lot it is to traverse therein the course of life.

St. Gregory of Nyssa, in a letter to Eusebius the Bishop of Chalcis (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf205.xiii.ii.html), explicitly links the observance of Nativity and Pascha to an astronomical observance - specifically, the length of the day as it changes through the course of the seasons:


When the length of the day begins to expand in winter-time, as the sun mounts to the upper part of his course, we keep the feast of the appearing of the true Light divine, that through the veil of flesh has cast its bright beams upon the life of men: but now when that luminary has traversed half the heaven in his course, so that night and day are of equal length, the upward return of human nature from death to life is the theme of this great and universal festival, which all the life of those who have embraced the mystery of the Resurrection unites in celebrating. ... Why is it that then only, when the night has attained its utmost length, so that no further addition is possible, that He appears in flesh to us ... how it is that it is winter-time when He appears in the flesh, but it is when the days are as long as the nights that He restores to life man, who because of his sins returned to the earth from whence he came, — by explaining the reason of this, as well as I can in few words, I will make my letter my present to you. Has your own sagacity, as of course it has, already divined the mystery hinted at by these coincidences; that the advance of night is stopped by the accessions to the light, and the period of darkness begins to be shortened, as the length of the day is increased by the successive additions?

St. Ephraim the Syrian, in his fourth hymn on the Nativity of Christ (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf213.iii.v.v.html), draws the same parallel:


At the Birth of the Son the king was enrolling all men for the tribute-money, that they might be debtors to Him: the King came forth to us Who blotted out our bills, and wrote another bill in His own Name that He might be our debtor. The sun gave longer light, and foreshadowed the mystery by the degrees which it had gone up. ... The darkness was overcome, that it might proclaim that Satan was overcome; and the sun gave longer light, that it might triumph, because the First-born was victorious. Along with the darkness the dark one was overcome, and with the greater light our Light conquered!

Anatolius of Alexandria, in his Paschal Canon, Chapter 6 (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf06.vi.iii.ii.vi.html), gives a precise astronomical reason for the limitations on when Pascha may be celebrated:


And, therefore, in this concurrence of the sun and moon, the Paschal festival is not to be celebrated, because as long as they are found in this course the power of darkness is not overcome; and as long as equality between light and darkness endures, and is not diminished by the light, it is shown that the Paschal festival is not to be celebrated. Accordingly, it is enjoined that that festival be kept after the equinox, because the moon of the fourteenth, if before the equinox or at the equinox, does not fill the whole night. But after the equinox, the moon of the fourteenth, with one day being added because of the passing of the equinox, although it does not extend to the true light, that is, the rising of the sun and the beginning of day, will nevertheless leave no darkness behind it. And, in accordance with this, Moses is charged by the Lord to keep seven days of unleavened bread for the celebration of the Passover, that in them no power of darkness should be found to surpass the light.

I have seen a few other mentions of this same argument, which suggests to me that - in this instance, at least - there is indeed some measure of theological significance to the astronomical accuracy of our calendar. I have also seen claims that St. Athanasius took St. John the Baptist's statement "He must increase, but I must decrease" to indicate their respective conceptions took place at the equinoxes - another astronomical link - but I have not seen a specific reference for that.

In Christ,
Michael

[Kosta]

If that is the case, then we need to reject most fixed feasts and replace them with actual observances. The Annunciation should either fall on good Friday or Pascha based on the actual Equinox and 9 months later will be Christmas.

The church added feast days to her liturgical calendar in the ensuing centuries based around a fixed date for the equinox. That way the driftinng over time wont interfere with each other and make them nonsensical. So we will know what to anticipate in the hymns of her feast days and when to fast and when to celebrate. In the late 14th century when the liturgical calendar was completed and 8 days had drifted no one in the empire was panicked to reorganize things. The time proportions between feast days are preserved in the julian calendar while they are not in the revised calendar, and even the gregorian calendar there have been times they celebrated Easter on the day of the full moon instead of the sunday after the 14th moon.

[Michael Stickles]

If that is the case, then we need to reject most fixed feasts and replace them with actual observances. The Annunciation should either fall on good Friday or Pascha based on the actual Equinox and 9 months later will be Christmas.

I really don't follow that idea. Pascha has a 35-day range within which it can occur, while the equinox will fall on one of only two days. Using fixed dates would make much more sense if one were using the solstices/equinoxes as a guide.


The time proportions between feast days are preserved in the julian calendar while they are not in the revised calendar

Actually, that is not precisely correct, as I believe Herman has already pointed out. The revised calendar would preserve those "time proportions" quite fine if it were used for determining both the fixed and the moveable (Paschal) feast dates. The problem of "drift" between the two festal cycles under the "New Calendar" is caused by using a different calendar for each. Calculate Pascha using the revised instead of the julian calendar, and all of those problems attributed to the New Calendar disappear - Kyriopascha is again possible, the Annunciation can no longer fall during the first week of Lent, etc.

The major problems in reconciling the calendar issue are, I fear, not so much theological as they are political and sociological.

[Michael Stickles]

As an aside, while I'd love to be able to participate in a Kyriopascha celebration, I'm not holding my breath. If my calculations are correct, the next one won't be until 2075 (unless, of course, the method for calculating the date of Paschal is revised). I'm already closing in on "over the hill"; by 2075 I'll probably be under the hill.

[Kosta]

Ephraim the Syrian dated the Anunciation to the 10th of Nisan or the day the passover lambs were selected. Other Fathers placed it on March 25th believing that day was the actual day Christ was crucified (nisan 14) . The dating of Annunciation determined Christmas. The early Fathers believed the conception coincided with the Passion . Whether Christmas was celebrated before Nicea is a hard call, in fact when Ephraim wrote his hymn im not sure Christmas was commemorated on Dec 25 in his region altogether. But if we are to equate the two feast days with the seasons then both should be moveable feasts as that is what the 4th century Fathers believed, that the conception and crucifixion dates were closely correlated.

The gregorian calendar has never been used in Orthodoxy so its irrelevant, The Fathers only used the Julian and never found the drifting of approximately 3 days every four hundred years a problem. Why are ecumenists obsessed with the gregorian calendar even though it has been condemned by numerous councils? Does it have to do with eurocentrism? What will happened when the gregorian calendar becomes obselete? Why are ecumenists dead against holding a pan-Orthodox council in the future to truly create an Orthodox Liturgical calendar?

[Herman Blaydoe]

Why are ecumenists obsessed with the gregorian calendar even though it has been condemned by numerous councils? Does it have to do with eurocentrism? What will happened when the gregorian calendar becomes obselete? Why are ecumenists dead against holding a pan-Orthodox council in the future to truly create an Orthodox Liturgical calendar?

What is this obsession with "ecumenists"? Who is against having a pan-Othodox council? It is certainly not those who favor a revised calendar. I, for one, would LOVE to see such an event and I have yet to meet one person who favors a revised calendar who doesn't. Most of the people who speak against such a council are those who proclaim it isn't necessary because the OC is just fine the way it is. Why call people names who disagree with you? Where is this seeming intent on telling false over generalizations? Not everyone who considers revising the calendar as not evil is an evil "ecumenist". As an American I don't do "eurocentrism". When the Gregorian calendar needs to be adjusted, it will be, and it shouldn't have to be as big a deal as some people insist on making it.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

We have an amusing anecdote which regularly makes the rounds in our church. The priest in his sermon or in a talk, makes the comment that we need to meet more with our fellow Orthodox. Afterwards one of the elderly parishioners comes up to him and says: "Father, are you an ecumenist?"

[Michael Stickles]

Ephraim the Syrian dated the Anunciation to the 10th of Nisan or the day the passover lambs were selected. Other Fathers placed it on March 25th believing that day was the actual day Christ was crucified (nisan 14) . The dating of Annunciation determined Christmas. The early Fathers believed the conception coincided with the Passion . Whether Christmas was celebrated before Nicea is a hard call, in fact when Ephraim wrote his hymn im not sure Christmas was commemorated on Dec 25 in his region altogether. But if we are to equate the two feast days with the seasons then both should be moveable feasts as that is what the 4th century Fathers believed, that the conception and crucifixion dates were closely correlated.

I'll take your word for it that this makes sense to you - to me it's a complete non sequitur.

[Kosta]

Michael i actually found the Patristic quotes you provided quite interesting. Perhaps my mind did go into a tangent, as they are quite early and can make for an interesting study on the development of the liturgical calendar.

[Michael Stickles]

Michael i actually found the Patristic quotes you provided quite interesting. Perhaps my mind did go into a tangent, as they are quite early and can make for an interesting study on the development of the liturgical calendar.

I too would find a study like that quite interesting; I wish I had the time to delve into it right now instead of just "dabbling" (my work travel really cuts into the time I used to have for Monachos and neat "study projects").


We have an amusing anecdote which regularly makes the rounds in our church. The priest in his sermon or in a talk, makes the comment that we need to meet more with our fellow Orthodox. Afterwards one of the elderly parishioners comes up to him and says: "Father, are you an ecumenist?"

I like that one. The joke that this thread has reminded me of is:

Q: How many Orthodox Christians does it take to change a light bulb?
A: CHANGE?!?!?