Old vs. New Calendar?

[FatherHLL]

I've' stated it before, my parish is Old Calendar, personally I have preference for the New, but no real passion one way or the other as there are strong points in defense of each. If it changes some day, so be it, if not so be it...This past year I celebrated the full cycle of the Nativity week on the New at my son's parish in Georgia. It FELT in my heart like Christmas to the extent when my wife said to me after Liturgy on the 26th of December that we HAD to get to the mall for the sales...I groggily replied...there won't be anything left by now..you always do that on the 26th....

That being said, I don't think either the New or Old calendar Orthodox really use this issue as the basis for 'anathemas' or 'schism', I see it as an excuse used by both sides where there may be deeper issues under the surface. Surely on the face of the earth, given current events in particular, the calendar by itself  - one way or the other - is a rather poor, if not (to use the vernacular) crappy excuse over which to divide the Church....

It is excuses on both sides.  There are some problems in "old world translation."  I realized that my reference to "new calendar" meant to some people "Gregorian" rather than "Orthodox revised Julian" (i.e. the Milankovic Orthodox calendar).   

The first time that someone suggested switching from Old to New Julian calendar was in 2005.  I forbid even having a vote.  Then they presented evidence that over 50% wanted it.  I said, "that is not enough to warrant dividing a parish."  Year after year it got brought up, each time, I forbid the vote...until the end of 2013.  Then, I allowed it, shocked to find out that over 90% of the parish was for switching to revised Julian observance (to call it a different calendar really isn't correct--is same calendar, just with a different look at past leap years, and thus 13 days difference in observing dates of the menaion, but same Ochoich, same Triodion, same Pentecostarion....).  Anyway, Bishop approved and I still dragged on the switch to the Orthodox RJC, such that it only happened this year.  For the old julians, it is not even May yet.  That is where I found myself a hypocrite.  If someone asked me the date, I would always given them the civil date.  Today is May 10.  It is not the end of April (as it is if we are truly observing old Julian calendar).  That being said, I still have an affinity toward old Julian.  However, I wish that the Church as a whole just makes a decision.  However, if they make a decision for the old Julian, let us stop saying that civil January 7 is January 7, and start calling it December 25 (the actual date if we are truly observing Old Julian Calendar).  Otherwise, let us start recognizing the days in accordance with the reality of the early centuries of the church...that Nativity in days of the second ecumenical council was celebrated within days (not weeks) of the winter solstice, and the same for the rest of the days with regard to the astronomical year.   

 

[PeterTheAleut]

Another argument I'm fond of is that the solar cycle is reversed in the southern hemisphere, but afaik no one is proposing that Orthodox living in the south celebrate Pascha in September/October. That's because what's more important is that they celebrate Pascha together with the Orthodox in the northern hemisphere.

Is that really the ONLY conclusion we can draw from the fact that Australia celebrates Pascha in the fall?

What other alternatives would you suggest?

I want Jonathan to think of those other alternatives. I'm not going to do his thinking for him.

 

[PeterTheAleut]

But it was not rejected "for its own sake", i.e. on the grounds that calendar reform is inherently wicked.  The Emperor thought that news of the correction could not be easily transmitted to the whole empire.

Fair enough, but it does sound like maintaining church unity was seen as important enough that reform of just part of the church would be worse than no reform at all. I think that's an important lesson for today.

Gregoras, in the 14th century, cared about astronomical accuracy.  Isn't he part of the church?

The Church is not just any individual. Gregoras had a right to propose reform, but the Church was under no obligation to follow his proposal and didn't.

Who is the Church?

If many things have changed since the 4th century, why can't the calendar be changed now?

What would be the point? Astronomical accuracy is all very well, but it's not worth sacrificing unity for it.

Why not? You did.

Excuse me? It was the New Calendarists who anathematized and outlawed the Old Calendarists first.

Taking into account the many churches that still follow the Old Calendar yet maintain communion with the churches that have embraced the New, I think it possible for Old Calendar churches to respect the decisions made by the New Calendar churches and remain in communion with them. They recognize that the calendar itself is not such a dogmatic issue that the use of the New Calendar is cause for schism, even if they agree with you otherwise that the New Calendar was introduced in a way that caused a lot of undue discord within the Church. ISTM, therefore, that it's those churches that have chosen to condemn the New Calendar and excommunicate its followers who are guilty of causing and perpetuating schism.

 

[Mor Ephrem]

Another argument I'm fond of is that the solar cycle is reversed in the southern hemisphere, but afaik no one is proposing that Orthodox living in the south celebrate Pascha in September/October. That's because what's more important is that they celebrate Pascha together with the Orthodox in the northern hemisphere.

Is that really the ONLY conclusion we can draw from the fact that Australia celebrates Pascha in the fall?

What other alternatives would you suggest?

I want Jonathan to think of those other alternatives. I'm not going to do his thinking for him.

But I didn't ask "What other alternatives ought Jonathan suggest?". 

 

[podkarpatska]

I've' stated it before, my parish is Old Calendar, personally I have preference for the New, but no real passion one way or the other as there are strong points in defense of each. If it changes some day, so be it, if not so be it...This past year I celebrated the full cycle of the Nativity week on the New at my son's parish in Georgia. It FELT in my heart like Christmas to the extent when my wife said to me after Liturgy on the 26th of December that we HAD to get to the mall for the sales...I groggily replied...there won't be anything left by now..you always do that on the 26th....

That being said, I don't think either the New or Old calendar Orthodox really use this issue as the basis for 'anathemas' or 'schism', I see it as an excuse used by both sides where there may be deeper issues under the surface. Surely on the face of the earth, given current events in particular, the calendar by itself  - one way or the other - is a rather poor, if not (to use the vernacular) crappy excuse over which to divide the Church....

It is excuses on both sides.  There are some problems in "old world translation."  I realized that my reference to "new calendar" meant to some people "Gregorian" rather than "Orthodox revised Julian" (i.e. the Milankovic Orthodox calendar).   

The first time that someone suggested switching from Old to New Julian calendar was in 2005.  I forbid even having a vote.  Then they presented evidence that over 50% wanted it.  I said, "that is not enough to warrant dividing a parish."  Year after year it got brought up, each time, I forbid the vote...until the end of 2013.  Then, I allowed it, shocked to find out that over 90% of the parish was for switching to revised Julian observance (to call it a different calendar really isn't correct--is same calendar, just with a different look at past leap years, and thus 13 days difference in observing dates of the menaion, but same Ochoich, same Triodion, same Pentecostarion....).  Anyway, Bishop approved and I still dragged on the switch to the Orthodox RJC, such that it only happened this year.  For the old julians, it is not even May yet.  That is where I found myself a hypocrite.  If someone asked me the date, I would always given them the civil date.  Today is May 10.  It is not the end of April (as it is if we are truly observing old Julian calendar).  That being said, I still have an affinity toward old Julian.  However, I wish that the Church as a whole just makes a decision.  However, if they make a decision for the old Julian, let us stop saying that civil January 7 is January 7, and start calling it December 25 (the actual date if we are truly observing Old Julian Calendar).  Otherwise, let us start recognizing the days in accordance with the reality of the early centuries of the church...that Nativity in days of the second ecumenical council was celebrated within days (not weeks) of the winter solstice, and the same for the rest of the days with regard to the astronomical year. 

Amen. I could not have said it better.

 

[PeterTheAleut]

Another argument I'm fond of is that the solar cycle is reversed in the southern hemisphere, but afaik no one is proposing that Orthodox living in the south celebrate Pascha in September/October. That's because what's more important is that they celebrate Pascha together with the Orthodox in the northern hemisphere.

Is that really the ONLY conclusion we can draw from the fact that Australia celebrates Pascha in the fall?

What other alternatives would you suggest?

I want Jonathan to think of those other alternatives. I'm not going to do his thinking for him.

But I didn't ask "What other alternatives ought Jonathan suggest?". 

I don't care. I asked Jonathan the question. Let him answer it.

 

[Mor Ephrem]

Another argument I'm fond of is that the solar cycle is reversed in the southern hemisphere, but afaik no one is proposing that Orthodox living in the south celebrate Pascha in September/October. That's because what's more important is that they celebrate Pascha together with the Orthodox in the northern hemisphere.

Is that really the ONLY conclusion we can draw from the fact that Australia celebrates Pascha in the fall?

What other alternatives would you suggest?

I want Jonathan to think of those other alternatives. I'm not going to do his thinking for him.

But I didn't ask "What other alternatives ought Jonathan suggest?". 

I don't care. I asked Jonathan the question. Let him answer it.

If you don't care to answer mine, I see no reason why he should care to answer yours.  Or is this a game of "Gotcha!"? 

 

[PeterTheAleut]

Another argument I'm fond of is that the solar cycle is reversed in the southern hemisphere, but afaik no one is proposing that Orthodox living in the south celebrate Pascha in September/October. That's because what's more important is that they celebrate Pascha together with the Orthodox in the northern hemisphere.

Is that really the ONLY conclusion we can draw from the fact that Australia celebrates Pascha in the fall?

What other alternatives would you suggest?

I want Jonathan to think of those other alternatives. I'm not going to do his thinking for him.

But I didn't ask "What other alternatives ought Jonathan suggest?". 

I don't care. I asked Jonathan the question. Let him answer it.

If you don't care to answer mine, I see no reason why he should care to answer yours.  Or is this a game of "Gotcha!"?

I don't know what game you're playing, Mor, nor do I care to know. If Jonathan doesn't want to answer my question, he's free to not answer my question. What you appear to be doing, though--trying to deflect my question to Jonathan by asking me questions of your own, and then telling me that Jonathan doesn't have to answer my question if I won't answer yours, and that without taking any time to understand what I'm trying to elicit from Jonathan--strikes me as rather rude and unbecoming. Let Jonathan answer for himself if he wants to. I don't think I'm doing anything, though, that requires your intervention in his "defense".

 

[Jonathan Gress]

Another argument I'm fond of is that the solar cycle is reversed in the southern hemisphere, but afaik no one is proposing that Orthodox living in the south celebrate Pascha in September/October. That's because what's more important is that they celebrate Pascha together with the Orthodox in the northern hemisphere.

Is that really the ONLY conclusion we can draw from the fact that Australia celebrates Pascha in the fall?

What other alternatives would you suggest?

I want Jonathan to think of those other alternatives. I'm not going to do his thinking for him.

I can't think of any alternatives, but I'm sure you can.

 

[Jonathan Gress]

Taking into account the many churches that still follow the Old Calendar yet maintain communion with the churches that have embraced the New, I think it possible for Old Calendar churches to respect the decisions made by the New Calendar churches and remain in communion with them. They recognize that the calendar itself is not such a dogmatic issue that the use of the New Calendar is cause for schism, even if they agree with you otherwise that the New Calendar was introduced in a way that caused a lot of undue discord within the Church. ISTM, therefore, that it's those churches that have chosen to condemn the New Calendar and excommunicate its followers who are guilty of causing and perpetuating schism.

The thing is that's not quite how it happened. When the reform was enacted, the Old Calendar was outlawed and anathematized. The famous appearance of the Cross on old calendar Exaltation in 1925 became famous because the police tried to arrest the worshippers, but held back when they also saw the miracle. So it's not like the official church and state authorities were happy to live and let live and allow the traditionalists to do their own thing (though that did happen sometimes with certain bishops who were more sympathetic to the old calendarists and didn't try to persecute them; some of these later joined the old calendarists, of course).

So if you really want to start throwing blame, take a look at the actions of your own side.

 

[Mor Ephrem]

I don't know what game you're playing, Mor, nor do I care to know. If Jonathan doesn't want to answer my question, he's free to not answer my question. What you appear to be doing, though--trying to deflect my question to Jonathan by asking me questions of your own, and then telling me that Jonathan doesn't have to answer my question if I won't answer yours, and that without taking any time to understand what I'm trying to elicit from Jonathan--strikes me as rather rude and unbecoming. Let Jonathan answer for himself if he wants to. I don't think I'm doing anything, though, that requires your intervention in his "defense".

You would do well to ask what I'm doing instead of assuming what it is and reacting accordingly.  I will save you the effort and just tell you: I was engaging in discussion (last I checked, that was still allowed here). 

Jonathan's point about the reversal of the solar cycle in the southern hemisphere is a good one.  Not only does this affect the cycle of movable feasts dependent on the date of Pascha, but to an extent it also affects the fixed feasts.  It would be interesting and, IMO, not unjustified, to suggest that, in the southern hemisphere, the liturgical calendar should reflect this (e.g., if today is "21 Dec" in the northern hemisphere, it should be "21 June" in the southern hemisphere, even if the civil calendar in both places says "21 Dec"). 

If such a change is made without doing violence to the structure of the liturgical calendar, I don't think it would be so bad.  I doubt I'm the only one who has thought of such a thing, and yet if it exists at all, it remains a rather academic discussion with no traction on the ground.  I can't think of any other reason for that, in spite of how the calendar doesn't really work in the southern hemisphere the way it is supposed to, than a concern for the unity of the Church throughout the world.  What else could it be?   

 

[Cyrillic]

The thing is that's not quite how it happened. When the reform was enacted, the Old Calendar was outlawed and anathematized. The famous appearance of the Cross on old calendar Exaltation in 1925 became famous because the police tried to arrest the worshippers, but held back when they also saw the miracle. So it's not like the official church and state authorities were happy to live and let live and allow the traditionalists to do their own thing (though that did happen sometimes with certain bishops who were more sympathetic to the old calendarists and didn't try to persecute them; some of these later joined the old calendarists, of course).

So if you really want to start throwing blame, take a look at the actions of your own side.

That's unlikely, considering that the Church of Greece was in communion with a lot of churches which still used the Julian Calendar.

It is interesting how close the independant Old Calendarists resemble the Roman Catholic SSPX.

 

[Cyrillic]

And I remember reading that Nicephoras' proposals were reviewed and rejected at the time, even though they had nothing to do with the Pope or Papism. It's almost as if for centuries the Church didn't see astronomical accuracy as the most important aspect of the liturgical calendar.

Gregoras's proposals were not rejected on doctrinal grounds, merely on practical ones:  Gregoras, Byzantine History 8.13.3.

Astronomical accuracy was important to the 3rd-4th century fathers who developed the paschalion. 

1) Gregoras was a heretic.
2) That source about Gregoras is unreliable, because Gregoras wrote it himself.

Relax.  We adopted the Gregorian calendar in the 1750's, and we are still far from any reunion with the Papists.

And getting farther from it; for all the bad reasons, sadly.

 

[PeterTheAleut]

I don't know what game you're playing, Mor, nor do I care to know. If Jonathan doesn't want to answer my question, he's free to not answer my question. What you appear to be doing, though--trying to deflect my question to Jonathan by asking me questions of your own, and then telling me that Jonathan doesn't have to answer my question if I won't answer yours, and that without taking any time to understand what I'm trying to elicit from Jonathan--strikes me as rather rude and unbecoming. Let Jonathan answer for himself if he wants to. I don't think I'm doing anything, though, that requires your intervention in his "defense".

You would do well to ask what I'm doing instead of assuming what it is and reacting accordingly.  I will save you the effort and just tell you: I was engaging in discussion (last I checked, that was still allowed here). 

Jonathan's point about the reversal of the solar cycle in the southern hemisphere is a good one.

I never said it wasn't a good point. I just called into question his conclusion that desire to preserve the unity of the Church is the only reason why we haven't flipped the calendar in the Southern Hemisphere.

Not only does this affect the cycle of movable feasts dependent on the date of Pascha, but to an extent it also affects the fixed feasts.  It would be interesting and, IMO, not unjustified, to suggest that, in the southern hemisphere, the liturgical calendar should reflect this (e.g., if today is "21 Dec" in the northern hemisphere, it should be "21 June" in the southern hemisphere, even if the civil calendar in both places says "21 Dec").

You're barking up the wrong tree if you think I disagree with this. I actually agree that it would not be unjustified for someone to propose such a flip as this.

If such a change is made without doing violence to the structure of the liturgical calendar, I don't think it would be so bad.  I doubt I'm the only one who has thought of such a thing, and yet if it exists at all, it remains a rather academic discussion with no traction on the ground.  I can't think of any other reason for that, in spite of how the calendar doesn't really work in the southern hemisphere the way it is supposed to, than a concern for the unity of the Church throughout the world.  What else could it be? 

So you limit your thinking on this just as much as Jonathan does? Maybe no one is proposing that the liturgical calendar be flipped in the Southern Hemisphere because no one has yet given the idea serious thought. Does there really need to be more of a reason than that? Do we really need to cite the non-flip as evidence that the Church is willing to dismiss scientific accuracy altogether for the sake of unity and that we should thus condemn the New Calendar as Jonathan does?

 

[PeterTheAleut]

Taking into account the many churches that still follow the Old Calendar yet maintain communion with the churches that have embraced the New, I think it possible for Old Calendar churches to respect the decisions made by the New Calendar churches and remain in communion with them. They recognize that the calendar itself is not such a dogmatic issue that the use of the New Calendar is cause for schism, even if they agree with you otherwise that the New Calendar was introduced in a way that caused a lot of undue discord within the Church. ISTM, therefore, that it's those churches that have chosen to condemn the New Calendar and excommunicate its followers who are guilty of causing and perpetuating schism.

The thing is that's not quite how it happened. When the reform was enacted, the Old Calendar was outlawed and anathematized. The famous appearance of the Cross on old calendar Exaltation in 1925 became famous because the police tried to arrest the worshippers, but held back when they also saw the miracle. So it's not like the official church and state authorities were happy to live and let live and allow the traditionalists to do their own thing (though that did happen sometimes with certain bishops who were more sympathetic to the old calendarists and didn't try to persecute them; some of these later joined the old calendarists, of course).

So if you really want to start throwing blame, take a look at the actions of your own side.

Jonathan, not all who adopted the New Calendar are to blame for how the official Greek Church treated Old Calendarists during the early days of the reform. The New Calendar reform movement appears to be a lot more nuanced than that.

 

[Jonathan Gress]

The thing is that's not quite how it happened. When the reform was enacted, the Old Calendar was outlawed and anathematized. The famous appearance of the Cross on old calendar Exaltation in 1925 became famous because the police tried to arrest the worshippers, but held back when they also saw the miracle. So it's not like the official church and state authorities were happy to live and let live and allow the traditionalists to do their own thing (though that did happen sometimes with certain bishops who were more sympathetic to the old calendarists and didn't try to persecute them; some of these later joined the old calendarists, of course).

So if you really want to start throwing blame, take a look at the actions of your own side.

That's unlikely, considering that the Church of Greece was in communion with a lot of churches which still used the Julian Calendar.

It is interesting how close the independant Old Calendarists resemble the Roman Catholic SSPX.

You are dead wrong about the Church of Greece, which is unusual for you. You can consult "The Struggle against Ecumenism", published by Holy Transfiguration Monastery. Whatever their relations with old calendar churches outside their jurisdiction, they were pretty ruthless towards old calendarists within Greece.

There was also a calendar struggle in Romania, and the Romanian authorities were if anything even more ruthless towards their own old calendarists. You can check out the life of St Glicherie for more details of that period.

 

[Jonathan Gress]

Taking into account the many churches that still follow the Old Calendar yet maintain communion with the churches that have embraced the New, I think it possible for Old Calendar churches to respect the decisions made by the New Calendar churches and remain in communion with them. They recognize that the calendar itself is not such a dogmatic issue that the use of the New Calendar is cause for schism, even if they agree with you otherwise that the New Calendar was introduced in a way that caused a lot of undue discord within the Church. ISTM, therefore, that it's those churches that have chosen to condemn the New Calendar and excommunicate its followers who are guilty of causing and perpetuating schism.

The thing is that's not quite how it happened. When the reform was enacted, the Old Calendar was outlawed and anathematized. The famous appearance of the Cross on old calendar Exaltation in 1925 became famous because the police tried to arrest the worshippers, but held back when they also saw the miracle. So it's not like the official church and state authorities were happy to live and let live and allow the traditionalists to do their own thing (though that did happen sometimes with certain bishops who were more sympathetic to the old calendarists and didn't try to persecute them; some of these later joined the old calendarists, of course).

So if you really want to start throwing blame, take a look at the actions of your own side.

Jonathan, not all who adopted the New Calendar are to blame for how the official Greek Church treated Old Calendarists during the early days of the reform. The New Calendar reform movement appears to be a lot more nuanced than that.

Peter, if the other churches did not protest against the treatment of the Old Calendarists in Greece (or Romania for that matter), which I think you admit was unjust, aren't they partially to blame? Eventually, ROCOR alone of the other local churches recognized the struggle of the old calendarists.

 

[FatherHLL]

I've' stated it before, my parish is Old Calendar, personally I have preference for the New, but no real passion one way or the other as there are strong points in defense of each. If it changes some day, so be it, if not so be it...This past year I celebrated the full cycle of the Nativity week on the New at my son's parish in Georgia. It FELT in my heart like Christmas to the extent when my wife said to me after Liturgy on the 26th of December that we HAD to get to the mall for the sales...I groggily replied...there won't be anything left by now..you always do that on the 26th....

That being said, I don't think either the New or Old calendar Orthodox really use this issue as the basis for 'anathemas' or 'schism', I see it as an excuse used by both sides where there may be deeper issues under the surface. Surely on the face of the earth, given current events in particular, the calendar by itself  - one way or the other - is a rather poor, if not (to use the vernacular) crappy excuse over which to divide the Church....

It is excuses on both sides.  There are some problems in "old world translation."  I realized that my reference to "new calendar" meant to some people "Gregorian" rather than "Orthodox revised Julian" (i.e. the Milankovic Orthodox calendar).   

The first time that someone suggested switching from Old to New Julian calendar was in 2005.  I forbid even having a vote.  Then they presented evidence that over 50% wanted it.  I said, "that is not enough to warrant dividing a parish."  Year after year it got brought up, each time, I forbid the vote...until the end of 2013.  Then, I allowed it, shocked to find out that over 90% of the parish was for switching to revised Julian observance (to call it a different calendar really isn't correct--is same calendar, just with a different look at past leap years, and thus 13 days difference in observing dates of the menaion, but same Ochoich, same Triodion, same Pentecostarion....).  Anyway, Bishop approved and I still dragged on the switch to the Orthodox RJC, such that it only happened this year.  For the old julians, it is not even May yet.  That is where I found myself a hypocrite.  If someone asked me the date, I would always given them the civil date.  Today is May 10.  It is not the end of April (as it is if we are truly observing old Julian calendar).  That being said, I still have an affinity toward old Julian.  However, I wish that the Church as a whole just makes a decision.  However, if they make a decision for the old Julian, let us stop saying that civil January 7 is January 7, and start calling it December 25 (the actual date if we are truly observing Old Julian Calendar).  Otherwise, let us start recognizing the days in accordance with the reality of the early centuries of the church...that Nativity in days of the second ecumenical council was celebrated within days (not weeks) of the winter solstice, and the same for the rest of the days with regard to the astronomical year. 

Amen. I could not have said it better.

For those who don't know, I should point out that the UOCofUSA and ACROD are the only two jursidictions that allow for parishes to decide whether they are on old or revised Julian observance and have parishes on both old and revised observances of the calendar. 

 

[PeterTheAleut]

Taking into account the many churches that still follow the Old Calendar yet maintain communion with the churches that have embraced the New, I think it possible for Old Calendar churches to respect the decisions made by the New Calendar churches and remain in communion with them. They recognize that the calendar itself is not such a dogmatic issue that the use of the New Calendar is cause for schism, even if they agree with you otherwise that the New Calendar was introduced in a way that caused a lot of undue discord within the Church. ISTM, therefore, that it's those churches that have chosen to condemn the New Calendar and excommunicate its followers who are guilty of causing and perpetuating schism.

The thing is that's not quite how it happened. When the reform was enacted, the Old Calendar was outlawed and anathematized. The famous appearance of the Cross on old calendar Exaltation in 1925 became famous because the police tried to arrest the worshippers, but held back when they also saw the miracle. So it's not like the official church and state authorities were happy to live and let live and allow the traditionalists to do their own thing (though that did happen sometimes with certain bishops who were more sympathetic to the old calendarists and didn't try to persecute them; some of these later joined the old calendarists, of course).

So if you really want to start throwing blame, take a look at the actions of your own side.

Jonathan, not all who adopted the New Calendar are to blame for how the official Greek Church treated Old Calendarists during the early days of the reform. The New Calendar reform movement appears to be a lot more nuanced than that.

Peter, if the other churches did not protest against the treatment of the Old Calendarists in Greece (or Romania for that matter), which I think you admit was unjust, aren't they partially to blame? Eventually, ROCOR alone of the other local churches recognized the struggle of the old calendarists.

What time frame are you talking about? The OCA didn't adopt the New Calendar until the 1980's, IIRC.

 

[Mor Ephrem]

If such a change is made without doing violence to the structure of the liturgical calendar, I don't think it would be so bad.  I doubt I'm the only one who has thought of such a thing, and yet if it exists at all, it remains a rather academic discussion with no traction on the ground.  I can't think of any other reason for that, in spite of how the calendar doesn't really work in the southern hemisphere the way it is supposed to, than a concern for the unity of the Church throughout the world.  What else could it be? 

So you limit your thinking on this just as much as Jonathan does? Maybe no one is proposing that the liturgical calendar be flipped in the Southern Hemisphere because no one has yet given the idea serious thought. Does there really need to be more of a reason than that? Do we really need to cite the non-flip as evidence that the Church is willing to dismiss scientific accuracy altogether for the sake of unity and that we should thus condemn the New Calendar as Jonathan does?

No.  The "revised Julian calendar" is proof enough that "the Church is willing to dismiss scientific accuracy altogether for the sake of unity". 

 

[Cyrillic]

The thing is that's not quite how it happened. When the reform was enacted, the Old Calendar was outlawed and anathematized. The famous appearance of the Cross on old calendar Exaltation in 1925 became famous because the police tried to arrest the worshippers, but held back when they also saw the miracle. So it's not like the official church and state authorities were happy to live and let live and allow the traditionalists to do their own thing (though that did happen sometimes with certain bishops who were more sympathetic to the old calendarists and didn't try to persecute them; some of these later joined the old calendarists, of course).

So if you really want to start throwing blame, take a look at the actions of your own side.

That's unlikely, considering that the Church of Greece was in communion with a lot of churches which still used the Julian Calendar.

It is interesting how close the independant Old Calendarists resemble the Roman Catholic SSPX.

You are dead wrong about the Church of Greece, which is unusual for you. You can consult "The Struggle against Ecumenism", published by Holy Transfiguration Monastery. Whatever their relations with old calendar churches outside their jurisdiction, they were pretty ruthless towards old calendarists within Greece.

There was also a calendar struggle in Romania, and the Romanian authorities were if anything even more ruthless towards their own old calendarists. You can check out the life of St Glicherie for more details of that period.

Wouldn't the CoG have anathematized the Moscow Patriarchate by doing that?

 

[Jonathan Gress]

The thing is that's not quite how it happened. When the reform was enacted, the Old Calendar was outlawed and anathematized. The famous appearance of the Cross on old calendar Exaltation in 1925 became famous because the police tried to arrest the worshippers, but held back when they also saw the miracle. So it's not like the official church and state authorities were happy to live and let live and allow the traditionalists to do their own thing (though that did happen sometimes with certain bishops who were more sympathetic to the old calendarists and didn't try to persecute them; some of these later joined the old calendarists, of course).

So if you really want to start throwing blame, take a look at the actions of your own side.

That's unlikely, considering that the Church of Greece was in communion with a lot of churches which still used the Julian Calendar.

It is interesting how close the independant Old Calendarists resemble the Roman Catholic SSPX.

You are dead wrong about the Church of Greece, which is unusual for you. You can consult "The Struggle against Ecumenism", published by Holy Transfiguration Monastery. Whatever their relations with old calendar churches outside their jurisdiction, they were pretty ruthless towards old calendarists within Greece.

There was also a calendar struggle in Romania, and the Romanian authorities were if anything even more ruthless towards their own old calendarists. You can check out the life of St Glicherie for more details of that period.

Wouldn't the CoG have anathematized the Moscow Patriarchate by doing that?

The condemnations specifically targeted old calendarists within Greek jurisdiction. The CoG didn't so much anathematize the old calendar as those in the CoG who served on the old calendar. If you were a priest and served on the old calendar you were liable for deposition. Most priests were afraid to risk this (with some exceptions like Fr Nicholas Planas who got away with it I understand because his bishop was sympathetic). That's why you had hieromonks from Mt Athos who took it upon themselves to travel to Greece to serve liturgies for old calendarists.

 

[Jonathan Gress]

Taking into account the many churches that still follow the Old Calendar yet maintain communion with the churches that have embraced the New, I think it possible for Old Calendar churches to respect the decisions made by the New Calendar churches and remain in communion with them. They recognize that the calendar itself is not such a dogmatic issue that the use of the New Calendar is cause for schism, even if they agree with you otherwise that the New Calendar was introduced in a way that caused a lot of undue discord within the Church. ISTM, therefore, that it's those churches that have chosen to condemn the New Calendar and excommunicate its followers who are guilty of causing and perpetuating schism.

The thing is that's not quite how it happened. When the reform was enacted, the Old Calendar was outlawed and anathematized. The famous appearance of the Cross on old calendar Exaltation in 1925 became famous because the police tried to arrest the worshippers, but held back when they also saw the miracle. So it's not like the official church and state authorities were happy to live and let live and allow the traditionalists to do their own thing (though that did happen sometimes with certain bishops who were more sympathetic to the old calendarists and didn't try to persecute them; some of these later joined the old calendarists, of course).

So if you really want to start throwing blame, take a look at the actions of your own side.

Jonathan, not all who adopted the New Calendar are to blame for how the official Greek Church treated Old Calendarists during the early days of the reform. The New Calendar reform movement appears to be a lot more nuanced than that.

Peter, if the other churches did not protest against the treatment of the Old Calendarists in Greece (or Romania for that matter), which I think you admit was unjust, aren't they partially to blame? Eventually, ROCOR alone of the other local churches recognized the struggle of the old calendarists.

What time frame are you talking about? The OCA didn't adopt the New Calendar until the 1980's, IIRC.

I mean when the reform was imposed in the 1920s. Not only did the CoG persecute old calendarists, but churches in other jurisdictions, whether on the old or new calendar, supported the official church despite their behavior. This is the historical context you need to understand why the GOC eventually anathematized the new calendarists.

 

[PeterTheAleut]

Taking into account the many churches that still follow the Old Calendar yet maintain communion with the churches that have embraced the New, I think it possible for Old Calendar churches to respect the decisions made by the New Calendar churches and remain in communion with them. They recognize that the calendar itself is not such a dogmatic issue that the use of the New Calendar is cause for schism, even if they agree with you otherwise that the New Calendar was introduced in a way that caused a lot of undue discord within the Church. ISTM, therefore, that it's those churches that have chosen to condemn the New Calendar and excommunicate its followers who are guilty of causing and perpetuating schism.

The thing is that's not quite how it happened. When the reform was enacted, the Old Calendar was outlawed and anathematized. The famous appearance of the Cross on old calendar Exaltation in 1925 became famous because the police tried to arrest the worshippers, but held back when they also saw the miracle. So it's not like the official church and state authorities were happy to live and let live and allow the traditionalists to do their own thing (though that did happen sometimes with certain bishops who were more sympathetic to the old calendarists and didn't try to persecute them; some of these later joined the old calendarists, of course).

So if you really want to start throwing blame, take a look at the actions of your own side.

Jonathan, not all who adopted the New Calendar are to blame for how the official Greek Church treated Old Calendarists during the early days of the reform. The New Calendar reform movement appears to be a lot more nuanced than that.

Peter, if the other churches did not protest against the treatment of the Old Calendarists in Greece (or Romania for that matter), which I think you admit was unjust, aren't they partially to blame? Eventually, ROCOR alone of the other local churches recognized the struggle of the old calendarists.

What time frame are you talking about? The OCA didn't adopt the New Calendar until the 1980's, IIRC.

I mean when the reform was imposed in the 1920s. Not only did the CoG persecute old calendarists, but churches in other jurisdictions, whether on the old or new calendar, supported the official church despite their behavior. This is the historical context you need to understand why the GOC eventually anathematized the new calendarists.

And the Russian Nikonians, with the cooperation of the Tsar, persecuted the Old Believers mercilessly. That, though, doesn't justify the continued schism of the Old Believers away from the Church over such trivialities as the 3-fingered sign of the Cross. Neither does the persecution of the Old Calendarists, tragic and uncondonable as it was, justify their continued schism from the Church over such non-issues as the Calendar.

 

[Jonathan Gress]

And the Russian Nikonians, with the cooperation of the Tsar, persecuted the Old Believers mercilessly. That, though, doesn't justify the continued schism of the Old Believers away from the Church over such trivialities as the 3-fingered sign of the Cross. Neither does the persecution of the Old Calendarists, tragic and uncondonable as it was, justify their continued schism from the Church over such non-issues as the Calendar.

If the calendar was a non-issue, why did the new calendarists persecute the old calendarists over it?

 

[PeterTheAleut]

And the Russian Nikonians, with the cooperation of the Tsar, persecuted the Old Believers mercilessly. That, though, doesn't justify the continued schism of the Old Believers away from the Church over such trivialities as the 3-fingered sign of the Cross. Neither does the persecution of the Old Calendarists, tragic and uncondonable as it was, justify their continued schism from the Church over such non-issues as the Calendar.

If the calendar was a non-issue, why did the new calendarists persecute the old calendarists over it?

I don't know. Am I one of those who enabled the persecution? You speak of the persecution as if this itself is a dogmatic issue and not merely an act of Christians trying to use the state to enforce church reforms on the unwilling. I get that the Greek Old Calendarists were persecuted for their refusal to adopt the New Calendar, and I find that persecution tragic and unjustifiable. But why let your refusal to forgive the persecution divert your attention away from the issue of the calendar itself?

BTW, you're dodging my questions.

 

[Jonathan Gress]

And the Russian Nikonians, with the cooperation of the Tsar, persecuted the Old Believers mercilessly. That, though, doesn't justify the continued schism of the Old Believers away from the Church over such trivialities as the 3-fingered sign of the Cross. Neither does the persecution of the Old Calendarists, tragic and uncondonable as it was, justify their continued schism from the Church over such non-issues as the Calendar.

If the calendar was a non-issue, why did the new calendarists persecute the old calendarists over it?

I don't know. Am I one of those who enabled the persecution? You speak of the persecution as if this itself is a dogmatic issue and not merely an act of Christians trying to use the state to enforce church reforms on the unwilling. I get that the Greek Old Calendarists were persecuted for their refusal to adopt the New Calendar, and I find that persecution tragic and unjustifiable. But why let your refusal to forgive the persecution divert your attention away from the issue of the calendar itself?

BTW, you're dodging my questions.

Because we've gone over the reasons for our rejecting the new calendar multiple times in this thread. I have no reason to think you'll finally allow yourself to be persuaded by them, so what's the point of rehashing them? If I recall, before your latest tangent we were talking about why astronomical accuracy was so darn important that certain local churches felt the need to partially change the calendar at the cost of schism, persecution and scandal.

 

[PeterTheAleut]

And the Russian Nikonians, with the cooperation of the Tsar, persecuted the Old Believers mercilessly. That, though, doesn't justify the continued schism of the Old Believers away from the Church over such trivialities as the 3-fingered sign of the Cross. Neither does the persecution of the Old Calendarists, tragic and uncondonable as it was, justify their continued schism from the Church over such non-issues as the Calendar.

If the calendar was a non-issue, why did the new calendarists persecute the old calendarists over it?

I don't know. Am I one of those who enabled the persecution? You speak of the persecution as if this itself is a dogmatic issue and not merely an act of Christians trying to use the state to enforce church reforms on the unwilling. I get that the Greek Old Calendarists were persecuted for their refusal to adopt the New Calendar, and I find that persecution tragic and unjustifiable. But why let your refusal to forgive the persecution divert your attention away from the issue of the calendar itself?

BTW, you're dodging my questions.

Because we've gone over the reasons for our rejecting the new calendar multiple times in this thread. I have no reason to think you'll finally allow yourself to be persuaded by them, so what's the point of rehashing them? If I recall, before your latest tangent we were talking about why astronomical accuracy was so darn important that certain local churches felt the need to partially change the calendar at the cost of schism, persecution and scandal.

That's what you were talking about. I disagree with the very premise of that spin. I don't think you've sufficiently answered my question of why some followers of the Old Calendar think it necessary to perpetuate a state of schism when other followers of the Old Calendar have been able to maintain communion with the followers of the New despite their use of different calendars.

 

[Maria]

And the Russian Nikonians, with the cooperation of the Tsar, persecuted the Old Believers mercilessly. That, though, doesn't justify the continued schism of the Old Believers away from the Church over such trivialities as the 3-fingered sign of the Cross. Neither does the persecution of the Old Calendarists, tragic and uncondonable as it was, justify their continued schism from the Church over such non-issues as the Calendar.

If the calendar was a non-issue, why did the new calendarists persecute the old calendarists over it?

I don't know. Am I one of those who enabled the persecution? You speak of the persecution as if this itself is a dogmatic issue and not merely an act of Christians trying to use the state to enforce church reforms on the unwilling. I get that the Greek Old Calendarists were persecuted for their refusal to adopt the New Calendar, and I find that persecution tragic and unjustifiable. But why let your refusal to forgive the persecution divert your attention away from the issue of the calendar itself?

BTW, you're dodging my questions.

Because we've gone over the reasons for our rejecting the new calendar multiple times in this thread. I have no reason to think you'll finally allow yourself to be persuaded by them, so what's the point of rehashing them? If I recall, before your latest tangent we were talking about why astronomical accuracy was so darn important that certain local churches felt the need to partially change the calendar at the cost of schism, persecution and scandal.

That's what you were talking about. I disagree with the very premise of that spin. I don't think you've sufficiently answered my question of why some followers of the Old Calendar think it necessary to perpetuate a state of schism when other followers of the Old Calendar have been able to maintain communion with the followers of the New despite their use of different calendars.

If you would take the time to read the lives of these two saints, then you would understand perhaps why we in the GOC are not in communion with the New Calendarists.

Life of St. Glicherie of Romania

Life of St. Matthew the New Confessor of Greece

 

[Jonathan Gress]

And the Russian Nikonians, with the cooperation of the Tsar, persecuted the Old Believers mercilessly. That, though, doesn't justify the continued schism of the Old Believers away from the Church over such trivialities as the 3-fingered sign of the Cross. Neither does the persecution of the Old Calendarists, tragic and uncondonable as it was, justify their continued schism from the Church over such non-issues as the Calendar.

If the calendar was a non-issue, why did the new calendarists persecute the old calendarists over it?

I don't know. Am I one of those who enabled the persecution? You speak of the persecution as if this itself is a dogmatic issue and not merely an act of Christians trying to use the state to enforce church reforms on the unwilling. I get that the Greek Old Calendarists were persecuted for their refusal to adopt the New Calendar, and I find that persecution tragic and unjustifiable. But why let your refusal to forgive the persecution divert your attention away from the issue of the calendar itself?

BTW, you're dodging my questions.

Because we've gone over the reasons for our rejecting the new calendar multiple times in this thread. I have no reason to think you'll finally allow yourself to be persuaded by them, so what's the point of rehashing them? If I recall, before your latest tangent we were talking about why astronomical accuracy was so darn important that certain local churches felt the need to partially change the calendar at the cost of schism, persecution and scandal.

That's what you were talking about. I disagree with the very premise of that spin. I don't think you've sufficiently answered my question of why some followers of the Old Calendar think it necessary to perpetuate a state of schism when other followers of the Old Calendar have been able to maintain communion with the followers of the New despite their use of different calendars.

The fact that the other churches were willing to remain in communion with the new calendarists despite the persecutions does not commend them or their course of action.

 

[PeterTheAleut]

And the Russian Nikonians, with the cooperation of the Tsar, persecuted the Old Believers mercilessly. That, though, doesn't justify the continued schism of the Old Believers away from the Church over such trivialities as the 3-fingered sign of the Cross. Neither does the persecution of the Old Calendarists, tragic and uncondonable as it was, justify their continued schism from the Church over such non-issues as the Calendar.

If the calendar was a non-issue, why did the new calendarists persecute the old calendarists over it?

I don't know. Am I one of those who enabled the persecution? You speak of the persecution as if this itself is a dogmatic issue and not merely an act of Christians trying to use the state to enforce church reforms on the unwilling. I get that the Greek Old Calendarists were persecuted for their refusal to adopt the New Calendar, and I find that persecution tragic and unjustifiable. But why let your refusal to forgive the persecution divert your attention away from the issue of the calendar itself?

BTW, you're dodging my questions.

Because we've gone over the reasons for our rejecting the new calendar multiple times in this thread. I have no reason to think you'll finally allow yourself to be persuaded by them, so what's the point of rehashing them? If I recall, before your latest tangent we were talking about why astronomical accuracy was so darn important that certain local churches felt the need to partially change the calendar at the cost of schism, persecution and scandal.

That's what you were talking about. I disagree with the very premise of that spin. I don't think you've sufficiently answered my question of why some followers of the Old Calendar think it necessary to perpetuate a state of schism when other followers of the Old Calendar have been able to maintain communion with the followers of the New despite their use of different calendars.

The fact that the other churches were willing to remain in communion with the new calendarists despite the persecutions does not commend them or their course of action.

Why not? You speak of the persecution of Old Calendarists as if it was a widespread, global phenomenon, and you speak of the adoption of the New Calendar as if all those churches that adopted the calendar did so merely to walk lockstep with the synod that introduced it and with the local churches that later sought state intervention to enforce it. The adoption of the New Calendar by the OCA, a jurisdiction half a globe removed from the Old Country where the persecutions occurred, and in the 1980's, 50-60 years removed from the time of the persecutions and 10-15 years after she was granted autocephaly, indicates to me that the reasons for adoption of the New Calendar are more diverse and more complicated than you think.

 

[Jonathan Gress]

I'm talking about the other local churches who hadn't changed the calendar but who remained on good terms with the new calendarists at the time, so long before the OCA was even a thing. I don't look at their reluctance to break communion as a good thing or some kind of proof that it was right to remain in communion with the innovators despite their actions.

 

[PeterTheAleut]

I'm talking about the other local churches who hadn't changed the calendar but who remained on good terms with the new calendarists at the time, so long before the OCA was even a thing. I don't look at their reluctance to break communion as a good thing or some kind of proof that it was right to remain in communion with the innovators despite their actions.

There's the problem right there. You're talking about one thing and I'm asking about something completely different. As such, rather than answer the  questions I've asked, you're instead talking right past me.

 

[Jonathan Gress]

I'm talking about the other local churches who hadn't changed the calendar but who remained on good terms with the new calendarists at the time, so long before the OCA was even a thing. I don't look at their reluctance to break communion as a good thing or some kind of proof that it was right to remain in communion with the innovators despite their actions.

There's the problem right there. You're talking about one thing and I'm asking about something completely different. As such, rather than answer the  questions I've asked, you're instead talking right past me.

Well, as I said, if you're just asking for the usual reasons why the GOC rejects the new calendar, we've been over that already before in this thread. None of the arguments I find persuasive you find persuasive, so I'm not sure what the point of going over all that again is. When I reentered this discussion a few days ago, however, I wanted to focus on this idea that astronomical accuracy was such an important aspect of the liturgical calendar that it justified reform, however piecemeal and whatever other scandals and divisions it brought about. I think there are some around here who really seem to think that, in that they feel that demonstrating the new calendar's accuracy is some kind of knockdown argument that utterly refutes the case for the traditional calendar. With examples like Gregoras I'm trying to show that the Church hasn't historically found such arguments persuasive.

As for the stories of persecution, that's to give the lie to claims by new calendarists that the intolerance is all on the side of the Old Calendarists, or that it is only the old calendarists who are "obsessed" with the calendar issue. You still can't serve on the old calendar in Greece if you're in the official church, and in any case the whole issue has been compounded by the official church's involvement in the ecumenical movement.

 

[DeniseDenise]

And the Russian Nikonians, with the cooperation of the Tsar, persecuted the Old Believers mercilessly. That, though, doesn't justify the continued schism of the Old Believers away from the Church over such trivialities as the 3-fingered sign of the Cross. Neither does the persecution of the Old Calendarists, tragic and uncondonable as it was, justify their continued schism from the Church over such non-issues as the Calendar.

If the calendar was a non-issue, why did the new calendarists persecute the old calendarists over it?

I don't know. Am I one of those who enabled the persecution? You speak of the persecution as if this itself is a dogmatic issue and not merely an act of Christians trying to use the state to enforce church reforms on the unwilling. I get that the Greek Old Calendarists were persecuted for their refusal to adopt the New Calendar, and I find that persecution tragic and unjustifiable. But why let your refusal to forgive the persecution divert your attention away from the issue of the calendar itself?

BTW, you're dodging my questions.

Because we've gone over the reasons for our rejecting the new calendar multiple times in this thread. I have no reason to think you'll finally allow yourself to be persuaded by them, so what's the point of rehashing them? If I recall, before your latest tangent we were talking about why astronomical accuracy was so darn important that certain local churches felt the need to partially change the calendar at the cost of schism, persecution and scandal.

That's what you were talking about. I disagree with the very premise of that spin. I don't think you've sufficiently answered my question of why some followers of the Old Calendar think it necessary to perpetuate a state of schism when other followers of the Old Calendar have been able to maintain communion with the followers of the New despite their use of different calendars.

If you would take the time to read the lives of these two saints, then you would understand perhaps why we in the GOC are not in communion with the New Calendarists.

Life of St. Glicherie of Romania

Life of St. Matthew the New Confessor of Greece

I am very sorry, but basing an argument on 'but we suffered and they tortured us'  (never mind that -you- and yours didn't....)

is a weak argument at best.

Since I can use that same argument to justify remaining a Heretic (of a group persecuted by the Holy and Righteous Orthodox Church)

So can the Old Believers, and various other groups who were persecuted by the Church......

It's a crappy thing to realize that the Church did some horrid things to various groups historically.  But to use it as an excuse to schism....gives heretic groups that same status as 'right because they were persecuted'

 

[montalo]

Honest question : would to be easier to have all churches change to the new calendar , or force all back to the old?

In other words, which of the above would result in the least schism.

 

[Maria]

Honest question : would to be easier to have all churches change to the new calendar , or force all back to the old?

In other words, which of the above would result in the least schism.

Dropping the New Calendar would be the best way to go.
The majority of Orthodox Christians are following the Old Calendar.

It would certainly be a step in the right (Orthodox) direction.

 

[PeterTheAleut]

Honest question : would to be easier to have all churches change to the new calendar , or force all back to the old?

In other words, which of the above would result in the least schism.

Having all churches adopt the New Calendar, or having them all return to the Old... either way would result in no schism.

Honestly, though, why pit greater astronomical accuracy against Church unity when you can have both?

 

[Second Chance]

Interesting article that says a main argument by Old Calendarists is based on a lie.

http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2011/02/old-calendarist-lie-of-codex-772.html

 

[Dominika]

Interesting article that says a main argument by Old Calendarists is based on a lie.

http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2011/02/old-calendarist-lie-of-codex-772.html

Thanks for sharing