Why do we follow the Old Orthodox Calendar

[Revnitel]

I follow the Old Calendar because to not follow it would mean that the Church was in schism prior to 1923. I believe that the New Calendarists are the ones who went into schism then.

[Matthew]

Yes, this is something that we agree upon at Euphrosynos Cafe.

[Maria]

Re: the New Calendar.

Why did Freemason Patriarch Meletios impose this calendar in the first place?

IS OUTRAGE!

Was there any real reason to do so except to please the Vatican and Protestant ministers and thus to celebrate Christ Mass with them?

IS OUTRAGE!

Never mind that Pascha is not celebrated on Western Easter except once every five years or so. My mom is convinced that our Pascha is always celebrated five weeks later than Western Easter. It has her so confused, but in spite of this confusion, should the Orthodox CHANGE the date of Pascha? Heavens no.

IS OUTRAGE to think that New Calendar is New Orthodox Practice.

Eccleasiastical Calendar is what was celebrated in Holy Russia in the 18th Century.

What is this change?

IS OUTRAGE!

The so-called "Old Calendar" is really the Ancient Orthodox Ecclesiastical Calendar that has been followed for centuries. And yes, Orthodox Councils have been held that declared any aberration from the Orthodox Ecclesiastical Calendar as a heresy.

We members of the Ancient Orthodox Church do NOT change our Holy Tradition.
The Ancient Ecclesiastical Calendar is part of the Faith of our Holy Fathers.
Any change in our Holy Traditions is anathema.

The NEW CALENDAR brings an ANATHEMA on those who use it! The New Calendarists have started a nasty schism.

[Matthew]

One of the dear yayas at the Church this Nativity celebration told me that it is wrong to say "Old vs New Calendar". Rather it is "Orthodox vs Papal" calendar. They try to make themselves sound and look better in the debate on this issue by getting everyone to use terms that change the topic and details so they look better. We are not talking about the fickle and insonsequential and superficial differences of Old versus New. Rather we are talking about hte vital differences of Orthodox and Papal.

She encouraged us younger guys to stop dialoguing or argue using the terms old and new and insist on referring to the "Old" as the Church calendar or Orthodox calendar and the "New" as the Papal or Roman Catholic calendar. This way we do not hand our opponents any free advantages by redefining the issues in their favour. But instead force the attention back onto the real issues and problems of this question.

[Maria]

One of the dear yayas at the Church this Nativity celebration told me that it is wrong to say "Old vs New Calendar". Rather it is "Orthodox vs Papal" calendar. They try to make themselves sound and look better in the debate on this issue by getting everyone to use terms that change the topic and details so they look better. We are not talking about the fickle and insonsequential and superficial differences of Old versus New. Rather we are talking about hte vital differences of Orthodox and Papal.

She encouraged us younger guys to stop dialoguing or argue using the terms old and new and insist on referring to the "Old" as the Church calendar or Orthodox calendar and the "New" as the Papal or Roman Catholic calendar. This way we do not hand our opponents any free advantages by redefining the issues in their favour. But instead force the attention back onto the real issues and problems of this question.

Exactly.

Since I have noticed that our hierarchy use the phrase "Ecclesiastical Calendar," this is the term that I am using.
However, the New Calendarists also use the term "Ecclesiastical Calendar" to distinguish theirs from the secular calendar.
Thus, I have started to use the phrase "Ancient Orthodox Ecclesiastical Calendar" as the modernists have newly adapted this calendar from the Vatican, and then imposed it starting in 1924.

[Maria]

There is this post below from another forum. Is this true?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7714287-4/#post62143405

Everything you read on the issue is an oversimplification. There just the talking points and no side wants to really discuss the historical situation of Greece which lead to this problem.

From the time of WW1 to the greek civil war in the late 1940's the nation was bitterly divided over royalists and republicans. This was so severe that its known as the 'National Schism" in greek history books. There was so much political polarization that there was bitter fighting over calendars, over which form of the greek langage should be used, to what architecture pubic buildings should have.

The animosity and rift between the royalists and the Venezelists lead to the defeat of the greek army in Turkey which resulted in the Smyrna Genocide. During these early years (before and after Smyrna) everytime there was a regime change between the two factions, they would also oust the archbishop and replace him with one loyal to their regime. So one archbishop would be exiled then brought back after the regime change, and once the regime fell again to their predecessor they would reinstate the former bishop while exiling the latter non-loyal one .

After the Smyrna catastrophe, the royalists in charge were ousted once again. The new calendar was implemented and the new government is known as the Second Helenic Republic and lasted from 1924-1935. The majority of the old calendarists tended to be royalists and heavy handed approaches were used to squash them. The bishops either sided with the regime, while others were sympathetic to the old calendarists but kept silent not to draw the wrath of the regime.

By 1935 the pendulum began to swing the other way (an ongoing great depression and the absorption of 1.5 million refugees will do that) and the president became a royalist sympathizer. This lead to the 1935 Venezelist coup to rid the government of royalists. The Venezelists were crushed and the monarchy was reinstated. The venezelist sympathizers in the military were convicted of treason and put to death. There was a purge of the venezelists from the government. At that time, the bishops sympathetic to the old calendar felt free to return their diocese back to the old calendar without persecution.

This is how the old calendarists recieved there bishops. This is why the 1935 old calendarists declaration speaks of dividing the church between 'two opposing camps'. They reallly had in mind the National Schism, (though obviously sympathetic to the royalist position).

At that time there was a belief the old calendar would be returned as the bishops loyal to the previous government would either capitulate, be replaced, or whatever. Unfortunately WW2 came along and then the civil war broke out against the emergent communists and everything was put on the back burner. Thats how we went up from there to here.

[Lydia]

The political situation in Greece after WW1 certainly provided a fertile ground for the imposition of the Papal Calendar. One condition not mentioned, but several historians have postulated, is that Greece felt extremely vulnerable to a Turkish invasion and sought a "protector" in Great Britain. As a condition for receiving help, the British government pressured Greece to accept the Papal calendar. At the time the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Anglican Church were very friendly and the Anglicans pressured the EP to accept the Papal calendar.

I don't think its a simplification to state that Metaxakis was the driving force behind the acceptance of the Papal calendar, but the political situation made his path easier.

The post seems to imply that the vacillation of the "Florinite" Bishops was in some part due to who had the upper hand, the Republicans or the Monarchists; I would say that Archbishop Chrysostomos and others were good pastors waiting and praying for the erring Greek Church to return to True Orthodoxy. Sadly, they did not.

As someone born and raised in Canada, as I read the history of the Greek Church in the 20th century, I am still shocked at the degree of persecution inflicted upon the True Orthodox of Greece, by the official Orthodox Church of Greece. Those of us raised in countries that believe in "separation of Church and State," must be mindful that politics and The Church have often been historically intertwined.