On the question of the calendar

Patristic theology, and traditional teachings of Orthodoxy from the Church fathers of apostolic times to the present. All forum Rules apply. No polemics. No heated discussions. No name-calling.


Post Reply
User avatar
Kollyvas
Protoposter
Posts: 1811
Joined: Mon 26 September 2005 5:02 pm
Location: Mesa, AZ
Contact:

80% Of Orthodox Observe The Orthodox Calendar

Post by Kollyvas »

Isn't it about time the other 20% put REAL Christian unity first?!!!!
R
http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/message ... onID=87967

There are two calendars being used in the Orthodox Church today. It is my understanding that about 80% of Orthodoxy worldwide uses the Julian ("old") Calendar, and about 20% use the Gregorian ("new") Calendar. It may be the numbers have changed. If so, its been very recently.

One of the Calendars has to go. It is a disgrace that while some Orthodox are feasting for Christmas, others are fasting. Before we even THINK about unity with anyone else, we should at least have unity within our own preciuos Orthodox Church.

Which calendar should go?

Consider just a few fauls of the New Calendar:

Since the Apostles Fast begins on a moving date and ends on a fixed date, the Apostles Fast is cut short by two weeks on the New Calendar. Every year, Old Calendar Orthodox fast for two weeks that New Calendar Orthodox do not. On some years, it happens that there is no Apostles Fast whatsoever on the New Calendar! It is imperative for Orthodox Christians to celebrate all four fasts.

St. George always takes place after Pascha on the Old Calendar. In his hymns, we sing "Having celebrated the Resurrection of Christ, let is celebrate the Feast of his blessed St. George!" Yet on the New Calendar, this often falls before Pascha! How can we sing that hymn during Holy Week? So they just arbitrarily throw St. George's Feast to wherever they want.

There are other faults, but isn't this enough?

The Gregorian Calendar has been anathematized and condemned by three Pan-Orthodox Synods and countless local Synods since it was invented by the Pope in the 1500s, all the way up until this century. Then it was first forced on the Greeks by the local Synod under pressure by the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs. There was much persecution of those who failed to comply. Monks had their beards shaved off. Nuns had their head coverings torn off. Many were even martyred. At the peak of the persecution, they saw, brightly in the day, shining in the sky, the cross as St. Constantine saw it, saying "In this sign you shall conquer," and that gave them strength to persevere in their martyrdom. At this time only Greece was using the New Calendar while the rest of Orthodoxy used the Old. Is that right for us not to be celebrating the fasts and feasts in unity? Slowly the Old Calendar has been chipped away at. But it has caused numerous schisms in the Church.

One of them has to go, and we must keep only one. Should it be the one invented by the Pope and forced upon the people with bloodshed which cuts the Apostles Fast short or abolishes it and messes up the whole liturgical cycle, or should it be the one Orthodoxy has used for over 18 centuries that was put in place by the Holy Fathers of our Church?

I would opt to keep the latter.

With love in Christ,

Christopher

User avatar
joasia
Protoposter
Posts: 1858
Joined: Tue 29 June 2004 7:19 pm
Jurisdiction: RTOC
Location: Montreal

Post by joasia »

I agree with Christopher. The church calendar becomes confusing. The Julian calendar is the correct one to follow. The Pat of Constantinople switched to the Gregorian calendar because of his political maneuvers(ecumenism) towards the West and the Pope. The Pat. created chaos and therefore everything that is created to cause chaos is not from God(in church matters). God is order and peace.

In Christ,

Joanna

Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me. (Ps. 50)

1937 Miraculous Cross
Member
Posts: 113
Joined: Sat 25 December 2004 2:47 am
Location: Austin, Texas
Contact:

Post by 1937 Miraculous Cross »

Dear in Christ Joanna,

you wrote:

I agree with Christopher. The church calendar becomes confusing. The Julian calendar is the correct one to follow.

there is only one calendar, as there is only One, Holy , Catholic and Apostolic Church. The Orthodox Church does not follow two calendars. the Patristic Calendar is all there is, so there is no confusion. the confusion arises for those who join the NC churches.

Those who bishops and churchs who call themselves Orthdox who implement the New Calendar or "revised Julian" are under the Anathema of the Church.

Anathema means....no longer of or in the Church. It is not a part of the Chruch. This is the seriousness of this matter. People who unfortunately rationalize it away as, "just 13 days" are grossly misinformed.

I'll repeat it again for people who are picking up the thread here: the Sigillion of 1593 states that we are to follow the calendar that the
Holy Fathers enacted for us, and that to deviate from this is Anathema. It is actually inclusive of all deveiations from the Patristic calendar, Gregorian, Revised Julian, or any other potential change. (I quote the pertinent section of the Sigillion a few pages back.)

in Christ,
Nectarios

Myrrh
Member
Posts: 197
Joined: Mon 18 October 2004 8:00 pm

Post by Myrrh »

Please see my post page 18.

The imposition of a common calendar on the Church wasn't for the Church's sake, but the Emperor's, to aid him in controlling his empire.

In doing so, the tradition of the early Church as held in Jerusalem and which continued to be held in the East and in Britain, with some variation, was rejected and Alexandria and Rome's view of Pascha with its incipient antisemitism became the norm for us.

We can hardly be said to be following the fathers of the Church when the Julian Calendar was sometimes forcibly imposed on those who didn't want to change from the Pascal calendar of St John, the change to the New Calendar in Greece also came with violence. I don't think we have anything to proud of in this history whether arguing from 'tradition' or 'recalculation to accord with Nicaea'..

How is 14th Nissan calculated?

Myrrh

1937 Miraculous Cross
Member
Posts: 113
Joined: Sat 25 December 2004 2:47 am
Location: Austin, Texas
Contact:

Post by 1937 Miraculous Cross »

Dear Myrrh,

you wrote:

The imposition of a common calendar on the Church wasn't for the Church's sake, but the Emperor's, to aid him in controlling his empire.

In doing so, the tradition of the early Church as held in Jerusalem and which continued to be held in the East and in Britain, with some variation, was rejected and Alexandria and Rome's view of Pascha with its incipient antisemitism became the norm for us.

I will politely disagree with you here. The "imposition' of the "common" calendar was indeed for the sake of the Church, so that there wouldn't be people honoring Christ's crucifiction while others were celebrating His resurrection. Yes, indeed there were earlier patristic traditions in various locals, such as the calendar the ancient Celtic Church used, but this in no way invalidates the "old" calendar as being patristic. The Holy Fathers and the sum of the Ecumenical Councils verify this with the blessing of the Holy Spirit, along with the Pan Orthodox councils in the 1500's. All of these together are considered "patristic'. Thus, I will again state that the "old' calendar is the Patristic Calendar, and there is only one Orthodox Calendar. The "New" Calendar is a violation of Tradition and under the Sigillion anathema, and hence not Orthodox.

This is not a complicated matter to understand.

in Christ,
nectarios

Myrrh
Member
Posts: 197
Joined: Mon 18 October 2004 8:00 pm

Post by Myrrh »

1937 Miraculous Cross wrote:

Dear Myrrh,

This is not a complicated matter to understand.

in Christ,
nectarios

Dear Nectarios - tempting as it is to get into a tit for tat sarcasm I really don't think it would help either of us, amusing though it might be for others.

I really do think it's a complicated matter to understand, as is all our history, because there are so many disparate threads interwoven here and sometimes we support one strand of a thread while not agreeing with the others twisted around together with it.

Have you read my post on page 18? I'll repost it at the end of this for ease of reference. I posted it to show the calendar argument in the early history of the Church before Nicaea when, and I use the word advisedly, a uniform calendar was imposed on the Church.

If we argue this from 'tradition' or 'the fathers', then this history can't be ignored. The 'fathers' didn't begin at Nicaea.

The first record of this problem that I know of is when St Polycarp the bishop of Smyrna visited St Anicetus bishop of Rome, they were both Syrians, the date is variously 155/56 or 160/62 AD. Polycarp was a disciple of St John and followed the same calendar tradition with regard to Pascha as did the rest of the East, and also used in Britain. By this time Rome and Alexandria were following a different tradition, I don't know how it originated. Polycarp and Anicetus agreed to differ and Anicetus, perhaps deferring to Polycarp's apostolic connection and great age, invited him to celebrate the Eucharist.

The "tradition of St John" is the tradition of Jerusalem in the time of the apostolic fathers. In this tradition Pascha was celebrated on 14th Nissan, the day of the Jewish Passover, whichever day of the week that fell. Pascha means Passover. This is the day our Lord was crucified and we remember that out of the twelve only John was at cross with the women. This day is not only of importance for us generally, but in particular it was remembered by John who was there to witness it. Christ is our Passover Lamb specifically, not primarily any other lamb of sacrifice in the Jewish tradition. This date therefore is of the utmost importance to us in remembering Christ our Lord and God, it is the day He chose.

The next major event in the calendar history was when Pope Victor (first African) was bishop of Rome, around 189-199 AD, again there are various dates. Africa and Rome (and some of the West, not Britain)celebrated Pascha on the first Sunday after Nissan.

It's useful here to bear in mind that at this time Rome was still the capital of the Roman Empire, greater and more extravagant in its buildings than any other city in the empire. Until Victor the liturgy was celebrated in Greek in Rome, he changed the language to Latin as used in Africa. In itself a change to the vernacular is common Orthodox practice, I only mention this because ignorance of the other's language is one strand which contributed to the misunderstandings and separation between the Latin and Greek speakers in the following centuries. Greek was the common language of the vast empire much as English is the common language of the world today.

According to accounts of the time, Victor was seen as arrogant in attempting to impose uniformity onto the Church, the uniformity of the traditions he followed. He also began the claim that he was Peter's successor much to the disdain of the bishops in the East who well knew other bishops who could claim this before Rome.. Perhaps, provincial boy makes good went to his head. :roll: Anyway, St Irenaeus who was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John tried to calm Victor down and teach him to appreciate the lineage of those he thought inferior, because as he supposed of his importance as bishop of the capital of the empire, and he backed down on this.

I don't much care which calendar is used, but if we're arguing from tradition, as both Julian and New Calendar do, then I'll take the stand that they're both heretic systems... And I object particularly to one of crieria used in calculating both, that we don't celebrate Pascha at the same time as the Jews.

Myrrh

Irenaeus to Victor

For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp to forego the
observance [in his own way], inasmuch as these things had been
always [so] observed by John the disciples of our Lord, and by
other apostles with whom he had been conversant; nor, on the
other hand, could Polycarp succeed in persuading Anicetus to keep
[the observance in his way], for he maintained that he was bound
to adhere to the usage of the presbyters who preceded him. And in
this state of affairs they held fellowship with each other; and
Anicetus conceded to Polycarp in the Church the celebration of
the Eucharist, by way of showing him respect; so that they parted
in peace one from the other, maintaining peace with the whole
Church, both those who did observe [this custom] and those who
did not. [ANF I:569]

Polycrates
From His Epistle to Victor and the Roman Church Concerning the Day of Keeping the Passover.

As for us, then, we scrupulously observe the exact day, neither adding nor taking away. For in Asia great luminaries have gone to their rest, who shall rise again in the day of the coming of the Lord, when He cometh with glory from heaven and shall raise again all the saints. I speak of Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who is laid to rest at Hierapolis; and his two daughters, who arrived at old age unmarried; his other daughter also, who passed her life6 under the influence of the Holy Spirit, and reposes at Ephesus; John, moreover, who reclined on the Lord's bosom, and who became a priest wearing the mitre, and a witness and a teacher-he rests at Ephesus. Then there is Polycarp, both bishop and martyr at Smyrna; and Thraseas from Eumenia, both bishop and martyr, who rests at Smyrna. Why should I speak of Sagaris, bishop and martyr, who rests at Laodicea? of the blessed Papirius, moreover? and of Melito the eunuch, who performed all his actions under the influence of the Holy Spirit, and lies at Sardis, awaiting the visitation from heaven, when he shall rise again from the dead? These all kept the passover on the fourteenth. day of the month, in accordance with the Gospel, without ever deviating from it, but keeping to the rule of faith.

Moreover I also, Polycrates, who am the least of you all, in accordance with the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have succeeded-seven of my relatives were bishops, and I am the eighth, and my relatives always observed the day when the people put away the leaven-I myself, brethren, I say, who am sixty-five years old in the Lord, and have fallen in with the brethren in all parts of the world, and have read through all Holy Scripture, am not frightened at the things which are said to terrify us. For those who are greater than I have said, "We ought to obey God rather than men." ...

Myrrh
Member
Posts: 197
Joined: Mon 18 October 2004 8:00 pm

Post by Myrrh »

George - please would you read this page. Does this mean that neither Jews nor Christians actually remember the exact day of 14th Nissan?

http://www.ccg.org/english/s/p195.html

What is most important with the quotes here is that we see that the influence of both Rome and, later, Judaism has all but obscured the true Passover. The later Orthodox schisms have made the problem even more complicated in that they adopted the later Jewish postponements and then kept their Easter a week after the Jewish dates for 14-15 Nisan.

Myrrh

Post Reply