On the question of the calendar

[Justin Kissel]

Actually there would be (though I should have said "Byzantium" since "Constantinople" wasn't quite Constantinople yet). There was more than one way of determining the date of Pascha in the Church, and it was quite a scandal to many in the Church (as can be seen from the language used at the First Ecumenical Council). Even after the "agreement" of how to set the date at Nicea 1, there was still discord, and certain groups essentially ignored this "agreement" as well as other agreements (e.g., the "50 year" agreement made between Egypt and Rome) during certain years in the Fourth century. There were calendar issues then, and there are calendar issues now.

[Logos]

Actually there would be (though I should have said "Byzantium" since "Constantinople" wasn't quite Constantinople yet). There was more than one way of determining the date of Pascha in the Church, and it was quite a scandal to many in the Church (as can be seen from the language used at the First Ecumenical Council). Even after the "agreement" of how to set the date at Nicea 1, there was still discord, and certain groups essentially ignored this "agreement" as well as other agreements (e.g., the "50 year" agreement made between Egypt and Rome) during certain years in the Fourth century. There were calendar issues then, and there are calendar issues now.

So in other words, calendar disputes have always been a part of the church?

[Steve]

although I did read the Venerable Bede's history on the Church in Great Britain and I think some Irish clerics and some Latin clerics butted heads over dating Pascha. I think the Irish withdrew to Lindesfarne and the Latins took over the Archbishopric, or something along those lines. I need to go back and read it again and get my facts straight ...

[Justin Kissel]

Well I wouldn't say that calendar disputes are "normal," or that it is acceptable to be on different calendars, but such disputes weren't unheard of before the 20th century either. Eusebius discusses the calendar issue leading up to and during the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea (The Life of the Blessed Emperor Constantine, 3, 18-20), as do other ancient Church historians, including Socrates Scholasticus (Ecclesiastical History, 1, 9-10), Hermias Sozomen (Ecclestiastical History, 1, 21) and Theodoret (Ecclesiastical History, 1, 8-9).

In the end, though, the agreements formed regarding the calendar (ie. the dating of Easter) didn't always work out. This can be seen by studying documents such as the "Excursus on the Subsequent History of the Easter Question," which quotes Hefele's "History of the Councils" and can be found here; and especially

[尼古拉前执事]

Yes, there were disputes (and I apologize for not reading all of the wealth of information linked to) but in the end didn't people get back on track until Pope Gregory moved the western world to the new Papal and Civil calendar?

[Justin2]

Are you sure that you were not called by our Lord to be a professor, Father? That was quite a dissertation!

[Justin Kissel]

Nicholas, yeah, I think calendar usage pretty much stayed on track after that early turbulent period (with only minor and unrelated departures from the norm in the later years). It's also notable that much of the division in the early Church was because there were (supposedly, at least) two apostolic traditions as to the dating of Pascha. In other words, the fighting then was sometimes fighting to stay true the the tradition handed down to them from the apostles. Whether one group was wrong or not, at least their motives were good. This is quite a different context for a calendar dispute than what we have had in the past 80 years, with a new calendar being insisted upon that was unquestionably of modern origin. And yet some insisted on it so forcefully that old calendarists were even persecuted and murdered. (this isn't to imply that all, or even most, new calendarists would do this.. just pointing out that it isn't an issue to be approached lightly)