GOC

[George Australia]

Dear in Christ Nektarios,

I think your comparison of the canons regarding the use of a spoon for Communion is not quite applicable to the situation about the Calendar innovation. Yes, we can find in the Rudder, canons that are being broken by todays practice. Mostly, these are things that are "administrative" in nature, and not touching on dogmatic matters like John alluded to.

But the Calendar is not dogmatic either. Don't get me wrong, I think the New Calendar was at best an error of judgement- I am an Old Calendarist myself. But I think you will find that those who introduced the New Calendar pretty well covered themselves canonically speaking. If we just keep throwing canons about- picking and choosing which ones we do and do not accept as relevant, we will get nowhere. The point about the labis and clerical long hair is that we cannot say there is no precedent for changing the Calendar.

It has always been the phronema of the Church to be of one mind, one practice in regards to the celebrations of the feasts, hence the canons on the determination of Pascha.

This has not always been the phronema of the Church. The Canons regarding the determination of the date of Pascha were introduced because there was so much variation in the determination of the date of Pascha- for example the "Tessareskaedecatites" ("Four-and-tens"- of whom St. Polycarp was one) celebrated Pascha on the 14th day of Nissan (the Jewish Passover).
St Nikodemos, who himself opposed bringing the Calendar forward to revise it writes in his commentrary on the relevant Canon regarding the date of Pascha:
"Το να κάνη τις το Πάσχα μετά την 21ην Μαρτίου ως κάμνουμεν ημείς οι Γραικοί ή μετά την 11ην Μαρτίου ως κάμνουν οι Λατίνοι δεν είναι έγκλημα. Το να σχίση όμως την Εκκλησίαν είναι αμάρτημα ασυγχώρητον",
i.e.
"Whether someone celebrates Pascha after the 21st of March as we Greeks do or after the 11th of March as the Latins do is not a crime. If he causes a schism to the Church however, this is an unpardonable sin".

When the Fathers of the 3 Pan Orthodox Councils of the 1500's anathematized the Gregorain Paschalian "AND" Menologian, I don't read Greek and perhaps I'm wrong on this, but it seems to me that the intent of the 3 Pan Orthodox councils by saying the "Paschalian AND Menologian,"

The 1583 Sigillion does not say "and menologion"- this "error" is the "Orthodox" equivalent of the filioque! In recent times, certain groups have been circulating on the net a "translation" of the 1583 Sigillion of Patriarch Jeremias with the addition of the words "and menologion" insisting it is true to the original- just like the latins added "and the Son" at their own whim to the Creed. What annoys me is that these so-called Old Calendar "Orthodox Christians" made this addition knowingly and consciously- may God forgive them! Such blatant lying only serves to harm the cause of the Patristic Calendar. This is precisely what I was talking about when I said that we need to make some effort to understand the texts and hymns of the Church in their original languages. We live in ungodly days when wolves and thieves have entered the sheep fold in the guise of 'pious' and 'traditional' shepherds- we must take some responsibility for ourselves and not irrationally follow 'bishops' and 'elders' like the Hindus follow their 'gurus'- this is not 'obedience' but cultism.

What you are suggesting is the very splitting of hairs that the Calendar innovators have intellectually used to justify their unilateral and ecumenical move.

One cannot really call it unilateral- it was decided by a 'multi' Orthodox Synod. And yes, I am suggesting that there is no point arguing from a canonical viewpoint- the New Calendarists haven't really violated the Canons because they didn't adopt the Gregorian Calendar- they simply revised the Julian.

To top this off, all canons aside, you still have the fact that there are several local Churchs/Patriarchates that condemned the New Calendar ....<snip>....
- 1924 Patriarchs of Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria (& synod),
and Abp. of Cyprus condemn it.

Didn't Cyprus, Antioch and Alexandria adopt the New Calendar? I'm not sure where you got this information from- but if it's from the same people who "translated" the 1583 Sigillion for you, I would ignore them.

Are they condemning the use of the whole Gregorian calendar, or are they condemning the change to even the Menologian alone? Isn't it obvious?

It's only 'obvious' if you base your assumptions on the claims of those who lie and blaspheme the Holy Spirit by making additions to the original text of Church documents for political ends.

You are correct to point out that we should not judge others, but this is not such a matter. It is not for me to judge you or anyone, but the bishops and laity are right to point out a deviation from the Holy Traditions that have been already condemned in synod or Pan Orthodox councils...in part or in whole. ( Paschalian and Menologion)

It is not up to a misinformed bishop and laity to correct anyone or point out any deviations. How can they remove a splinter from their brother's eye when they have a beam in their own?

The Calendar doesn't have to cause schism- Greece, Jerusalem, Russia, Serbia, Mt. Athos all follow differnt Calendars and yet are in communion. And in these days when the world is facing such a horrendous natural catastrophe with tens of thousands dead and many more dying and missing and without sanitation, food water or medicine- is the Calendar really the most burning issue?
George

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

But the Calendar is not dogmatic either. Don't get me wrong, I think the New Calendar was at best an error of judgement- I am an Old Calendarist myself.

This is not and has never been soley an issue about the calendar. It has been about the reason a new calendar was introduced - ecumenism (sycretism).

[romiosini]

Actually, at the time of Saint John Chrysostom, when he was being a presbyter in Antioch, he used to perform liturgy for Pascha, when a neighbouring Village was celebrating Christmas at that time. What's funny today is that people misinterpret GOD with time. GOD has nothing to do with Time, and He does not abide in it.

[Justin Kissel]

OOD,

This is not and has never been soley an issue about the calendar. It has been about the reason a new calendar was introduced - ecumenism (sycretism).

Sometimes I wonder if we are not simply being anachronistic when we make claims like this. Most people did not see ecumenism in the 20's and 30's (and even 40's and 50's) as they see it now. Even traditionalist old calendarists like ROCA were involved in the ecumenical movement at that time. I sometimes wonder if maybe we just assume that the link was there all along in the minds of those pious zealots, without any real evidence to back up our assumption. I just went back and re-read the famous 1935, 1950, and 1974 encyclicals, for example, and the main point of contention is the calendar change, with ecumenism not even being mentioned. So, does anyone actually have information supporting the claim that the whole calendar issue was intertwined with ecumenism in the minds of those who first broke away? Or was it just the calendar by itself that they were objecting to, as the encyclicals just mentioned seems to indicate? What do the texts from those times say?

[Anastasios]

Actually, at the time of Saint John Chrysostom, when he was being a presbyter in Antioch, he used to perform liturgy for Pascha, when a neighbouring Village was celebrating Christmas at that time. What's funny today is that people misinterpret GOD with time. GOD has nothing to do with Time, and He does not abide in it.

Actually, while God is not bound by time, he chose to limit himself temporarily by creating time and then working within it.

There are stories of people dying on feast days of the Old Calendar and people around them hearing the angels singing the hymns of such Old Calendar feasts while they, being New Calendarists, were doing something else (see the Old Calendar and Science by Fr Cassian)

Anastasios

[TomS]

There are stories of people dying on feast days of the Old Calendar and people around them hearing the angels singing the hymns of such Old Calendar feasts while they, being New Calendarists, were doing something else (see the Old Calendar and Science by Fr Cassian)

There are stories about many things; does not mean that they are true.

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Justin wrote:

Most people did not see ecumenism in the 20's and 30's (and even 40's and 50's) as they see it now.

Yes, this is very true, and the reason the State Church was only declared schismatic at first - and with some waffling at that. Now of course things have changed. We see all of the gross and flagrant attacks on the Church in every land, and what does anyone do? Thank God for the pious faithful of the 30's who were willing to struggle for "just" the Calendar!

It is hard to guess who even saw the famous encyclical of 1920 at that time, which as you know, was in fact a declaration to change the calendar soley for reasons of ecumenism.

Bottom line, I think you read more into what I said than I intended. I agree, it is quesionable what the Orthodox new about ecumenism at the time, but the ecumenists new exactly why they changed the calendar. In hindsight I could have worded it a little more clear, but like I said, it was never just about the calendar, no matter how many knew it; so how is it that George can ignore ecumenism and say something to the effect that since he is on the churches calendar he can commune with who he wants? That's like saying, my cabin has not yet filled with water, therefore, I am safe on this sinking ship?

And people are still allowing themsevles to be fooled. We see all of the new "agreed statements" and treaties being signed, which are all the continuing vangaurd of ecumenism. This all started with the calendar innovation...and people still want to make excuses for them??