[Elder Epiphanios Theodoropoulos was a great canonist of the Orthodox Church and was responsible for bringing many schismatic Old Calendarists back into communion with the Church. He wrote a book titled The Two Extremes half of which tackled the extreme views of the Ecumenists while the other half took on the extreme views of the schismatic Old Calendarists. The section below appears at the end of the book and tackles an often heard objection against New Calendarists regarding the Apostles Fast.
The Elder informs us that he was asked by a young theologian regarding the Calendar change and the effect this had on the fast of the Holy Apostles. He was concerned that the New Calendar not only reduces the number of fasting days for this fast, but in certain years when Pascha comes late this fast is obliterated altogether. This theologian considered this as a justification for the schismatic Old Calendarists. Elder Epiphanios responded with the following article that was originally published in Orthodoxos Typos. - J.S.]
Elder Epiphanios TheodoropoulosConcerning the Fast of the Holy Apostles
by Elder Epiphanios Theodoropoulos
It is true that the introduction of the Revised Julian (not Gregorian, as is put forth by the unlearned and bad intentioned)1 Calendar in the Church reduced the fast of the Holy Apostles by thirteen days and, if Pascha comes late, it does away totally with the fast. This fact is so detestable to Old Calendarists that they justify their rebellion against the Church. If they wanted to keep the Old Calendar however, they could still abide within ecclesiastical communion without objection. This is what the Holy Mountain practices. Who condemns this?
The reduction of the fast of the Holy Apostles (which, by the way, was not enacted by an Ecumenical Synod, but is shown to be an ancient practice of indisputable respect) did not come about by one, two or three individuals, either clergy or laity, but was done by the Church to produce a corrected Calendar. The other Church, those who adhere to the Old Calendar, did not cut off communion from the Church of Greece or the Church of Constantinople over the Calendar change and the subsequent reduction of the fast of the Holy Apostles, but continued a canonical relationship. Therefore, borrowing from the above argument, who has the right to cut off the canonical relationship with the Church of Greece without going AGAINST the Church? And if you stand AGAINST the Church, you are simply outside the Church, becoming either schismatics or heretics.
I wonder how the Old Calenderists, with the stubborness they possess, do not anathematize all the Patriarchs, all the Bishops, all the Clergy, all the Synods, all the Churches, all the Saints, all the faithful, from the seventh century until today. They will ask: why? Because simply, until that time, that is the seventh century, the fast of the Holy Apostles was not like it is today, but was much longer. Let me explain: This fast in the beginning was about a week in its duration. "During the week following Pentecost, the people who observed the fast went out to the cemetery to pray" (St. Athanasius, Letter to Emperor Constance). The Apostolic Constitutions prescribe the following: "After the feast of Pentecost, celebrate one week, then observe a fast, for justice demands rejoicing after the reception of the gifts of God and fasting after the body has been refreshed." Besides when the fast was to start (the first passage explains the fast was to be done the week of Pentecost, that is beginning with the day after Pentecost; whereas the second passage says it was to start a week later), the important matter is that the fast following Pentecost at that time was only one week. (At that time the feast of the Holy Apostles was not on June 29th. The fast is tied in with the Holy Apostles because after Pentecost they were sent out to preach).
In the proceeding centuries this fast underwent an extension. It began to be started on the day following the Feast of All Saints and lasted all the way until August 14th! This means that it lasted throughout the month of July, which further means it was the longest fast of the year surpassing by far the forty day fast of Great Lent. For example, if Great Lent with the additional Holy Week reaches to be 48 days, the fast of the Holy Apostles, on the occasion that Pascha lands on a late date, reached to be about 55 days, but on the occasion that it reached an early date it would last 89 days! For this we have a reliable witness of the seventh century in Saint Anastasios the Sinaite: "After the fast of Pentecost, this is what the Teachings of the Holy Apostles says. That after Pentecost to celebrate one week and after that to fast...You are to fast until the Dormition of the Theotokos" (St. Anastasios the Sinaite, On Three Forty Days Fasts). Thus the entire month of July is absorbed also!
What are our beloved Old Calendarists going to do, who detest change of ancient practices and traditions? If they are true to themselves, it is their duty, first, to put this fast in its proper place as it was in the seventh century so that the entire month of July is absorbed; and second, it is their best interest to renounce all the Churches, from the seventh century until today, since they dared to do away with a fast of ancient tradition. They will not exempt, it is understood, even Saint Anastasios from renunciation, who speaks with sympathy and not disgust against those who with boldness make the reduction, even calling them - listen! listen! - "Holy" Fathers. Is it possible for "Holy Fathers" to reduce fasts?
Among those to be renounced will surely be Saint Theodore the Studite, who: 1) did not condemn the prior practices of the aforesaid fast; and 2) also prescribed during feasts as well as Saturdays and Sundays during this fast, as well as the fast for Christmas, not only for fish to be allowed but also cheese and eggs. This is what he says: "During the forty day fast of the Holy Apostles we do not eat fish, cheese or eggs except on the days we do not sing the hours. Instead we eat two cooked dishes - one vegetable dish with olive oil and one of legumes without oil - and have two servings of wine at the ninth hour and two in the evening. On feast days, however, on which we are permitted fish and other such foods, we eat at the sixth hour and drink three measures of wine at the sixth hour and two in the evening. This regiment is also maintained during the forty day fast of the Holy Apostle Philip [Christmas]" (Migne 99:1713-1716). He therefore isn't worthy either...let him be renounced!2
Worthy of being renounced also is the Patriarch of Antioch Theodore Balsamon (12th cent.) who not only allows the older practice, but confesses that in his day it was only seven days, at least for the laity: "Obligatory fasts are seven days before the following four feasts - before the Feast of the Holy Apostles, the Birth of Christ, the Transfiguration of Christ and the Falling Asleep of the Holy Theotokos. There is only one forty day fast, that of holy and great Pascha. Anything besides the seven day fast of the feast of the Holy Apostles and the feast of the Birth of Christ is according to one's will or of the foundational (monastic) typikon where one dwells."
With this opportunity I will speak about another fast, which with the passage of time has been totally abolished from common practice and has not brought on rebellion or schism, nor even protests and resistance. I speak of the fast which comes before the feast of the Exaltation of the Precious Cross, which was many days. Only the laity were allowed a one day fast, which was on the feast itself. Monastics however had also besides this a fast that lasted for a period of 4-14 days! Behold the testimony of Saint Theodore the Studite: "For the monastics, to the glory and praise of the wooden Cross, 14 days are kept, for others 12, and for others 4; but all the people of Christ are to keep pure this day of the Exaltation, on the 14th day of the month of September" (Migne 99:1696). Where today is this multiple-day fast before the feast of the Precious Cross? In which Sacred Monastery is it kept? Which monastics even know about it? Dare that it not be kept by those who know about it!
For the above reason I very much abstain from advocating either for or against the reduction in fasts, unless they have been codified within the laws of the Ecumenical Synods, as is the fasts of Wednesdays and Fridays and that of Great Lent. I believe these things need to be worked out by those who have Confessors, according to their alloted discernment, to lead the faithful according to each one's strength. May the changers and the reorganizers be gone. Let us not provoke questions and confusion. Let pastoral good sense prevail. Let us not disturb the conscience of the simple. Our Shepherds should not discard the apostolic word: "All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify. Let no one seek his own, but each one the other's well-being" (1 Cor. 10:23). I do not advocate towards any change of the established fasts. I simply want to emphasize that we the faithful are not given the power through subjects like these to create revolutions against our Church and schisms.
1 Elder Epiphanios is correct in not referring to the New Calendar as "Gregorian", since the New Calendarists follow the Julian Calendar for its moveable feast days staying faithful to the First Ecumenical Synod. Thus the New Calendar can best be described as a revised version of the Julian Calendar.
2 This same Holy Father, in speaking about the fast of Great Lent, taught that fish can be eaten not only on Palm Sunday but also on the day before on the Saturday of Lazarus. Today different Churches have different rules regarding this practice.
Translated by John Sanidopoulos
by Elder Epiphanios Theodoropoulos
It is true that the introduction of the Revised Julian (not Gregorian, as is put forth by the unlearned and bad intentioned)1 Calendar in the Church reduced the fast of the Holy Apostles by thirteen days and, if Pascha comes late, it does away totally with the fast. This fact is so detestable to Old Calendarists that they justify their rebellion against the Church. If they wanted to keep the Old Calendar however, they could still abide within ecclesiastical communion without objection. This is what the Holy Mountain practices. Who condemns this?
The reduction of the fast of the Holy Apostles (which, by the way, was not enacted by an Ecumenical Synod, but is shown to be an ancient practice of indisputable respect) did not come about by one, two or three individuals, either clergy or laity, but was done by the Church to produce a corrected Calendar. The other Church, those who adhere to the Old Calendar, did not cut off communion from the Church of Greece or the Church of Constantinople over the Calendar change and the subsequent reduction of the fast of the Holy Apostles, but continued a canonical relationship. Therefore, borrowing from the above argument, who has the right to cut off the canonical relationship with the Church of Greece without going AGAINST the Church? And if you stand AGAINST the Church, you are simply outside the Church, becoming either schismatics or heretics.
I wonder how the Old Calenderists, with the stubborness they possess, do not anathematize all the Patriarchs, all the Bishops, all the Clergy, all the Synods, all the Churches, all the Saints, all the faithful, from the seventh century until today. They will ask: why? Because simply, until that time, that is the seventh century, the fast of the Holy Apostles was not like it is today, but was much longer. Let me explain: This fast in the beginning was about a week in its duration. "During the week following Pentecost, the people who observed the fast went out to the cemetery to pray" (St. Athanasius, Letter to Emperor Constance). The Apostolic Constitutions prescribe the following: "After the feast of Pentecost, celebrate one week, then observe a fast, for justice demands rejoicing after the reception of the gifts of God and fasting after the body has been refreshed." Besides when the fast was to start (the first passage explains the fast was to be done the week of Pentecost, that is beginning with the day after Pentecost; whereas the second passage says it was to start a week later), the important matter is that the fast following Pentecost at that time was only one week. (At that time the feast of the Holy Apostles was not on June 29th. The fast is tied in with the Holy Apostles because after Pentecost they were sent out to preach).
In the proceeding centuries this fast underwent an extension. It began to be started on the day following the Feast of All Saints and lasted all the way until August 14th! This means that it lasted throughout the month of July, which further means it was the longest fast of the year surpassing by far the forty day fast of Great Lent. For example, if Great Lent with the additional Holy Week reaches to be 48 days, the fast of the Holy Apostles, on the occasion that Pascha lands on a late date, reached to be about 55 days, but on the occasion that it reached an early date it would last 89 days! For this we have a reliable witness of the seventh century in Saint Anastasios the Sinaite: "After the fast of Pentecost, this is what the Teachings of the Holy Apostles says. That after Pentecost to celebrate one week and after that to fast...You are to fast until the Dormition of the Theotokos" (St. Anastasios the Sinaite, On Three Forty Days Fasts). Thus the entire month of July is absorbed also!
What are our beloved Old Calendarists going to do, who detest change of ancient practices and traditions? If they are true to themselves, it is their duty, first, to put this fast in its proper place as it was in the seventh century so that the entire month of July is absorbed; and second, it is their best interest to renounce all the Churches, from the seventh century until today, since they dared to do away with a fast of ancient tradition. They will not exempt, it is understood, even Saint Anastasios from renunciation, who speaks with sympathy and not disgust against those who with boldness make the reduction, even calling them - listen! listen! - "Holy" Fathers. Is it possible for "Holy Fathers" to reduce fasts?
Among those to be renounced will surely be Saint Theodore the Studite, who: 1) did not condemn the prior practices of the aforesaid fast; and 2) also prescribed during feasts as well as Saturdays and Sundays during this fast, as well as the fast for Christmas, not only for fish to be allowed but also cheese and eggs. This is what he says: "During the forty day fast of the Holy Apostles we do not eat fish, cheese or eggs except on the days we do not sing the hours. Instead we eat two cooked dishes - one vegetable dish with olive oil and one of legumes without oil - and have two servings of wine at the ninth hour and two in the evening. On feast days, however, on which we are permitted fish and other such foods, we eat at the sixth hour and drink three measures of wine at the sixth hour and two in the evening. This regiment is also maintained during the forty day fast of the Holy Apostle Philip [Christmas]" (Migne 99:1713-1716). He therefore isn't worthy either...let him be renounced!2
Worthy of being renounced also is the Patriarch of Antioch Theodore Balsamon (12th cent.) who not only allows the older practice, but confesses that in his day it was only seven days, at least for the laity: "Obligatory fasts are seven days before the following four feasts - before the Feast of the Holy Apostles, the Birth of Christ, the Transfiguration of Christ and the Falling Asleep of the Holy Theotokos. There is only one forty day fast, that of holy and great Pascha. Anything besides the seven day fast of the feast of the Holy Apostles and the feast of the Birth of Christ is according to one's will or of the foundational (monastic) typikon where one dwells."
With this opportunity I will speak about another fast, which with the passage of time has been totally abolished from common practice and has not brought on rebellion or schism, nor even protests and resistance. I speak of the fast which comes before the feast of the Exaltation of the Precious Cross, which was many days. Only the laity were allowed a one day fast, which was on the feast itself. Monastics however had also besides this a fast that lasted for a period of 4-14 days! Behold the testimony of Saint Theodore the Studite: "For the monastics, to the glory and praise of the wooden Cross, 14 days are kept, for others 12, and for others 4; but all the people of Christ are to keep pure this day of the Exaltation, on the 14th day of the month of September" (Migne 99:1696). Where today is this multiple-day fast before the feast of the Precious Cross? In which Sacred Monastery is it kept? Which monastics even know about it? Dare that it not be kept by those who know about it!
For the above reason I very much abstain from advocating either for or against the reduction in fasts, unless they have been codified within the laws of the Ecumenical Synods, as is the fasts of Wednesdays and Fridays and that of Great Lent. I believe these things need to be worked out by those who have Confessors, according to their alloted discernment, to lead the faithful according to each one's strength. May the changers and the reorganizers be gone. Let us not provoke questions and confusion. Let pastoral good sense prevail. Let us not disturb the conscience of the simple. Our Shepherds should not discard the apostolic word: "All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify. Let no one seek his own, but each one the other's well-being" (1 Cor. 10:23). I do not advocate towards any change of the established fasts. I simply want to emphasize that we the faithful are not given the power through subjects like these to create revolutions against our Church and schisms.
1 Elder Epiphanios is correct in not referring to the New Calendar as "Gregorian", since the New Calendarists follow the Julian Calendar for its moveable feast days staying faithful to the First Ecumenical Synod. Thus the New Calendar can best be described as a revised version of the Julian Calendar.
2 This same Holy Father, in speaking about the fast of Great Lent, taught that fish can be eaten not only on Palm Sunday but also on the day before on the Saturday of Lazarus. Today different Churches have different rules regarding this practice.
Translated by John Sanidopoulos
8 comments:
Thanks for this; he raises some important points. While I would not advocate Old Calendar schism, and I think he makes well his primary argument against that option, I don't think this settles the whole issue. If we could go back and look at the ins and outs of these earlier changes in fasting periods, we would probably see them to have been either preservation of one local tradition over against another, or intentional modification.
The difference with the Apostles' Fast on the New Calendar is that the change seems to be entirely accidental. No one made a conscious decision about the Apostles' Fast as such--they simply modified the calendar for other reasons, and the Fast was an unfortunate casualty. Now, perhaps they did in fact consider the issue and judged it to be an acceptable sacrifice--I don't know. But if one's going to look for a reason to object to the New Calendar, I think the Apostles' Fast still merits consideration for the way it appears simply to have been ignored in the calculations.
I would most probably take the side that the bishops who changed the Calendar did in fact consider the Apostles Fast, but judged it to be an acceptable sacrifice since the changes they made are justified by the practices of the past. What I don't believe they considered was how the Calendar issue as a whole would cause schism, and the Apostles Fast issue in particular would be a means to justify the schism. These bishops truly believed they were preserving ancient tradition by not accepting the Gregorian Calendar as a whole, but simply modifying the Julian Calendar with Gregorian dates.
I agree the above writing definately does not settle the issue and I don't believe Elder Epiphanios sought to settle the issue himself since that is beyond his power. I do believe, however, he settles the issue against justifying a schism over this issue. When Old Calendarists add to the argument the fact that the Apostles Fast is reduced by the New Calendar, the option to stay in communion with the Church is still open by the fact that parishes can always preserve the Old Calendar if they so choose and be in communion with all the ancient Patriarchates.
The Church in Synod does have the power to make changes to the fasts if they so choose, though only the Wednesday and Friday fasts as well as the fast of Great Lent can only be reconsidered by an Ecumenical Synod by extreme necessity since they were discussed in earlier Ecumenical Synods. The lesser fasts can be altered as necessity deems fit by local Synods, and this is what was justifiably done regarding the Apostles Fast with the Calendar change. Some, like the Elder above, would go so far as to allow this change to be done either by local bishops or even by ones own Spiritual Father on the personal level, and I do believe this is justified.
What needs to be considered for future discussions is to what extent the church can go to preserve a fast for the Apostles. For example, we can always go back to the ancient tradition and preserve at least a 7 day fast for the Apostles if we allow fasting within the week of Pentecost maybe only allowing 3 days to abstain from fasting. This would preserve the Apostles Fast to be at least 7 days in certain years that it otherwise would not be. Also, the Church can always decide to move the Feast of the Holy Apostles to July 6th and preserve the fast that way. But the Church has the power also to do away with the fast altogether and possibly make the two day celebration of the Apostles on June 29 and 30 as the only obligatory fasting days similar to the Feast of the Exaltation of the Precious Cross.
I personally do not like the fact that the Apostles Fast is less than 7 days in certain years, but this is only due to personal piety. No Synod ever made it obligatory in its canons for the Apostles Fast to be at least 7 days - it is merely an ancient practice. And one should consider the fact that since the Calendar change in the 1920's, there have only been 26 years that the fast has been less than 7 days, and only 9 of those years in which the fast has been totally obliterated.
This is something of a rabbit trail, but a question about one point you raise here. You say that parishes can choose to preserve the Old Calendar and remain in communion. In what way(s) do you mean? By switching to a jurisdiction that preserves the Old Calendar (Russian or Serbian, for instance)? Or do you mean that within a diocese whose bishop follows the New Calendar (whether in an Orthodox country where essentially only one jurisdiction exists, or in the "diaspora") it is generally allowable for a parish to choose its own practice? I realize that there are Old Calendar parishes within the EP's jurisdiction (Ukrainian churches in America, Mt. Athos, etc.), but exactly how flexible is this normally? I guess it's been my impression that these decisions are generally made at a level higher than the parish.
For example, many Old Calendar parishes in Greece are in communion with the New Calendar Church of Greece. Elder Epiphanios is responsible for bringing some of these parishes into communion. These parishes simply wanted to keep the Old Calendar because they loved the Old Calendar, but also did not want to break communion with the Church. Not knowing they could in fact stay in communion while being Old Calendarists they were considered schismatics. When the Elder made the facts known that they did not have to be schismatics to preserve their Calendar, they were quickly brought back into the fold of Christ under the Church of Greece. This is slowly still being done today in Greece. The Church does not consider the Calendar a dogma of the Church, as many schismatic Old Calendarists tend to treat it, so it is very lenient in imposing the New Calendar.
A popular example here in America is the Sacred Patriarchal and Stavropegial Orthodox Monastery of St. Irene Chrysovalantou in Astoria, New York, founded in 1972. It had historically been part of the Old Calendarist movement (specifically the "Kiousis Synod") and schismatic but in 1998 came under the omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarch while preserving the Old Calendar. You can read more about this here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical_Patriarchate_in_America
There are other such parishes here in America that preserve the Old Calendar, but many over the years have simply switched to the New Calendar.
I should also point out that on the lay level, the Calendar schism in many ways does not exist. It only exists to confuse people. I have been to many Old Calendar churches and monasteries in Greece that are supposedly schismatic, but New Calendarists receive holy communion there every Sunday and feast day. The same is true vice versa. My own mother was baptized in a schismatic Old Calendar monastery in Greece, but her parents were New Calendarists and my mother has always gone to new Calendar parishes.
At the practical level, where the simple and uneducated don't understand these details, the whole thing is confusing and just down-right absurd.
John, one slight correction: the technical name of the New Calendar is actually "Revised Julian Calendar." This is not due to its partial use of the Old/Julian Calendar, but to a new formula for intercalation of leap years (summarized here). This makes it identical to the dates of the Gregorian Calendar for the next 800 years or so. At that point, the Gregorian Calendar will then be less accurate than the Revised Julian. Also at that point, the Julian Calendar will have lost another 7 or 8 days. Given more time, following the Old/Julian calendar, one would end up celebrating Pascha in the middle of winter, since there is no correction to the drift of calendar dates to keep them in sync with the actual physical year created by God!
I hope the situation will be resolved soon. There is, as you say, often too much emotion-based absurdity involved in many of the arguments.
Thank for the correction and information.
Thank you for a very informative website. Something concerns me regarding your statement above that on the lay level,"the Calendar schism in many ways does not exist." It is confusing indeed if we choose to look at it based on calendars. It's more important to consider whether the church is schismatic or canonical, regardless of calendar. I don't understand how one can commune in a canonical church (whether Old or New Calendar) when baptized in a schismatic church with self proclaimed bishops who are outside of the grace of the canonical church and apostolic tradition. Nor is it proper for a canonically baptized Orthodox (whether Old or New Calendar)to commune in a schismatic church, again regardless of calendar. Yes, the confusion lies in the calendars, but there is no mistaking what is and isn't canonical. That is what the churh elders and fathers advise us, thereby avoiding any confusion.
I agree with you Mike, but the average lay person in say a place like Greece does not think of the schismatic Old Calendarists in this way. If a pious Orthodox walks by a priest in Greece with a beard and rasson, they will kiss his hand no matter what. "If he looks Orthodox, then he probably is Orthodox" they think. But the confusion digs deeper. Many schismatic Old Calendar churches and monasteries have miraculous icons and relics also, which bring many among the canonical Orthodox to make pilgrimage and thus attend Divine Liturgies and receive Holy Communion, etc. Interestingly in Elder Epiphanios' book which I mention here, he responds to a letter from a schismatic Old Calendarist who refuses to pray or be in communion with the New Calendarists because they pray with heretics in Ecumenical dialogue. The Elder responds that even as a schismatic he is praying and in communion with New Calendarists because New Calendarists are always going to schismatic Old Calendar churches and monasteries to pray and receive Holy Communion without ever being rebuked or examined. He even mentions specific shrines to go to so he can observe this in Athens. When I was younger also I would be taken to some of these churches and I think I also received communion in some schismatic church or monastery without knowing. My point is that these things are not advertized or even spoken about on the lay level, so it makes it difficult to know where each church stands in Greece among thousands. The ignorance in many ways could serve a positive purpose also since hardly anyone is compelled to convert to the schismatic Old Calendar churches. Here in America of course it is a lot easier to distinguish, but still gets confusing. For example, here in New England there are no canonical Orthodox monasteries, but there are a few schismatic ones that almost all canonical Orthodox have visited, and many have also confessed there as well as received Holy Communion. I feel even compelled to visit one in particular to venerate the vast amount of Saint's relics they hold, and hardly ever do they drive canonical Orthodox away or speak of the Calendar differences. It just goes to show that a dialogue needs to take place between the canonical and schismatic Orthodox churches to resolve this issue which divides us, whether people know about it or not.
Post a Comment