Posts
Two Narrations on the Old Calendar vs. New Calendar Controversy By the Blessed Elder Cleopa Ilie of Romania:
First Narration On Why the Calendar Is Not Holy
The thing that happened once to a priest here, Calistrat Bobu, my God! He was a very good priest. Very good. But one day he dropped by to see a nun who was living in the forest (as at that time there were about fifty hermits living in the woods around here) and she told this young priest:
“Holy Grace doesn’t descend upon you people, because you have shifted to the New Calendar!”
Father Calistrat came back home and told our Elder. My Elder back then was from the Holy Mountain, Hieroschemamonk Ioanichie, from whom I received tonsure. He was the kind of monk that would only eat on Saturdays and Sundays, and during the rest of the week — nothing. On Sundays, he would only ask me: “Would you happen to have a little bit of cabbage juice and a bit of wheat broth?”
For twenty years he served the Holy Liturgy all by himself and took strength only through the Holy Eucharist. When the calendar was adjusted, he fasted for twenty-three days. He didn’t taste anything, until the Holy Three Hierarchs showed themselves to him and told him to listen to the Church! To keep the calendar as our Church would!
So one day this Father, Calistrat Bobu, was performing the service. I was a sexton back then. Now, every time our Elder would prepare the Holy Communion bread, it was white and sweet, while the one that Fr. Calistrat would prepare would always taste sour and have a greenish tinge. I asked our Superior:
"Elder, why is it that when Fr. Calistrat serves, his Communion bread is greenish and sour?"
"My boy, it’s because he serves with doubt in his heart! He’s been to see that mad woman, Isidora, who stirred up so many troubles in the monastery already, and she told him that the grace of the Holy Spirit doesn’t descend because of the calendar change. And I told him he would get into trouble because of doubting that the Holy Spirit descends!"
As I said, I was a sexton then. As Fr. Calistrat got to the point where he would invoke the grace of the Holy Spirit – lo and behold! – he saw the Lamb bread turning into meat and blood was running on the Holy Diskos and on the Holy Antimension. And when he looked into the chalice, he saw blood. He called to me:
"Costică! Come over here, son! What do you see?"
"Oh, Father! It’s turned into meat and blood! Our Superior told you that you would get into trouble if you lose faith in the calendar, because the calendar is neither a holy thing, nor a dogma! It’s just a 'clock' to measure time. It’s already been canonically adjusted a few times until now."
When our Elder came, he asked for the Book of Psalms to be read.
"Well now! Do you believe that the Holy Spirit comes down and turns the Sacraments holy?"
"Forgive me, Father!" And he fell to his knees.
"Look! The Holy Spirit has come! It’s turned into meat! It’s turned into blood! Do you have any more doubts now, Father?"
"I believe it, Father, forgive me!"
"Come on now — and let’s collect the Holy Mysteries!"
And he took a chisel and made a hole into the leg of the Holy Table – because the Holy Table is our Lord’s grave – and he buried the Sacraments in there. And he sanctified the chalice again and washed it and the Holy Antimension and everything else at the holy water place. And we stayed there until the whole Book of Psalms was read, all of it - four hours in all - and then he started the Liturgy from the Holy Proskomedi: “And one of the soldiers with a spear pierced His side,…”; and continued from there. And he carried out the Holy Liturgy and the incident didn’t repeat.
"You see? Do you believe it now?"
"I believe it, Father!"
Our Elder gave him a 40-day penance.
“Why don’t you believe it when I tell you to, and instead, you go to old women to teach you about the calendar?” This was in 1932. I was here in the summer of 1932. I came to this place in 1929.
Second Narration On Why the Calendar Is Not Holy
Father, what’s going on with the folks in Slătioara? They say we’ve sold out our faith.
Stylists [Old Calendarists] are defrocked by the Holy Synod, because they care more about the calendar than about the dogmas of our Church and thus have fallen away from obedience.
The Stylists also boast that they have true faith and we don’t.
They have pride and disobedience in that faith. In the summer of 1992, the Elder of the Xeropotamou Monastery [Mount Athos], together with a few monks, visited Romania and toured the whole country while carrying the Holy Cross – a cross that was made in the fifth century by Emperor Martian and Empress Pulcheria – which preserves in it a large part of our Savior’s cross. And I kissed the Holy Cross, which had been stained with the blood of Christ. Twice, I kissed it.
The monks in Mount Athos follow the Old Calendar. Why didn’t they visit the Stylists in Slătioara and instead, they only visited our New Calendar Orthodox monasteries?
They went to many places in our country, and all the monks of the Holy Mountain follow the Old Calendar; they cursed the ones in Romania that still followed the Old Style. As Athonite monks, they didn’t break their obedience to the Church. They follow the Old Calendar but they listen to the Holy Synod of Greece* – and Greeks have all been New Calendar followers since 1924. They do not ordain deacons, priests, churches, they don’t do anything without the approval of their Holy Synod. And they told me: “Tell the Stylists in your country that they are heretics. They started to build their monasteries and churches without the permission of your Holy Synod.”
Why, wasn’t I there myself, at the Holy Mountain? Didn’t I perform the holy services with them? The Old Calendar people here won’t do that with us, but the monks of Mount Athos sure did! We partook in the Eucharist with them. They consider the Old Calendar folks in our country as pagans. These folks have remained just as the Lipovans of Russia here [in Romania]!
The calendar isn’t a holy thing! I went and held a speech about that when our Metropolitan was enthroned in Iaşi. There were Bishops and Metropolitans gathered there, yet they asked [unworthy] me to speak — in the refectory, where there were so many officials! I spoke for almost an hour.
The next day I spoke at the Faculty of Theology in Iaşi and I showed them how the Old Calendar had already been adjusted until now. I showed them the year, the month, the time, and how, when it falls behind again – as the Pedalion says – it will be adjusted again. The calendar is a mere time-keeper.
Are we going to argue about a calendar, now? Is it worth it?
Source
While this is certainly true we need to look a little deeper into the issue. The Romanian St Jacob the Hozevite fled to Palestine to avoid the calendar change. Why? Because --as the majority of contemporary Greek elders state-- the Calendar may indeed be changed but the way it was changed in the 1920's was not canonical. It divided the Church's liturgical unity and shortens, to the point of occasionally abolishing, the Apostles' Fast. Each year the Patriarch of Constantinople celebrates Christmas with Anglicans and Catholics while his Brother in Moscow is still observing the Nativity Fast. Here in the West one parish is celebrating the Feast of the Holy Dormition while their brethren in the parish down the road are just beginning the Dormition Fast!
ReplyDeleteThe Church's calendar may be changed or adjusted; true. The issue today is the spirit and way in which a hap-hazard adjustment was imposed and the liturgical rupture that occured as a result.
Those who have looked deeper into the Calendar issue and evaluate it honestly will see in fact that there is nothing uncanonical about the New Calendar, and there is nothing moreover in the Canons regarding the Apostle's Fast to say that even its complete abolishment would violate an essential tradition of the Church. And just because the Ecumenical Patriarch celebrates Christmas with a more correct Calendar that the Russian Patriarch doesnt make it wrong; this is illogical. Hopefully however the Russian Church will complete their change as they always intended but were unable to do due to the whole Communism factor when they initially sought to change their Calendar. In fact, it was the Russian Church that first brought up the idea of changing the ecclesiastical Calendar. And the change that eventually did take place was not done in a haphazard way, but took a few years of careful research and deliberation that was undermined by paranoid zealots and/or confused pious Orthodox that do not have a full grasp of Orthodox tradition.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the important thing with St Jacob was that he did not separate from the Orthodox Church. He is not however canonized for which Calendar he thought was more Orthodox, but because of his way of life.
ReplyDeleteI think if you read what Blessed Philotheos(Zervakos) had to say about this issue, you'd see my point. The Church always stove for unity; canonical and liturgical. That the Calendar can or cannot be changed is not the issue. The issue is the non-canonical and anti-Traditional manner in which the new caledar was foisted on the Church causing scandals and division right up until this day.
ReplyDeleteThe Moscow Patriarchate has examined the calendar revision in depth and has decided to NOT change. Communist authority has and had nothing to do with this issue. Bulgaria adopted the new style while deep under Communist rule.
As for the Apostles' Fast: I must disagree. This Fast is decreed by the "Apostolic Constitution" which can readily be found in the Eerdmann's collection of the Writings of the Ante-Nicean Fathers and Councils.
I would not be so cavilier with Holy Things. To refer to the liturgical cycle of the Church as 'just a machine' is akin to saying an icon is 'just a picture' and a Chalice is 'just a cup'.
Blessed Cleopa was addressing a particular sinful and schismatic situation in a particular locale. Blessed Philotheos (and many other righteous from Greece) rather discuss the effect of the entire debacle on the Universal Church. There's a difference.
FWIW Poland has returned to the traditional Calendar and Bulgaria has as recently as last year discussed the same.
Thank you.
I've read everything Elder Philotheos wrote on this issue, and he is only one Elder among many. I've even posted many thing Elder Philotheos has said about this issue in the past. And some Saints have disagreed with other Saints, so to quote names really means nothing in this debate, and this even includes the holy Elder Cleopa. The fact is that there was nothing uncanonical in the Calendar change nor anti-Traditional. To assume so is just to make an ignorant statement with no basis in fact. This excuse may have been more excusable 30 or 40 years ago when there was so much Old Calendarist propaganda circulating many of our Saints even got influenced by them. But time and research has proven that all this was indeed propaganda and the fantasies of the paranoid. Also, if you read the minutes of the Pan-Orthodox Congress of 1922, the only reason Russia did not go with the change was due to the fact they could not attend the Congress because Patriarch Tikhon and his reps were not able to due to the political conditions, and if you read of their own private meetings on the subject it is clear they wanted to make the change but did not find the time suitable due to their situation and the fact that they believed this needed to be done in an Ecumenical Synod. The Congress however decided this was not necessary and could be done locally, which it did and which canonically was correct. As for the Apostles Fast, read my translation of what Elder Epiphanios Theodoropoulos wrote on it: http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2010/06/fast-of-holy-apostles-and-new-calendar.html
ReplyDeleteThis should clarify all your questions as to why there is nothing uncanoncal that was done with the Apostles Fast. Your analogy is also false. You are taking a time table that materially does not exist and equating it with a Chalice which hold the Blood of Christ and an icon board which depicts the image of Christ. This is absurd. By the way, these arent my words, but Im just quoting a holy elder. And there is no difference between what Elder Cleopa addresses and Elder Philotheos. Elder Cleopa discusses Mt Athos, for example, and how they condemn Old Calendarist schismatics there and in Greece as well, let alone the fact that Elder Philotheos was especially hard against Old Calendarists and those who condemned the New Calendar: http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2010/01/on-validity-of-new-calendar-by-elder.html
http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2010/01/elder-philotheos-zervakos-on-calendar.html
http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2010/01/elder-philotheos-on-schismatic-old.html
http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2010/01/clarification-on-calendar-issue.html
http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2010/01/papa-dimitri-gagastathis-and-old.html
Lastly, the Bulgarian Synod issued a statment saying that there was never any such discussions about returning to the Old Calendar. Someone spread this information by false rumor. It was proposed, but not even considered.
I am a life-long son of the Russian Church, know Russian and have studied in depth the history of many of the issues afflicting the Moscow Patriarchate in the last century. Your assumption regarding the Russian Church and the new calendar are wrong. In point of fact St Tikhon the Patriarch and Confessor did allow the new calendar until he discovered that he had been deceived by the Constantinople Delegation and that, in point of fact, the entire Church had NOT changed to the new style. The way the new style was imposed by the imperious Meletios Metaxakis of Constantinople was a scandal and rebuffed by the vast majority of Orthodox.
ReplyDelete(Remember too at this time the Phanar was abandoning the Martyr-Patriarch in favor of the heretical "Living Church" in Russia).
Furthermore what you say is true. But only a section of the entire story. Much more of the other side can be read at
http://www.orthodoxinfo.co/ecumenism/ea_calendar.aspx
The purpose of the Church calendar is not seasonal. It is liturgical. The Fathers and Councils always strove to establish a profound unity for the Universal Church. A close and serious study of the reasons and personalities behind this sad breach our canons and Tradition very spirit will unarguably reveal its uncanonical implementation.
Again, I am not "arguing" with Blessed Cleopa, whom I revere. Nor am I arguing with you. I am not arguing for this calendar or that. I am arguing that the the calendar reform was wrongly implemented at a wrong time and in a wrong manner and the result has not been good for the Universal Church.
This very discussion shows that even after 90 years division remains.
What you are reading is Old Calendarist propaganda, not history. Patriarch Metaxakis didnt impose the New Calendar on anyone, and if you knew your history you would know that. And it is not true that the other hierarchs condemned the Calendar change that did not adopt it. This is myth. You are clearly getting all your info from schismatics. And if you read the minutes of the Congress of 1922, a whole session was dedicated to the Russian Church and Metaxakis gave a long oration of praise towards Tikhon. Metaxakis had no issue with Tikhon. It is a lot more complicated than that to get into here, but this issue had more with Metaxakis doing what he could in a complicated situation to preserve unity within the Church. It is not about him agreeing with everything the Living Church stood for. You have to look at the whole history within the context of the time, and personally I think it was a wise decision. If otherwise, it is possible that Russia would be a schismatic church today.
ReplyDeleteI need to jump in here and make a few points.
ReplyDelete1) The calendar is not an article of faith, but at the same time it is not "insignificant" either. A book that I would recommend on the subject is "Time and Man" by Prof. Georgios Mantzaridis. It is not about the Old vs the New Calendar but rather about the meaning of the church's cycles and feasts, it takes no position on the Old vs New controversy. I highly recommend it.
2) Calling the New Calendar "more correct" is a false and misleading statement. In what sense is it "more correct"? In an astronomical sense? The Fathers made it clear that they were not "astro-latres" (star worshipers). They were not interested in astronomical accuracy, and were well aware that the length of a year was not exactly 365.25 days. This was known from the time of Hipparchus (2nd cent. B.C.). They knew that any attempt to achieve astronomical accuracy in measuring the length of a year is a fool's quest. Even our modern 21st century technology cannot measure the length of the year with absolute accuracy and any calendar that man devises even today will be astronomically inaccurate. Knowing this they set out to create a calendar that would repeat itself forever and not one that was astronomically accurate, in this they succeeded perfectly.
In contrast to this, the Pope's 16th century humanist astronomers set out to create an astronomically accurate calendar, completely disregarding the wisdom of the Fathers, a kind of renaissance era tower of Babel. In this they failed miserably.
3) Two things all Orthodox Christians should agree on: A) The calendar issue must not be allowed to divide us and B) Pascha must always be celebrated according to the paschalion of the Fathers i.e. the so called Old Calendar.
My insights on St Tikhon, the calendar issue and Metaxakis are not at all from "schismatic sources" but from primary and official sources of the Russian Church. I am able to discern the works of a canonical publishing house from a fly-by-night or schismatic source.
ReplyDeleteMeletios Metaxakis eventual support for the heretical "Living Church" over the canonical Patriarchate is a matter of historical record.
Thank God the Hellenic Church reversed this or it may be a schismatic church today!
Once again: The Church has fixed Her feasts, fasts and liturgics for a reason. Otherwise why were so many councils called to resolve the common calendar, date of Pascha, uniform fasting regulations etc? Why didn't the Fathers simply say "Hey! Whatever! Celebrate Pascha, Nativity, Great Lent however your country feels like it!".
The didn't do this. They approached these issues with gravity. They cannot be altered for expediency or temporal need. There is a correct (canonical) way to adjust things and an incorrect (non-canonical) way. Meletios Metaxakis and his supporters in the 1920's picked the wrong way. And the Universal Church still suffers a liturgical rupture as a result.
Are New Calendarists heretics, schismatics or devoid of grace? No! And I never said that. My position is that of the traditionally-thinking, canonical Orthodox... not of those placing themselves outside the Church.
But was the New Style brought into the Church correctly, universally, so as to prevent liturgical rupture and division (which the Fathers always zealously opposed)? No. Does this innovation's method of implementation follow the SPIRIT of Sacred Tradition, the Fathers, Councils and Canons? Again: No. And we are still paying the price today.
As a faithful Greek I understand how you want to defend your bretheren from the snares of schism. That's laudable. But this issue trancends the Hellenic pale, and thus other points must be respected, too!
I belive on day our post-Christian world will adopt another, absolutely different humanist calendar. One completely different than either the Julian or Gregorian. At that time I suspect the entire Church will return to the one, traditional "Old" Calendar and the Orthodox Faithful will adhere to this as a paralell calendar; like Jews and Muslims hold to their respective paralell calendars today.
Just a thought.
AVB, the point Elder Cleopas is making is not that the use of the Calendar is insignificant for the Church with its feasts and fasts, but that the Calendar itself is insignificant. It can be altered and changed numerous times and this should pose no problem for the Church. It is only a time-table and thats it. To ascribe anything more to a Calendar is absurd.
ReplyDeleteAlso, astronomy and astrolatry are two very different things. Also, the Revised Julian Calendar of the New Calendarists is not the Gregorian Calendar, but it corrects the anomalies of both Calendars. And with new astronomical data the Calendar should change to accomadate the worldy system, just like the early Church adapted itself to the worldly system.
I agree with your third point, but I will add that a Pan-Orthodox Synod does have the canonical authority to change the Paschalion also. Because this was decided on an Ecumenical level, it is only another Ecumenical Synod that can change it. But no major hierarch disagrees with this.
Popikov, you should keep in mind that Russian sources are not considered the most reliable by Greeks. Russians have a different interpretation of certain canons, for example, than Greeks. This is one reason why certain Russian Saints could not understand the moves of Constantinople, and meanwhile Constantinople was always following the tradition of the Canons. We believe the Russians distorted many of the Canons, and this continues today, as we can see in the whole OCA issue. And i disagree with your evaluation of the New Calendar, as it violates no Canon or Tradition, and if you read the minutes of the Pan Orthodox Congress, which I encourage you to do, you will see that everything was considered meticulously in order for this to not be done. You have yet to point out one Canon or Tradition they violated. And keep in mind, there is differences between the Revised Julian Calendar and the Gregorian Calendar.
In the end, the Calendar was made for the Church and not the Church for the Calendar.
John, A "Pan-Orthodox Synod" is not the same as an Ecumenical Council. No bishop has the authority to call an Ecumenical Council. Also, an Ecumenical Council is considered infallible, a Pan-Orthodox Synod, which is a relatively modern creation, does not have this authority.
ReplyDeleteYour claim that the Revised Julian Calendar "corrects the anomalies of both Calendars" makes no sense because you cannot correct an inaccuracy with another inaccuracy. Does the equation 2+2=5 correct the equation 2+2=7? Obviously not. And this is were the wisdom of the Fathers comes in. They knew that astronomical accuracy is impossible. Calculating the length of the year is something we cannot do even today. If any calendar that man creates is going to be inaccurate why not stick to the one created by the Fathers?
Keeping up with the seasons is not a good excuse because the northern and southern hemispheres have different seasons to begin with and the equinoxes are moving further and further away from the Revised Julian Calendar each year anyway, so once again as the Fathers knew so long ago, astronomical accuracy is a fool's quest.
I am not arguing for the return of the Old Calendar but let's not pretend that the New Calendar was necessary or a positive development.
The proper way to reform the Church calendar and what should have been done back in 1923 was to simply "reset" the Julian Calendar. This would have kept the movable and immovable feasts in sync with each other, at least until the next "reset" many centuries down the road. Unfortunately, Metaxakis like the papal astronomers of the 16th century, was enamored with human reason and sought to build his tower of Babel and achieve astronomical accuracy, something the Fathers had absolutely no interest in. The ultimate proof of the folly of Metaxakis is that with his calendar Christmas and Pascha will one day in the future be celebrated on the same day!! This is the result of placing the idol of human reason above the wisdom of the Fathers.
Again: If liturgical unity were of enough import for the Fathers to convene many councils to establish a uniform calendar, how can the piecemeal and divisive implementation of the calendar change be justified? It is as clear as can be that this innovation goes against the very spirit of the Church's Tradition and canons... no matter which "ethnic flavor" one prefers!
ReplyDeleteRegarding a supposed Russian "deficiency" with regard to the canons: I will not open THAT can of worms but I now understand a bit better where you're coming from!
Yes, a Pan-Orthodox Great Synod is equivalent to an Ecumenical Synod. There is no difference between the two except for the fact that one is called by an Emperor and one is not. You can about this in Fr Romanides, who argues that every Pan-Orthodox Synod after the Fall of Constantinople is equivalent to an Ecumenical Synod in authority, and I agree with him. And they did begin soon after the Fall of Constantinople.
ReplyDeleteYour second point is doing nothing but sanctifying a time-table, which no Father ever did. Astronomically we may not be able to have a perfect calendar, but we can have one that is more correct than a previous one. This is precisely why the Julian Calendar itself came into existence.
The New Calendar was not only positive, but necessary. History proves this, especially in places like Greece and in the diaspora. In these places, people were falling away from the Church because of the Old Calendar. The hierarchs of the Pan-Orthodox Congress of 1922 explain this in the minutes. Elder Epiphanios argues this point in some detail in his excellent book "Ta Dio Akra".
And the New Calendar is not a Tower of Babel. This is just ignorant and demonically slanderous. Christmas and Pascha celebrated on the same day? This will eventually happen with the Julian Calendar too. This is why the Calendar needs to be constantly changed. But keep in mind this will take many centuries.
Popikov, no it is not clear. If it was clear, it would have been figured out and not done. But nothing in the change went against the Canons or Tradition, as is evidenced by the fact you cant even bring up one example except your sanctification of a time-table, which the Fathers never did.
ReplyDelete"Again and again": I am NOT arguing for a sanctified time table. I beleive I have said rather the opposite.
ReplyDeleteI am arguing that the piecemeal and imperious manner in which the new calendar was imposed on a segment of the Church caused a serious liturgical rupture in the Universal Church. It is plainly obvious that this is opposed to the very spirit of the Fathers, Councils and Tradition of the Church; which ever strove for liturgical UNITY throughout the Ecumene.
Therefore the burden of proof is not on me to prove what is abundently clear. (Should I have to prove the earth is round, too?).
Rather the burden of proof is on you: Show that the liturgically divisive calendar reform is indeed in the spirit of the Fathers, Councils and Sacred Tradition's struggle and goal for liturgical unity. Why was one calendar established? Why did not the Fathers allow the use of the Greek, Celtic, Persian calendars all at one time? Why --in time-- did the Fathers and Councils level an anathema against those who persisted in following a discarded system for establishing Pascha?
My point is self evident: The partial, hap-hazard and piecemeal calendar revision resulted in a liturgical rupture the Fathers, Councils and Sacred Tradition always strove against.
That's my point. That's the self-evident fact.
The Church sought unity in doctrine, not necessarily in liturgical practice. History proves this. Liturgical customs could be local and very often were. The only part of the liturgical calendar that the Fathers sought unity in was Pascha, but this is only because the Pope of Rome tried to impose his date of Pascha in the East in the 3rd century, and the Eastern Fathers opposed the Pope.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, the burden of proof is on you, logically speaking. You are the one making the claim that the New Calendar opposes the Canons and tradition, but have not given one proof. Your theory is certainly not self-evident. It is more self-defeating.
John, your understanding of the two calendars is flawed and I suspect that much of your support for the change of calendars is due to this lack of understanding. Case in point: you claim that Christmas and Pascha being celebrated on the same day "will eventually happen with the Julian Calendar too" is just flat out false. Such a thing can never happen with the Julian Calendar only with the Revised Julian Calendar. What you are doing is thinking in terms of seasons rather than in terms of church feasts, and this is the crux of the argument. Those like myself who do not like the New Calendar (but accept it for the sake of Church unity) are concerned with the liturgical cycle of the Church and not with what the weather is during a particular holiday.
ReplyDeleteHow you can say that the change of calendars was a positive development with a straight face is beyond me. It has done nothing but create disunity where none existed on this issue before.
Like I said, I accept the New Calendar, but I hold my nose doing it.
You have every right to hold your nose, just dont do it in the name of tradition.
ReplyDeleteThe point is AVB that it doesnt matter if the Pascha will one day be celebrated with Christmas, because it wont be. The Calendar by the time will probably go through a few more changes to prevent this. Your faith in the Church should not be so naive.
I encourage you both to read Elder Joel Yiannakopoulos on this issue, where he makes the excellent point that the New Calendar is in fact more in line with the Canons of the First Ecumenical Synod than even the Old Calendar.
http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2010/01/old-calendar-new-calendar-facts.html
OK: So just to clarify:
ReplyDeleteYou -John- do NOT believe that the Father's and Councils' long struggle to establish a uniform calendar, basic universal liturgical cycle and Paschaleon really happened? Or if it did it is either passe or dependant upon local expediencies. That the 1920's calendar innovation _which ruptured over a millenium of universal liturgical unity- was fully within the spirit of standard Orthodox praxis and Tradition?
Please explain then: Why did the Fathers & Councils even attempt a universal calendar, paschaleon and basic liturgical order? Why bother?
I believe quite the opposite.
Paschaleon, yes. But the reason this was done is most important in this issue. Universal liturgicl unity and uniform calendar however? What misinformed history are you reading? There was certainly no uniform calendar in the first millenium of Christianity. In fact, there has never been a uniform calendar in the Church. This could easily be proven. Even before the calendar change, Greeks and Russians, for example, celebrated many feast days on different dates, especially those feasts established after the evangelization of the Slavic lands. You need to look into all this in greater detail.
ReplyDeletePS: You're asking me to prove that arguments cannot be made for a calendar revision; even by holy men. Of course there can be arguments this way and that. That is NOT my stance.
ReplyDeleteBUT AGAIN: My concern is the anti-Traditional way the New Calendar was introduced; splitting ancient Church liturgical unity. A unity established by the Councils and Fathers. THAT's my issue....
You feel this innovative implementation was OK; patristic and not at all contrary to the spirit and letter of the canons and Sacred Tradition?
Ummm... I have an 18th century "Calendar" from what is now called Ukraine. ALL the holydays are on the same days as the Greek Churches kept them then. Oh! There are minor variations. But the +striving for uniformity+ is a long-established goal of the Councils and Fathers. Ya gotta know that! The feast of the Nativity of Our Lord was celebrated by all the Orthodox in all places on the same date from the earliest times until the 1920's. C'Mon! You know what I am saying....
ReplyDeleteDo I need to repeat myself?
ReplyDeleteNot true Popikov. Read your liturgical history. Who was your liturgics professor? He should be ashamed.
ReplyDeleteMy "professor" in this topic is several of the Fathers at a New Calendar Greek Orthodox monastery founded by Fr. Ephraim. While understanding your stance and arguments (and defending the use of the New Calendar) they, never-the-less, respectfully see the concerns of their brethern in other Local Churches. Churches that adhere to the traditional calendar. Respectfully, John: The issue is not as black & white as you are arguing.
ReplyDeleteMilitant New Calendarism can be just as bad as militant Old Calendarism.
The New Calendar was not implemented according to the spirit or praxis of the Fathers & Councils. We are paying for that error to this day. Wishing otherwise won't make it go away.
The error of not having a New Calendar would be much greater, as was shown before the New Calendar was ratified. If you knew your history, you would know what Im talking about. I doubt even Fr Ephraim's monks know what Im talking about. Don't think they know the tradition based on their being monastics. I told, even Saints have made errors on this. And also, Saints contradict Saints on this issue. I lean towards those who have actually researched the details of this subject.
ReplyDeleteJohn, you are off base on a number of things. Let me give you a few examples:
ReplyDelete1) Speaking of the same day Christmas/Pascha you write "The Calendar by that time will probably go through a few more changes to prevent this." But it was already prevented by the traditional calendar!! The fact that the calendar now has to be changed over and over again in order to prevent something that used to be impossible shows how faulty and unnecessary it is.
2) You write: "Astronomically we may not be able to have a perfect calendar, but we can have one that is more correct than a previous one." Once again you are missing the point. Saying there is something wrong with the traditional calendar is like saying there is something wrong with my car because it doesn't fly. My car was not designed to fly and those who built it had no intention of it ever flying. The same is true of the traditional calendar, astronomical accuracy was never the intention, the traditional calendar does exactly what it was designed to do. Both the traditional calendar and my car cannot be called faulty for failing to do something they were never intended to do. This is a flaw in your logic.
3)You write: "Yes, a Pan-Orthodox Great Synod is equivalent to an Ecumenical Synod. There is no difference between the two except for the fact that one is called by an Emperor and one is not."
Wrong again! The Church has never recognized any Council after the fall of Constantinople as having Ecumenical weight. As an obvious ecumenist you should recognize this because it is stated quite clearly in our dialogues with heterodox "churches". We clearly state that only the first seven general councils have ecumenical authority and should be used as a basis for unity, all other councils are deemed local and not universally binding. Also, the role of the Emperor is not a trivial matter as you seem to suggest. The Emperor called the Council because he alone had authority (sovereign) over all the bishops and could summon them. There is nobody today with an equal authority. The Patriarch of Constantinople has no authority to summon a bishop from say the Russian church for example to a council. He only has authority to summon his own Holy Synod, that's all. This is why the role of the Emperor is critical and not some trivial footnote.
I can understand supporting the New Calendar in the name of Church unity and if this is what you are doing I applaud you, but it sounds like you are trying to support it on it's perceived "merits" and this is something completely misguided. I urge you to be more open minded and willing to see the flaws of the New Calendar and the harm it has done. One can accept the New Calendar as I do and still be critical of it and of those who created it.
AVB, what you seem to not understand was that the Julian Calendar presents similar disturbing facts in the centuries ahead. But again, thats beside the point. There are weaknesses as long as Pascha will remain a moveable feast. Old or New, it will eventually overlap given enough time.
ReplyDeleteOn your second point, youre saying that the ancient Romans gave no care about astronomical accuracy? Then why did they create the Julian Calendar. This is just absurd. You dont create a calendar and not care about astronomical accuracy. Also, just look at how the Fathers examined Pascha to fit the astronomivcal data of their day. They go into quite a bit of detail on this.
And regarding Ecumenical Synods, the point is that there can never be an Ecumenical Synod unless there is an Emperor to call an Ecumenical Synod. This is essentially what it means for a Synod to be "Ecumenical" and why there can only be the Nine Ecumenical Synods that took place prior to the Fall of Constantinople. The Church has indeed recognized many Synods that do have equal weight as an Ecumenical Synod. You can read about these in volume 2 of Romanides' "Dogmatic Theology". The problem however is that the more scholastic minded Orthodox theologians do not get into these Synods, with the last dealing with the Bulgarian Schism and the Heresy of Philetism in the 20th century. You need to get beyond your Orthodoxy 101 when you debate these advanced topics.
I don't support calendars. I support the truth and Orthodoxy. The New Calendar never did any harm and neither did the Old. Calendar's dont do harm, people do. There is absolutely no logical, traditional or canonical reason to be critical of it, and the same goes for the Old Calendar.
A few corrective points:
ReplyDelete1) The Old Calendar does not present "similar disturbing facts in the centuries ahead" as you state. The only anomalies in the centuries ahead for the Old Calendar are seasonal and not liturgical. The Fathers were well aware of the seasonal anomalies this calendar would create but were not interested in the weather. The New Calendar creates liturgical anomalies (same day Christmas/Pascha for example) as well as seasonal anomalies. This is why it is opposed.
2) I agree that the Romans who created the Julian Calendar were indeed interested in astronomical accuracy, but I am not talking about them. The term "Julian Calendar" and "Old Calendar" are used synonymously by convention. I am talking about the Fathers and the liturgical cycle they created. What the Fathers did was combine the solar Julian Calendar with the lunar Jewish Calendar to create the liturgical cycle of the Church. As I mentioned in previous posts the Fathers were well aware that the length of the year was not exactly 365.25 days and as a result their calendar would not be astronomically accurate, but they also knew that no calendar would be astronomically accurate because the length of the year cannot be definitively measured so they ignored this issue and focused on creating a cycle that would repeat itself forever and be able to serve the needs of the Church.
Fast forward to the 16th century when human reason, enlightenment, secularism, and science were all the rage in the West and you will find an attempt to change the cycle of the Fathers and replace it with one based on human reason and "modern" science, something the Fathers would have laughed at. It is this enlightenment mindset that Metaxakis associated with and not with the mindset of the Fathers.
3) There have been many councils called by Emperors that are not considered Ecumenical but are actually considered heretical, the Second Council of Ephesus is the perfect example. The point is that for a council to be Ecumenical it must a) be called by the Emperor and b) be received by the collective conscience of the Church. Only nine councils in history fulfill these requirements. By claiming that Ecumenical Councils are possible after the Fall of Constantinople the ecumenists are setting up the future "Pan-Orthodox Council" to be accepted as ecumenical.
1. Yes, it creates liturgical anomalies. Elder Joel's article I posted addresses some of these.
ReplyDelete2. The Fathers simply adopted the Calendar used by the Roman Empire. The only thing the Orthodox opposed about the Gregorian Calendar was that it uncanonically changes the Paschaleon, not that human reason was involved. If human reason and knowledge comes to oppose the Canons, then of course the proper measures must be taken to change the Canon in an appropriate way, case in point being the New Calendar.
3. I never said a Pan-Orthodox Synod is an Ecumenical Synod. Another Ecumenical Synod is impossible without an Emperor and an Empire to enact it into Civil Law. This is what it means for a Synod to be Ecumenical. However, Ecclesiastically there have been many other Synods that have Ecumenical authority by which the entire Church is bound by common decree.
There can be no liturgical anomalies with the Old Calendar for the simple reason that it defines the liturgical cycle. How can it be at odds with itself?, it's absurd.
ReplyDeleteYou write "The Fathers simply adopted the Calendar used by the Roman Empire". Not true! As I stated earlier they combined the Roman solar calendar with the Jewish lunar calendar and created a unique time reckoning mechanism that repeats every 532 years, forever. This was the perfect solution to their problem and it continues to work perfectly.
The objection to the Gregorian calendar is not simply that it changes the Paschalion as you state. It violates numerous Canons of the Church not least of which is the prohibition against celebrating Pascha "with the Jews". At the time of the First Ecumenical Council many people were celebrating the Christian Pascha during the Jewish Pascha (Passover). This troubling trend led the Fathers to forbid such a practice. Yet in 1983 the Gregorian Easter fell on the specific date in the month of Nisan that the Fathers explicitly forbade. I don't know if it has happened before or since, but I know it happened in 1983 in complete disregard of the ruling of the Fathers.
I'm not sure where you are getting your information from but you need to look into these issues more thoroughly. If you believe that the Canons of Ecumenical Councils are infallible then statements such as "If human reason and knowledge comes to oppose the Canons.." make no sense.
There has never been any demonstrated deficiency with the Old Calendar, it fulfills it's intent perfectly. Bringing up astronomical accuracy is a false argument because you know this was not the intention of the Fathers.
The Canons are not infallible nor eternal. There are no infallibility doctrines in Orthodoxy. Only God is infallible and His revelation. They are certainly changeable. A very elementary principle of Canon Law is that the Canons are made for the Church, not the Church for the Canons.
ReplyDeleteAgain, Ive never criticized the Old Calendar. It certainly is far from perfect, but there is no such thing as a perfect Calendar.
The lunar calendar employed by the early Christians for the Julian was not Jewish, but from ancient Greece by the way. Its called the metonic lunar calendar, which was made by the Athenian astronomer Meton. And this shows that the early Christians employed the astronomical methods of their day in determining the date of Pascha. But this was done only for the date of Pascha. We do not disagree on the Paschaleon. But there are a lot of problems with the metonic system that you can look into on your own.
The 583 year cycle you are talking about is the Victorian cycle introduced in Rome in 457 AD that originated a few decades earlier in Alexandria by Annianus. The interesting thing this also brings up is that there was no uniform annual Pascha in the Church in the first millenium as it was constantly devolping according to various astronomical theories. The calendar was adapting the best possible methods. The Victorian Cycle was never accepted by the entire Church in the West. Victor of Capua, c. 550, wrote against Victorius's cycle and in favour of the Alexandrian method of computation. The problems he presents with this method caused Italy to forsake this cycle. One of the problems brought up is the miscalculations of the Julian Calendar of actual solar time, thus not allowing those who follow the Julian Calendar to actually abide by the Canons established in the First Ecumenical Synod. Read what Elder Yiannakopoulos says about this.
Basically in 4000 years, the Julian calendar will mark the vernal equinox, the beginning of Spring, in the middle of February. For Pascha to return to the actual day of celebration, we would have to wait for a whole year’s worth of extra time to be added to the Julian calendar; this would take more than 46 millennia (128 × 365 = 46,720).
So basically you are saying it is ok that the "infallible" Julian Calendar will bring the beginning of Spring to February. This problem was for many centuries trying to be fixed, but with the Fall of Constantinople it came to nothing.
This is only one problem of others. But as Elder Yiannakopoulos points out, those who follow the Julian Calendar are in fact being uncanonical.
Obviously with the Julian Calendar we have a serious Canonical anomaly. There really is no such thing as a major liturgical anomaly, as liturgics are not dogmas and can always be changed as the Church sees fit. Its stupid to even bring them up as an issue that will "one day" affect the Church, since the Church can always prevent these anomalies when they come up.
I can tell you havn't read what Elder Yiannakopoulos wrote about the liturgical and canonical anomaly of the Julian Calendar, so here is an excerpt:
ReplyDeleteWe know from the Pedalion of our Church that the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Synod had canonized that Easter should be calculated on the basis of the spring equinox, given that the spring equinox at the time was on the 21st of March. This is stated in the Pedalion (check page 9). However, approximately 1600 years later, from then to this day, we have digressed from that date because the spring equinox now takes place on the 8th of March. This too is mentioned in the Pedalion. So, with a 13-day leap, we so-called “New Calendarists” again have the same spring equinox that the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Synod had. We now have the old date of the spring equinox, the 21st of March, while you have the contemporary date of this equinox, the 8th of March. Consequently, we are fully aligned with the old date, and you with the new. We are aligned with the Old Julian Calendar of the First Ecumenical Synod, and you are aligned with the New Julian Calendar. Consequently, we are the ones who are actually the “Old Calendarists” while you are the “New Calendarists”, because – I will repeat it once more – we acknowledge the 21st of March as the spring equinox, just as the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Synod had, while you have lapsed, and have retained the 8th of March.
Read the rest here: http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2010/01/old-calendar-new-calendar-facts.html
Elder Yiannakopoulos (does he have a monastic name?) is making the same mistake that all proponents of the New Calendar make, he is speaking in terms of seasons and not feasts. The equinoxes are not fixed points but are constantly moving (read about the precession of the equinoxes first discovered by Hipparchus of Rhodes in the 2nd century B.C.). The equinox in 2010 has precessed since 2009 and will precess even more by 2011, and more still in 2012 etc..eventually the spring equinox will be at the point that today marks the winter solstice. The Fathers knew this and so were not interested in the actual physical equinox but built their own equinox into their cycle, an equinox that would not move but would permanently remain fixed. The beauty of this system is that although the equinox of the Fathers drifts relative to the physical equinox in remains fixed relative to the Church feasts, and this is what they were interested in not in the seasons and the weather.
ReplyDeleteThose who bring up this equinox issue are either not familiar with with how equinoxes work and how the Fathers dealt with the problem, or are intentionally misleading a public that they know will not understand the intricacies of the subject matter. I hope the Elder falls into the former category.
On a Calendar, seasons and feasts go hand in hand. You cant separate the two, and you shouldnt. Certainly the Church Fathers didnt, which is why it was constantly being worked for 1400 years in the East, and longer in the West.
ReplyDeleteNow where in the Fathers can you possibly find non-interest in the seasonal equinox? For some reason they always bring it up in their writings, so can you show anywhere where they say the seasonal equinox is not inmportant? Because if they did, they would be contradicting themselves, which I dont think they are.
Again, the Fathers didnt come up with the Victorian Cycle you so dearly love and which is responsible for the Canonical and Liturgical anomaly in the Julian Calendar. Victorinus did, who is not a Church Father. The Church spent many centuries trying to correct this anomaly, but were not able to come up with the most suitable plan and rejected many proposals. The last proposal came from Plethon before the Fall of Constantinople, but this was rejected because he was a Platonist. So you are clearly wrong, and history proves it.
Elder Joel Yiannakopoulos was not a monastic, but a parish priest.
Victorinus might have introduced the cycle in the West but he was certainly not its originator.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting that you point to the pagan Plethon as the "Church's" attempt to reform the calendar. You just made my point!! i.e. that secular humanists like Plethon, the papal astronomers, and Metaxakis are the only ones who believe the calendar needed changing and the only ones who were interested in doing so. Can you point to one Saint or Church Father who wanted to change the calendar? Of course not because they all knew that there was nothing wrong with the calendar.
There is NO anomaly in the Old Church Calendar no matter how many times you say there is. It fulfills it's intended purpose perfectly as it has for 17 centuries.
The proof that the Fathers didn't care about the actual equinox is the fact that they fixed the equinox on their calendar, something they knew to be contrary to the nature of the actual equinox.
You have yet to point out what new piece of knowledge or information did mankind discover that made him realize that the calendar must be reformed? What do we know today about the equinox and about the length of the year that the Fathers didn't know? The answer is absolutely nothing. Everything we know today about equinoxes including precession was known by the Fathers. Everything we know today about the length of the year was known by the Fathers. So since the Fathers had all the information that we have today on this subject and took everything into consideration please tell me again why we needed to change the calendar.
I think Im just getting the point that you argue for arguments sake. Here is my last response in my dialogue with you on this issue.
ReplyDeleteI said Plethon was the last attempt. Most attempts came from Orthodox monastics, oddly enough. It took place over hundreds of years and the attempts were sanctioned by the Church. If you do your research, you can easily see this. Your oversimplistic attitude of condemning everyone that doesnt fit in with your non-existent "infallible" worldview of the Julian Calendar is a serious delusion.
Annianus of Alexandria came up with the Victorian Cycle a few decades before Victorinus. I already said that.
Metaxakis did not come up with the New Calendar. The Calendar issue began in the 19th century in every local Orthodox Church. It was ratified as we know by the Pan-Orthodox Congress after a conglomeration of research by dogmatists, canonists, liturgists, and scientists that went back decades and gave forth many options.
Its easy to say there are no anomalies, but that is only one of many that I mentioned. Your perfect Calendar is flawed and is less canonical than the New Calendar, which also has its flaws but is not uncanonical. This is proved by the fact moreover that the Church tried to correct the Victorian Cycle for almost 1200 years but failed in doing so until the 1920's. Furthermore, there was never a "perfectly" common Calendar for the entire Church as you claim. This is just a false reading of Church history. Extremely ignorant in fact which leads me to believe you have no Orthodox education except the reading of propgandist literature. These things should be very simple to understand, except for the "purists" who rewrite everything to fit their ideology.
Other anomalies in the Julian Calendar are that the feast of St. George can fall on Good Friday or Great Saturday, that the Annunciation can fall during Holy Week, and the creation of Kyriopascha which is one way the Church came to cover over an anomaly when the feast of the Annunciation falls on Pascha. And of course the worst anomaly of all is that Old Calendarists celebrate different holidays from the people on the secular level, and it was because of this that many fell away from the Church in Greece, Serbia, etc and the diaspora and why the Calendar change was a greater positive than a negative.
You said: "Everything we know today about the length of the year was known by the Fathers." Do I really need to answer such an ignorant statement. The constant modification of the Julian Calendar throughout Roman history proves your ignorance.
Thats enough from me. Your wasting my time at this point.
Mr. Sanidopoulos thank you for your posts on this. You have articulately expressed the sentiments of many; many who do not have the knowledge base that you do, but yet still subscribe to the world of logic and reason, and not fanatical delusions. Again, thanks.
ReplyDelete