Comments on MYSTAGOGY: The Fast of the Holy Apostles and the New Calendar...

I agree with you Mike, but the average lay person ...

2009-07-08T14:39:11.595-04:00

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.

Thank you for a very informative website. Somethin...

2009-07-08T09:54:34.404-04:00

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.

Thank for the correction and information.

2009-07-06T18:30:06.329-04:00

Thank for the correction and information.

John, one slight correction: the technical name o...

2009-07-06T17:41:23.249-04:00

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.

For example, many Old Calendar parishes in Greece ...

2009-07-01T09:59:53.502-04:00

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.

This is something of a rabbit trail, but a questio...

2009-07-01T09:42:57.367-04:00

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.

I would most probably take the side that the bisho...

2009-07-01T09:22:18.795-04:00

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.

Thanks for this; he raises some important points. ...

2009-07-01T04:55:23.250-04:00

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.