Topic: Old vs. New Calendar?

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

The Julian calendar = mumbo jumbo. An assertion not explained?

May be I should have used a more apt word? How about abracadabra! That is exactly how December 25th becomes January 7th. Orthodox pixie dust!

[PeterTheAleut]

There is no Revised Julian Menalogion; there is one Menologion for all (Sorry about echoing Lord of the Rings  ). There is one Menologion and one Paschalion that is used by all of the Orthodox Churches. The problem is, as you well know that folks are conflating (just as you are doing here) the church liturgical calendars with the civic calendars. Believe it or not, there was a time when the Julian calendar did a good job in overlaying its December 25th on the Liturgical Calendar's December 25th. Today only the Gregorian and the Revised Julian function as intended by the Early Church. The Old Julian calendar is a failed calendar because it has to pretend, it is not real. It is make believe, mumbo-jumbo nonsense.

Thanks again, you anticipated my question while I was writing it.  

I'm less interested in mathematical precision than I am with liturgical integrity.  While you argue that there is no "Revised Julian Menologion", but rather only one Menologion and Paschalion for the whole Church, Peter seems to argue that problems with the Revised Julian as currently used among "New Calendarists" arise from the use of two different calendars for two different cycles:

And, as I'm telling Mor, that's where you're mistaken. What you call the Revised Julian hodgepodge is really a mishmash of two different calendars. We New Calendarists follow the Revised Julian Calendar for the Menologion but continue to follow the Old Julian Calendar for the Paschalion. One solution to this problem is to actually follow the Revised Julian Calendar completely--i.e., for BOTH the Menologion AND the Paschalion.

Basically, what I would like to know is if use of the Revised Julian calendar for both the fixed feasts and the Paschal cycle would alleviate the liturgical problems which come with use of the Revised Julian calendar as it is currently implemented?  For example, will there always be an Apostles' Fast?  Does St George's feast always come after Pascha?  And so on.  Full use of the Gregorian calendar or the old Julian calendar achieve/preserve this integrity.  Would full use of the Revised Julian do the same?  If so, how?  

Yes, it would. On the basis of day-to-day use, one won't see an actual difference between the Gregorian and Revised Julian calendars for a few more centuries.

[Jonathan Gress]

The Julian calendar = mumbo jumbo. An assertion not explained?

May be I should have used a more apt word? How about abracadabra! That is exactly how December 25th becomes January 7th. Orthodox pixie dust!

This is exactly the kind of arrogant contempt for Tradition that I'm talking about. So basically, according to your infallible opinion, the Church was simply following mumbo-jumbo for over a thousand years of Her existence? I guess the Holy Spirit had better things to do than guide the Church in Truth? Or maybe, just maybe, it is your opinions about what the Church calendar should do that are mistaken.

Again, I can envision the Church in Her wisdom deciding to reform the calendar, but not as long as the attitude displayed by Carl prevails.

[Santagranddad]

The Julian calendar = mumbo jumbo. An assertion not explained?

May be I should have used a more apt word? How about abracadabra! That is exactly how December 25th becomes January 7th. Orthodox pixie dust!

I think you might counter equally the other way, you see one calendar has kept rolling uninterrupted and another comes along - a sort of Jonny come lately, and seeks to usurp it's place. And when the latter was introduced here in England folks rioted, the Gordon Riots, demanding back their 11 days. 11 days, which to use your formula, some politicians stole using a spell - 'Abracadabra'. Even my lifetime there were pockets here that celebrated 'Old Christmas'. Some even said their Christmas flowering plants bloomed on Old Christmas day. Not recalcitrant Orthodox but solid Protestants not inclined to bend their knees to some Popish skulduggery. So the point of change, where days suddenly were lost, that was when the fairy dust was sprinkled or, in a more adult idiom, a sleight of hand was effected.

No, I'm not buying your thesis, it doesn't stand examination for one moment. One group simply follows continuously a calendar that their forebears did uninterrupted and others an innovation. The second if they were good fellows might have stayed their hand and waited until a conciliar change - better thought through and with greater unanimity, but they didn't. And blaming the Russian Church which in the 1920s had far more serious problems to contend with does not cut much ice, I am sorry to add.

Now I must go and hang out my tea bags to dry, saving the planet and all that. Goodnight!

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

There is no Revised Julian Menalogion; there is one Menologion for all (Sorry about echoing Lord of the Rings  ). There is one Menologion and one Paschalion that is used by all of the Orthodox Churches. The problem is, as you well know that folks are conflating (just as you are doing here) the church liturgical calendars with the civic calendars. Believe it or not, there was a time when the Julian calendar did a good job in overlaying its December 25th on the Liturgical Calendar's December 25th. Today only the Gregorian and the Revised Julian function as intended by the Early Church. The Old Julian calendar is a failed calendar because it has to pretend, it is not real. It is make believe, mumbo-jumbo nonsense.

Thanks again, you anticipated my question while I was writing it.  

I'm less interested in mathematical precision than I am with liturgical integrity.  While you argue that there is no "Revised Julian Menologion", but rather only one Menologion and Paschalion for the whole Church, Peter seems to argue that problems with the Revised Julian as currently used among "New Calendarists" arise from the use of two different calendars for two different cycles:

And, as I'm telling Mor, that's where you're mistaken. What you call the Revised Julian hodgepodge is really a mishmash of two different calendars. We New Calendarists follow the Revised Julian Calendar for the Menologion but continue to follow the Old Julian Calendar for the Paschalion. One solution to this problem is to actually follow the Revised Julian Calendar completely--i.e., for BOTH the Menologion AND the Paschalion.

Basically, what I would like to know is if use of the Revised Julian calendar for both the fixed feasts and the Paschal cycle would alleviate the liturgical problems which come with use of the Revised Julian calendar as it is currently implemented?  For example, will there always be an Apostles' Fast?  Does St George's feast always come after Pascha?  And so on.  Full use of the Gregorian calendar or the old Julian calendar achieve/preserve this integrity.  Would full use of the Revised Julian do the same?  If so, how?  

The answer to all of your questions is Yes!!! You and Peter are in fact in agreement!!!

As you may know, the problem with the Paschalion is that it is based on an ecumenical council's decision (Second?) to fix the Vernal Equinox on March 21st. That date corresponded nicely with the actual Vernal Equinox at that time, which is important because of the formula: Pascha to be celebrated on the fist Sunday after the first fool moon on or after the Vernal Equinox." Now, if the civic calendar starts to deviate from reality, one has to choose between (a) bringing the calendar up to date (as the Gregorian and Revised Julian have done) or (b) pretend that the old calendar still reflects reality. It so happens that March 21st falls on that date on both Gregorian and Revised Julian Calendars, but it "happens" 13 days later on the Julian Calendar. So, there are times when we can all celebrate Pascha at the same date (that is when the first moon is on or after March 21 +13 days), but not often.

To reiterate, if every Church used either the Revised Julian or the Gregorian calendars for both the Menologion and the Paschalion, we would all celebrate all of the appointed days of the liturgical calendar at the same time. At least in our and our great-great-great-great childrens' time for these two are bound to diverge sometime in the far future. Whereas, the real possibility exists that at that point in time, Nativity will be celebrated by the Old Calendar folks even further than the date on the Church liturgical calendar, for the Julian gets worse three days every four centuries.

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

The Julian calendar = mumbo jumbo. An assertion not explained?

May be I should have used a more apt word? How about abracadabra! That is exactly how December 25th becomes January 7th. Orthodox pixie dust!

This is exactly the kind of arrogant contempt for Tradition that I'm talking about. So basically, according to your infallible opinion, the Church was simply following mumbo-jumbo for over a thousand years of Her existence? I guess the Holy Spirit had better things to do than guide the Church in Truth? Or maybe, just maybe, it is your opinions about what the Church calendar should do that are mistaken.

Again, I can envision the Church in Her wisdom deciding to reform the calendar, but not as long as the attitude displayed by Carl prevails.

This is the kind of circular reasoning that pervades some of us: The received tradition is right because the Church is infallible because the Holy Spirit has always guides the Church in Truth. I have no problem in any Old Calendarist say that they accept the decisions of their bishops; believe it or not the New calendarists are in the same boat. You say that I display arrogant contempt for Tradition. On the contrary, I am displaying great reverence and fidelity to Tradition, as well as belief that the Lord is a greater authority than any of His people. The last part is a reference to His setting up the heavens and the laws governing our universe. It is my fidelity to the latter that causes me to criticize deviations from them. I also believe that we are an Apostolic Church and that it is important not to deviate from the decisions of the Early Church. When the Old calendarists celebrate Nativity in January and Pascha way past the first moon on or after March 21st, I find them deviating from Holy Tradition. I do apologize for using satire; I got frustrated with y'all as I usually do. I guess the best thing to do would be to emulate Santagrandad and retire.

[Mor Ephrem]

It so happens that March 21st falls on that date on both Gregorian and Revised Julian Calendars, but it "happens" 13 days later on the Julian Calendar. So, there are times when we can all celebrate Pascha at the same date (that is when the first moon is on or after March 21 +13 days), but not often.

What exactly distinguishes one calendar from the other, then?

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

It so happens that March 21st falls on that date on both Gregorian and Revised Julian Calendars, but it "happens" 13 days later on the Julian Calendar. So, there are times when we can all celebrate Pascha at the same date (that is when the first moon is on or after March 21 +13 days), but not often.

What exactly distinguishes one calendar from the other, then?

Very little. When Revised Julian started, it was synchronized with the Gregorian for the beginning but the leap year calculations are slightly different, leading to plus or minus 0 or 1 day difference through the year 6300, after which the differences will be plus or minus 1 or 2 days. The Revised Julian and Gregorian are to agree with each other evey year until year 2800.

[PeterTheAleut]

My parish is old calendar, my jurisdiction is mixed, about 60% old, 40% new. I concede that the manner in which the calendar issue has been addressed since the beginning of the 20th century is problematic. But...there is no argument that is persuasive in my view that this issue is one worthy of creating schism or dividing Christ's garments.

Would that the entire Church be on one or the other? Yes, that would be ideal - but I don't see it happening as too many decades have passed by since the beginning of the adoption of the revised calendar. In my mind, I respectfully disagree with the comment about rigid legalism as I would turn that charge around and apply it to those both within the historical Church and those outside of it who have made the calendar a defining mantra.

I don't think it's legalistic to love a thing of beauty, and the traditional Church calendar, in its marvelous unity and coherence, where the fixed and movable calendars interlock in manifold ways but always in harmony, is a beautiful thing. When I talk about "legalism", I mean a kind of cold-hearted, rationalistic mindset that thinks nothing of destroying something as beautiful as this in order to satisfy the letter of some law or other.

And, as others point out, no Old Calendarist ever created a schism over the calendar. What happened was that some Orthodox faithful could not in good conscience follow the liturgical disaster that was the new calendar, and then it was the innovators that cut them off and declared them to be in schism, thereby cutting themselves off. When the traditionalists then later declared the innovators to be in schism, in was only in response to and in acknowledgment of what the innovators had already declared themselves.

Jonathan, from which Old Calendarist sect did the "World" Orthodox churches schism themselves?

[Mor Ephrem]

It so happens that March 21st falls on that date on both Gregorian and Revised Julian Calendars, but it "happens" 13 days later on the Julian Calendar. So, there are times when we can all celebrate Pascha at the same date (that is when the first moon is on or after March 21 +13 days), but not often.

What exactly distinguishes one calendar from the other, then?

Very little. When Revised Julian started, it was synchronized with the Gregorian for the beginning but the leap year calculations are slightly different, leading to plus or minus 0 or 1 day difference through the year 6300, after which the differences will be plus or minus 1 or 2 days. The Revised Julian and Gregorian are to agree with each other evey year until year 2800.

If the difference is that negligible, why create the Revised Julian anyway?  Why not just adopt what the rest of the world was using? 

[Mockingbird]

As you may know, the problem with the Paschalion is that it is based on an ecumenical council's decision (Second?) to fix the Vernal Equinox on March 21st. That date corresponded nicely with the actual Vernal Equinox at that time, which is important because of the formula: Pascha to be celebrated on the fist Sunday after the first fool moon on or after the Vernal Equinox." Now, if the civic calendar starts to deviate from reality, one has to choose between (a) bringing the calendar up to date (as the Gregorian and Revised Julian have done) or (b) pretend that the old calendar still reflects reality. It so happens that March 21st falls on that date on both Gregorian and Revised Julian Calendars, but it "happens" 13 days later on the Julian Calendar. So, there are times when we can all celebrate Pascha at the same date (that is when the first moon is on or after March 21 +13 days), but not often.

To reiterate, if every Church used either the Revised Julian or the Gregorian calendars for both the Menologion and the Paschalion, we would all celebrate all of the appointed days of the liturgical calendar at the same time. At least in our and our great-great-great-great childrens' time for these two are bound to diverge sometime in the far future. Whereas, the real possibility exists that at that point in time, Nativity will be celebrated by the Old Calendar folks even further than the date on the Church liturgical calendar, for the Julian gets worse three days every four centuries.

Everything Carl wrote is true, but it is only part of the story.  The whole story is even worse.

The Solar drift in the Julian calendar is about three days in 400 years, as Carl noted.  But in addition, the lunar part of the Julian calendar (the paschalion) also has a drift.  The paschalion's formal lunar phase falls behind the average lunar phase at a rate of about 1 day in 300 years.  The error has accumulated to where, according to the Julian paschalion, a full moon now looks like this:



So that now, Julian Easter is not the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox, it is (approximately) the first Sunday after the 4-day waning gibbous moon after the first full moon on or after March 30th.  When Eastern and Western Easter are only a week apart, it is due to this lunar discrepancy, not to the discrepancy in the equinox.

The Milankovitch paschalion, if implemented, would compute the moon's motion more accurately than the Gregorian, which uses the average lunar motion.  The price would be more complex arithmetic for a resulting date of Easter that differs from the Gregorian only occasionally, as it will in 2019 and on a handful of other occasions in the 21st century.

[Mockingbird]

And when the latter was introduced here in England folks rioted, the Gordon Riots, demanding back their 11 days.

The calendar change was in the 1750s.  The Gordon riots were in the 1780s and had nothing to do with the change to the New Style. 

[Mockingbird]

My reason for wanting old calendar is that it would help get away from the commercialism of the holiday.  I love the fact that Pascha rarely matches up with western Easter.  Especially when they are weeks apart and you can celebrate without all the distraction.

Why not just have Easter in the Winter, then?  Or in the Fall?

[LBK]

My reason for wanting old calendar is that it would help get away from the commercialism of the holiday.  I love the fact that Pascha rarely matches up with western Easter.  Especially when they are weeks apart and you can celebrate without all the distraction.

Why not just have Easter in the Winter, then?  Or in the Fall?

Those who live in the southern hemisphere do indeed celebrate Easter in the fall. And Christmas in summer. 

[Maria]

My reason for wanting old calendar is that it would help get away from the commercialism of the holiday.  I love the fact that Pascha rarely matches up with western Easter.  Especially when they are weeks apart and you can celebrate without all the distraction.

Why not just have Easter in the Winter, then?  Or in the Fall?

Those who live in the southern hemisphere do indeed celebrate Easter in the fall. And Christmas in summer. 

And Christmas in Hawaii is always like summer.

[Mockingbird]

My reason for wanting old calendar is that it would help get away from the commercialism of the holiday.  I love the fact that Pascha rarely matches up with western Easter.  Especially when they are weeks apart and you can celebrate without all the distraction.

Why not just have Easter in the Winter, then?  Or in the Fall?

Those who live in the southern hemisphere do indeed celebrate Easter in the fall. And Christmas in summer. 

And Alexander Schmemann deemed that a less-than-ideal situation:

The understanding of feasts as historical commemorations which emerged little by little after Constantine meant a transformation of their initial meaning and, strange as it meay seem, divorced them from their living connection with real time.  Thus in Australia today Easter is celebrated in the fall and no one seems to find it odd, because for several centuries the Christian calendar was understood as a system of holy days to be observed within time, that is, among "profane" days, but without any special relationship to them.

But if the early Church adopted or, rather , simply kept as its own, the great Jewish festivals of Passover and Pentecost, it was not because they reminded it of Christ's resurrection and the coming of the Spirit (its remembrance was the very essence of the Church's whole life), but because they were, even before Christ, the announcement, the anticipation of that experience of time and of life in time, of which the Church was the manifestation and the fulfillment.  They were--to use another image--the "material" of a sacrament of time to be performed by the Church
--For the Life of the World, St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, Crestwood, New York, 1973, fourth (1988) printing, pp. 55-56.   (Italics in original.  Emphasis in boldface added.)

[LBK]

And Alexander Schmemann deemed that a less-than-ideal situation:

And what if he did? Does this mean that Christians who live in the southern hemisphere are somehow second-class? Nonsense.

[PeterTheAleut]

And Alexander Schmemann deemed that a less-than-ideal situation:

And what if he did? Does this mean that Christians who live in the southern hemisphere are somehow second-class? Nonsense.

Well, those in Australia can celebrate Pascha in October (after getting approval from an ecumenical council).

[Maria]

And Alexander Schmemann deemed that a less-than-ideal situation:

And what if he did? Does this mean that Christians who live in the southern hemisphere are somehow second-class? Nonsense.

No, you are just down under ... in hades.      

Just kidding.

[Mockingbird]

It is not unreasonable for Easter to be synchronized with the Spring season in the eastern Mediterranean, the land of Christianity's origins.  It would not be unreasonable, however, for those south of the Tropic of Capricorn to celebrate in their own Spring season.  The 3rd-8th century fathers who wrote about this issue were insistent, however, that in their lands the festival fall at the first full moon in their Spring season:

Many people are completely ignorant of both the first month and the fourteenth day of the first month.  For they often reckon that the month which according to the Jews is the last month of the preceding year (and still marks the end of winter) is the first month of the following year.  They do this in ignorance of the fact that Spring begins on 12 Kalends April [March 21st], which is Phamenoth 25, and among the Syrians of Antioch and the Macedonians Dystros 21, in the solar calendar.  This is the date that must be marked very carefully, lest anyone should erroneously place the fourteenth of the moon earlier and be mistaken about the Pascha, thinking that this fourteenth is the full moon of the first month.  For the month of the new is not to be identified with the twelfth month, it being still winter, as I have already said, when the new fruit has not yet ripened, nor is it possible for the sickle to be put to the standing grain.  For this is the chief sign of the first month designated by the divine Law.
--Theophilus of Alexandreia, Prolog to his Easter table submitted to the Emperor Theodosius, in Norman Russel, Theophilus of Alexandria, Routledge, London and New York, 2007, p. 83.

The time at which the feast is held is suitable, as it does not take place in the middle of winter, a gloomy time indeed.  But neither was it appropriate for it to be held in the middle of summer, when this sun is at its highest and burns its hottest, depriving those relaxing in the country of beauty.  Plus the hours of daylight are excessive, as they are double those of winter.  Nor is the season of autumn a pleasant thing to see, with the fields deprived and robbed of household fruits as though of their children.  And so, that leaves us with spring, the season of joy.  It gives guidance to every year, like [sic] the head does the body.  Just when the sun traverses the first segment of its path, the moon with its fullness of light acts in parallel and restores the course of the night to the brightness of day.  Spring brings an end to the terrifying thunderstorms of winter, brings an end to the long night intervals, and alters the water-tides.  The air is fresh and day dawns with clear skies.  The waters are cam for those at sea, and those traveling on land enjoy lovely weather.
--Eusebius, De Pascha, in Mark DelCogliano, "The Promotion of the Constantinian Agenda in Eusebius of Caesarea's On the Feast of Pascha, in Sabrina Inowlocki and Claudio Zamagni, eds., Reconsidering Eusebius:  Collected Papers on Literary, Historial, and Theological Issues, Brill, Leiden, 2011, pp. 60-61.

[LBK]

And none of them either lived in the southern hemisphere, nor had any idea that there was a habitable world much beyond theirs. The Mediterranean (Mesogheios) Sea was so named as it was believed by the ancients to be at the center of the world.

[Mockingbird]

And none of them either lived in the southern hemisphere, nor had any idea that there was a habitable world much beyond theirs. The Mediterranean (Mesogheios) Sea was so named as it was believed by the ancients to be at the center of the world.

That cuts both ways, and indeed it cuts better my way.  If the fathers were wrong about the calendar in any way, unless more appears it is easier to argue on this basis that the calendar should be changed, than to argue that is should be left unchanged.

[Jonathan Gress]

And none of them either lived in the southern hemisphere, nor had any idea that there was a habitable world much beyond theirs. The Mediterranean (Mesogheios) Sea was so named as it was believed by the ancients to be at the center of the world.

That cuts both ways, and indeed it cuts better my way.  If the fathers were wrong about the calendar in any way, unless more appears it is easier to argue on this basis that the calendar should be changed, than to argue that is should be left unchanged.

The thing is the Church didn't see fit to change the calendar for such a long time. I conclude from this that the Holy Spirit doesn't care that much about astronomical accuracy; it's the internal coherence of the calendar that counts. That doesn't mean accuracy is utterly unimportant; it's just less important than, say, expressing the unity of the Church through a unified calendar.

The calendar reform is like a failed nose job: vain to begin with, and making things worse to boot.

[Maria]

And none of them either lived in the southern hemisphere, nor had any idea that there was a habitable world much beyond theirs. The Mediterranean (Mesogheios) Sea was so named as it was believed by the ancients to be at the center of the world.

That cuts both ways, and indeed it cuts better my way.  If the fathers were wrong about the calendar in any way, unless more appears it is easier to argue on this basis that the calendar should be changed, than to argue that is should be left unchanged.

The thing is the Church didn't see fit to change the calendar for such a long time. I conclude from this that the Holy Spirit doesn't care that much about astronomical accuracy; it's the internal coherence of the calendar that counts. That doesn't mean accuracy is utterly unimportant; it's just less important than, say, expressing the unity of the Church through a unified calendar.

The calendar reform is like a failed nose job: vain to begin with, and making things worse to boot.

Excellent post, Jonathan

[Mockingbird]

The thing is the Church didn't see fit to change the calendar for such a long time. I conclude from this that the Holy Spirit doesn't care that much about astronomical accuracy.

That is a silly conclusion to draw.   Replacing the inaccurate Julian paschalion with a reasonably accurate one is less vital than, say, abolishing slavery was, but every necessary thing has to be done some time.  The sloth of past generations does not justify sloth in the present.  If past generations failed to do some good thing, the right conclusion is far less likely to be "we shouldn't do it, either", than it is to be "it's high time we started doing it."

[PeterTheAleut]

And none of them either lived in the southern hemisphere, nor had any idea that there was a habitable world much beyond theirs. The Mediterranean (Mesogheios) Sea was so named as it was believed by the ancients to be at the center of the world.

That cuts both ways, and indeed it cuts better my way.  If the fathers were wrong about the calendar in any way, unless more appears it is easier to argue on this basis that the calendar should be changed, than to argue that is should be left unchanged.

The thing is the Church didn't see fit to change the calendar for such a long time. I conclude from this that the Holy Spirit doesn't care that much about astronomical accuracy;

Well, the Church saw fit to change the calendar quite recently, so I conclude that the Holy Spirit does care about astronomical accuracy, especially since He helped create the heavens and the earth to give us the natural basis for astronomy.

it's the internal coherence of the calendar that counts.

And we can have an internally coherent calendar once again by completing the reform that we started.

That doesn't mean accuracy is utterly unimportant; it's just less important than, say, expressing the unity of the Church through a unified calendar.

A unified calendar that is accurate with the astronomical phenomena God created is even better yet. There's no need to set one against the other as you do.

The calendar reform is like a failed nose job: vain to begin with, and making things worse to boot.

To each his own, I guess.

[Jonathan Gress]

The thing is the Church didn't see fit to change the calendar for such a long time. I conclude from this that the Holy Spirit doesn't care that much about astronomical accuracy.

That is a silly conclusion to draw.   Replacing the inaccurate Julian paschalion with a reasonably accurate one is less vital than, say, abolishing slavery was, but every necessary thing has to be done some time.  The sloth of past generations does not justify sloth in the present.  If past generations failed to do some good thing, the right conclusion is far less likely to be "we shouldn't do it, either", than it is to be "it's high time we started doing it."

The Holy Spirit seemed fine with the institution of slavery; at least, St Paul accepted it as normal. There are probably better analogies that would serve your purpose.

[Jonathan Gress]

Well, the Church saw fit to change the calendar quite recently, so I conclude that the Holy Spirit does care about astronomical accuracy, especially since He helped create the heavens and the earth to give us the natural basis for astronomy.

Except the "Church" didn't change the calendar. Certain local churches did, but they don't constitute the entire Church.

And we can have an internally coherent calendar once again by completing the reform that we started.

The reform is only good if done by the whole Church. Any possible benefits from increased accuracy are lost if the unity of the Church is sacrificed.

A unified calendar that is accurate with the astronomical phenomena God created is even better yet. There's no need to set one against the other as you do.

Even accuracy is not worth the loss of unity when one part of the Church celebrates on a different calendar from the rest. I'm happy with a calendar reform that is executed properly, but an inaccurate but unified calendar is preferable to an accurate one that divides the Church. Worst of all is the current mess whereby part of the Church has partly reformed the calendar, so there is no internal coherence, part of the calendar is not even accurate, and there is no unity with the rest of the Church.

To each his own, I guess.

Indeed. Some people love their failed nose jobs.

[Maria]

Well, the Church saw fit to change the calendar quite recently, so I conclude that the Holy Spirit does care about astronomical accuracy, especially since He helped create the heavens and the earth to give us the natural basis for astronomy.

Except the "Church" didn't change the calendar. Certain local churches did, but they don't constitute the entire Church.

Exactly, when the EP pontificated the New Calendar in 1924, it was a unilateral decision not supported by the Patriarch of Alexandria and others. Thus, the entire church did not support the New Calendar and still does not. Russia constitutes the majority of Orthodox Christians, and they still do not follow the New Calendar.

[PeterTheAleut]

Well, the Church saw fit to change the calendar quite recently, so I conclude that the Holy Spirit does care about astronomical accuracy, especially since He helped create the heavens and the earth to give us the natural basis for astronomy.

Except the "Church" didn't change the calendar. Certain local churches did, but they don't constitute the entire Church.

Exactly, when the EP pontificated the New Calendar in 1924, it was a unilateral decision not supported by the Patriarch of Alexandria and others. Thus, the entire church did not support the New Calendar and still does not. Russia constitutes the majority of Orthodox Christians, and they still do not follow the New Calendar.

Just making a point, though, that sometimes following the status quo is NOT of the Holy Spirit.

[biro]

Well, the Church saw fit to change the calendar quite recently, so I conclude that the Holy Spirit does care about astronomical accuracy, especially since He helped create the heavens and the earth to give us the natural basis for astronomy.

Except the "Church" didn't change the calendar. Certain local churches did, but they don't constitute the entire Church.

Exactly, when the EP pontificated the New Calendar in 1924, it was a unilateral decision not supported by the Patriarch of Alexandria and others. Thus, the entire church did not support the New Calendar and still does not. Russia constitutes the majority of Orthodox Christians, and they still do not follow the New Calendar.

One Russia to rule them all, and in the darkness bind them.

[ilyazhito]

Why the Lord of The Rings reference? Anyway, Russia is not the only Old Calendar Church. It is also shared by Serbia, Jerusalem, Poland, and Mount Athos. In addition, the Bulgarian, Romanian, and Greek Churches have Old Calendar analogues, and hopefully reconciliation would be possible, especially if the above Churches adopted the Old Calendar.

[Dominika]

Why the Lord of The Rings reference? Anyway, Russia is not the only Old Calendar Church. It is also shared by Serbia, Jerusalem, Poland, and Mount Athos. In addition, the Bulgarian, Romanian, and Greek Churches have Old Calendar analogues, and hopefully reconciliation would be possible, especially if the above Churches adopted the Old Calendar.

Not by the whole Polish Church. There are some parishes and believers (including me) that still follow the new calendar, although in March this year there was taken by the bishops decision to take the old calendar as the main/official one. Now I'm very touchy regarding the calendar issue, as the decision has been purely political, and especially in my deanery, and moreover, especially at my parish, introduced in a very bad way.

[ilyazhito]

Since th Sunday of all Saints, the POC officially adopted the Julian calendar. That is why I included them on the list.

[Dominika]

Since th Sunday of all Saints, the POC officially adopted the Julian calendar. That is why I included them on the list.

I'm a member of the POC and I can tell you, that official announcments are one thing, and practice another thing. The "change" of the liturgical calendar in the POC is a very complicated issue, so, really, it's better not include our local Church into the list of the old calendar Churches

[Mockingbird]

The thing is the Church didn't see fit to change the calendar for such a long time. I conclude from this that the Holy Spirit doesn't care that much about astronomical accuracy.

That is a silly conclusion to draw.   Replacing the inaccurate Julian paschalion with a reasonably accurate one is less vital than, say, abolishing slavery was, but every necessary thing has to be done some time.  The sloth of past generations does not justify sloth in the present.  If past generations failed to do some good thing, the right conclusion is far less likely to be "we shouldn't do it, either", than it is to be "it's high time we started doing it."

The Holy Spirit seemed fine with the institution of slavery; at least, St Paul accepted it as normal. There are probably better analogies that would serve your purpose.

Are you saying that the abolition of slavery was wrong? 

[Jonathan Gress]

The thing is the Church didn't see fit to change the calendar for such a long time. I conclude from this that the Holy Spirit doesn't care that much about astronomical accuracy.

That is a silly conclusion to draw.   Replacing the inaccurate Julian paschalion with a reasonably accurate one is less vital than, say, abolishing slavery was, but every necessary thing has to be done some time.  The sloth of past generations does not justify sloth in the present.  If past generations failed to do some good thing, the right conclusion is far less likely to be "we shouldn't do it, either", than it is to be "it's high time we started doing it."

The Holy Spirit seemed fine with the institution of slavery; at least, St Paul accepted it as normal. There are probably better analogies that would serve your purpose.

Are you saying that the abolition of slavery was wrong? 

I'm objecting to your sanctimonious insistence on our superiority to our ancestors. I can get plenty of that and other left-wing cant on my university campus, thank you.

[biro]

Whenever I get a new calendar, I have a hard time choosing between puppies and kittens.

[Jonathan Gress]

Whenever I get a new calendar, I have a hard time choosing between puppies and kittens.

[Mockingbird]

...superiority...

Since you insist in introducing the word "superior" to this discussion -- a word I have not used above, so far as I recall -- I will gleefully state that the correct answer to an arithmetic sum is "superior" to all incorrect ones, and a good approximation is "superior" to a bad one.  The approximation of 3.0 for the value of the constant pi is in Holy Scripture itself (1 Kings 7.23) but notwithstanding the scriptural authority for this approximation I would prefer modern engineers and scientists to use a somewhat better approximation.

[Jonathan Gress]

...superiority...

Since you insist in introducing the word "superior" to this discussion -- a word I have not used above, so far as I recall -- I will gleefully state that the correct answer to an arithmetic sum is "superior" to all incorrect ones, and a good approximation is "superior" to a bad one.  The approximation of 3.0 for the value of the constant pi is in Holy Scripture itself (1 Kings 7.23) but notwithstanding the scriptural authority for this approximation I would prefer modern engineers and scientists to use a somewhat better approximation.

Your problem is you think you have the authority to tell the Church what calendar it should use. The thing is, only Church has the authority to decide what calendar suits its purpose. If you don't like it because it's inaccurate or whatever, that doesn't count for anything, since it's not about what makes you happy.

[Mockingbird]

...superiority...

Since you insist in introducing the word "superior" to this discussion -- a word I have not used above, so far as I recall -- I will gleefully state that the correct answer to an arithmetic sum is "superior" to all incorrect ones, and a good approximation is "superior" to a bad one.  The approximation of 3.0 for the value of the constant pi is in Holy Scripture itself (1 Kings 7.23) but notwithstanding the scriptural authority for this approximation I would prefer modern engineers and scientists to use a somewhat better approximation.

Your problem is you think you have the authority to tell the Church what calendar it should use. The thing is, only Church has the authority to decide what calendar suits its purpose. If you don't like it because it's inaccurate or whatever, that doesn't count for anything, since it's not about what makes you happy.

The moon is long past full when the Julian paschalion says it is full.  This remains true no matter who says it, and no matter how many interested parties try to force folk to deny it.

[Jonathan Gress]

...superiority...

Since you insist in introducing the word "superior" to this discussion -- a word I have not used above, so far as I recall -- I will gleefully state that the correct answer to an arithmetic sum is "superior" to all incorrect ones, and a good approximation is "superior" to a bad one.  The approximation of 3.0 for the value of the constant pi is in Holy Scripture itself (1 Kings 7.23) but notwithstanding the scriptural authority for this approximation I would prefer modern engineers and scientists to use a somewhat better approximation.

Your problem is you think you have the authority to tell the Church what calendar it should use. The thing is, only Church has the authority to decide what calendar suits its purpose. If you don't like it because it's inaccurate or whatever, that doesn't count for anything, since it's not about what makes you happy.

The moon is long past full when the Julian paschalion says it is full.  This remains true no matter who says it, and no matter how many interested parties try to force folk to deny it.

Sure, but who cares? Obviously you do, but why should the Church care?

[LBK]

Whenever I get a new calendar, I have a hard time choosing between puppies and kittens.

Kittens. Always. 

[PeterTheAleut]

...superiority...

Since you insist in introducing the word "superior" to this discussion -- a word I have not used above, so far as I recall -- I will gleefully state that the correct answer to an arithmetic sum is "superior" to all incorrect ones, and a good approximation is "superior" to a bad one.  The approximation of 3.0 for the value of the constant pi is in Holy Scripture itself (1 Kings 7.23) but notwithstanding the scriptural authority for this approximation I would prefer modern engineers and scientists to use a somewhat better approximation.

Your problem is you think you have the authority to tell the Church what calendar it should use. The thing is, only Church has the authority to decide what calendar suits its purpose. If you don't like it because it's inaccurate or whatever, that doesn't count for anything, since it's not about what makes you happy.

The moon is long past full when the Julian paschalion says it is full.  This remains true no matter who says it, and no matter how many interested parties try to force folk to deny it.

Sure, but who cares? Obviously you do, but why should the Church care?

Because God gave us the cycles of the sun, the moon, and the stars by which we are to regulate our own festal cycles, which apparently even the Nicene Fathers recognized better than you.