Topic: Old vs. New Calendar?

[PeterTheAleut]

"Did the iconoclasts not deride the Orthodox for considering the icons, that
is, boards and colours, as a dogma of the faith? Yet, who among the Orthodox of
today can deny the dogmatic significance of the icons ? Concerning this question,
Father Paul, a monk of the Holy Sepulcher, remarked most justly that a board,
before it has the countenance of our Saviour portrayed upon it, is but a common
piece of wood which we may burn up or destroy. From the moment, however, that
we paint the icon of Christ, the King of All, upon it, this wood becomes sanctified
and a source of sanctification for us, even though the wood be of inferior quality.
Likewise, the solar calendar, insofar as it is a calendar of days and months is, in
itself, nothing to be esteemed. But from the moment when the Holy Church placed
Her seal upon it and organized Her life upon this foundation, even though it has
become astronomically erroneous, still it remains holy! The calendar is no longer
Julian, but ecclesiastical, just as the board is no longer a simple piece of wood but
an icon."

From Fr Basil Sakkas, The Calendar Question

But that assumes that the Church actually put her stamp of approval on a specific calendar, an assertion that is itself under fire in this discussion.

[ialmisry]

It is an absolute blessing for those Orthodox who keep the Church's calendar, the Julian Calendar, to not have the Nativity Feast tainted with the heterodox and secular mishmash of Christmas.  Perhaps this is confusing to ecumenists who think that love can mend all things and heal the divided Church - but the fact remains the calendar if it does nothing else, serves to protect in some way the people of God from the spiritual malaise of heretics, who are fully outside of the Church and in need of being under her shelter.  

I very much agree with this. Most years, by accident more than choice, I end up celebrating Christmas on both calendars. This year because I went to the Holy Mountain. One gets the feeling of something pure and untainted standing there singing 'Today the Virgin' and 'Christ is Born' after all the hype associated with the 'secular mishmas of Christmas', however enjoyable, has passed away. Switching to the New Calendar was a great tragedy indeed.

In regard to the Russian Church, the 'Living' church schism failed, with their endorsement of married bishops, the Gregorian calendar, liturgical butchery etc.  The Russian Church, sanctified by the blood of millions of martyrs I suspect will not so easily give up her sacred traditions and fidelity to what Constantinople also adhered to with similar fidelity and tenacity and integrity - before the now virtually discredited Patriarch Meletios Metxakis's disastrous short sojourn on the throne changed the direction and spiritual culture of the Constantinople Patriarchate.

The Russian Church, sanctified by the blood of martyrs, already gave up many of her sacred traditions under Peter the Great. The idea of the glorious traditional Russian Church vs. the ailing and innovative Church of Constantinople is silly at best. Not that Metaxakis' reforms weren't disasterous, just that I have a lot of sympathy for those in the 17th century who thought Peter the Great to be the anti-Christ based on his utter disregard for Orthodox tradition, which he imposed on the Russian Church, and from which she still suffers the effects.

I agree fully with your criticism that the Church under Tsar Peter the Great underwent reforms that were at best inappropriate.  They impacted negatively right through to the restoration of the Patriarchate - and indeed to this day, because the Russian Church lost her freedom entirely under the Bolsheviks until the early 1990's.  It will continue to take time, as the Moscow Patriarchate heals, grows and expands, for the Petrine reforms to fully be repaired.  The main thing is that the restoration of the Patriarchate occurred. 

There are many things to lament.  The loss of the Orthodox New Rome of the Byzantine Empire was a loss that modern Orthodox today do not fully appreciate.  I have been reading Meyendorff's Byzantium and the Rise of Russia and have appreciated the closeness of the relationship of the Metropolitanate of Kiev and All Russia to the Ecumenical Patriarchate.  Of course in faith, the Russian closeness to the soul of Byzantium was maintained through these centuries with remarkable loyalty - and that of course included the Orthodox Calendar aka Julian calendar.

Nonsense.  The heretical Vatican and its minions in Poland and Lithuania were just as much on the Julian calendar as New Rome and the Rus'.

It is likewise a terrible loss of contemporary Orthodox monarchy and the calendars they used - the Imperial family of Russia, the Orthodox monarchy of Greece, Serbia, Rumania and Bulgaria. 

The last three used the Gregorian and revised Julian (which didn't stick in Serbia).

[ialmisry]

It is an absolute blessing for those Orthodox who keep the Church's calendar, the Julian Calendar, to not have the Nativity Feast tainted with the heterodox and secular mishmash of Christmas.

 

That is only for us who live among the heterodox.  In Russia, for instance, there is plenty of secular mishmash, transfered back from New Year's, going on January 7 (real time).

Perhaps this is confusing to ecumenists who think that love can mend all things and heal the divided Church - but the fact remains the calendar if it does nothing else, serves to protect in some way the people of God from the spiritual malaise of heretics, who are fully outside of the Church and in need of being under her shelter.

You mean like against the Bolsheviks?

In regard to the Russian Church, the 'Living' church schism failed, with their endorsement of married bishops, the Gregorian calendar, liturgical butchery etc.  The Russian Church, sanctified by the blood of millions of martyrs I suspect will not so easily give up her sacred traditions and fidelity to what Constantinople also adhered to with similar fidelity and tenacity and integrity - before the now virtually discredited Patriarch Meletios Metxakis's disastrous short sojourn on the throne changed the direction and spiritual culture of the Constantinople Patriarchate.

I think common sense rules in Russia, which numbers the days of the Old Calendar.  It won't implement the change as foolishly as others did, I imagine.

[Jonathan Gress]

"Did the iconoclasts not deride the Orthodox for considering the icons, that
is, boards and colours, as a dogma of the faith? Yet, who among the Orthodox of
today can deny the dogmatic significance of the icons ? Concerning this question,
Father Paul, a monk of the Holy Sepulcher, remarked most justly that a board,
before it has the countenance of our Saviour portrayed upon it, is but a common
piece of wood which we may burn up or destroy. From the moment, however, that
we paint the icon of Christ, the King of All, upon it, this wood becomes sanctified
and a source of sanctification for us, even though the wood be of inferior quality.
Likewise, the solar calendar, insofar as it is a calendar of days and months is, in
itself, nothing to be esteemed. But from the moment when the Holy Church placed
Her seal upon it and organized Her life upon this foundation, even though it has
become astronomically erroneous, still it remains holy! The calendar is no longer
Julian, but ecclesiastical, just as the board is no longer a simple piece of wood but
an icon."

From Fr Basil Sakkas, The Calendar Question

But that assumes that the Church actually put her stamp of approval on a specific calendar, an assertion that is itself under fire in this discussion.

The very fact that the calendar was used by the Church shows that it was sanctified. Everything that the Church uses becomes sanctified by Her. Is that not so?

[PeterTheAleut]

"Did the iconoclasts not deride the Orthodox for considering the icons, that
is, boards and colours, as a dogma of the faith? Yet, who among the Orthodox of
today can deny the dogmatic significance of the icons ? Concerning this question,
Father Paul, a monk of the Holy Sepulcher, remarked most justly that a board,
before it has the countenance of our Saviour portrayed upon it, is but a common
piece of wood which we may burn up or destroy. From the moment, however, that
we paint the icon of Christ, the King of All, upon it, this wood becomes sanctified
and a source of sanctification for us, even though the wood be of inferior quality.
Likewise, the solar calendar, insofar as it is a calendar of days and months is, in
itself, nothing to be esteemed. But from the moment when the Holy Church placed
Her seal upon it and organized Her life upon this foundation, even though it has
become astronomically erroneous, still it remains holy! The calendar is no longer
Julian, but ecclesiastical, just as the board is no longer a simple piece of wood but
an icon."

From Fr Basil Sakkas, The Calendar Question

But that assumes that the Church actually put her stamp of approval on a specific calendar, an assertion that is itself under fire in this discussion.

The very fact that the calendar was used by the Church shows that it was sanctified. Everything that the Church uses becomes sanctified by Her. Is that not so?

Let's say the Church uses multiple calendars at the same time--I'm not talking about the current situation. Which one does the Church sanctify?

[Jonathan Gress]

"Did the iconoclasts not deride the Orthodox for considering the icons, that
is, boards and colours, as a dogma of the faith? Yet, who among the Orthodox of
today can deny the dogmatic significance of the icons ? Concerning this question,
Father Paul, a monk of the Holy Sepulcher, remarked most justly that a board,
before it has the countenance of our Saviour portrayed upon it, is but a common
piece of wood which we may burn up or destroy. From the moment, however, that
we paint the icon of Christ, the King of All, upon it, this wood becomes sanctified
and a source of sanctification for us, even though the wood be of inferior quality.
Likewise, the solar calendar, insofar as it is a calendar of days and months is, in
itself, nothing to be esteemed. But from the moment when the Holy Church placed
Her seal upon it and organized Her life upon this foundation, even though it has
become astronomically erroneous, still it remains holy! The calendar is no longer
Julian, but ecclesiastical, just as the board is no longer a simple piece of wood but
an icon."

From Fr Basil Sakkas, The Calendar Question

But that assumes that the Church actually put her stamp of approval on a specific calendar, an assertion that is itself under fire in this discussion.

The very fact that the calendar was used by the Church shows that it was sanctified. Everything that the Church uses becomes sanctified by Her. Is that not so?

Let's say the Church uses multiple calendars at the same time--I'm not talking about the current situation. Which one does the Church sanctify?

It depends. If there are differences in, say, the date of Christmas between one Local Church and another, how did that difference arise? Is it because each church inherited different customary ways of celebrating that feast? Or is it because one church of its own accord departed from a previously common observance?

If the former, I would say both are sanctified by traditional use, unless by an Ecumenical decision one date is preferred for the whole Ecumenical Church (as happened in the First Ecumenical Council regarding Pascha), or if one of the two Local Churches decides to adopt the custom of the other, on the understanding that it is the other Local Church that preserves the traditions of the Apostles and Fathers more faithfully (as happened when Constantinople adopted the Roman date for Christmas).

If the latter, I would say the Local Church that innovates is guilty of abandoning the previous Ecumenical custom without authority and thereby entering schism. The 1848 Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs made it abundantly clear that the faithful must reject all innovations, by which is meant all self-willed departures from inherited tradition. Whenever we look back at earlier Church history, we should always interpret discrepancies in this light: did the Church ever actually tolerate self-will and disobedience to inherited tradition, or is it rather that the Church tolerates discrepancies that arise from ignorance and human weakness only?

[Irish Hermit]

As the verse from the funeral service says:  "Nothing stands immutable upon
the earth."

How many people know that we Old Calendarists already follow a Reformed Calendar?

The Julian Calendar is itself a reform of an older calendar.  Julius Caesar
was concerned that the calendar had actually run ahead of astronomical time
by about 2 months.  So he called in a chap Sosigenes in Alexandria and,
behold, a reform took place and the "Julian" Calendar came into being.

Fr Ambrose the Paleohimerologhite

[Jonathan Gress]

As the verse from the funeral service says:  "Nothing stands immutable upon
the earth."

How many people know that we Old Calendarists already follow a Reformed Calendar?

The Julian Calendar is itself a reform of an older calendar.  Julius Caesar
was concerned that the calendar had actually run ahead of astronomical time
by about 2 months.  So he called in a chap Sosigenes in Alexandria and,
behold, a reform took place and the "Julian" Calendar came into being.

Fr Ambrose the Paleohimerologhite

Thank you, Father, for that interesting fun fact. But what is the relevance? Didn't I already point out that what the Church uses, the Church sanctifies? Doesn't it follow from this that the preceding history of the development of the calendar, before adoption by the Church, is completely and utterly irrelevant to the fact of the sanctification of the Julian Calendar by centuries of use by the Universal Church? If you are trying to argue that previous changes to the calendar by pagan rulers somehow rules out the possibility of it being sanctified by Tradition, it would follow from your reasoning that using some inferior wood from a disreputable source rules out the possibility of it being sanctified by having a holy image painted on it.

[Irish Hermit]

As the verse from the funeral service says:  "Nothing stands immutable upon
the earth."

How many people know that we Old Calendarists already follow a Reformed Calendar?

The Julian Calendar is itself a reform of an older calendar.  Julius Caesar
was concerned that the calendar had actually run ahead of astronomical time
by about 2 months.  So he called in a chap Sosigenes in Alexandria and,
behold, a reform took place and the "Julian" Calendar came into being.

Fr Ambrose the Paleohimerologhite

Thank you, Father, for that interesting fun fact. But what is the relevance? Didn't I already point out that what the Church uses, the Church sanctifies? Doesn't it follow from this that the preceding history of the development of the calendar, before adoption by the Church, is completely and utterly irrelevant to the fact of the sanctification of the Julian Calendar by centuries of use by the Universal Church? If you are trying to argue that previous changes to the calendar by pagan rulers somehow rules out the possibility of it being sanctified by Tradition, it would follow from your reasoning that using some inferior wood from a disreputable source rules out the possibility of it being sanctified by having a holy image painted on it.

The Holy Churches have demonstrated that they do not find such argumentation compelling.

Of the 15 autocephalous Churches 11 have made the change to the Revised Julian Calendar.

Two of the remaining Churches, Russia and Serbia, have made it clear that they are open to a calendar change.

[Jonathan Gress]

As the verse from the funeral service says:  "Nothing stands immutable upon
the earth."

How many people know that we Old Calendarists already follow a Reformed Calendar?

The Julian Calendar is itself a reform of an older calendar.  Julius Caesar
was concerned that the calendar had actually run ahead of astronomical time
by about 2 months.  So he called in a chap Sosigenes in Alexandria and,
behold, a reform took place and the "Julian" Calendar came into being.

Fr Ambrose the Paleohimerologhite

Thank you, Father, for that interesting fun fact. But what is the relevance? Didn't I already point out that what the Church uses, the Church sanctifies? Doesn't it follow from this that the preceding history of the development of the calendar, before adoption by the Church, is completely and utterly irrelevant to the fact of the sanctification of the Julian Calendar by centuries of use by the Universal Church? If you are trying to argue that previous changes to the calendar by pagan rulers somehow rules out the possibility of it being sanctified by Tradition, it would follow from your reasoning that using some inferior wood from a disreputable source rules out the possibility of it being sanctified by having a holy image painted on it.

The Holy Churches have demonstrated that they do not find such argumentation compelling.

Of the 15 autocephalous Churches 11 have made the change to the Revised Julian Calendar.

Two of the remaining Churches, Russia and Serbia, have made it clear that they are open to a calendar change.

But then, given that the universal Church sanctified a calendar for all the Orthodox by centuries of tradition, that shows that the local churches which abandoned this tradition, without the consent of the whole Church, thereby forsook the Church. Your argument only works if I accept that the innovating churches remain part of the True Church, which I do not.

[Irish Hermit]

As the verse from the funeral service says:  "Nothing stands immutable upon
the earth."

How many people know that we Old Calendarists already follow a Reformed Calendar?

The Julian Calendar is itself a reform of an older calendar.  Julius Caesar
was concerned that the calendar had actually run ahead of astronomical time
by about 2 months.  So he called in a chap Sosigenes in Alexandria and,
behold, a reform took place and the "Julian" Calendar came into being.

Fr Ambrose the Paleohimerologhite

Thank you, Father, for that interesting fun fact. But what is the relevance? Didn't I already point out that what the Church uses, the Church sanctifies? Doesn't it follow from this that the preceding history of the development of the calendar, before adoption by the Church, is completely and utterly irrelevant to the fact of the sanctification of the Julian Calendar by centuries of use by the Universal Church? If you are trying to argue that previous changes to the calendar by pagan rulers somehow rules out the possibility of it being sanctified by Tradition, it would follow from your reasoning that using some inferior wood from a disreputable source rules out the possibility of it being sanctified by having a holy image painted on it.

The Holy Churches have demonstrated that they do not find such argumentation compelling.

Of the 15 autocephalous Churches 11 have made the change to the Revised Julian Calendar.

Two of the remaining Churches, Russia and Serbia, have made it clear that they are open to a calendar change.

But then, given that the universal Church sanctified a calendar for all the Orthodox by centuries of tradition, that shows that the local churches which abandoned this tradition, without the consent of the whole Church, thereby forsook the Church. Your argument only works if I accept that the innovating churches remain part of the True Church, which I do not.

This seems tantamount to saying that the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church except insofar as she continues in the form of the Church of America (HOTCA) and presumably in that Church alone since I believe you are not in communion with any other Church?

Is this your personal opinion only?  I seem to remember that Fr Anastasios, a priest in your Church, believes that the Churches of the ancient Patriarchates have true and authentic Mysteries.   That does not agree with your assessment of them, or do you believe that Churches outside the true Church may retain authentic Mysteries?

[Jonathan Gress]

Post modified because of my error - MK.

[PeterTheAleut]

As the verse from the funeral service says:  "Nothing stands immutable upon
the earth."

How many people know that we Old Calendarists already follow a Reformed Calendar?

The Julian Calendar is itself a reform of an older calendar.  Julius Caesar
was concerned that the calendar had actually run ahead of astronomical time
by about 2 months.  So he called in a chap Sosigenes in Alexandria and,
behold, a reform took place and the "Julian" Calendar came into being.

Fr Ambrose the Paleohimerologhite

Thank you, Father, for that interesting fun fact. But what is the relevance? Didn't I already point out that what the Church uses, the Church sanctifies? Doesn't it follow from this that the preceding history of the development of the calendar, before adoption by the Church, is completely and utterly irrelevant to the fact of the sanctification of the Julian Calendar by centuries of use by the Universal Church? If you are trying to argue that previous changes to the calendar by pagan rulers somehow rules out the possibility of it being sanctified by Tradition, it would follow from your reasoning that using some inferior wood from a disreputable source rules out the possibility of it being sanctified by having a holy image painted on it.

The Holy Churches have demonstrated that they do not find such argumentation compelling.

Of the 15 autocephalous Churches 11 have made the change to the Revised Julian Calendar.

Two of the remaining Churches, Russia and Serbia, have made it clear that they are open to a calendar change.

But then, given that the universal Church sanctified a calendar for all the Orthodox by centuries of tradition, that shows that the local churches which abandoned this tradition, without the consent of the whole Church, thereby forsook the Church.

You're introducing a new concept to this argument. Do you have evidence from Patristic sources to back up your assertion that whatever the Church uses she sanctifies by her use? I'm not going to let you say that this "truth" is self-evident.

You also seem to think that sanctified = all other possibilities excluded, which is also a new concept to this argument, an assertion that also begs the question.

I'm not sure that many Orthodox agree with you, Jonathan. It certainly appears that much of the Church does not agree with you, considering the number of Old Calendar churches that remain in communion with the New Calendar churches yet recognize your Old Calendarist church as schismatic.

Your argument only works if I accept that the innovating churches remain part of the True Church, which I do not.

Honestly, Jonathan, who cares about your own personal opinions on this matter? The only person your opinion has the power to send into schism is you.

[PeterTheAleut]

Post modified because of my error - MK.

What I had originally posted here is now no longer relevant.


You now know, why... - MK

[SubdeaconDavid]

As the verse from the funeral service says:  "Nothing stands immutable upon
the earth."

How many people know that we Old Calendarists already follow a Reformed Calendar?

The Julian Calendar is itself a reform of an older calendar.  Julius Caesar
was concerned that the calendar had actually run ahead of astronomical time
by about 2 months.  So he called in a chap Sosigenes in Alexandria and,
behold, a reform took place and the "Julian" Calendar came into being.

Fr Ambrose the Paleohimerologhite

Thank you, Father, for that interesting fun fact. But what is the relevance? Didn't I already point out that what the Church uses, the Church sanctifies? Doesn't it follow from this that the preceding history of the development of the calendar, before adoption by the Church, is completely and utterly irrelevant to the fact of the sanctification of the Julian Calendar by centuries of use by the Universal Church? If you are trying to argue that previous changes to the calendar by pagan rulers somehow rules out the possibility of it being sanctified by Tradition, it would follow from your reasoning that using some inferior wood from a disreputable source rules out the possibility of it being sanctified by having a holy image painted on it.

The Holy Churches have demonstrated that they do not find such argumentation compelling.

Of the 15 autocephalous Churches 11 have made the change to the Revised Julian Calendar.

Two of the remaining Churches, Russia and Serbia, have made it clear that they are open to a calendar change.

What is the point of such change?  It has achieved NOTHING positive for the Ecumenical patriarchate.  I daresay that Slavic orthodox would be more inclined to the EP if they used the ecclesiastical calendar and not the so-called Revised Julian New calendar.  The calendar change has taken so many of the Orthodox Churches - but thankfully NOT the majority of the laity away from the ecclesiastical calendar, as what, a sop to so-called science?  Might as well add Charles Darwin to the mix and consign Creation to the bin- and while we're at it throw off as laughable the dating of the world from Creation.  Five hundred years ago the Ecumenical Patriarchate was not using the Anno Domini dating either - it was dating from the year of Creation, (5509 years before the birth of Our Lord) until 1453 and Russia used the Byzantine calendar until the westernizing party won in 1700.  In my view the Orthodox should continue to use the Julian Calendar because there is ZERO benefir to any version of the New.  I am talking spiritual benefit - not the so-called benefit of being allegedly more aligned with secular science.

[PeterTheAleut]

As the verse from the funeral service says:  "Nothing stands immutable upon
the earth."

How many people know that we Old Calendarists already follow a Reformed Calendar?

The Julian Calendar is itself a reform of an older calendar.  Julius Caesar
was concerned that the calendar had actually run ahead of astronomical time
by about 2 months.  So he called in a chap Sosigenes in Alexandria and,
behold, a reform took place and the "Julian" Calendar came into being.

Fr Ambrose the Paleohimerologhite

Thank you, Father, for that interesting fun fact. But what is the relevance? Didn't I already point out that what the Church uses, the Church sanctifies? Doesn't it follow from this that the preceding history of the development of the calendar, before adoption by the Church, is completely and utterly irrelevant to the fact of the sanctification of the Julian Calendar by centuries of use by the Universal Church? If you are trying to argue that previous changes to the calendar by pagan rulers somehow rules out the possibility of it being sanctified by Tradition, it would follow from your reasoning that using some inferior wood from a disreputable source rules out the possibility of it being sanctified by having a holy image painted on it.

The Holy Churches have demonstrated that they do not find such argumentation compelling.

Of the 15 autocephalous Churches 11 have made the change to the Revised Julian Calendar.

Two of the remaining Churches, Russia and Serbia, have made it clear that they are open to a calendar change.

What is the point of such change?  It has achieved NOTHING positive for the Ecumenical patriarchate.  I daresay that Slavic orthodox would be more inclined to the EP if they used the ecclesiastical calendar and not the so-called Revised Julian New calendar.  The calendar change has taken so many of the Orthodox Churches - but thankfully NOT the majority of the laity away from the ecclesiastical calendar, as what, a sop to so-called science?  Might as well add Charles Darwin to the mix and consign Creation to the bin- and while we're at it throw off as laughable the dating of the world from Creation.  Five hundred years ago the Ecumenical Patriarchate was not using the Anno Domini dating either - it was dating from the year of Creation, (5509 years before the birth of Our Lord) until 1453 and Russia used the Byzantine calendar until the westernizing party won in 1700.  In my view the Orthodox should continue to use the Julian Calendar because there is ZERO benefir to any version of the New.  I am talking spiritual benefit - not the so-called benefit of being allegedly more aligned with secular science.

What reason do you give us that we should take your pontification on this matter seriously? False appeal to the majority... Demonization of science... Frequent slippery slope arguments... False dichotomies... Your arguments contain a lot of emotion, but zero logic. So why should we take you seriously?

[mike]

What is the point of such change?  It has achieved NOTHING positive for the Ecumenical patriarchate.  I daresay that Slavic orthodox would be more inclined to the EP if they used the ecclesiastical calendar and not the so-called Revised Julian New calendar.

You mean Bulgarians, Czechs and Poles?

[witega]

But then, given that the universal Church sanctified a calendar for all the Orthodox by centuries of tradition, that shows that the local churches which abandoned this tradition, without the consent of the whole Church, thereby forsook the Church.

You're introducing a new concept to this argument. Do you have evidence from Patristic sources to back up your assertion that whatever the Church uses she sanctifies by her use? I'm not going to let you say that this "truth" is self-evident.

You also seem to think that sanctified = all other possibilities excluded, which is also a new concept to this argument, an assertion that also begs the question.

Even if Jonathan provides some Patristic evidence for this (which I'm fairly certain he could do if he was actually willing to go to the Fathers, something he's been reluctant to do so far), the import would be the opposite of what he claims it is.

St. Luke sanctified wood and paint by making them into Holy Icons of Our Lord and the Theotokos (I don't recall if St. John of Damascus specifically mentions St Luke, but that the making of icons is a sanctification of the materials used in their creation is an important part of his defense of Icons). Does the Church go 'well *this* wood and paint have been sanctified--therefore we shouldn't go making any other icons.'? Christ Himself sanctified the River Jordan by His baptism. Does the Church go 'well, this river's been sanctified. so we don't need to go sanctifying any other water.'? The Apostles themselves were sanctified by the Holy Spirit. Do we go 'well, those people were sanctified. no point to trying to sanctify anyone else'?

Obviously the answer is no. In fact, the Church eagerly seeks out opportunities to sanctify new people, places, and things. The Fathers sanctified the Julian Calendar (and the Coptic Calendar, and the Armenian Calendar, and the Macedonian Calendar) by pinning Feast days and saints' days to the calendrical dates. But in the Tradition of the Church, that's not a reason to *stop*. That's rather a reason to go out and sanctify new calendars as they become available. The phronema of the Church is not defensive, not 'let's circle the wagons around our little fire of sanctity and keep out the rest of the world.' The phronema of the Church is expansive. It is not our job to 'preserve' the gift we have been given; it is to *proclaim* that gift. The goal of the Church is to redeem all creation; not just what has been redeemed up to now. It was the unprofitable servant who buried his one talent (like Old Calendrists and their one calendar) and kept it inviolate until the return of the Master. The good and faithful servants took their talents out into the world and *increased* them to be returned to the honor of the Master.

[Jonathan Gress]

Of the doctrine and preaching which are preserved in the
Church, some we possess derived from written doctrine, others
we have received delivered to us “in secret” (en mystyrio) by
the tradition of the Apostles; and both of these have the same
validity and force as regards piety. And these no one contradicts
-- no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the
institutions of the Church. For were we to attempt to reject such
customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the
importance they possess is small, we would unintentionally
harm the Gospel in its vitals; or, rather, would make our
preaching mere words and nothing more (St. Basil, On the Holy
Spirit 27:66; also Canon 91 of St. Basil the Great).

This is to show that the demands that we provide some proof-text countering every assertion made against the traditional calendar are contrary to the spirit of the Fathers. This is not to say that quotes from written authority aren't useful or relevant, but rather than the premise of your question, that somehow an unwritten tradition, say the calendar, doesn't "count" unless we can find it written down somewhere that it does, is an un-Orthodox premise. In other words, there doesn't need to be a notarized seal on the calendar to show that the Church has sanctified it. We only need to know that it was universally observed.

But for written authority that indeed we should hold fast to all traditions given to us, Fr Basil also provides the following:

In his commentary on the 31st Apostolic Canon, St. Nicodemus of the Holy
Mountain speaks of the relation which exists between the Faith and Tradition:
“Even as the ecclesiastical traditions have need of the Faith, so also is the Faith in
need of the ecclesiastical traditions; and these two cannot be separated one from
another.”

And this:

St. Gregory of Nyssa says: “All men are persuaded that the customs, dogmas
and traditions which have prevailed are venerable and worthy of reverence because
of their antiquity.” The 8th act of the Seventh Ecumenical Council proclaims the
following anathema: “Let those that transgress a written or unwritten Tradition be
anathema.” The Synodicon of Orthodoxy proclaims the following anathema: “To
all things outside of the Ecclesiastical Tradition that have been introduced as
innovations…or that hereafter shall be enacted anathema, anathema, anathema.”

This is how I believe that everything the Church uses She sanctifies. The Church is the Body of Christ, is She not? Didn't everything that Christ touched become sanctified by His touch? Didn't we become sanctified when we accepted Baptism? If we later lost grace, it was by our own will, and not because Grace has some expiration date. So the wood of the Cross on which Christ hung remains holy even today and until the end of the world.

Witega's analogy of the icon is not appropriate. The analogy to painting a new icon is glorifying a new saint and adding a new celebration to the calendar, without disturbing the already-established cycle of feasts. The iconographic analogy to the New Calendar is taking St Luke's icon and chopping it to pieces with an axe.

Regarding PtA question about sanctification and immutability, I believe the Church, meaning the entire Catholic Church, can certainly change the calendar. Being sanctified does not mean immutable. It does mean "only mutable by the proper authority", i.e. change brought about by the Holy Spirit, not the devil. My whole premise, and that of Fr Basil and the rest of the True Orthodox, is that the Church did not change the calendar in 1924. Certain members of the Church, in defiance of universal practice and tradition, chose to proceed without the consent of the whole Church and change it. If certain other Local Churches over time agreed with the Greek State Church in this matter, that does not make the process an Ecumenical one. It only means they themselves followed the State Church of Greece into schism. In 1924 the conscience of the faithful in Greece, those who continued to celebrate on the patristic calendar, did not permit them to follow their local jurisdiction into schism from the Catholic Church by accepting this unilateral and anti-Catholic calendar change.

Finally, of course, the strongest evidence that the New Calendar churches are the schismatic ones is the fact that it is they, not the True Orthodox, who have fallen into the Ecumenist heresy. We know that Ecumenism was the motivating spirit behind the calendar change already at the beginning, with the EP's encyclical of 1920, and as part of the discussion points drawn up by Pat Meletios for his 1923 congress. But if anyone were to claim that this heretical motivation was somehow not a significant one at the time, we can only watch the steady encroachment of Ecumenism in all areas since then as evidence that in fact this was the most important factor.

[Jonathan Gress]

@witega:

Would you care to provide Patristic proof-texts supporting your claim that it is legitimate and consistent with Church doctrine to break with inherited traditions, such as the patristic calendar? I don't mean historical evidence that at certain times in the past different local churches happened to observe festivals on different dates. I also don't mean minor variations that creep in owing to forgetfulness. I mean when one part of the Church decides to break with the common tradition in full consciousness of the fact that it is a common tradition, as happened in Greece in 1924.

[Jonathan Gress]

More from Fr Basil:

Nevertheless, Nectarius, the Patriarch of Jerusalem (Rebuttal, p. 214) says
expressly: “We have not accepted the papal decrees nor shall we accept them. Be
they forged or falsified or genuine, for us they are null and void.” Dositheus, also a
Patriarch of Jerusalem, likewise points out: “Although the Pope is a heretic -- in
spite of the fact that he is flesh and like the grass, and that his glory is like that of
the flower of the grass which falls when the grass is dried up -- nonetheless, he
prides himself in having surpassed the knowledge of God in fashioning.and
making his own times and seasons and measurements of times besides those
prescribed by the Lord; and thus he propounds and establishes new reckonings and
new Paschalia against the teaching and Testament of the Lord” (Tome of Joy, p.
495).

Pat Dositheus certainly seems to think that all parts of the Gregorian calendar are anathema, not just the Paschalion. Hence, "new reckonings and new Paschalia."

I think a way of thinking about the whole "Revised Julian" calendar canard is like this. A spade is a spade, whether you call it a spoon or a fork or whatever you like. It remains a spade. If you make a little dent in it, or change its wooden handle for a silver one, perhaps you can call it a "revised spade", but certainly not a "revised spoon". I think it's absurd that New Calendarists think they can get away with these word games and pretend that the calendar they adopted is not the one under anathema, simply by changing its name. Sure, according to the revised calculations, discrepancies with the Gregorian dates will begin to occur many centuries from now. But that only means that the New Calendar may possibly not be under anathema in 2800. For the present, it looks like the Gregorian, it walks like the Gregorian, it's under anathema like the Gregorian.

And one more thing: PtA calls me to account for offering my own opinions on Church teaching as if they're worthless in themselves. Yet somehow folks like witega get away with asserting that the New Calendar, in their private estimation, count as examples of the Church sanctifying new things, rather than innovators destroying old ones. Is there some reason why he doesn't have to offer patristic evidence that his interpretation is correct?

[Hermogenes]

I have to keep reminding myself that we are talking about calendars here, not  deep issues that threaten my eternal soul.

[LBK]

nonetheless, he
prides himself in having surpassed the knowledge of God in fashioning.and
making his own times and seasons and measurements of times besides those
prescribed by the Lord; and thus he propounds and establishes new reckonings and
new Paschalia against the teaching and Testament of the Lord” (Tome of Joy, p.
495).

Pat Dositheus certainly seems to think that all parts of the Gregorian calendar are anathema, not just the Paschalion. Hence, "new reckonings and new Paschalia."

Ah, the same old shibboleth. Last time I checked, all the canonical churches, OC and NC, have the same Paschalion (only Finland is an unfortunate and unique exception). Please, Jonathan, it's embarrassing and unedifying to distort the sayings of the Fathers to suit your misguided agenda.

[Jonathan Gress]

nonetheless, he
prides himself in having surpassed the knowledge of God in fashioning.and
making his own times and seasons and measurements of times besides those
prescribed by the Lord; and thus he propounds and establishes new reckonings and
new Paschalia against the teaching and Testament of the Lord” (Tome of Joy, p.
495).

Pat Dositheus certainly seems to think that all parts of the Gregorian calendar are anathema, not just the Paschalion. Hence, "new reckonings and new Paschalia."

Ah, the same old shibboleth. Last time I checked, all the canonical churches, OC and NC, have the same Paschalion (only Finland is an unfortunate and unique exception). Please, Jonathan, it's embarrassing and unedifying to distort the sayings of the Fathers to suit your misguided agenda.

You missed the other part about "new reckonings", which are obviously distinguished from Paschalia. What do you think they refer to?

[LBK]

nonetheless, he
prides himself in having surpassed the knowledge of God in fashioning.and
making his own times and seasons and measurements of times besides those
prescribed by the Lord; and thus he propounds and establishes new reckonings and
new Paschalia against the teaching and Testament of the Lord” (Tome of Joy, p.
495).

Pat Dositheus certainly seems to think that all parts of the Gregorian calendar are anathema, not just the Paschalion. Hence, "new reckonings and new Paschalia."

Ah, the same old shibboleth. Last time I checked, all the canonical churches, OC and NC, have the same Paschalion (only Finland is an unfortunate and unique exception). Please, Jonathan, it's embarrassing and unedifying to distort the sayings of the Fathers to suit your misguided agenda.

You missed the other part about "new reckonings", which are obviously distinguished from Paschalia. What do you think they refer to?

New reckonings? Post-schism saints and feasts. Try again, Jonathan.

[Jonathan Gress]

nonetheless, he
prides himself in having surpassed the knowledge of God in fashioning.and
making his own times and seasons and measurements of times besides those
prescribed by the Lord; and thus he propounds and establishes new reckonings and
new Paschalia against the teaching and Testament of the Lord” (Tome of Joy, p.
495).

Pat Dositheus certainly seems to think that all parts of the Gregorian calendar are anathema, not just the Paschalion. Hence, "new reckonings and new Paschalia."

Ah, the same old shibboleth. Last time I checked, all the canonical churches, OC and NC, have the same Paschalion (only Finland is an unfortunate and unique exception). Please, Jonathan, it's embarrassing and unedifying to distort the sayings of the Fathers to suit your misguided agenda.

You missed the other part about "new reckonings", which are obviously distinguished from Paschalia. What do you think they refer to?

New reckonings? Post-schism saints and feasts. Try again, Jonathan.

New reckonings? He's not talking about the Pope adding new feasts to the old reckonings. He's talking about completely new reckonings, i.e. a new calendar. You can do better than that, LBK.

[Irish Hermit]

As the verse from the funeral service says:  "Nothing stands immutable upon
the earth."

How many people know that we Old Calendarists already follow a Reformed Calendar?

The Julian Calendar is itself a reform of an older calendar.  Julius Caesar
was concerned that the calendar had actually run ahead of astronomical time
by about 2 months.  So he called in a chap Sosigenes in Alexandria and,
behold, a reform took place and the "Julian" Calendar came into being.

Fr Ambrose the Paleohimerologhite

Thank you, Father, for that interesting fun fact. But what is the relevance? Didn't I already point out that what the Church uses, the Church sanctifies? Doesn't it follow from this that the preceding history of the development of the calendar, before adoption by the Church, is completely and utterly irrelevant to the fact of the sanctification of the Julian Calendar by centuries of use by the Universal Church? If you are trying to argue that previous changes to the calendar by pagan rulers somehow rules out the possibility of it being sanctified by Tradition, it would follow from your reasoning that using some inferior wood from a disreputable source rules out the possibility of it being sanctified by having a holy image painted on it.

The Holy Churches have demonstrated that they do not find such argumentation compelling.

Of the 15 autocephalous Churches 11 have made the change to the Revised Julian Calendar.

Two of the remaining Churches, Russia and Serbia, have made it clear that they are open to a calendar change.

What is the point of such change? 

Truth is the point of such change.

I cannot agree that there is no value to using an accurate calendar in accord with the universe as God has created it.

The Church is, in the words of Saint Paul the "Pillar and Ground of Truth"  (1 Timothy 3:15.)  It cannot make that claim with full conviction if it clings to a false and outmoded Calendar.

Adapting the calendar so that it is as accurately as possibly in synchronisation with the universe as the Almighty intended it to function, in a slightly wobbly way,  is NOT creating a new calendar.  It is merely correcting what have over time become errors in the previous version.  The calendar remains the same but it has been corrected. Some might say that as the Pillar and Ground of Truth the Church is obliged to adhere to truth in all things and that includes a true and accurate calendar.

The other issues mentioned - of ecumenism, of noisy Christmas parties, are not relevant to the truth and accuracy of God's universe.   Anyway, one finds the same things occurring in both the Russian and Serbian Churches which observe the Old Calendar.  So the Old Calendar is no protection against ecumenism and pagan revelry..

[LBK]

making his own times and seasons and measurements of times besides those
prescribed by the Lord

"Times and seasons prescribed by the Lord" sounds like feasts of the Church to me, Jonathan. Or are you suggesting Christ Himself decreed the Julian calendar as the only possible way of marking Church time? If so, show us the evidence.

[PeterTheAleut]

Of the doctrine and preaching which are preserved in the
Church, some we possess derived from written doctrine, others
we have received delivered to us “in secret” (en mystyrio) by
the tradition of the Apostles; and both of these have the same
validity and force as regards piety. And these no one contradicts
-- no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the
institutions of the Church. For were we to attempt to reject such
customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the
importance they possess is small, we would unintentionally
harm the Gospel in its vitals; or, rather, would make our
preaching mere words and nothing more (St. Basil, On the Holy
Spirit 27:66; also Canon 91 of St. Basil the Great).

This is to show that the demands that we provide some proof-text countering every assertion made against the traditional calendar are contrary to the spirit of the Fathers. This is not to say that quotes from written authority aren't useful or relevant, but rather than the premise of your question, that somehow an unwritten tradition, say the calendar, doesn't "count" unless we can find it written down somewhere that it does, is an un-Orthodox premise. In other words, there doesn't need to be a notarized seal on the calendar to show that the Church has sanctified it. We only need to know that it was universally observed.

But I'm not looking for Patristic evidence of the sanctity of an unwritten tradition. I'm looking for Patristic evidence to support your claims that whatever the Church uses she sanctifies by her use.

Regarding PtA question about sanctification and immutability, I believe the Church, meaning the entire Catholic Church, can certainly change the calendar. Being sanctified does not mean immutable. It does mean "only mutable by the proper authority", i.e. change brought about by the Holy Spirit, not the devil. My whole premise, and that of Fr Basil and the rest of the True Orthodox, is that the Church did not change the calendar in 1924. Certain members of the Church, in defiance of universal practice and tradition, chose to proceed without the consent of the whole Church and change it. If certain other Local Churches over time agreed with the Greek State Church in this matter, that does not make the process an Ecumenical one. It only means they themselves followed the State Church of Greece into schism. In 1924 the conscience of the faithful in Greece, those who continued to celebrate on the patristic calendar, did not permit them to follow their local jurisdiction into schism from the Catholic Church by accepting this unilateral and anti-Catholic calendar change.

Then why do so many Old Calendar churches, such as the Jerusalem Patriarchate, maintain communion with the New Calendar churches and NOT with your church? If such an ancient Patriarchate that continues to this day to follow the "patristic" calendar doesn't see the adoption of the New Calendar as cause for schism, what does that say about your rebellion against legitimate church authority?

Finally, of course, the strongest evidence that the New Calendar churches are the schismatic ones is the fact that it is they, not the True Orthodox, who have fallen into the Ecumenist heresy. We know that Ecumenism was the motivating spirit behind the calendar change already at the beginning, with the EP's encyclical of 1920, and as part of the discussion points drawn up by Pat Meletios for his 1923 congress. But if anyone were to claim that this heretical motivation was somehow not a significant one at the time, we can only watch the steady encroachment of Ecumenism in all areas since then as evidence that in fact this was the most important factor.

I think Irish Hermit has already addressed this canard by pointing out how even some Old Calendar churches are embracing "ecumenism", so I won't belabor that point any more than he already has.

[searn77]

Of the doctrine and preaching which are preserved in the
Church, some we possess derived from written doctrine, others
we have received delivered to us “in secret” (en mystyrio) by
the tradition of the Apostles; and both of these have the same
validity and force as regards piety. And these no one contradicts
-- no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the
institutions of the Church. For were we to attempt to reject such
customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the
importance they possess is small, we would unintentionally
harm the Gospel in its vitals; or, rather, would make our
preaching mere words and nothing more (St. Basil, On the Holy
Spirit 27:66; also Canon 91 of St. Basil the Great).

This is to show that the demands that we provide some proof-text countering every assertion made against the traditional calendar are contrary to the spirit of the Fathers. This is not to say that quotes from written authority aren't useful or relevant, but rather than the premise of your question, that somehow an unwritten tradition, say the calendar, doesn't "count" unless we can find it written down somewhere that it does, is an un-Orthodox premise. In other words, there doesn't need to be a notarized seal on the calendar to show that the Church has sanctified it. We only need to know that it was universally observed.

But I'm not looking for Patristic evidence of the sanctity of an unwritten tradition. I'm looking for Patristic evidence to support your claims that whatever the Church uses she sanctifies by her use.

Regarding PtA question about sanctification and immutability, I believe the Church, meaning the entire Catholic Church, can certainly change the calendar. Being sanctified does not mean immutable. It does mean "only mutable by the proper authority", i.e. change brought about by the Holy Spirit, not the devil. My whole premise, and that of Fr Basil and the rest of the True Orthodox, is that the Church did not change the calendar in 1924. Certain members of the Church, in defiance of universal practice and tradition, chose to proceed without the consent of the whole Church and change it. If certain other Local Churches over time agreed with the Greek State Church in this matter, that does not make the process an Ecumenical one. It only means they themselves followed the State Church of Greece into schism. In 1924 the conscience of the faithful in Greece, those who continued to celebrate on the patristic calendar, did not permit them to follow their local jurisdiction into schism from the Catholic Church by accepting this unilateral and anti-Catholic calendar change.

Then why do so many Old Calendar churches, such as the Jerusalem Patriarchate, maintain communion with the New Calendar churches and NOT with your church? If such an ancient Patriarchate that continues to this day to follow the "patristic" calendar doesn't see the adoption of the New Calendar as cause for schism, what does that say about your rebellion against legitimate church authority?

Finally, of course, the strongest evidence that the New Calendar churches are the schismatic ones is the fact that it is they, not the True Orthodox, who have fallen into the Ecumenist heresy. We know that Ecumenism was the motivating spirit behind the calendar change already at the beginning, with the EP's encyclical of 1920, and as part of the discussion points drawn up by Pat Meletios for his 1923 congress. But if anyone were to claim that this heretical motivation was somehow not a significant one at the time, we can only watch the steady encroachment of Ecumenism in all areas since then as evidence that in fact this was the most important factor.

I think Irish Hermit has already addressed this canard by pointing out how even some Old Calendar churches are embracing "ecumenism", so I won't belabor that point any more than he already has.

Doesn't this kind of prove Jonathan's point? The Old Calendar churches who remained in communion with the New Calendar churches have now embraced ecumenism, but the Old Calendar churches who broke communion with the New Calendar churches have not embraced ecumenism.

[Ionnis]

I have a question for those who have walled themselves off from the "World Orthodox":  What Old Calendarist group is the true Church? Is it the Holy Synod in Resistance? Is it HOCNA? Or maybe HOTCA? ROCIE? GOCA?! The Milan Synod?!!!

[PeterTheAleut]

Of the doctrine and preaching which are preserved in the
Church, some we possess derived from written doctrine, others
we have received delivered to us “in secret” (en mystyrio) by
the tradition of the Apostles; and both of these have the same
validity and force as regards piety. And these no one contradicts
-- no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the
institutions of the Church. For were we to attempt to reject such
customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the
importance they possess is small, we would unintentionally
harm the Gospel in its vitals; or, rather, would make our
preaching mere words and nothing more (St. Basil, On the Holy
Spirit 27:66; also Canon 91 of St. Basil the Great).

This is to show that the demands that we provide some proof-text countering every assertion made against the traditional calendar are contrary to the spirit of the Fathers. This is not to say that quotes from written authority aren't useful or relevant, but rather than the premise of your question, that somehow an unwritten tradition, say the calendar, doesn't "count" unless we can find it written down somewhere that it does, is an un-Orthodox premise. In other words, there doesn't need to be a notarized seal on the calendar to show that the Church has sanctified it. We only need to know that it was universally observed.

But I'm not looking for Patristic evidence of the sanctity of an unwritten tradition. I'm looking for Patristic evidence to support your claims that whatever the Church uses she sanctifies by her use.

Regarding PtA question about sanctification and immutability, I believe the Church, meaning the entire Catholic Church, can certainly change the calendar. Being sanctified does not mean immutable. It does mean "only mutable by the proper authority", i.e. change brought about by the Holy Spirit, not the devil. My whole premise, and that of Fr Basil and the rest of the True Orthodox, is that the Church did not change the calendar in 1924. Certain members of the Church, in defiance of universal practice and tradition, chose to proceed without the consent of the whole Church and change it. If certain other Local Churches over time agreed with the Greek State Church in this matter, that does not make the process an Ecumenical one. It only means they themselves followed the State Church of Greece into schism. In 1924 the conscience of the faithful in Greece, those who continued to celebrate on the patristic calendar, did not permit them to follow their local jurisdiction into schism from the Catholic Church by accepting this unilateral and anti-Catholic calendar change.

Then why do so many Old Calendar churches, such as the Jerusalem Patriarchate, maintain communion with the New Calendar churches and NOT with your church? If such an ancient Patriarchate that continues to this day to follow the "patristic" calendar doesn't see the adoption of the New Calendar as cause for schism, what does that say about your rebellion against legitimate church authority?

Finally, of course, the strongest evidence that the New Calendar churches are the schismatic ones is the fact that it is they, not the True Orthodox, who have fallen into the Ecumenist heresy. We know that Ecumenism was the motivating spirit behind the calendar change already at the beginning, with the EP's encyclical of 1920, and as part of the discussion points drawn up by Pat Meletios for his 1923 congress. But if anyone were to claim that this heretical motivation was somehow not a significant one at the time, we can only watch the steady encroachment of Ecumenism in all areas since then as evidence that in fact this was the most important factor.

I think Irish Hermit has already addressed this canard by pointing out how even some Old Calendar churches are embracing "ecumenism", so I won't belabor that point any more than he already has.

Doesn't this kind of prove Jonathan's point? The Old Calendar churches who remained in communion with the New Calendar churches have now embraced ecumenism, but the Old Calendar churches who broke communion with the New Calendar churches have not embraced ecumenism.

No, it doesn't prove Jonathan's point that New Calendarism and ecumenism are intrinsically intertwined.

[Irish Hermit]

Doesn't this kind of prove Jonathan's point? The Old Calendarist churches who remained in communion with the New Calendar churches have now embraced ecumenism, but the Old Calendar churches who broke communion with the New Calendar churches have not embraced ecumenism.

The larger and more important and stable of the Old Calendar Churches, Greece, Bulgaria and Romania,  remained in communion with the New Calendar Churches of Orthodoxy until 2007.  They did this by being in communion with the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad which was in communion with New Calendar Churches.  It never seemed to bother them that they were in communion with New Calendarists right up until 4 years ago.

[LBK]

Doesn't this kind of prove Jonathan's point? The Old Calendarist churches who remained in communion with the New Calendar churches have now embraced ecumenism, but the Old Calendar churches who broke communion with the New Calendar churches have not embraced ecumenism.

The larger and more important and stable of the Old Calendar Churches, Greece, Bulgaria and Romania,  remained in communion with the New Calendar Churches of Orthodoxy until 2007.  They did this by being in communion with the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad which was in communion with New Calendar Churches.  It never seemed to bother them that they were in communion with New Calendarists right up until 4 years ago.

Yup. The "True Orthodox (TM)" have accepted some strange bedfellows over the years for their own self-interest. 

[witega]

@witega:

Would you care to provide Patristic proof-texts supporting your claim that it is legitimate and consistent with Church doctrine to break with inherited traditions, such as the patristic calendar? I don't mean historical evidence that at certain times in the past different local churches happened to observe festivals on different dates. I also don't mean minor variations that creep in owing to forgetfulness. I mean when one part of the Church decides to break with the common tradition in full consciousness of the fact that it is a common tradition, as happened in Greece in 1924.

Nice try. In other words, "I haven't/can't respond to your challenge to find a single Father who thought calendrical differences were worth commenting on, but having failed to even attempt to demonstrate my argument, let's just assume I'm right that the Julian calendar=Patristic calendar and then can you disprove that." If you went into schism because your bishop decided to start using lotus-scented incense, I couldn't 'prove' that the Fathers were okay with lotus-scented incense, any more than you could 'prove' they disapproved of it, because the fact is the Fathers didn't think the particular floral scent was something to get into controversies about. Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

I'll reiterate the two critical points you seem to be doing your best to avoid:
1) I re-entered the current ressurection of this thread when first Subdeacon David and then even more explicitly you made false statements about the decisions of the First Ecumenical Council. You've thrown out a lot of ink since then but you've never faced up to the fact that you (apparently intentionally) distorted the decisions of the Great and Holy Council of Nicea to fit your personal agenda. You have a credibility problem--the same one that the Latins had when they accused the Orthodox of deleting the filoque.

2) You are the one who has to demonstrate this issue justifies schism. If one simply looks at it at high level, there's no question how the Church reacts to multiple calendars whether its the 3rd century or the 20th--it doesn't care and goes on with its business. You attempt to get around this by claiming that in doing so, all the autocephalous churches have fallen into error and only your tiny group remains faithful to 'the Tradition'. I try not to get too far into the majority vs. minority thing because I'm fully aware of "Athanasius against the world," or St. Maximus against the Monothelite Eastern Patriarchs, or St. Mark of Ephesus against the false union.

But when St. Athanasius or St. Maximus or St. Mark broke with the 'mainstream' of the Church, they had *reams* of "proof-texts" (as you call them) to justify their action. They started with the Gospels (or in some case the Pentateuch), worked their way through the Pauline epistles, and then hit the Fathers down to their own time to demonstrate the unbroken Apostolic Tradition which demanded that they take the action they did. St. Mark didn't sit back and go 'well, we've been doing this for the last couple of centuries, so that alone proves not communing Latins is the right thing to do."

So go ahead and disdain proof-texts and the example of the actual pillars of Orthodoxy. It goes right along with your willingness to twist the Holy Councils until they say what you want them to say.

[username!]

I like the Julian Calender, but at the end of the day it's not a calender that shall bring forth salvation.

[PeterTheAleut]

Of the doctrine and preaching which are preserved in the
Church, some we possess derived from written doctrine, others
we have received delivered to us “in secret” (en mystyrio) by
the tradition of the Apostles; and both of these have the same
validity and force as regards piety. And these no one contradicts
-- no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the
institutions of the Church. For were we to attempt to reject such
customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the
importance they possess is small, we would unintentionally
harm the Gospel in its vitals; or, rather, would make our
preaching mere words and nothing more (St. Basil, On the Holy
Spirit 27:66; also Canon 91 of St. Basil the Great).

This is to show that the demands that we provide some proof-text countering every assertion made against the traditional calendar are contrary to the spirit of the Fathers. This is not to say that quotes from written authority aren't useful or relevant, but rather than the premise of your question, that somehow an unwritten tradition, say the calendar, doesn't "count" unless we can find it written down somewhere that it does, is an un-Orthodox premise. In other words, there doesn't need to be a notarized seal on the calendar to show that the Church has sanctified it. We only need to know that it was universally observed.

BTW, you can't even show that the Julian Calendar was universally observed except by ruling out as heretical (for this and for other reasons) those communions that didn't use the Julian Calendar. That, my friend, is called stacking the deck, which in the end results in the ridiculously tautological statement, "The Julian Calendar was used universally by all those churches that used the Julian Calendar."

[PeterTheAleut]

More from Fr Basil:

Nevertheless, Nectarius, the Patriarch of Jerusalem (Rebuttal, p. 214) says
expressly: “We have not accepted the papal decrees nor shall we accept them. Be
they forged or falsified or genuine, for us they are null and void.” Dositheus, also a
Patriarch of Jerusalem, likewise points out: “Although the Pope is a heretic -- in
spite of the fact that he is flesh and like the grass, and that his glory is like that of
the flower of the grass which falls when the grass is dried up -- nonetheless, he
prides himself in having surpassed the knowledge of God in fashioning.and
making his own times and seasons and measurements of times besides those
prescribed by the Lord; and thus he propounds and establishes new reckonings and
new Paschalia against the teaching and Testament of the Lord” (Tome of Joy, p.
495).

Pat Dositheus certainly seems to think that all parts of the Gregorian calendar are anathema, not just the Paschalion. Hence, "new reckonings and new Paschalia."

I think a way of thinking about the whole "Revised Julian" calendar canard is like this. A spade is a spade, whether you call it a spoon or a fork or whatever you like. It remains a spade. If you make a little dent in it, or change its wooden handle for a silver one, perhaps you can call it a "revised spade", but certainly not a "revised spoon". I think it's absurd that New Calendarists think they can get away with these word games and pretend that the calendar they adopted is not the one under anathema, simply by changing its name. Sure, according to the revised calculations, discrepancies with the Gregorian dates will begin to occur many centuries from now. But that only means that the New Calendar may possibly not be under anathema in 2800. For the present, it looks like the Gregorian, it walks like the Gregorian, it's under anathema like the Gregorian.

Who's to say you're not the one playing word games in order to make two different calendars look like they're one and the same? For your allegation of nefarious motives to stick, you have to prove that we New Calendarists actually know that the Revised Julian Calendar is indeed the Gregorian Calendar but are trying to hide this realization. Attributing evil motives to your "enemies" in an attempt to justify your position may make for good rhetoric, but I don't think you can prove your attribution. Not unless you're telepathic.

And one more thing: PtA calls me to account for offering my own opinions on Church teaching as if they're worthless in themselves. Yet somehow folks like witega get away with asserting that the New Calendar, in their private estimation, count as examples of the Church sanctifying new things, rather than innovators destroying old ones. Is there some reason why he doesn't have to offer patristic evidence that his interpretation is correct?

There's a very simple reason. I have no reason right now to challenge him. However, the fact that it doesn't suit my polemic to question him doesn't automatically mean he's right or that I agree with him. Besides, considering how serious a sin schism is, the burden of proof is on you to justify your deliberate separation from what most here call the Church.

[SubdeaconDavid]

Schism for the sake of the calendar is a serious matter and even if one thinks the Old Calendarists wrong, you have to admire their courage and perseverance.  What do you make of the canonical Old Calendar Churches?  Why do you think that maintaining the calendar that we have had for more than a millennium, that all Orthodox used prior to the unilateral actions of the Greeks under 100 years ago is important to us?  It is true the New Calendar aka RJ Calendar increased it's use gradually the coming decades.  His Beatitude Metropolitan Jonah, Primate of the OCA as a monastic abbott founded a monastery and established it as an Old Calendar monastery. He thought it very worthwhile to keep to the Julian Calendar, while accepting that much of the OCA use the new. The Julian Calendar is not meaningless to the OCA Diocese of Alaska, as well as to scattered parishes throughout the USA.  ROCOR has always maintained the grace of all canonical New Calendarist Churches - even of Finland, and yet for ROCOR, the Julian Calendar helps define us spiritually and culturally. 

[searn77]

I have a question for those who have walled themselves off from the "World Orthodox":  What Old Calendarist group is the true Church? Is it the Holy Synod in Resistance? Is it HOCNA? Or maybe HOTCA? ROCIE? GOCA?! The Milan Synod?!!!

And who was Orthodox during the fourth century? Was it Sts. Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, and Gregory of Nyssa and the bishops of Asia Minor who supported Meletius? Or was was it St. Athanasius the Great and the bishops of Egypt and the west who supported Paulinus? Both of these groups were not in communion with each other and yet today we consider them both to be Orthodox. While our different synods are not in communion with each other, I would rather choose one of them that faithfully keep the Orthodox faith.

To answer your question, with the exception of the Milan Synod (as they now want to unite with World Orthodoxy), the Holy Synod in Resistance (whose Orthodoxy is questionable), and GOCA (I do not know who you are referencing here), I would say HOCNA, HOTCA, the ROCIE, and other Old Calendarists group who have kept the Orthodox faith altogether make up the true Church.

[searn77]

I like the Julian Calender, but at the end of the day it's not a calender that shall bring forth salvation.

Agreed

[LBK]

I would say HOCNA, HOTCA, the ROCIE, and other Old Calendarists group who have kept the Orthodox faith altogether make up the true Church.

Yet few, if any, of these groups is in communion with any of the others. Therefore these groups collectively cannot be the "true" church.

[searn77]

I would say HOCNA, HOTCA, the ROCIE, and other Old Calendarists group who have kept the Orthodox faith altogether make up the true Church.

Yet few, if any, of these groups is in communion with any of the others. Therefore these groups collectively cannot be the "true" church.

And as I have shown, the Orthodox faith is not dependent on who is in communion with who.

[Jonathan Gress]

@witega:

Would you care to provide Patristic proof-texts supporting your claim that it is legitimate and consistent with Church doctrine to break with inherited traditions, such as the patristic calendar? I don't mean historical evidence that at certain times in the past different local churches happened to observe festivals on different dates. I also don't mean minor variations that creep in owing to forgetfulness. I mean when one part of the Church decides to break with the common tradition in full consciousness of the fact that it is a common tradition, as happened in Greece in 1924.

Nice try. In other words, "I haven't/can't respond to your challenge to find a single Father who thought calendrical differences were worth commenting on, but having failed to even attempt to demonstrate my argument, let's just assume I'm right that the Julian calendar=Patristic calendar and then can you disprove that." If you went into schism because your bishop decided to start using lotus-scented incense, I couldn't 'prove' that the Fathers were okay with lotus-scented incense, any more than you could 'prove' they disapproved of it, because the fact is the Fathers didn't think the particular floral scent was something to get into controversies about. Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

I'll reiterate the two critical points you seem to be doing your best to avoid:
1) I re-entered the current ressurection of this thread when first Subdeacon David and then even more explicitly you made false statements about the decisions of the First Ecumenical Council. You've thrown out a lot of ink since then but you've never faced up to the fact that you (apparently intentionally) distorted the decisions of the Great and Holy Council of Nicea to fit your personal agenda. You have a credibility problem--the same one that the Latins had when they accused the Orthodox of deleting the filoque.

2) You are the one who has to demonstrate this issue justifies schism. If one simply looks at it at high level, there's no question how the Church reacts to multiple calendars whether its the 3rd century or the 20th--it doesn't care and goes on with its business. You attempt to get around this by claiming that in doing so, all the autocephalous churches have fallen into error and only your tiny group remains faithful to 'the Tradition'. I try not to get too far into the majority vs. minority thing because I'm fully aware of "Athanasius against the world," or St. Maximus against the Monothelite Eastern Patriarchs, or St. Mark of Ephesus against the false union.

But when St. Athanasius or St. Maximus or St. Mark broke with the 'mainstream' of the Church, they had *reams* of "proof-texts" (as you call them) to justify their action. They started with the Gospels (or in some case the Pentateuch), worked their way through the Pauline epistles, and then hit the Fathers down to their own time to demonstrate the unbroken Apostolic Tradition which demanded that they take the action they did. St. Mark didn't sit back and go 'well, we've been doing this for the last couple of centuries, so that alone proves not communing Latins is the right thing to do."

So go ahead and disdain proof-texts and the example of the actual pillars of Orthodoxy. It goes right along with your willingness to twist the Holy Councils until they say what you want them to say.

Witega, did I say textual evidence was unimportant? No. I said it's not necessary. Are you now arguing that it's necessary, against the clear witness of St Basil? Even if we didn't know about Pan-Orthodox councils condemning the Papal calendar, we would still know that the calendar was part of Tradition simply because of universal observance.

However, the councils of the 16th century did condemn the Papal calendar. The idea that these councils addressed only the Paschalion and didn't care about the rest is a modern invention. Have you even produced one bit of evidence that the Church did not reject the Western calendar in its entirety? No. All you can do is point out that they usually stress the innovation in the date of Easter, which of course is the most egregious element of the Gregorian innovation. But nowhere do they say "we condemn the Western Paschalion but accept the Western Menologion". Do they say that anywhere? That would constitute evidence in your favor. Otherwise you are arguing from silence at best. And e.g. Pat Dositheus' words certainly suggest that the objection was to the whole Gregorian edifice.

By the way, here is another quote from the same Patriarch (again from Fr Basil):

In the 1670’s, Dositheus, the Patriarch of Jerusalem (in his work
Concerning Unleavened Bread, p. 539) said: “By the grace of Christ,
from the time of the First Council to this present moment, the sacred
Pascha is always celebrated the Sunday after the Passover of of the
Law, and we have never experienced any confusion which might bring
us to the necessity of making some correction. This was set forth very
well by the Holy Fathers and it shall eternally remain faultless.
Wrongly have the contemporary astronomers of Old Rome removed
ten days from the month of October. More-over, their new calendar
provokes much confusion and many causes for disorder.”

Note he says the new calendar has provoked confusion and disorder. He does not say "only the Paschalion is wrong". As you would expect, he emphasizes most of the all the Paschal innovation, but he does not neglect to note the havoc wrought by the rest of the innovated calendar.

Also, I don't think you've addressed the issue of whether the history of multiple calendars involves involuntary or voluntary disagreement with the universal practice. At the beginning of the controversy in the pre-Nicean Church over how to determine Easter, we find some zealots like Pope Victor of Rome condemning those who do not follow what was believed to be Catholic and Apostolic practice. But St Irenaeus encourages calm in this situation, mostly because he respected the argument of the Quartodecimans that their practice was Apostolic. See what Eusebius of Caesarea wrote:

    "But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor.
    Among them was Irenæus, who, sending letters in the name of the brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, maintained that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be observed only on the Lord’s day. He fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom."

St Irenaeus didn't say "their custom is an innovation, but I nevertheless tolerate it". He said that although he believed that the Apostolic tradition was to observe Pascha on Sunday, nevertheless he respected the fact that their custom was also apparently ancient, and that it wasn't at that time completely clear which tradition was the more ancient. Under the circumstances of doubt, tolerance was encouraged, i.e. only when it is certain which tradition is authentic should there be no question of tolerance of discrepancy.

By the time of St Hippolytus, however, we see that the arguments of the Quartodecimans were rejected, and the First Ecumenical Council made it clear that the Church considered the observance of Pascha on Sunday as the Apostolic tradition. You note that even after that date, parts of the Church continued to observe Pascha according to discrepant calculations, and the Church gave them time to come round. So the Church is patient with the wayward, but not indefinitely. The Celtic churches that obstinately refused to follow Rome were eventually cut off as schismatics until they repented.

How are the True Orthodox not also patient? After 1924 all they did was continue to observe the traditional calendar, for which the State Church rewarded them with persecution. There wasn't even talk about whether the State Church had lost grace, since that was not the most important issue. The three bishops who later joined the True Orthodox themselves waited to see if the State Church would reverse its decision. Only after it became clear they had no intention of doing so did they abandon the New Calendar Church. Even then at first they did not accuse the State Church of having fallen from Grace (if you read their "Declaration of Faith"). Only when they were defrocked and a fresh persecution began did they realize that the State Church was no longer a part of the True Church, since the True Church does not persecute those who attempt to hold fast to tradition.

I respect PtA's request for some patristic quotes regarding how the Church sanctifies everything She uses. I'm continuing to look around for something that addresses this explicitly, but really I think it's a red herring, because we have e.g. the 1848 Patriarchal encyclical that calls on the faithful to reject all innovations. The encyclical doesn't say "the faithful must reject new dogmas but they may accept new practices regardless of tradition". That alone I submit puts the onus of proof on the innovators to prove that their innovation is consistent with Tradition. And when St Basil talks about the necessity of preserving unwritten customs, he doesn't just say dogmas, but he mentions e.g. the sign of the Cross. That is not a dogma, but we are not permitted to stop using it merely because it has no written authority backing it.

[PeterTheAleut]

Would you do me a big favor, Jonathan? When addressing witega, submit one post. When addressing me, submit another post. Address one and only one person per post. I'm getting tired of having to wade through your words to someone else just to read what you have to say to me, or missing what you say to me because it's at the bottom of a long post to someone else. I'd really like to be able to see clearly whether a post is intended for me or not so I can choose which posts I want to read.

Thank you.