Topic: Holy Apostles Fast, see you next year I hope

[Peacemaker]

Do you realize, those of us on the "new" calendar won't have the Holy Apostles Fast this year... What a downer, it's an important fast, it was one of Saint John Maximovitch's favorite.

[username!]

Do you realize, those of us on the "new" calendar won't have the Holy Apostles Fast this year... What a downer, it's an important fast, it was one of Saint John Maximovitch's favorite.

One of the many reasons having such a complicated and ecumenical calender as the revised julian makes no sense at all.

I like the Julian Calender.  Not only is it easy to follow it sets us aside from the commercialness of western Christmas and easter.  It is our identity and it sets us aside from the world. 

[username!]

Do you realize, those of us on the "new" calendar won't have the Holy Apostles Fast this year... What a downer, it's an important fast, it was one of Saint John Maximovitch's favorite.

Write your bishop. At some point this whole revised julian calender stuff needs to cease to exist.

[Peacemaker]

It's not for us to decide, I acknowledge and except that. It's up to our patriarchs and holy senate to figure out.When you start to worry about the calender so much, you start to worship it in a sense and that's not good. Look at the Iconoclasm, that lasted a few hundred years. The calender might not be fixed in our life time, but if God sees it fit to need to fix it, He will.

But you know the great thing about Orthodox though, you can go to any Orthodox Church

I go to a Greek one every other week, and a Russian one on the other weeks. Makes things interesting, that's for sure

Anyway, just found it interesting that we won't have that fast, maybe to make up for it we can fast for two weeks in remembrance of the fast.

[Alpo]

One of the few benefits of having Gregorian Calendar instead of Revised Julian Calendar is that we don't have problems like that.

[ialmisry]

Do you realize, those of us on the "new" calendar won't have the Holy Apostles Fast this year... What a downer, it's an important fast, it was one of Saint John Maximovitch's favorite.

Write your bishop. At some point this whole revised julian calender stuff needs to cease to exist.

Is the bishop going to make the sun stand still like Joshua?

[ialmisry]

Do you realize, those of us on the "new" calendar won't have the Holy Apostles Fast this year... What a downer, it's an important fast, it was one of Saint John Maximovitch's favorite.

One of the many reasons having such a complicated and ecumenical calender as the revised julian makes no sense at all.

I like the Julian Calender.  Not only is it easy to follow it sets us aside from the commercialness of western Christmas and easter.  It is our identity and it sets us aside from the world. 

only where we are an obscure minority.

[mike]

Return to the topic or I'm merging it with the Great Calendar Thread.

[Peacemaker]

I was talking with my priest about this today. He says that for those that can, should go to a Russian Church doing this fast if we want to be apart of it. Makes one think however, for the people who don't have that option to go from Church to Church how they feel about it. I know fasts are important, half of our year is made up of fasting and for the "season" of fasts it's even another thing. It's time for spiritual growth. That's why St. John the Wonderworker was so big on this fast, it was short enough it would be very hard on new converts but long enough to still feel the effects of it and grow in your faith a bit more. It's an interesting subject because there isn't really much you can do because pascha is so late this year, I almost feel like we wont fully benefit from this years Church year.

[Shanghaiski]

Do you realize, those of us on the "new" calendar won't have the Holy Apostles Fast this year... What a downer, it's an important fast, it was one of Saint John Maximovitch's favorite.

Figures it would be. He was an apostle to the world himself.

Elder Cleopa of Romania said once that, if there was no Apostles Fast possible before the feast, it was the responsibility of the local Holy Synod to set a fast for the Holy Apostles. AFAIK, this has never happened since the imposition of the new calendar anywhere.

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

I should be able to point out the following without necessarily getting into the old/new calendar controversy.

Apostles' Feast is set for June 29th on the Church calendar but the fast is supposed to start on the Monday after the Sunday of All Saints, which is eight weeks or 28 days after Pascha.

Western Pascha is March 31st or 4 days after the first Paschal or ecclesiastic full moon (March 27th). In contrast, Eastern Pascha is May 5th or 39 days after the date set by the First Ecumenical Council.

[mike]

Off-topic merged with the Great Calendar Thread.

[PeterTheAleut]

Do you realize, those of us on the "new" calendar won't have the Holy Apostles Fast this year... What a downer, it's an important fast, it was one of Saint John Maximovitch's favorite.

One of the many reasons having such a complicated and ecumenical calender as the revised julian makes no sense at all.

I hate to keep beating his horse, but it seems I have to. You do realize that the absence of the Apostles' Fast in New Calendar churches this year has nothing to do with the Revised Julian Calendar per se? It's the fact that we still follow the old Julian Calendar for Pascha even though we've switched to the Revised Julian Calendar for the menologion. Follow the old Julian Calendar on everything, or follow the Revised Julian Calendar on everything (as does the Church of Finland), and the problem of no Apostles' Fast disappears entirely.

I like the Julian Calender.  Not only is it easy to follow it sets us aside from the commercialness of western Christmas and easter.  It is our identity and it sets us aside from the world.  

Personally, I find this escapism one of the most detestable reasons for desiring to follow the Old Calendar. Are we going to just let the world reclaim holy days that were once ours, especially when Christmas was originally instituted (so many believe) to claim a pagan festival as our own and transform it? Why are we running away from our duty to today's world?

Besides, the calendar isn't our identity that sets us apart from the world. Jesus Christ is our identity that sets us apart from the world.

[mike]

Was it addressed by any synods or bishops? I mean it's pretty serious and historic issue since it's the first time there is not Apostles' Fast since it was introduced. Or the calendars were published without a single comment?

[jmbejdl]

Was it addressed by any synods or bishops? I mean it's pretty serious and historic issue since it's the first time there is not Apostles' Fast since it was introduced. Or the calendars were published without a single comment?

It's not the first time. I'm pretty sure there was no Apostles' Fast in the year I was Chrismated either (2002).

James

[jah777]

Below is a link to a good article on the subject of the Apostles Fast by Elder Epiphanios Theodoropoulos.  The article is written in response to criticism of those on the New Calendar by the sectarian Old Calendarists.  Elder Epiphanios points out that the Apostles Fast used to be much longer than it is today even when following the Old Calendar.  He points out that if the Old Calendarists condemn those on the New Calendar because this fast is sometimes reduced or eliminated altogether, they should also condemn all of the bishops and patriarchs of the previous centuries who accepted the shortening of this fast long ago.

http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2009/06/fast-of-holy-apostles-and-new-calendar.html

That being said, I agree that the results of the calendar change on this and other aspects of Church life have been regrettable. 

[mike]

Was it addressed by any synods or bishops? I mean it's pretty serious and historic issue since it's the first time there is not Apostles' Fast since it was introduced. Or the calendars were published without a single comment?

It's not the first time. I'm pretty sure there was no Apostles' Fast in the year I was Chrismated either (2002).

James

Does anyone have a list of dates or something like that?

[Schultz]

Was it addressed by any synods or bishops? I mean it's pretty serious and historic issue since it's the first time there is not Apostles' Fast since it was introduced. Or the calendars were published without a single comment?

It's not the first time. I'm pretty sure there was no Apostles' Fast in the year I was Chrismated either (2002).

James

Does anyone have a list of dates or something like that?

http://www.timeanddate.com/holidays/us/orthodox-easter-day#obs will calculate the date of Pascha historically and in the future and give the Gregorian date.  I don't know when the "cut off" date would be that erases the Apostles' Fast from the Revised Julian, but, as jmbejdl pointed out, Pascha in 2002 was also on May 5.  In 1983, Pascha fell on May 8.  Assuming May 1 is a cutoff, it appears from a cursory that at least twice in a 19 year cycle there is no Apostles Fast.

[mike]

Was it addressed by any synods or bishops? I mean it's pretty serious and historic issue since it's the first time there is not Apostles' Fast since it was introduced. Or the calendars were published without a single comment?

It's not the first time. I'm pretty sure there was no Apostles' Fast in the year I was Chrismated either (2002).

James

Does anyone have a list of dates or something like that?

http://www.timeanddate.com/holidays/us/orthodox-easter-day#obs will calculate the date of Pascha historically and in the future and give the Gregorian date.  I don't know when the "cut off" date would be that erases the Apostles' Fast from the Revised Julian, but, as jmbejdl pointed out, Pascha in 2002 was also on May 5.  In 1983, Pascha fell on May 8.  Assuming May 1 is a cutoff, it appears from a cursory that at least twice in a 19 year cycle there is no Apostles Fast.

TY.

I feel dumb now. I forgot it's done in a 19-year cycle.

[PeterTheAleut]

Was it addressed by any synods or bishops? I mean it's pretty serious and historic issue since it's the first time there is not Apostles' Fast since it was introduced. Or the calendars were published without a single comment?

It's not the first time. I'm pretty sure there was no Apostles' Fast in the year I was Chrismated either (2002).

James

Does anyone have a list of dates or something like that?

http://www.timeanddate.com/holidays/us/orthodox-easter-day#obs will calculate the date of Pascha historically and in the future and give the Gregorian date.  I don't know when the "cut off" date would be that erases the Apostles' Fast from the Revised Julian, but, as jmbejdl pointed out, Pascha in 2002 was also on May 5.  In 1983, Pascha fell on May 8.  Assuming May 1 is a cutoff, it appears from a cursory that at least twice in a 19 year cycle there is no Apostles Fast.

TY.

I feel dumb now. I forgot it's done in a 19-year cycle.

That doesn't explain why only 11 years have passed since 2002.

[mike]

Was it addressed by any synods or bishops? I mean it's pretty serious and historic issue since it's the first time there is not Apostles' Fast since it was introduced. Or the calendars were published without a single comment?

It's not the first time. I'm pretty sure there was no Apostles' Fast in the year I was Chrismated either (2002).

James

Does anyone have a list of dates or something like that?

http://www.timeanddate.com/holidays/us/orthodox-easter-day#obs will calculate the date of Pascha historically and in the future and give the Gregorian date.  I don't know when the "cut off" date would be that erases the Apostles' Fast from the Revised Julian, but, as jmbejdl pointed out, Pascha in 2002 was also on May 5.  In 1983, Pascha fell on May 8.  Assuming May 1 is a cutoff, it appears from a cursory that at least twice in a 19 year cycle there is no Apostles Fast.

TY.

I feel dumb now. I forgot it's done in a 19-year cycle.

That doesn't explain why only 11 years have passed since 2002.

It happens more than once in the cycle?

[sheenj]

Was it addressed by any synods or bishops? I mean it's pretty serious and historic issue since it's the first time there is not Apostles' Fast since it was introduced. Or the calendars were published without a single comment?

It's not the first time. I'm pretty sure there was no Apostles' Fast in the year I was Chrismated either (2002).

James

Does anyone have a list of dates or something like that?

http://www.timeanddate.com/holidays/us/orthodox-easter-day#obs will calculate the date of Pascha historically and in the future and give the Gregorian date.  I don't know when the "cut off" date would be that erases the Apostles' Fast from the Revised Julian, but, as jmbejdl pointed out, Pascha in 2002 was also on May 5.  In 1983, Pascha fell on May 8.  Assuming May 1 is a cutoff, it appears from a cursory that at least twice in a 19 year cycle there is no Apostles Fast.

TY.

I feel dumb now. I forgot it's done in a 19-year cycle.

That doesn't explain why only 11 years have passed since 2002.

It happens more than once in the cycle?

Here is the full Cycle:

Golden Number	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19
Paschal Full Moon date	5A	25M	13A	2A	22M	10A	30M	18A	7A	27M	15A	4A	24M	12A	1A	21M	9A	29M	17A

There doesn't seem to be any repetitions, though the 12th through 19th years seem to be the 1st through the 8th minus one.

Edit: Since these are actually the full moon dates, some of the 12th through 19th years of the could easily have pascha fall on the same date as the 1st through 8th.

[Dominika]

Below is a link to a good article on the subject of the Apostles Fast by Elder Epiphanios Theodoropoulos.  The article is written in response to criticism of those on the New Calendar by the sectarian Old Calendarists.  Elder Epiphanios points out that the Apostles Fast used to be much longer than it is today even when following the Old Calendar.  He points out that if the Old Calendarists condemn those on the New Calendar because this fast is sometimes reduced or eliminated altogether, they should also condemn all of the bishops and patriarchs of the previous centuries who accepted the shortening of this fast long ago.

http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2009/06/fast-of-holy-apostles-and-new-calendar.html

That being said, I agree that the results of the calendar change on this and other aspects of Church life have been regrettable. 

I'm very, very surprised by this article. I've never heard that in fact the fast of the Holy Apostles and the Dormition Fast used to be one, so long fasting period! So how to explain today's practice of Oriental Orthodox, who begins the Apostles' Fast on the the next day after Pentecost? When I read your post about shorting this fast, I thought you meant this OO practice. But, actually, the history of this fast is much longer and complicated. So I wonder, why is this fast not marked in the liturgical practice at all (Copts are an exception).

I think it would be better if all Orthodox (of course including Orientals) celebrated Pascha counted by old Paschalias. The feast of Pascha is one of the greatest signs of Orthodox unity, so I would like to see Malankara (actually I think some of them celebrate by Old Style), Armenians, Finland celebrating Pascha together with us. And not by Gregorian calendar, because it's against Orthodoxy (the councils, Holy Fire etc.).

But as for the lack of Apostles' Fast this year, I don't find it something completely against to Orthodoxy, because the proper date of the greatest and most important liturgical period is maintained. However, if somebody thinks it's very negative, maybe New Calendars in the years when there is no the fast of Apostles should follow OO practice?... That's just my thinking aloud