ROCOR to Join Moscow Patriarchate

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

... they may be more indicative of your desires and predilections than anything else--I don't think that anyone is surprised at your fondness for all things Russian and particularly for the Julian calendar.

But we might remember that it was the Russian Orthodox Church which was the first Orthodox Church to seriously consider changing to the Gregorian Calendar (at that time there was no thought of a "Revised Julian.")

This topic was on the agenda of the Russian Great Council of 1917.   The Council was cut short by the Revolution and the Calendar topic (as well as deaconesses) had no time for deliberation.

It was 7 years after the Russian Church Council that the pan-Orthodox Synod in Constantinople deliberated on a Calendar change, in 1923.

The Russian Church is by no means irrevocably committed to maintaining the Julian Calendar.

Indeed, I think that it is one of those proxy indicators of orthodoxy rather than an essential element. Thanks for pointing this out. On a related note, I think that the Paris School was inspired mostly by the pre-revolution reform movement in the Church of Russia. Thus, it may be that both the OCA and ROCOR are true heirs to the Church of Russia.

[jah777]

The schismatics (HOCNA) have the best attendance, of course.

I would doubt the accuracy of this statement.  HOCNA does not have many parishes in the US, and many of its parishioners do not live in close proximity to the parish.  I'm sure they have a high attendance rate of those parishioners who live within close proximity to a parish, but I have known a number of people who live several hours away from a parish and only attend once a year or a few times per year.

[jah777]

... they may be more indicative of your desires and predilections than anything else--I don't think that anyone is surprised at your fondness for all things Russian and particularly for the Julian calendar.

But we might remember that it was the Russian Orthodox Church which was the first Orthodox Church to seriously consider changing to the Gregorian Calendar (at that time there was no thought of a "Revised Julian.")

This topic was on the agenda of the Russian Great Council of 1917.   The Council was cut short by the Revolution and the Calendar topic (as well as deaconesses) had no time for deliberation.

It was 7 years after the Russian Church Council that the pan-Orthodox Synod in Constantinople deliberated on a Calendar change, in 1923.

The Russian Church is by no means irrevocably committed to maintaining the Julian Calendar.

Father, I believe the Russian Church only considered the Gregorian at the 1917-1918 Council because of pressure from the Bolsheviks to adopt the Gregorian.  Despite such pressure, however, the Council decided to maintain the Julian.

See the following two posts on the subject by Protopresbyter Alexander Lebedeff, from which I have taken the below quote:

https://listserv.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/wa-iub.exe?A2=ind0207B&L=ORTHODOX&P=R6077

https://listserv.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/wa-iub.exe?A2=ind0207B&L=ORTHODOX&P=R6271

1) The question of the Calendar was brought up at the All-Russian Sobor
only as a result of the Bolshevik Decree mandating the introduction of the
Western European Calendar for civil use in Russia, The Decree of the
Council of People's Commissars was dated January 24, 1918, and indicated
that the day after January 31, 1918 would be February 14--not February 1.

The Sobor addressed the issue three days after the Decree was signed, at
its 71st Session on January 27, 1918. The need for a prompt decision by the
Church on how to relate to the civil calendar change was clear--the change
was to take place four days later.

It was decided to send the issue to a Joint Session of two separate
Sections of the Sobor--the Section on Divine Services and the Section on
the Relationship of the Church to the State.

This Joint Session of the two Sections met two days later, on January 29,
1918 and heard two major reports, one by Professor S.S. Glagolev, entitled
"A Comparative Evaluation of the Julian and Gregorian Styles," and one by
Prof. I. I. Sokolov, entitled, "The Attitude of the Orthodox East to the
Question of the Reform of the Calendar."

Neither of these presentations in any way supported the introduction into
Church life of the Gregorian Calendar--quite the contrary. Prof. Glagolev
concluded, "The Gregorian Calendar, in addition to being historically
harmful, is also astronomically useless."

Prof. Sokolov went into great detail about the 1902-1904 discussions among
the Local Orthodox Churches regarding the question of the Reform of the
Calendar. In 1902, (actually on July 12, 1902--which is just about exactly
one hunderd years ago) Patriarch Jeremiah of Constantinople and his Synod
addressed a Patriarchal and Synodal Epistle to the Heads of all of the
autocephalous Churches (except Antioch, with which at that time
Constantinople had to communion) in which he asked them to express their
opinions on the possibility of reforming the Calendar (note: this was a
generation before Meletios Metaxakis). He received very well-thought out
responses from the Churches of Jerusalem, Russia, Greece, Romania, Serbia,
and Montenegro.

Not one of these Churches supported the introduction of the Gregorian
calendar or change in the Julian calendar

These responses were transmitted to a special Theological Commission of the
Patriarchate of Constantinople, which analyzed them and proposed an
Encyclical that was approved by the Patriarch of Constantinople and his
Synod, and proclaimed on May 12, 1904. This Encyclical called the idea of
dropping 13 days from the Julian claendar to bring it into conformance with
the civil calendar "useless and fruitless." It concluded "from an
ecclesiastical point of view we have no need for a change in the calendar. . ."

Professor Sokolov concluded: "Therefore, the controlling voice of the
Orthodox East, both Greek and Slavic, is expressed as being not only
against the Gregorian calendar, as a creature of the inimical to it [the
Orthodox East] Catholic West, but also against a neutral or corrected
calendar, because such a reform would deleteriously affect the
ecclesiastical life of the Orthodox peoples."

Finally, the Joint Session of the two Sections prepared a Resolution on the
issue of calendar reform.

It decreed that the Church must stay with the Julian Calendar, basing this
decision on the following:

1) There is no reason for the Church not to have a separate ecclesiastical
calendar different from the civil calendar.

2) The Church not only is able to preserve the Old calendar, -- at the
present time it would be impossible for it to move to the New calendar.

3) The introduction of the New Calendar by the Russian Church would cause
it to break unity with all of the other Orthodox Churches. Any change in
the calendar can only be done by mutual agreement of all of the Orthodox
Churches.

4) It is impossible to correlate the Orthodox Paschalion with the Gregorian
Calendar without causing grave disruption in the Typikon.

5) It is recognized that the Julian Calendar is astronomically inaccurate.
This was noted already at the Council of Constantinople in 1583. However,
it is incorrect to believe that the Gregorian calendar is better suited for
ecclesiastical use.

In conclusion, the Joint Session resolved to maintain the Julian Calendar.

The Council, in its full session, approved this Resolution of the Joint
Session.

 

[ialmisry]

... they may be more indicative of your desires and predilections than anything else--I don't think that anyone is surprised at your fondness for all things Russian and particularly for the Julian calendar.

But we might remember that it was the Russian Orthodox Church which was the first Orthodox Church to seriously consider changing to the Gregorian Calendar (at that time there was no thought of a "Revised Julian.")

This topic was on the agenda of the Russian Great Council of 1917.   The Council was cut short by the Revolution and the Calendar topic (as well as deaconesses) had no time for deliberation.

It was 7 years after the Russian Church Council that the pan-Orthodox Synod in Constantinople deliberated on a Calendar change, in 1923.

The Russian Church is by no means irrevocably committed to maintaining the Julian Calendar.

Father, I believe the Russian Church only considered the Gregorian at the 1917-1918 Council because of pressure from the Bolsheviks to adopt the Gregorian.  Despite such pressure, however, the Council decided to maintain the Julian.

See the following two posts on the subject by Protopresbyter Alexander Lebedeff, from which I have taken the below quote:

https://listserv.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/wa-iub.exe?A2=ind0207B&L=ORTHODOX&P=R6077

https://listserv.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/wa-iub.exe?A2=ind0207B&L=ORTHODOX&P=R6271

1) The question of the Calendar was brought up at the All-Russian Sobor
only as a result of the Bolshevik Decree mandating the introduction of the
Western European Calendar for civil use in Russia, The Decree of the
Council of People's Commissars was dated January 24, 1918, and indicated
that the day after January 31, 1918 would be February 14--not February 1.

The Sobor addressed the issue three days after the Decree was signed, at
its 71st Session on January 27, 1918. The need for a prompt decision by the
Church on how to relate to the civil calendar change was clear--the change
was to take place four days later.

It was decided to send the issue to a Joint Session of two separate
Sections of the Sobor--the Section on Divine Services and the Section on
the Relationship of the Church to the State.

This Joint Session of the two Sections met two days later, on January 29,
1918 and heard two major reports, one by Professor S.S. Glagolev, entitled
"A Comparative Evaluation of the Julian and Gregorian Styles," and one by
Prof. I. I. Sokolov, entitled, "The Attitude of the Orthodox East to the
Question of the Reform of the Calendar."

Neither of these presentations in any way supported the introduction into
Church life of the Gregorian Calendar--quite the contrary. Prof. Glagolev
concluded, "The Gregorian Calendar, in addition to being historically
harmful, is also astronomically useless."

Prof. Sokolov went into great detail about the 1902-1904 discussions among
the Local Orthodox Churches regarding the question of the Reform of the
Calendar. In 1902, (actually on July 12, 1902--which is just about exactly
one hunderd years ago) Patriarch Jeremiah of Constantinople and his Synod
addressed a Patriarchal and Synodal Epistle to the Heads of all of the
autocephalous Churches (except Antioch, with which at that time
Constantinople had to communion) in which he asked them to express their
opinions on the possibility of reforming the Calendar (note: this was a
generation before Meletios Metaxakis). He received very well-thought out
responses from the Churches of Jerusalem, Russia, Greece, Romania, Serbia,
and Montenegro.

Not one of these Churches supported the introduction of the Gregorian
calendar or change in the Julian calendar

These responses were transmitted to a special Theological Commission of the
Patriarchate of Constantinople, which analyzed them and proposed an
Encyclical that was approved by the Patriarch of Constantinople and his
Synod, and proclaimed on May 12, 1904. This Encyclical called the idea of
dropping 13 days from the Julian claendar to bring it into conformance with
the civil calendar "useless and fruitless." It concluded "from an
ecclesiastical point of view we have no need for a change in the calendar. . ."

Professor Sokolov concluded: "Therefore, the controlling voice of the
Orthodox East, both Greek and Slavic, is expressed as being not only
against the Gregorian calendar, as a creature of the inimical to it [the
Orthodox East] Catholic West, but also against a neutral or corrected
calendar, because such a reform would deleteriously affect the
ecclesiastical life of the Orthodox peoples."

Finally, the Joint Session of the two Sections prepared a Resolution on the
issue of calendar reform.

It decreed that the Church must stay with the Julian Calendar, basing this
decision on the following:

1) There is no reason for the Church not to have a separate ecclesiastical
calendar different from the civil calendar.

2) The Church not only is able to preserve the Old calendar, -- at the
present time it would be impossible for it to move to the New calendar.

3) The introduction of the New Calendar by the Russian Church would cause
it to break unity with all of the other Orthodox Churches. Any change in
the calendar can only be done by mutual agreement of all of the Orthodox
Churches.

4) It is impossible to correlate the Orthodox Paschalion with the Gregorian
Calendar without causing grave disruption in the Typikon.

5) It is recognized that the Julian Calendar is astronomically inaccurate.
This was noted already at the Council of Constantinople in 1583. However,
it is incorrect to believe that the Gregorian calendar is better suited for
ecclesiastical use.

In conclusion, the Joint Session resolved to maintain the Julian Calendar.

The Council, in its full session, approved this Resolution of the Joint
Session.

 

The problem is that even here it indicates that there was no need for Bolsheviks to have the issue come up, as it plainly admits that the issude had come up amongst the Orthodox for decades (at least over half a century).

on a summary of the lead up to the Sobor "Russian Bishops and Church Reform in 1905" by Fr. John Meyendorff of blessed memory.
http://www.jacwell.org/Supplements/russian_bishops_and_church_reform.htm


There is a book on this, whose title escapes me "A forelorn/unfilled hope" or some such thing.

[Punch]

This is exactly the way I heard it years ago when I was discussing the issue with a ROCOR priest.  

/\  Interesting that Bp Tikhon Emeritus Bishop pf San Francisco just wote:

"Hieromonk Ambrose is quite right there, I believe
St. Tikhon, then the head of the Liturgical Commission for the 1917
Council of the Russian Church, has been recorded as not approving ANY 
liturgical measures for the Council  SAVE the calendar change.
After he became Patriarch, the Saint introduced the calendar change
twice by directive, but it failed, largely, it is believed, because many
of the Faithful associated the measure with renovators and foreigners."

http://tinyurl.com/3d74k6o

[jah777]

The problem is that even here it indicates that there was no need for Bolsheviks to have the issue come up, as it plainly admits that the issude had come up amongst the Orthodox for decades (at least over half a century).

Often Church councils discuss issues that are of contemporary relevance due to certain teachings, movements, initiatives, and phenomena in the Church at those times.  The 16th century Councils acknowledged the inaccuracy of the Julian calendar at that time and determined to remain on the traditional Julian at that time, but the issue was only discussed because of pressure coming from the calendar reform of Pope Gregory.  The Church has for centuries understood that the traditional calendar is inaccurate astronomically, but has continued to affirm that it is nevertheless perfect liturgically, and nothing can be gained by changing the Church calendar.  The 1917-1918 Council discussed this only because the Bolsheviks adopted the Gregorian as the civil calendar and pressured the Church to adopt the Gregorian as well.  The Church discussed the issue again, surveyed the previous statements made by the Orthodox Church on the subject, and again affirmed that nothing good could come from the adoption of the Gregorian.  And, alas, nothing good has come from the adoption of the New Calendar wherever this change has been made.       

[ialmisry]

The problem is that even here it indicates that there was no need for Bolsheviks to have the issue come up, as it plainly admits that the issude had come up amongst the Orthodox for decades (at least over half a century).

Often Church councils discuss issues that are of contemporary relevance due to certain teachings, movements, initiatives, and phenomena in the Church at those times.  The 16th century Councils acknowledged the inaccuracy of the Julian calendar at that time and determined to remain on the traditional Julian at that time, but the issue was only discussed because of pressure coming from the calendar reform of Pope Gregory.  The Church has for centuries understood that the traditional calendar is inaccurate astronomically, but has continued to affirm that it is nevertheless perfect liturgically, and nothing can be gained by changing the Church calendar.  The 1917-1918 Council discussed this only because the Bolsheviks adopted the Gregorian as the civil calendar and pressured the Church to adopt the Gregorian as well.  The Church discussed the issue again, surveyed the previous statements made by the Orthodox Church on the subject, and again affirmed that nothing good could come from the adoption of the Gregorian.  And, alas, nothing good has come from the adoption of the New Calendar wherever this change has been made.

Yes, we have seen this assertion often made, but never demonstrated.  The only Churches who were not decimated by the XXth century (the EP in the New Lands, Romania, Greece, Cyprus etc). were on the New Calendar.  The Old Calendar, in constrast, didn't erect a wall between the Church of Moscow and the Bolshevik state.

The Fathers at Nicea I chose the Julian calendar for its accuracy. Any later local council that tried to overturn that landmark which the Fathers set up sets no standard we need respect.  "...nothing can be gained by changing the Church calendar..."-just following the Fathers of Nicea.

"...discussed this only because the Bolsheviks..." please.  Anyone who deals with documents of the past century of the empire see that even in Church documents, cognissance of the real date was taken note of: even in private correspondance they indicated two dates.

[Punch]

I always heard that the devil does not war against those that are already his.

Yes, we have seen this assertion often made, but never demonstrated.  The only Churches who were not decimated by the XXth century (the EP in the New Lands, Romania, Greece, Cyprus etc). were on the New Calendar.  The Old Calendar, in constrast, didn't erect a wall between the Church of Moscow and the Bolshevik state.

[jah777]

The problem is that even here it indicates that there was no need for Bolsheviks to have the issue come up, as it plainly admits that the issude had come up amongst the Orthodox for decades (at least over half a century).

Often Church councils discuss issues that are of contemporary relevance due to certain teachings, movements, initiatives, and phenomena in the Church at those times.  The 16th century Councils acknowledged the inaccuracy of the Julian calendar at that time and determined to remain on the traditional Julian at that time, but the issue was only discussed because of pressure coming from the calendar reform of Pope Gregory.  The Church has for centuries understood that the traditional calendar is inaccurate astronomically, but has continued to affirm that it is nevertheless perfect liturgically, and nothing can be gained by changing the Church calendar.  The 1917-1918 Council discussed this only because the Bolsheviks adopted the Gregorian as the civil calendar and pressured the Church to adopt the Gregorian as well.  The Church discussed the issue again, surveyed the previous statements made by the Orthodox Church on the subject, and again affirmed that nothing good could come from the adoption of the Gregorian.  And, alas, nothing good has come from the adoption of the New Calendar wherever this change has been made.

Yes, we have seen this assertion often made, but never demonstrated.  The only Churches who were not decimated by the XXth century (the EP in the New Lands, Romania, Greece, Cyprus etc). were on the New Calendar.  The Old Calendar, in constrast, didn't erect a wall between the Church of Moscow and the Bolshevik state.

Wherever the New Calendar has been introduced, schisms have resulted which, while not canonically justifiable, are nevertheless understandable considering the unilateral nature of the innovation and the fact that this decision was contrary to the Orthodox Church’s position on the matter for nearly 400 yrs.  The liturgical disunity that has resulted is tragic and is a barrier to inter-Orthodox unity.  It is a barrier that many of us have come to live with, just as we can learn to cope with any physical ailment that has not yet deprived us of life, but this disunity is nevertheless real and tragic.  And what good has come of adopting the New Calendar?  Are you claiming that Russia would not have been through such an intense persecution if they had adopted the New Calendar?  Are you claiming that Romania, Greece, Cyprus, etc. were not “decimated by the XXth century” because they were on the New Calendar?  If so, I would have to say that your New Calendarist zeal is greater than the Old Calendarist zeal that I have seen among many schismatics.  

[ialmisry]

I always heard that the devil does not war against those that are already his.

Yes, we have seen this assertion often made, but never demonstrated.  The only Churches who were not decimated by the XXth century (the EP in the New Lands, Romania, Greece, Cyprus etc). were on the New Calendar.  The Old Calendar, in constrast, didn't erect a wall between the Church of Moscow and the Bolshevik state.

So was it Czar Satan?

[ialmisry]

The problem is that even here it indicates that there was no need for Bolsheviks to have the issue come up, as it plainly admits that the issude had come up amongst the Orthodox for decades (at least over half a century).

Often Church councils discuss issues that are of contemporary relevance due to certain teachings, movements, initiatives, and phenomena in the Church at those times.  The 16th century Councils acknowledged the inaccuracy of the Julian calendar at that time and determined to remain on the traditional Julian at that time, but the issue was only discussed because of pressure coming from the calendar reform of Pope Gregory.  The Church has for centuries understood that the traditional calendar is inaccurate astronomically, but has continued to affirm that it is nevertheless perfect liturgically, and nothing can be gained by changing the Church calendar.  The 1917-1918 Council discussed this only because the Bolsheviks adopted the Gregorian as the civil calendar and pressured the Church to adopt the Gregorian as well.  The Church discussed the issue again, surveyed the previous statements made by the Orthodox Church on the subject, and again affirmed that nothing good could come from the adoption of the Gregorian.  And, alas, nothing good has come from the adoption of the New Calendar wherever this change has been made.

Yes, we have seen this assertion often made, but never demonstrated.  The only Churches who were not decimated by the XXth century (the EP in the New Lands, Romania, Greece, Cyprus etc). were on the New Calendar.  The Old Calendar, in constrast, didn't erect a wall between the Church of Moscow and the Bolshevik state.

Wherever the New Calendar has been introduced, schisms have resulted

We managed in Antioch, where the disciples were first called Christians, and in Alexandria, the only Patriarchate erected by an Evangelist-the preaching of St. Mark-witout a problem.

which, while not canonically justifiable, are nevertheless understandable considering the unilateral nature

not crazy about that myself.

of the innovation

a return to the Fathers is never an innovation.

and the fact that this decision was contrary to the Orthodox Church’s position on the matter for nearly 400 yrs.

if it were, then they contradicted the Church the millenium before.

The liturgical disunity that has resulted is tragic and is a barrier to inter-Orthodox unity.

that can always be remedied by taking "equinox" to mean "equinox."

It is a barrier that many of us have come to live with, just as we can learn to cope with any physical ailment that has not yet deprived us of life, but this disunity is nevertheless real and tragic.  And what good has come of adopting the New Calendar?

 
Conformity with the Fathers of Nicea.

Are you claiming that Russia would not have been through such an intense persecution if they had adopted the New Calendar?

 
I'm saying the Old Calendar isn't what you are making it out to be.

Are you claiming that Romania, Greece, Cyprus, etc. were not “decimated by the XXth century” because they were on the New Calendar?  If so, I would have to say that your New Calendarist zeal is greater than the Old Calendarist zeal that I have seen among many schismatics.  

IIRC, you're the one who brought it up and made it an issue.

[podkarpatska]

I don't know Metropolitan Jonah but Subdeacon David said a few things that merit a comment.

First, Metropolitan Jonah was NOT the first or only Orthodox hierarch to be a part of the Right to Life rallies or movements. His predecessor, Metropolitan Herman, first as Bishop and then as Metropolitan established the Orthodox presence at the Washington rallies starting in the mid-1980's. Together with the late Metropolitan Nicholas of ACROD, the two of them were regular participants bringing with them busloads of the faithful each January. Metropolitan Nicholas was there through 2009 when his declining health precluded his participation.

I could swear that Met. Theodosius was involved in the Right to Life March.  I only made it once, and I wasn't Orthodox at the time.

In ACROD, our two most recent hierarchs, the late Bishop John (Martin) and Metropolitan Nicholas have preached about, written annual pastoral messages and steadfastly reminded their flock regarding the Church's position on homosexuality and abortion. Some of you out there act as if this position is new or somehow we Orthodox didn't 'get' it until Metropolitan Jonah appeared on the scene several years ago.
On both our website and in our annual publications, teaching material has been posted and updated going back to my college days in the 1970's on these issues. They are summarized and linked here. http://www.acrod.org/readingroom/ethics

As to the calendar, to many of us it is a non-issue - one way or the other.

Amen.

Finally, for many of us not within the OCA,  we have been concerned about Metropolitan Jonah since his ill-tempered remarks in Texas given at the start of Great Lent shortly after his election as Metropolitan. While he has taken steps to distance himself from the harshest aspects of that address it is an old saying that deeds speak larger than words and only time will tell.

Given the shot across the bow at Holy Cross, the sudden mad dash to implement the Chambesy accords and the spin being put on them by the Phanar's chief mouthpiece (now Metropolitan of Bursa/Proussa), I thought his remarks were quite tempered given the circumstances.  But then I have that even Arab temperment.

I believe that you are correct about Met. Theodosius and yes, the Holy Cross remarks you allude to probably 'goaded' Met. Jonah at the time, but a more seasoned hierarch probably would have been more diplomatic.  "Tit for tat" is not really a great basis for an exchange of thoughts or ideas......

[ialmisry]

Are you claiming that Romania, Greece, Cyprus, etc. were not “decimated by the XXth century” because they were on the New Calendar?  If so, I would have to say that your New Calendarist zeal is greater than the Old Calendarist zeal that I have seen among many schismatics.  

IIRC, you're the one who brought it up and made it an issue.

my bad. it seems it was SubdeaconDavid.

[ialmisry]

yes, the Holy Cross remarks you allude to probably 'goaded' Met. Jonah at the time, but a more seasoned hierarch probably would have been more diplomatic.

  Met. Jonah wasn't and isn't yet a more seasoned hierarch.  Not a criticism, just a fact. That said, I'm not sure some "good cop/bad cop" or "good patriarch-bad metropolitan" wasn't going on.

"Tit for tat" is not really a great basis for an exchange of thoughts or ideas......

At the moment, I don't think an exchange of ideas was what was needed.  The point having been made, things worked out in the follow up.  Hopefully we won't have/need a repeat.  If Abp. Demetrios had been sacked as was rumored, that would have triggered another round.

[Irish Hermit]

... they may be more indicative of your desires and predilections than anything else--I don't think that anyone is surprised at your fondness for all things Russian and particularly for the Julian calendar.

But we might remember that it was the Russian Orthodox Church which was the first Orthodox Church to seriously consider changing to the Gregorian Calendar (at that time there was no thought of a "Revised Julian.")

This topic was on the agenda of the Russian Great Council of 1917.   The Council was cut short by the Revolution and the Calendar topic (as well as deaconesses) had no time for deliberation.

It was 7 years after the Russian Church Council that the pan-Orthodox Synod in Constantinople deliberated on a Calendar change, in 1923.

The Russian Church is by no means irrevocably committed to maintaining the Julian Calendar.

Father, I believe the Russian Church only considered the Gregorian at the 1917-1918 Council because of pressure from the Bolsheviks to adopt the Gregorian.  Despite such pressure, however, the Council decided to maintain the Julian.

See the following two posts on the subject by Protopresbyter Alexander Lebedeff, from which I have taken the below quote:

https://listserv.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/wa-iub.exe?A2=ind0207B&L=ORTHODOX&P=R6077

https://listserv.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/wa-iub.exe?A2=ind0207B&L=ORTHODOX&P=R6271

As Bishop Tikhon has noted nothing of what Fr Alexander has written contradicts what either he or I have said.

One thing which is upsetting - what Fr Alexander has revealed does undercut our previous belief in Saint Tikhon's staunch witness in the face of the Bolshevik power.  These new documents reveal that he seems to have conceded in some areas.

[Irish Hermit]

The problem is that even here it indicates that there was no need for Bolsheviks to have the issue come up, as it plainly admits that the issude had come up amongst the Orthodox for decades (at least over half a century).

Often Church councils discuss issues that are of contemporary relevance due to certain teachings, movements, initiatives, and phenomena in the Church at those times.  The 16th century Councils acknowledged the inaccuracy of the Julian calendar at that time and determined to remain on the traditional Julian at that time, but the issue was only discussed because of pressure coming from the calendar reform of Pope Gregory.  The Church has for centuries understood that the traditional calendar is inaccurate astronomically, but has continued to affirm that it is nevertheless perfect liturgically, and nothing can be gained by changing the Church calendar.  The 1917-1918 Council discussed this only because the Bolsheviks adopted the Gregorian as the civil calendar and pressured the Church to adopt the Gregorian as well.  The Church discussed the issue again, surveyed the previous statements made by the Orthodox Church on the subject, and again affirmed that nothing good could come from the adoption of the Gregorian.  And, alas, nothing good has come from the adoption of the New Calendar wherever this change has been made.        

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

The Julian Calendar is itself a reform of an older calendar.  Julius Caesar
was concerned that the calendar was actually out of whack with 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.

Patriarch Saint Tikhon and the Russian Synod had calendar reform on the
agenda of the 1917 Council but the Revolution intervened.   Serbia had the
calendar proposed in 1924 by Milutin Milankovic but I think they did not
have the necessary groundswell of support to implement it.   So neither of
these Old Calendar Churches could be said to be irrevocably committed to the
Old Calendar on principle.

[Irish Hermit]

One of the problems that Julius Caesar wanted to solve, was that of the calendar. The old republican calendar had twelve months that were supposed to be more or less as long as  the moon cycles. However, twelve lunar months were 355 days; the deficiency was made up by the random additions of 'intercalary' months. In Caesar's days, the calendar was seriously out of pace with the seasons. Following an advice of Cleopatra's court astronomer, he added 67 days to the year 45 BCE and introduced the modern European calendar with twelve months of 30 and 31 days. The reform is described by Plutarch of Chaeronea (46-c.120)  in chapter 59 of his Life of Julius Caesar. The translation below was made by Robin Seager.

Please go to
http://www.livius.org/caa-can/caesar/caesar_t17.html

[ialmisry]

The problem is that even here it indicates that there was no need for Bolsheviks to have the issue come up, as it plainly admits that the issude had come up amongst the Orthodox for decades (at least over half a century).

Often Church councils discuss issues that are of contemporary relevance due to certain teachings, movements, initiatives, and phenomena in the Church at those times.  The 16th century Councils acknowledged the inaccuracy of the Julian calendar at that time and determined to remain on the traditional Julian at that time, but the issue was only discussed because of pressure coming from the calendar reform of Pope Gregory.  The Church has for centuries understood that the traditional calendar is inaccurate astronomically, but has continued to affirm that it is nevertheless perfect liturgically, and nothing can be gained by changing the Church calendar.  The 1917-1918 Council discussed this only because the Bolsheviks adopted the Gregorian as the civil calendar and pressured the Church to adopt the Gregorian as well.  The Church discussed the issue again, surveyed the previous statements made by the Orthodox Church on the subject, and again affirmed that nothing good could come from the adoption of the Gregorian.  And, alas, nothing good has come from the adoption of the New Calendar wherever this change has been made.       

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

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.

Patriarch Saint Tikhon and the Russian Synod had calendar reform on the
agenda of the 1917 Council but the Revolution intervened.   Serbia had the
calendar proposed in 1924 by Milutin Milankovic but I think they did not
have the necessary groundswell of support to implement it.   So neither of
these Old Calendar Churches could be said to be irrevocably committed to the
Old Calendar on principle.

They both, however, are irrevocably committed to the Fathers of Nicea.

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

The problem is that even here it indicates that there was no need for Bolsheviks to have the issue come up, as it plainly admits that the issude had come up amongst the Orthodox for decades (at least over half a century).

Often Church councils discuss issues that are of contemporary relevance due to certain teachings, movements, initiatives, and phenomena in the Church at those times.  The 16th century Councils acknowledged the inaccuracy of the Julian calendar at that time and determined to remain on the traditional Julian at that time, but the issue was only discussed because of pressure coming from the calendar reform of Pope Gregory.  The Church has for centuries understood that the traditional calendar is inaccurate astronomically, but has continued to affirm that it is nevertheless perfect liturgically, and nothing can be gained by changing the Church calendar.  The 1917-1918 Council discussed this only because the Bolsheviks adopted the Gregorian as the civil calendar and pressured the Church to adopt the Gregorian as well.  The Church discussed the issue again, surveyed the previous statements made by the Orthodox Church on the subject, and again affirmed that nothing good could come from the adoption of the Gregorian.  And, alas, nothing good has come from the adoption of the New Calendar wherever this change has been made.        

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

The Julian Calendar is itself a reform of an older calendar.  Julius Caesar
was concerned that the calendar was actually out of whack with 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.

Patriarch Saint Tikhon and the Russian Synod had calendar reform on the
agenda of the 1917 Council but the Revolution intervened.   Serbia had the
calendar proposed in 1924 by Milutin Milankovic but I think they did not
have the necessary groundswell of support to implement it.   So neither of
these Old Calendar Churches could be said to be irrevocably committed to the
Old Calendar on principle.

It seems that there was indeed an effort to reform the calendar, with the biggest impediment being posssible loss of communion with other local churches. What any switch over to a new calendard (Gregorian or Revised Julian) would require was the revision of the Churh calendar--a difficult but not impossible task. These considerations had been on the table since long before the Bolshevik Revolution and apparently Saint Tikhon was in favor. I really do not think that Father Lebedeff's argument disprove Father Ambrose's main point, that the Russian Orthodox Church was not "irrevocably committed to the Old Calendar on principle."

[jah777]

which, while not canonically justifiable, are nevertheless understandable considering the unilateral nature

not crazy about that myself.

I’m glad that you agree that the *unilateral* nature of the New Calendar introduction by some local churches is problematic, or not ideal.

of the innovation

a return to the Fathers is never an innovation.

One definition of “innovation” is “something new or different”.  I’m sure you can agree that the New Calendar was different from the traditional Julian which had been used in the preceding centuries.  What I find most problematic about the New Calendar, though, is not its method of calculation or the shift by a certain number of days, but the unilateral nature of the change and the liturgical disunity that has resulted.  The whole purpose of coming to an agreement at the Council of Nicea regarding the calculation of Pascha was that all churches would celebrate this Feast of Feasts together on the same day.  It was this liturgical unity that was most important then, and my contention is that it is foolish to claim that New Calendar churches are being faithful to the Fathers of Nicea by celebrating the same feast on one day every year, while celebrating different feasts every other day of the year (at least aside from the few major feasts on the Paschal cycle).  I would not have a major problem with a Pan-Orthodox Council being convened and the New Calendar adopted by all local Orthodox Churches.  I just think that, as the Orthodox Church has said from the 16th century through the 19th century, such a change is just not necessary.  Post-1924, we can say that the change is not only unnecessary, it was also harmful in the schisms that resulted and have persisted to our day. 

As Bishop Tikhon has noted nothing of what Fr Alexander has written contradicts what either he or I have said.

So neither of these Old Calendar Churches could be said to be irrevocably committed to the
Old Calendar on principle.

I agree that we can’t say that the Church in Russia, or in Serbia for that matter, is “irrevocably committed to the Old Calendar on principle.”  What I thought Fr. Alexander’s posts contradicted was the statement:

But we might remember that it was the Russian Orthodox Church which was the first Orthodox Church to seriously consider changing to the Gregorian Calendar (at that time there was no thought of a "Revised Julian.")

This topic was on the agenda of the Russian Great Council of 1917.   The Council was cut short by the Revolution and the Calendar topic (as well as deaconesses) had no time for deliberation.

It seemed from these words that the Church in Russia was seriously considering changing to the Gregorian but the Council was cut short and a decision was not made.  I had the impression from this that the Church in Russia may have adopted the Gregorian if the Council had not been cut short.  Fr. Alexander’s account does not suggest that the Church in Russia was freely considering such a change, but rather that they were somewhat pressured by the Bolsheviks to consider such a change, and that they made a decision and the decision was not to change the calendar.  I agree that this does not mean the New Calendar will never be adopted in Russia or Serbia or elsewhere, though from the response of Jerusalem to the 1923 Congress, it seemed that Jerusalem may be irrevocably committed to the traditional Julian because a calendar change would throw a monkey wrench in the long standing arrangements made with the Roman Catholics and Armenians regarding who uses what churches when.  I think that if even one local church cannot adopt the New Calendar for serious reasons, then all should return to the Old. 
 

[podkarpatska]

^I can live with the status quo on the calendar issue. I have always believed that the old calendarists' main arguments are best successful on an emotional level, while the new calendar proponents present the more reasoned, intellectual argument. To hold out hope that the new calendar churches will return to the old is to hope for the impossible. Not going to happen. We just have to live with it and move on to more serious issues.

[Marc1152]

Btw, are there any liturgical differences between ROCOR and OCA. I guess ROCOR has more Slavonic but is there anything else?

The type of Slavonic for one: ROCOR it is Russian/Moscow recension, the OCA Carpatho-Russian.

ROCOR sort of takes as its model Russia as they remember (or nostralgize) it.  The OCA takes an idealized Russia too, but coming at it from what is looked down as provincial practice.  ACROD arose from those who refused to give up their "provincial" practice and be Russified.  I don't know, for instance, if plain Prostopinje chant is heard in ROCOR, but it is heard (and in some areas, regaining popularity) in the OCA.

Isnt the "plain chant" what the Old Believers use? Doesnt it make the service much longer.. Oh good let's do that.

[Punch]

The Old Believer Plain Chant does not make the service any longer. 

Btw, are there any liturgical differences between ROCOR and OCA. I guess ROCOR has more Slavonic but is there anything else?

The type of Slavonic for one: ROCOR it is Russian/Moscow recension, the OCA Carpatho-Russian.

ROCOR sort of takes as its model Russia as they remember (or nostralgize) it.  The OCA takes an idealized Russia too, but coming at it from what is looked down as provincial practice.  ACROD arose from those who refused to give up their "provincial" practice and be Russified.  I don't know, for instance, if plain Prostopinje chant is heard in ROCOR, but it is heard (and in some areas, regaining popularity) in the OCA.

Isnt the "plain chant" what the Old Believers use? Doesnt it make the service much longer.. Oh good let's do that.

[ialmisry]

which, while not canonically justifiable, are nevertheless understandable considering the unilateral nature

not crazy about that myself.

I’m glad that you agree that the *unilateral* nature of the New Calendar introduction by some local churches is problematic, or not ideal.

of the innovation

a return to the Fathers is never an innovation.

One definition of “innovation” is “something new or different”.  I’m sure you can agree that the New Calendar was different from the traditional Julian which had been used in the preceding centuries.

Not really.  When the Julian calendar was instituted, it was based on the most accurate astronomical calculations available, and when the Church adopted the Paschalion of Alexandria-the Julian calendar was not adopted, nor was it in common use in Alexandria and much less in the rest of Egypt-she did so for the same reasons. So it was different from the "traditional Julian" calendar as the "traditional Julian" calendar had deviated from its foundations.

What I find most problematic about the New Calendar, though, is not its method of calculation or the shift by a certain number of days, but the unilateral nature of the change and the liturgical disunity that has resulted.

I'm more worried about the high handed enforcement in some areas-guns should have never been involved, for instance.  As to liturgical disunity, I'm less worried about that as it is something that had been around in the early centuries-Theophany and Christmas were on different dates in different Churches, it seems into the eve of the conquests of the caliphs. Indeed, Armenian still retains the older system.  Of course, that can always be remedied.

The whole purpose of coming to an agreement at the Council of Nicea regarding the calculation of Pascha was that all churches would celebrate this Feast of Feasts together on the same day.  It was this liturgical unity that was most important then, and my contention is that it is foolish to claim that New Calendar churches are being faithful to the Fathers of Nicea by celebrating the same feast on one day every year, while celebrating different feasts every other day of the year (at least aside from the few major feasts on the Paschal cycle).

 
The New Calendar calculates the equinox on the equinox, as did the Fathers at Nicea.

I would not have a major problem with a Pan-Orthodox Council being convened and the New Calendar adopted by all local Orthodox Churches.

The majority of which have already adopted the New Calendar.

I just think that, as the Orthodox Church has said from the 16th century through the 19th century, such a change is just not necessary. 

I'll go with the Orthodox Church of the 4th century.

Post-1924, we can say that the change is not only unnecessary, it was also harmful in the schisms that resulted and have persisted to our day.

Not in Alexandria and Antioch it hasn't.

As Bishop Tikhon has noted nothing of what Fr Alexander has written contradicts what either he or I have said.

So neither of these Old Calendar Churches could be said to be irrevocably committed to the
Old Calendar on principle.

I agree that we can’t say that the Church in Russia, or in Serbia for that matter, is “irrevocably committed to the Old Calendar on principle.”  What I thought Fr. Alexander’s posts contradicted was the statement:

But we might remember that it was the Russian Orthodox Church which was the first Orthodox Church to seriously consider changing to the Gregorian Calendar (at that time there was no thought of a "Revised Julian.")
This topic was on the agenda of the Russian Great Council of 1917.   The Council was cut short by the Revolution and the Calendar topic (as well as deaconesses) had no time for deliberation.

It seemed from these words that the Church in Russia was seriously considering changing to the Gregorian but the Council was cut short and a decision was not made.  I had the impression from this that the Church in Russia may have adopted the Gregorian if the Council had not been cut short.  Fr. Alexander’s account does not suggest that the Church in Russia was freely considering such a change, but rather that they were somewhat pressured by the Bolsheviks to consider such a change, and that they made a decision and the decision was not to change the calendar.  I agree that this does not mean the New Calendar will never be adopted in Russia or Serbia or elsewhere, though from the response of Jerusalem to the 1923 Congress, it seemed that Jerusalem may be irrevocably committed to the traditional Julian because a calendar change would throw a monkey wrench in the long standing arrangements made with the Roman Catholics and Armenians regarding who uses what churches when.  I think that if even one local church cannot adopt the New Calendar for serious reasons, then all should return to the Old. 

Like the Quartodecimanists?

Jerusalem keeps up its present policies, there will be nothing left of it to hold to the Old Calendar.

As I posted before, the Russian Church desiring to reform the calendar precedes the Bolsheviks, e.g. 1900:

Just came across this. Since the Mother of All Calendar Threads is closed, I opened this one.

PROPOSED REFORMATION OF THE CALENDAR BY THE RUSSIAN ASTRONOMERS.

IN a late issue of the Russian Orthodox American Messenger we find the following:

"The revision of the Julian Calendar. (A report by Professor Glasenapp, published in the 'Novoye Vremia'.)"

The Russian Astronomical Society appointed a special commission, containing representatives of the different state departments and scientific societies, to examine into the question of the revision of the Julian calendar. This commission appointed Professor Glasenapp to make a report of the results of their conferences. The professor in his report gives the following reasons for a reformation: First. "The Julian calendar in use in Russia is a heathen one. The light of Christianity never touched it at all."

Second. That its intercalation is incorrect to the extent of one day in 128 years.

Third. That the Gregorian calendar is also imperfect in allowing three days in 400 years for the accumulated error in the Julian, instead of three days in 384 years (3 x 128).

Fourth. That the dates of the calendar should be so changed as to have the date of the vernal equinox conform to the date on which it fell at the birth of Christ, namely, the 23d of March....

....http://books.google.com/books?id=T0EQAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA757&dq=Russian+American+Orthodox++messenger&hl=en&ei=qneLTe3lKIPVgAfUrP27DQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CFcQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Russian%20American%20Orthodox%20%20messenger&f=false

The Russian American Orthodox Messenger was the offiicial organ of the Archdiocese of North America under Abp. (then Patriarch of Moscow) St. Tikhon, edited by St. Alexander Hotovitsky, and approved by the Russian Censor (which, it appears, was St. Alexis Toth).

[Orest]

Btw, are there any liturgical differences between ROCOR and OCA. I guess ROCOR has more Slavonic but is there anything else?

The type of Slavonic for one: ROCOR it is Russian/Moscow recension, the OCA Carpatho-Russian.

ROCOR sort of takes as its model Russia as they remember (or nostralgize) it.  The OCA takes an idealized Russia too, but coming at it from what is looked down as provincial practice.  ACROD arose from those who refused to give up their "provincial" practice and be Russified.  I don't know, for instance, if plain Prostopinje chant is heard in ROCOR, but it is heard (and in some areas, regaining popularity) in the OCA.

Isnt the "plain chant" what the Old Believers use? Doesnt it make the service much longer.. Oh good let's do that.

No, Prostopinje chant has nothing to do with Russia & it does not make the services longer.

[Irish Hermit]

.....the liturgical disunity that has resulted.  The whole purpose of coming to an agreement at the Council of Nicea regarding the calculation of Pascha was that all churches would celebrate this Feast of Feasts together on the same day.  It was this liturgical unity that was most important then,

I do not find this argument from liturgical disunity very solid.

We think back to the chaos and liturgical disunity which resulted from the time of the schism with Rome.    There were several centuries when some Churches counted Rome as being in schism while other Churches continued to be in  liturgical unity with Rome and even the last Liturgy in Agia Sophia was concelebrated by Greek and Latin priests!! . This was 400 years (!!!) after what we consider the official date of the great Schism.   This odd situation was transient - some Churches in liturgical unity with Rome and some in schism-  and it did not destroy the liturgical unity among the Eastern Churches.

In the same way the calendrical disunity has not destroyed the liturgical unity among the Eastern Churches. The three Churches which have not moved to the New Calendar, Jerusalem, Russia and Serbia, still enjoy a common liturgical life with all the New Calendar Churches.

Just as the major break with Rome took centuries to percolate through the Churches, so too the major break with the Julian Calendar will take a little time.  And after all, we are speaking only of a short period so far, of 80 years.  In the life of the Church that is a blink of an eye and the Church will have no problem living with it for decades, or even centuries. to come.

[kijabeboy03]

"Isnt the "plain chant" what the Old Believers use?"

No, the Old Believers and Old Ritualist parishes use the Znamenny chant that was common in most of Russia before the reforms.

[podkarpatska]

Btw, are there any liturgical differences between ROCOR and OCA. I guess ROCOR has more Slavonic but is there anything else?

The type of Slavonic for one: ROCOR it is Russian/Moscow recension, the OCA Carpatho-Russian.

ROCOR sort of takes as its model Russia as they remember (or nostralgize) it.  The OCA takes an idealized Russia too, but coming at it from what is looked down as provincial practice.  ACROD arose from those who refused to give up their "provincial" practice and be Russified.  I don't know, for instance, if plain Prostopinje chant is heard in ROCOR, but it is heard (and in some areas, regaining popularity) in the OCA.

Isnt the "plain chant" what the Old Believers use? Doesnt it make the service much longer.. Oh good let's do that.

It doesn't make the services longer and there are a few common points with the Old Believer style of znamenny. This makes sense given the history of the east Slavs and the geographic and political isolation of many sub-groups. Here is a brief history, http://www.acrod.org/ministries/music/plainchant/pchistorypt1

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > General Forums > Christian News (Moderator: Yurysprudentsiya) > Topic: ROCOR to Join Moscow Patriarchate