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).
