www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Old Calendar Catholics?

Perhaps I misunderstand, but what about parity -- only the Eastern Catholic churches must conform?

AJ,

I think it's got to do with maintaining/affirming our Eastern identity--something the RCs don't have to worry about.

We want Rome (and the whole RCC) to recognize us as OICWR, and we want to be able to show the EOs that it is possible to be OICWR--but we have to prove it to ourselves first.

Stuart's other comments are pertinent as well:


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Personally I don't subscribe to OICWR as the end-all expression of our ecclesiology. We shouldn't have to be proving ourselves to others (Are they striving to prove themselves to us?), just be true to who we are. Linking a calendar to our identity is misguided, especially if the calendar has an accumulating error.

Sad but look at it the other way: Those are to blame who linked Eastern identity to the Julian calendar in the first place; they taught their message very effectively, too bad it was based on polemics rather than truth.

When I read the text of the Union of Brest, I see a call for us to be OICWR.


All Christians are called to seek unity, but we are called in a unique way. If we fail to answer this call we are not truly being ourselves.


The accuracy of the calendar is a relatively small thing compared to the unity of the Church


Do you really feel that absolves you of any obligation to reach out to the EOs?

It's important to meet people "where they are," and sometimes this involves coming to realize that their "ridiculous" ideas aren't as ridiculous as we thought.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

I don't see it in those terms.

We should be leading the way to what is correct.

We should want and expect both -- an accurate calendar and unity.

I'm not reaching out? In the several threads on this forum concerning the calendar issue I've witnessed a number of false assertions and have attempted to correct them.

Tell that one to those who opposed the Quartodecimans.

.

It really doesn't matter whether you see it or not--for the past century and a half, the Holy See has consistently exhorted the Eastern Catholics--particularly the Greek Catholics, to observe the fullness of their respective traditions in all ways--liturgical, theological, spiritual, doctrinal and disciplinary. It is Rome that wants us to be "Orthodox in Communion with Rome", it is our own leaders, and some of the faithful, for various reasons, who do not wish this to happen.

I posted the full text of Father Taft's essay Liturgy in the Life of the Church here. I exhort everyone to read it. It was delivered as an address to the assembled Eastern Catholic bishops of North America and Oceania in Boston, in 1999, at the behest of Cardinal Sylvestrini, then-Prefect of the Oriental Congregation. Consider it a reiteration and clarification of many directives from the Holy See, that we must become what our Orthodox counterparts are in all things, with the addition of our communion with the Church of Rome.

Or whether YOU do or don't. OICWR has no one clear meaning, nor is it the accepted standard designation for those who are truly Eastern, Catholic or Orthodox. So it does matter to me, how I see it, and I see reading OICWR into Brest as, well, eisegesis, besides being a far flung irrelevancy for furthering a fruitful discussion, presently, on the actual topic, the calendar issue. Making the use of the Julian calendar a Shibboleth for being Eastern? -- Unthinkable, unheard of! (At least it should be.)

Orthodox in communion with Rome has a very clear and definitive meaning, which was enunciated by Father Taft and a number of other Eastern Catholic theologians: To live the fullness of the Orthodox Tradition in all ways while simultaneously maintaining communion with the Church of Rome. Seems pretty straightforward. And, as Father Taft also said, if we are not willing to do that, there is no reason for us to maintain an ecclesial identity distinct from the Latin Church.

On the matter of the calendar, if you have followed my comments here, you will have observed that I see no valid reason for maintaining the Julian Paschalion and believe that the Fathers themselves would have adopted whatever the most accurate calendar was available to them. If they were alive today, they would adopt the Gregorian Calendar in a flash.

That said, as Eastern Catholics, we have an obligation--stated repeatedly by the Holy See--to minimize and whenever possible eliminate all differences between us and our counterpart Orthodox Churches. Moreover, insofar as most Eastern Catholics around the world--which would be the vast majority of Greek Catholics--employ the Julian Paschalion, we in the United States ought to do what the rest of our fellow Greek Catholics are doing.

Above all, it creates unsustainable divisions to have different eparchies of the same particular Churches on different calendars. We are one family, therefore we should celebrate Pascha as one. It is, to my mind, scandalous that the Ukrainian Greek Catholics are celebrating Pascha on one date in Ukraine, another in the United States. The same goes for the Melkites. Even the Ruthenians should coordinate their calendar with those of the Carpatho-Rusyn eparchies in Ukraine and Slovakia.

You may argue that we live in a majority Gregorian region, but that is not relevant. What is relevant is ecclesial solidarity amongst our selves. You may argue that the Eastern Catholics around the world should all be Gregorian, since Rome itself is Gregorian, but that merely erects one more needless barrier between ourselves and the Orthodox.

It is true that I consider the Orthodox use of the Julian Paschalion to be a pointless archaism, but I am quite willing to live with such an archaism (which, after all, harms nobody) to avoid needless ecclesial divisions (which do).

"If they [the Fathers] were alive today, they would adopt the Gregorian Calendar in a flash." Yes we should adhere to Nicaea (the Gregorian Calendar), but --- use a calendar that doesn't (the Julian Calendar)?

The calendar issue is not just a matter of taste: I think the room should be painted, others that it should be wallpapered. Rather it is like the choice between a boat with structural integrity and one with problems that is taking on water. For the sake of unity and a kind of uniformity I'm being told we should all be in the same boat, so let's all get into the one with the problem. It's not taking on water all that fast and for now we'll get just a little wet.

The Church has blessed both Calendars, so it doesn’t matter, in my opinion, if they are astronomically correct. What matters is that the Church has blessed them. I agree that we should be in accord with the Ecumenical Councils and while I agree we should all be on one calendar for all major feasts this isn't going to happen until the Church heals the divisions that plague her. That should be our first priority- healing the divisions.
Plus the Orthodox are on two different versions of the Julian calendar; one that is fully the Julian and the other just for Pascha (Revised Julian Calendar). So they are not in full agreement on which calendar to use and add to that the Orthodox Church of Finland uses the Gregorian for Pascha as well we get a picture that is far from calendar uniformity in the Eastern Church.


I don't think we should say try to assume what the Fathers would or wouldn't say. Again the Calendar doesn't save us, Christ does and if we are on the Julian or the Gregorian he still loves us and the Fathers still pray for us.

You do not miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity, do you? The point is, not all issues are of equal weight, and we must prioritize according to what we value most. I value most the unity of the Church. If the Church was united under the Gregorian calendar, that would be best, but I would not turn down unity under the Julian Calendar, because I value unity more than astronomical accuracy. And unity begins with each particular Church. If the Patriarch of Kyiv is using the Julian Paschalion, then all Churches that commemorate him as Patriarch should do the same. If the Melkite Patriarch of Antioch uses the Julian Paschalion, then all Melkites should do likewise--regardless of what the majority Church(es) in their area are doing.

It really is that simple.

Rather it seems to me others miss answering substantive questions but respond with impertinent ones.

Then why not choose the best?

Would accepting the practice of the Quartodecimans have been an equally acceptable solution for the Church in achieving unity regarding when Pascha is celebrated?


Sounds like a Cuius regio, eius religio solution that doesn't solve or even address the ultimate issue of dual dates for Pascha.

It actually isn't as this discussion and previous threads show. Again I ask: Why not unity and accuracy? Or if it is "unity more than astronomical accuracy" or


Why not then agree on, say, Pascha as the second Sunday of April on the civil calendar? That should be inaccurate often enough to please most astronomically accurate or correct naysayers. And let me ask then, was the prescription of Nicaea just an arbitrary sequence of astronomical events? Was there some significance to the sequence? What is the relevance of a prescription based on astronomical events if the actual correspondence with the events is so unimportant, unnecessary, secondary?

The Catholic Church recognized both as legitimate calendars for the faithful to use. If the Pope and the other Eastern Catholic Patriarchates feel this way then why are we arguing? The Church united will have to face this issue but it will not be solved until the Church is reunited- this to me is clear due to the fact that the Catholic Church does recognize both Calendars. Let us work for Christian unity, which God wishes from us, and then come together to solve the secondary issue of what Calendar should be used by the Church. For only a fully united Catholic/Orthodox Church will be able to solve the Calendar question.

If the individual Eastern Catholic Churches wish to use the Julian Calendar then I, as a member, will follow my Churches Calendar. If my parish is allowed to choose then I will follow the Calendar my parish chooses (and we use the Gregorian one). Until we are able to sing the Paschal hymns in a United Church then we have to make due with what our Church practices.

I guess my point is that we will never solve the problem of dual calendars until the Church is reunited.


We will not be saved by the Calendar. Christ wishes for us to be one, lets work towards that goal.

AJ,

Come on now! You've seen enough of the responses from our EO members--and even a few of our EC members--on this subject. The EOC feels all the more attached to the JC/JP due to the fact that others are so eager to separate them from it.

In other words, we can argue all we want, but that's not going to change the situation. (Do you really think we ought to pursue unity only with those EOs who are willing to embrace the GC?)

Accuracy may indeed come afterwards, but unity has to come first.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Fr Deacon is spot on!

Unity first!