www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology The liturgical calendars and the Paschal Cycle with the Typikon

And this is about to call the wrath of Admins down on me for being drastically off topic

I was trying to reply to your post of #331127

but I couldn't , as you edited it , so mine was no longer relevant - and it kept happening

Now back to our topic of Calendars for the umpteenth time

I would love to know your response to my post #331127! Again, I'm sorry I made it difficult for you.

ok, I'm asking for the view. What is the Old Calendar doing that the Gregorian isn't? To my way of seeing it, I do not see any incompatibility in the Gregorian calendar regarding the Paschal cycle and the Typicon. Is there one?

The topic as I've explained is not just about the calendars. The topic is not even one calendar versus another. The topic, in part, is what, if anything, is special about the Julian calendar that isn't in the Gregorian regarding the paschal cycle and the typicon.

This is a very good question. I would love to get an answer to this. After all, the Orthodox Church of Finland celebrates Easter according to the Gregorian calendar, so it cannot be all bad, can it?

I'm not interested in convincing followers of the Julian calendar that they should switch to the Gregorian one. That seems to me a futile cause. But I am interested to know if they think that I and all those who use the Gregorian calendar are on the wrong path.

As one source puts it:
link [en.wikipedia.org]

The irony is that the Julian calendar was introduced by Julius Caesar.

True in a sense, but I didn't think its use as a civil calendar was any problem since it didn't affect the liturgical calendar. For instance:

link [doukhobor.org]

A problem with Sunday being compromised as a day of rest is an issue, but that would have been the case for either calendar. See link [en.wikipedia.org] .

Few people understand the intricacies of celestial mechanics or the measurement of time. For them, the calendar is something taken for granted, and changes to it tend to be resisted viscerally. When England switched from Julian to Gregorian in 1752, there were disturbances by workers convinced they had been cheated out of eleven days' pay.

I can sympathesize! Heck, when I was in high school and occasionally working overnight, I was convinced that - if I worked the night that the clock was set back - I would be cheated out of an hour (and that I best be sure that I got scheduled for the other, to make it up)

Yes. I thought that in past threads the scientific angle was dealt with quite thoroughly, especially for an internet forum. The issue here, as the title indicates, is multi-faceted, and the issue of science and accuracy is there to harmonize our grid for timekeeping, a calendar of our construction, with the movements of the sun, earth, and moon, the "calendar" of God's construction. So that seems worthwhile; there is theology there if one is willing to see it.

Beyond that a question remains: What, if anything, makes the Julian calendar unique in its interaction with the typicon and the spiritual and liturgical rhythm and cycles of the day and year? For that matter, and even more basically, what is meant by the typicon?

It seems to me that the intention of those who created the Julian calendar was to create an accurate calendar. They came close but were not totally accurate. The Gregorian changes simply fixed the errors of the Julian, returning it to what was intended by those who created the Julian calendar and what the Church Fathers thought they were getting. I've never understood the heavy emotions involved, even allowing that a few within the East are so anti-papal that they would reject solid science.

The typicon (the order we follow as Church) developed with the assumption that the Julian calendar was accurate. But, to be fair, while the pagan inventors of the Julian calendar know it was not perfect they did not appear to realize how much it was going to slip and how soon.

I don't see those who have made the Julian calendar part and parcel of their theology as being able to be convinced of anything. Time is the only answer here.

Indeed. It was, of course, calendar time that was being removed, not God's time. That being so, there was still a practical issue that did need to be taken into account since the calendar time was, and is, used in our various activities and obligations. The Pope noted this in promulgating the reformed calendar:
link [bluewaterarts.com]

The calendar issue is not something that concerns me all that much, and I often worship in a Julian Calendar parish. But since we allow other topics to be discussed repeatedly I'm not sure it's appropriate to discourage repeated discussions of only the Julian calendar. Everyone has their soapbox where issues are discussed repeatedly (mine is liturgy!) so it seems openness and flexibility are in order.

I suppose we could ask posters to start no more then one discussion of the Julian calendar ever 13 days?

Some do and some don't. I've met Orthodox who would support a full switch to the Gregorian (even for Pascha). And I've met Orthodox who condemn other Orthodox for moving to the Gregorian calendar for the fixed feasts (Christmas). Father David referenced something very telling. I have met a few people who insist that our Lord was born on January 7th, for they did not know that the Julian calendar celebrates Christmas on December 25th and that December 25th just (currently) falls 13 days late.

But, insofar as the world does not use the Julian Calendar, 25 December Julian is 7 January for all intents and purposes. It really does no good to say, "Well, you may think it's 7 January, but it's really 25 December." I only have to look at the elevation of the sun at noon to see that isn't the case. I can look at my daughter Bronwyn's birth certificate, and it says 7 January, not 25 December, for all that she likes to think of herself as a Christmas Baby.