www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Why some UGCCs use Julian Calendar

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Hello everyone, it has been a while since I have posted on here. I just learned that there are whole eparchies/dioceses and individual parishes of UGCC that use the Julian calendar. I thought all eastern Catholics were in sync with the Gregorian calendar. So I'm curious, I understand us having our theological, spiritual, liturgical, etc. distinctions, but why this division in calendars? I had, in Googling this, come across this thread, https://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/243537/1, and Fr. Serge Keleher said that Patriarch Joseph "never made any secret of his support for the Julian Calendar." So, like I said, I'm curious and my basic question is why are not all Catholics on the same calendar? I am not trying to stir anything up, just curious.

Thank you,

Kyrie eleison,

Manuel

Manuel,

There's lots written on that question - you might search the archives.

The shorter answer many will give is that, yes, it would be nice if everyone were on the same calendar. But the East is not the one who made the change, and that the West could return to the Julian Calendar.

I do know that Pope John Paul II recommended that all Christians in the Middle East follow the Julian date for Pascha (Easter). But I don't think he ever required RCs to make the switch (others who may know might post on that).

John

PS: I personally have no preference regarding the calendar.

Ss. Peter and Paul, Spring Valley. N.Y.

It is the way of Christians not to change things unnecessarily, and where it is necessary to change things, to change things slowly.

We are Russian Greek Catholic, not UGCC, but we are on the "Revised Julian". With the exception of ROCOR and a very few OCA parishes here, the Orthodox Churches in the greater SF Bay Area are on the Revised Julian Calendar. Sharing the same calendar with the Orthodox Churches here facilitates our people being able to go to Orthodox services when our tiny parish doesn't have them, and for parishioners who due to the distance cannot make it to some services we do have at our parish, but can get to the same services at a much closer-to-home Orthodox Church parish.

I always wondered why some UGCC parishes use the Gregorian calendar?

Dear Father Deacon,

Christ is Born!

In fact, the majority of UGCC parishes "in the diaspora" use the Gregorian Calendar.

Here in Her Majesty's Dominion of Canada, all of the west are on the Gregorian Calendar.

Here in southern Ontario, there are parishes which will "do Christmas" twice in accordance with both calendars.

I'm only grateful that we don't have any Armenians in sufficient numbers to warrant celebrating Christmas on their calendar .

Truth be told, the use of the Julian calendar usually tends to be for nationalist/ethnocultural reasons. When that happens, the youth tend to drift away, like mice on a water bed.

There are some UGCC parishes who maintain the Julian calendar for "Orthodox in communion with Rome" reasons, and that is different - the youth there tend to be involved and stay with the parish.

But these are few and far between.

Alex

Dear Alex,

Why was our dear friend, of blessed memory, Father Serge Keleher, on the old/Julian calendar? (Something which he was also fanatical about!)

Regards,
Alice

I thought that was because of transportation issues, it was easier for them to get to the church when the trains weren't on the holiday schedule of diminished service. At least on parishioner told me that.

Certainly, the fathers of the Council of Nicaea agreed that all Christians should be celebrating the Resurrection on the same day!

The problem of the Gregorian Calendar derives from the fact that at the time of its implementation in 1578, the Church of Rome regarded only those churches in communion with herself as valid Christians, thus saw no need to seek concurrence from the East beforehand. The Church of Constantinople, on the other hand, regarded only those churches in communion with herself as valid Christians, thus saw no reason to accept the changes being implemented by Rome.

The Western argument for the change has always been the cosmic aspect of the event of the Resurrection, whereas the Eastern argument for not changing has always been the unbroken tradition of using the same calendar and the same table for determining the date of Pascha. Both arguments have merit.

Ultimately, I don't think the issue will be resolved before reunification, and if reunification is successful, it will probably be with the two calendars intact for a few decades, if not longer.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Dear and Venerable Alice,

Yes, Fr. Keleher (+memory eternal!)certainly was for the Julian Calendar.

His reasons were the same as those held by the Old Calendarist Orthodox jurisdictions. He cited several reasons why the New Calendar just messes up certain fasts and feasts (like that of the Apostles).

I don't pretend to understand any of that as it sounds controversial.

And you know how I stay away from what is controversial . . .

Alex

Dear Father Deacon,

OK, but in the Byzantine Orthodox world, only the East Slavs and the Georgians have the Julian Calendar, correct?

So not even all Orthodox observe it ("Reformed Julian Calendar" is, as you know, simply the Gregorian calendar with the Orthodox Pascha factored in).

Many of those on the Julian Calendar celebrate Christmas twice, in a sense.

And in my Saturday religion classes, I always ask those on the Julian Calendar how their celebrations were - many a time I'm told they didn't celebrate it as their parents had to go to work on January 7th.

Let me ask you then, if I may - isn't not celebrating the feast of the Nativity of Christ on the old Calendar due to an attachment to it for whatever reason something that might come under Christ's condemnation re: elevating human traditions above those that are divine?

Just wondering.

Alex

Tsk !

To my knowledge it's the USA and Canada that are out of step

In Europe the UGCC uses the Julian Calendar

Liturgical objections to the new calendar stem from the fact that it adjusts only those liturgical celebrations that occur on fixed calendar dates, leaving all of the commemorations on the moveable cycle on the original Julian calendar. This upsets the harmony and balance of the liturgical year. (This would not have been a problem if the recommendations of the 1923 synod to use an astronomical rule to reckon the date of Easter, as outlined above, had not been rejected.) This disruption is most noticeable during Great Lent. Certain feast days are designed to fall during Lent, such as the feast of the Forty Martyrs of Sebaste. The Feast of the Annunciation is also intended to fall either before Pascha or during Bright Week. Sometimes, Annunciation will fall on the day of Pascha itself, a very special concurrence known as Kyrio-Pascha, with special liturgical practices appointed for such an occurrence. However, under the new calendar, Kyrio-Pascha becomes an impossibility. The Apostles' Fast displays the most difficult aspect of the new calendar. The fast begins on the moveable cycle and ends on the fixed date of 29 June; since the new calendar is 13 days ahead of the traditional Julian calendar, the Apostles' Fast is 13 days shorter for those who follow the new calendar, and some years it is completely abrogated.

Good post. The disruption of the Apostles Fast is a very troublesome aspect of the "new" calendar.