www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Once again, the Calendar

Dear Bob,

Your keen insight here is what I agree with and wanted to get across in my own way earlier. Thank you for bringing your thoughts to bear here. Alex

I am aware of the disagreement on ecclesiology, an obstacle to unity in faith. Thus, for a Catholic, the Pope is the servant of the servants, this is implicit in the understanding of primacy - by the way, Gregory XIII signed the bull with the "title": servant of the servants of God. There is no problem for a catholic. In addition, the Pope acted according to tradition, with Nicaea, etc, it is not a schismatic attitude. I think that the problem is not just "mentality", but of ecclesiology itself, something more subtle and profound. Faced with this, I think it is not something that is from the past, but current and future.

Yes, I think there is no need to reinvent the wheel. In my country, as far as I know (unless mistaken), Eastern Catholics and Protestant Christians adopted the Gregorian calendar, and the problem was solved. Or almost solved: only orthodox and orthodox monophysites follow the Julian calendar.

The Bull makes the case for following the accepted rule and applying it so that it conforms to nature. If there is a schism (I don't think "schism" is an accurate description here), it is those who do not accept the rule or accept it and misapply it, who are responsible.

The issue is NOT the correctness of the Gregorian calendar, the rule conforming to nature etc., but HOW its implementation was done - without the participation of the East, outside of a Council and the like. There is no question that the Pope had the right to do this over his own jurisdiction but it did further and deepen the division between east and west. That division exists to this day in EC Churches themselves and in individual EC parishes, like that of my in-laws' which holds celebrations according to two calendars. You, Father Deacon, are right in affirming the natural correctness of the Gregorian calendar. You are wrong in saying that such correctness is all that goes into the choice of which calendar to observe. There are several reasons pertaining to one's ecclesial, cultural, spiritual identities. I'm sure you find all that not only repugnant but irrational and nonsensical. I have a friend who is an OCA priest who follows, with his parish, the Julian calendar. I will have to ask him for his reasons and report back. The Soviets introduced the Gregorian civil calendar but Orthodox Christians in Russia refuses to use it as it represented to them not only the communist system, but also the moral and spiritual decadence of the West where the calendar originated in. That again is no reason not to accept it (I will repeat one more time that I am ready to accept any calendar so we can all have ONE). But then again, we cannot say that social, cultural, spiritual and psychological reasons do not have an influence over our calendar choice - the East that uses either the Julian Calendar or the old way of calculating Easter admits to the Gregorian as a civil calendar and one may proclaim its correctness to the heavens. It won't change a thing in terms of their choice and it is wrong to condemn them or to treat them as if they were idiots in so doing.

For this calendar issue the Pope (of Rome) -- and that is how he should be designated, not Roman Patriarch -- can properly make such a decision and did, and doesn't need the "Christian East" or anyone else to legitimately do so. History shows there was no universal consensus for hundreds of years after Nicaea. When a consensus was reached it correctly identified the best approach at the time but it was never intended to be static since it was clear to the churches of East and West that further improvements were required. If today the same sense of consensus were perused as in former times, one that "identified the best approach at the time" the result would be the Gregorian Calendar.

Here, Father Deacon, you overreach. The Roman Pope (and simply because he no longer accepts the title of "patriarch" doesn't mean the East will stop seeing him as one) had every right to legislate the Filioque for the Latin Church, as another example. But previous popes up to 1012, I believe, refused to do so precisely because they knew that would offend the Christian East and exacerbate tensions. Your comment that he doesn't need anyone to legitimately do this or that is innocent of ecumenical history and the current ecumenical climate and discussions between the Churches. Bob is absolutely correct here in saying what he did. And that is why Pope Francis has, in interviews I've heard him give, said he himself favours the "Orthodox Pascha" as the date of Easter for all Christians. Popes themselves realize that their ancestors contributed much to the break in the Church and papal triumphalism is a thing of the past. You seem to want to return to those "good old days" or at least when such triumphalism can proclaim the true calendar. Sorry, it doesn't work that way - at least no longer. Swan took offense to my placing "scientific fact" in quotation marks and then went on to, wrongly, impute what that meant on my part. What does your placement of "Christian East" in quotation marks signify here? Are you saying something untoward about the Eastern churches? I at least will give you the benefit of the doubt and will ask before making a judgement.

In the Bull the operative term is not impose but wish/want "volumus que." A balanced appraisal is: Gregorian calendar [en.wikipedia.org]
That there was no such imposition is also demonstrated by the fact that it was not a condition for union, and is not imposed on Eastern Catholic churches.

The Latin Church imposed the new calendar on its own parishes. The fact that the pope did not impose it on others because he had no jurisdiction over others is a logical fallacy - it proves nothing with respect to your point that Rome didn't impose the calendar. The fact that it was not a condition for union within the various unias was simply good politics on the part of Rome in the era when it went throughout Eastern Church jurisdictions creating uniate groups - something Rome is repenting of today. And besides, if we read the conditions for the Union of Brest, we see that maintenance of the Julian calendar was something the Orthodox bishops coming under Rome articulate and demanded as a condition for such a union.

Why? I'd place fact above fashion. What should be more readily achievable and truly a step forward is to refrain from such flamboyant rhetoric, incorrect assertions that further polarize. There is no such "mindset" there is just legitimate fact: Pope Gregory fixed what wasn't working because it desperately needed fixing. He fixed the calendar and the computus so that it actually determines Pascha in accord with the rule AND observed nature, the real world. If you have a set of directions and a choice between two maps to use, one that gets you to the right place, one that does not, which one do you chose? The Gregorian reform produced the correct map. Yet the argument is made, repeatedly here on the forum, that for the sake of unity, everyone should use the WRONG map so that all together we can arrive at the wrong place. Where else does that logic prevail? So for those, here's a novel though: for the sake of unity, let's all use the correct map and arrive at the right place,

You actually place a very narrow definition of "fact" above all else. Your use of "fasion" in this respect demonstrates your complete disregard for the varied reasons EC Churches and people have for maintaining the old calendar or the old calculation for Pascha. Not that you can be blamed for so doing - North Americans can't really be as this is beyond their comprehension and appreciation. The "real world" as you've put it is not simply the natural world that science observes. That is again a reductionist view of "reality" which is socially constructed and culturally confirmed. For the record, I NEVER said that we had to follow any particular calendar or "map" as you put it. I simply raised the issue that is continually being raised in ecumenical discussions between Rome and Orthodoxy. I don't know the answer. But obviously do. You would have cut that discussion short long ago.

Everyone should make a choice. I don't think one should wait for or expect some holy-grail calendar to appear as a solution when one exists and has worked now for over 400 years.

Well is the Gregorian Calendar correct or not? Does it or does it not achieve a determination of Pascha more faithful to the rules of Nicaea than the Julian?

"NOT the correctness of the Gregorian calendar" you say but it was YOU who noted (incorrectly) in the post that generated this thread that there is a Gregorian related problem with Passover. So is the Gregorian calendar ok after all?

This "HOW" stuff is simply made up, a convenient side-stepping the issue. It's a contrivance. Suddenly now we must invoke a council. There was no council that confirmed a calendar. There was no council that reached agreement on a calendar. There was no formal agreement for a calendar. Back ~ AD 600 the "West" with its several methods came to see that one method of the "East" did the best job and adopted it. It too had problems but there was no better solution until some 900 years later. Then the "West" found a solution in line with tradition and did what it and the "East" had done in the past: it announced and used its better method. Nothing here for posturing of east and west, that's just how it happened. So as the west got on board before correctly, the east should now, but it just can't. Why? For one thing, pride, abd too many polemics against the West on this issue. And falsehoods are a fertilizer for polemics .

This whole "scientifically proven facts" issue is your own creation. Where does it become relevant in the Julian vs. Gregorian application? Any of us peasants is quick enough to look up in the night sky and realize that the moon is long past the near-full that it should be or it's been quite a while and way too long since the season changed to spring.

I did not see any problems. Christian unity is desirable, but a sincere unity and without prejudice to the integral content of faith. If in the name of "ecumenism" a false union is proposed in the future, worse than previous attempts, with more vigor must be fought.



"The Sacred Council would not object if the feast of Easter were assigned to a particular Sunday of the Gregorian Calendar, provided that those whom it may concern, especially the brethren who are not in communion with the Apostolic See, give their assent."

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_..._19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

In the Catholic understanding it is a scandal that there are different dates for Easter. Then, at least since the Second Vatican Council there is the opening of dialogue to find a common date. So this is not news of Francisco; Paul VI also fought for this; John Paul II also. Benedict gave his assent. However, no viable solution was found. In addition, Orthodox Christians do not seem to be enthusiastic about the idea, so I personally do not believe a common date will be found "so soon" (if that's at all possible).

I don't know about your genealogy, sir, but the point is simply that there is more to reality and facts than what can be calculated and pointed to, especially with respect to the religious and spiritual world.

Dearest Father Deacon ajk,

I think the Gregorian Calendar is correct. More to the point, my Ukrainian Greco-Catholic church and the newly-minted Orthodox Church of Ukraine both have special commissions in place whose goal is to educate their respective peoples on why the new calendar is the better calendar and why it should be adopted. But it won't, for want of a less controversial word, impose the new calendar because many, many of our people will, at present simply reject it - it is something different, something that has not been used before, or even something that threatens tradition etc. Thus, a period of education before the people of both churches, who share everything for the most part, can unite in the one new calendar.

My in-laws attend a new calendar parish but refuse to celebrate Christmas and Easter on anything but the old calendar. They can't do it as for them it represents a betrayal of their identity, their tradition and everything they hold sacred. I know families in our community who say that even if Ukraine moves to the new calendar, THEY will continue with the old.

That is my point. What goes into these determinations involve more than the reality of the science underscoring the calendar. With respect to Catholic-Orthodox dialogue, there are other arguments involving the calendar and the date of Pascha. At no time, has anyone, however, said that the Gregorian calendar is wrong. No one. Those who are not on it acknowledge it as the civil calendar - of course. They use the Julian or Reformed Julian calendars for various other reasons they say are variously liturgical, spiritual and the like. Do you say that they are wrong? Pride? Polemics? Yes indeed. Eastern Christians have been persecuted by Western Christians throughout their history as well, not only as Eastern Christians, but culturally too. Eastern traditions have tended to be important symbols of identity for them, yes, the Julian calendar, but also the three-bar Cross, the blessing of poppyseeds on August 14th, and many others. Also, friends of mine who are of the Old Calendar tend to be real examples of traditional Christian living, fasting, frequent attendance at all the Church services, active participation in community charities etc. "Liberals" in my church tend to be with the new calendar while conservatives with the old. I don't know why that is, but that in and of itself has recommended old calendar parishes to people. And we've had an influx of immigrants from Europe - all of whom insist on the Julian calendar as "our tradition."

If there was a simple way to resolve this . . . I don't think you, Father Deacon, are paying heed to the great spiritual and cultural aura that surrounds the Julian calendar for many still. You would not be able to walk into a parish and issue an ukaze that "from now on, we are on the Gregorian Calendar and the date of Pascha as it determines." You will have a revolt on your hands. The only way to do this is over time with authorities who are willing to take the time to educate their people on using the Gregorian calendar and this is already happening in my church. Frankly, even with the move toward the Gregorian Calendar in Ukraine there is the precipitating factor that this Calendar represents the "European" or Western calendar and becoming an integral part of the West is something Ukrainians are all about today. The Russians will hang onto the Julian calendar for a very long time and will probably never change. Have a good night and good Fast. Alex

You've missed my point. What are the "scientifically proven facts" that you see as problematic? Where has the discussion hinged on your understand to be "scientifically proven facts" ? I'm not sure I now know what you mean by the term and how it enters into the calendar issue?

Dearest Reverend Father Deacon!

I placed those words in parentheses not to questions the veracity of science or of the scientific basis for the Gregorian Calendar. My point was that the scientific factual basis of the calendar is not the only consideration that goes into a community's persistence in using the Julian calendar. You may ridicule that or else accuse that community/Church of pride etc. That doesn't take away from the fact that they don't use it and have their own liturgical and cultural reasons for not doing so. Also, the use of "the real world" is really problematic. What is the real world if not the composite experience of a multitude of perceptions and accepted meanings, some of which are based on science, others based on tradition, still others based on subjective likes and dislikes and so on. Altogether, they go to make up our "real world" which is itself a world filled with contradictions. It is all part of our fundamental human desire and need for meaning as individuals and communities.

There are facts that are simply that and which define the reality of something that everyone can agree on - because they have been scienficially verified. There are other facts which would require an accompanying interpretation from someone which can be challenged by someone else with a differing interpretation of the same fact. In those cases, we cannot bring the debate or discussion to a conclusion by simply pointing to something as if to say "no need to talk about it - there it is in plain sight." It would depend on the nature of the fact of course.

But the continuing use of the Julian Calendar by a Church or parish community does not mean that Church or community denies the factual basis of the Gregorian calendar. They have their own liturgical reasons for maintaining the Julian calendar (and not just the schismatic Old Calendarist Orthodox jurisdictions which is what Swan, at one point at least, SEEMED to imply).. I have my own subjective reasons to come to the defense of the liturgical Julian calendar as I've grown up in it, continue to belong to a parish that uses it and my EC Particular Church in its national homeland continues to use it - again liturgically. There is a movement to adopt the Revised Julian Calendar and I would welcome that for a number of reasons - liturgical unity would be top of list. I hope I've articulated my perspective which is that of many millions of people like me.

You do understand that if the Gregorian is "correct" then the Julian is not.

What specifically.

I have not yet found the words to go here.

You have said it.

I respect the goodness here, but as you describe it (here and above) what a sorry bunch and what a torture of logic. They cling to a custom -- Do they understand its background? -- and impede unity. It seems the liberals' confessor should require they adopt the Julian calendar; the conservatives' spiritual adviser should encourage them to evangelize by taking up the New. Or is it that the more devout are instinctively aligned with a calendar that is not "correct" and who's key feature is that it usually gets the date of Pascha wrong.

I am and want to denounce it. The spiritual is called idolatry and it with the cultural a kind of phyletism and jingoism. We had this out before so for background see Calendar-Easter (2016)

Also, you wrote this early on in that same thread: link here
Sounds like you may have occidental issues; also, note the Julian triumphalism.

This is an in house problem and, perhaps, the I don't care that it's 's right, no one is going to make me do it. The bewildering thing is that if Julian Calendar folks were to follow the Gregorian and its paschalion they would not even notice or perceive a liturgical or ecclesiastical difference.

Sounds like a lot of posturing, political and cultural. So information on how a calendar works and how it needs to be in sync with nature to get the date of Pasha right would be irrelevant and not have influence. As I said above, what a sorry bunch.

So Pope Francis favors a New/Revised Julian approach. I wonder if he's heard what those who are on it think. To me it's the worse of both worlds. I hope he and those who agree with him become better informed.

AJK,

Certainly, you have the right and even the obligation to oppose what is wrong and what you believe is the wrong approach or attitude of others.

I don't believe you have the right to impute the kinds of motivations to those same people as you are doing. Perhaps in your positivistic world, there are those who are right and those who are wrong and there is a way to prove it. That is a very narrow view of reality and certainly paints in a very disparaging way the millions of people who continue to use the Julian calendar as their liturgical calendar.

We shall agree to disagree.

Cheers, Alex

Christ is in our midst!!

(though I think He's not too thrilled at the tone this thread has taken)

The tone of this thread is becoming a bit too personal and a bit too uncharitable. The calendar issue has been a highly sensitive and highly caustic issue among Christians of the East since the West adopted the Gregorian reform. It will not be solved here and it will not be solved for many of the reasons Orthodox Catholic cites.

In the meantime, I think St. John Chrysostom's comment about Great Lent is something we ought to meditate on: "Better to eat flesh than to backbite your brothers (in the Faith)."

Bob
Moderator