www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Calendar-Easter

Now you are using reason and logic, which will never get off the ground in ecclesiastical circles. That makes too much sense to ever be adopted.

This is so.

Correct.

It depends; I've not seen this demonstrated anywhere. It may be that for all years before the Gregorian calendar accumulates an error of one day, there is some place, some meridian where the calendar gives the correct date, that is, the correct timing for equinox-fullmoon-Sunday.

I presume you intended "dictates of the" calculation not "calendar." This makes sense except it can't be done simply as stated. And even if done as Aleppo (and others before that meeting) suggested and the day is determined at the chosen meridian, the next step after that observation is to give a date that everyone can locate on the calendar they use or like. But for that date/day on which everyone observes Pascha as Nicaea_I desired, not everyone will also have astronomically exact compliance with the prescription attributed to the Council.

Your logic and conclusion are flawless, it just can't be done as stated without other allowances. Aleppo's suggestion is one such valid result using the Jerusalem meridian.

You've also identified the real issue, the appearance of having to give-in and save face. But for those issues, any reasonable, rational person, knowing the approximations/assumption involved would look at the Aleppo tables and conclude that the Gregorian calendar paschalion is already working and working as well as Nicaea_I desired. But for the religious-calendar zealot even a face-saving solution like Aleppo's is not tolerable.

There are Catholic old calendar zealots not just Orthodox. I wonder if the anticipated pan-Orthodox Council ( link , and link ) will tackle this issue.

There are also Gregorian calendar zealots!

Again, my concern is only to have one common Easter. It is best to follow a flawed calendar together than for one group to go one way believing their calendar to be scientifically superior and so have such a division within the Church. A future Council could make the necessary changes or adaptations. The fact that we have two Easters today does speak to the fact of East-West separation. EC's who follow the old calendar can do so because when their ancestors came into union with Rome, that was an heritage that was seen to form part of their Eastern patrimony and so was left alone.

I'm not a defender of any calendar. In fact, in my family alone there are those who celebrate one or the other calendar - but most often they celebrate BOTH. Is that a good thing though? Does it not relegate, for example, the feast of the Nativity to something akin to a cultural tradition only? I believe so and I observe it to be so every year.

People who are on the old calendar in my community because of a strong cultural patriotism sit at home between December 25th and just after new year's and then insist on Christmas Eve on January 6th with the traditional dishes, koliada singing and the like. Whether they will attend Church in that time is another story - my friends will excuse themselves saying they must go to work etc. I once polled my religion class of more than 80 students, all of whom were on the old calendar, to ask how they celebrated the feast of the Nativity. Very few said they went to Church because mom and dad "had to go to work - they had no choice"

And that is when I tell them that, yes, they had a choice - the choice to celebrate Christmas on the new calendar and go to Church instead of using that time to go on skiing trips or even trips down south . . .

I've gotten into some serious trouble for those kind of comments, believe me . . .

But I think that is my responsibility as a religion teacher to talk about spiritual priorities and I'm going to do it again this Saturday.

And somehow Church services during Holy Week have been jettisoned while the visit to Church with the Easter basket all decked out is an absolute must . . .

That points to a real crisis in our Church, I would say. And the old calendar, including the different time for Easter in our Church, has led to a perennial excuse for not attending services because of one's work commitments.

But when, one year, the Easters were at the same time, I remember a friend's aging mother-in-law in Church for the Holy Thursday services asking me to contact her family to ask where they were as they had promised to be in Church (and to take her home afterwards).

The service was essentially over when I finally reached my pal who said he just couldn't get up out of bed. Yes, he is to be blamed but also the way the old calendar - and our lackadaisical attitude toward it - has trained many of my community to simply excuse themselves from the services while being content with cultural folkloric traditions.

I don't know the answer other than a wholesale acceptance of the mainstream calendar with the date of Pascha. That won't unite my community which is seriously divided over the issue. I am heartened by the fact that in Ukraine, the UGCC and the UOC-KP are now determined to educate people in the acceptance of the Gregorian calendar (a full 35% of ALL UGCC parishes in Ukraine now follow it with respect, at least, to the feast of the Nativity). In fact, there is a growing view there that the Julian calendar is the "Russian calendar."

What a terrible mess.

Alex

Who? Websites, documents, behavior? A criterion: Anyone who at least in principle could accept the Aleppo solution is NOT a zealot.

The calendar issue and Nicaea_I's prescription is not simply about scientific accuracy. Scientific accuracy is an important consideration, a step, a guidepost in the process of constructing a calendar that can be used in the way and to the end that Nicaea_I indicated. But why use a flawed calendar when one that works quit well is available, the flawed calendar being off 13 days and increasing in deviation from one of the standards, one of the key elements of the Council's prescription. Who says let's follow that broken clock rather than the one that keeps good time.

This is from the post that got me looking into the calendar issue. Note what it lists as determining factors for following the Julian paschalion: adherence to Nicaea_I and scientific accuracy.

Julian Calendar

Point c) is totally misinformed confusing the Julian day/date for the Julian calendar. But c) has scientific accuracy as a reason for following a paschalion. And a) gives that it follows Nicaea as "reason enough right there." But any observer of the night sky on Pascha will observe that it is the Gregorian NOT the Julian calendar/paschalion that follows Nicaea, the Julian only being in accord when it agrees with the Gregorian.

I most certainly disagree that someone following the Gregorian calendar cannot be a zealot. Your assumption of scientific correctness does not change the dynamic here.

If someone imposes the Gregorian calendar, as an example, to a people who use the Julian calendar and are opposed to it - that person imposing the Gregorian calendar, even if you can "prove" it is the more correct one, could be seen as a zealot in a sociological sense (and even worse). The issue of scientific correctness, as you put forward time and again within your "factual" paradigm is fine with natural science. It is much less so with theology and its related disciplines.

You appear to assume the same thing about Catholicism in general - that it is factually correct, but on the basis of other criteria. That is fine if you accept the a priori's of Catholic dogma. But it isn't if you don't.

Your criticism of Fr. Sergius Keleher (+memory eternal!) is without foundation.

I knew him personally and what you took out of a post of his from long ago does not do justice to his very comprehensive view of the Julian calendar in the life of the Church.

I find your attitude to be rather arrogant and while becoming for a scientist, quite not in keeping with the traditions of Catholic/Orthodox debate here on this forum.

In fact, for you, on this question by way of example, there is no debate. Either accept the Gregorian calendar or you are an unreasonable zealot.

That is offensive to Old Calendar Eastern Catholics and Orthodox.

Alex

Where did I say that? You are offended by your own deficient reading. Part of the problem you are having is an inability to engage what I've actually written and then process it accurately. It's called close reading, exegesis (by scripture scholars in particular), reading out of the text what is there and as opposed to eisegese, reading into the text what you want and what is not supported by text and context.

Give it a try. I invite everyone to do a close reading of what I actually wrote.
If you want I can provide some hints and other aids.

Also, the "scientific correctness" as I understand your use of the phrase is fact not "assumption." Do you really imagine that the civilized world, gradually since the 16th century, universally at the present, has decided to use a calendar that is not grounded in "scientific correctness"?

As I indicated by way of example and the actual post of Fr. Serge (of blessed memory), as he says, "scientific correctness" IS a factor. Again as Fr. Serge wrote:

Julian Calendar

Note, he advocates accuracy and correct calculation; he is wrong, of course, about his attributions to the Julian calendar. (NASA does NOT use the Julian calendar!!!)

I strive with God's grace to be a good and faithful Catholic and so I "accept the a priori's of Catholic dogma." So of course I write and shall continue to write (as permitted) from that perspective as I understand it, as should others from theirs. (I don't even know why you bring this up.) The calendar issue has nothing to do with dogma. It has to do with accepting and processing and implementing the prescription of Nicaea_I and acknowledging its authoritative status and adhering to the same.

I didn't criticize Fr. Serge but what he wrote. I believe he was a good priest, and a calendar zealot if ever there was one (In addition to his posts I've also heard him speak to the calendar issue.). Since you bring it up, I only excerpted from his numerous errors about the calendar what was most pertinent to my post. If you give me specifics on what you find I removed from his post that mislead or was biased I'll respond.

In that first part we agree: Yes, that is what you find. As for "traditions of Catholic/Orthodox debate here on this forum" you should review your prior post in the Will the first-ever Orthodox council occur this year? thread wherein you went completely bonkers.

Respectfully, I don't accept your assessment of how I've interpreted what you've written.

I'm not criticizing your commitment to and knowledge of science and scientific data - only your (mistaken) use of the term "zealot."

It is more than likely that I've misinterpreted what you intended here - interpretation and subjective viewpoints are always part and parcel of any presentation of factual material. At the same time, reading your assessment of what I've written, I know you have misinterpreted my intention here as well.

But my interpretation of your usage of the term "zealot" appears to me to imply that, using the current example here, such a one is a, shall we say, fanatical defender of something which is patently false and can be proven to be false by means of reason and science.

IF I have your meaning correctly here, then if someone is understood to be a "Catholic zealot," then the same standards of falsity are to be applied to what such a zealot is promoting, namely, Catholicism itself. I know that is not what you intended, but it does show, at least to me it does, that you've missed the mark in your usage of what is commonly understood by "zealot."

With respect to Fr. Keleher, I had long conversations with him about the Julian calendar when he was with us here in Toronto. I don't know why certain scientific disciplines continue to use the Julian calendar and some of my students in religion class who are into science have argued for its use in certain contexts. I've no doubt that the Gregorian calendar is much more correct in the way you've so copiously and painstakingly related and I am, in fact, in favour of adopting it, especially for my own Church, the UGCC.

However, wide circles within my Church and in others, continue to use the Julian calendar. My only point here is that it is not enough to argue for the scientific correctness of this or that Calendar, outside of other contexts which may have an even greater impact on how a community determines the calendar it will use.

For example, during the hey-day of the USSR, the Gregorian calendar was, at one point, going to be imposed over the Julian calendar.

Orthodox authorities, however, soon saw that the people simply rejected celebrating Christmas on the Gregorian Dec. 25th and churches were empty. I don't believe that the scientific arguments in favour of the accuracy of the Gregorian calendar had any effect. And that was because the people saw in the Julian calendar their "church calendar" irrespective of how closely it approximated the "secular calendar" in terms of scientific accuracy. The two notions were quite separate for them and for others today and for various reasons.

For the people in western Ukraine, the main reasons for their rejection of the Gregorian calendar was that it was associated with Soviet communism. Their churches were destroyed by the Soviets, their priests, deacons, bishops and monastics were martyred or sent to Siberia and now that same, I will repeat with them, godless force wished to impose a new calendar on them.

There was no question that anyone denied the validity of the new Gregorian calendar. They just saw it as having nothing to do with the way their church organized its liturgical like throughout the year. The only change calendar-wise that occurred and still continues for Julian calendar "zealots," as you said, is that New Year's day is now no longer really marked on January 14th as obtained previously.

And that occurred again within the dynamic of separate ecclesial/secular realms. New Year's day is now celebrated there on January 1st with January 14th being the feast of the Naming of our Lord, God and Saviour, Jesus Christ, together with that of the feasts of St Basil the Great and St Peter Mohyla of Kyiv (the "universal doctor" and the "Particular,Local Doctor" in the Kyivan tradition).

So the argument regarding the scientific accuracy of the Gregorian calendar can be made until one is blue in the face. It is not the only factor taken into account in how a given community determines its liturgical calendar for the inner life of its Particular Church.

Also, Latin Catholics living in countries where they are a minority have tended to adopt the old calendar Easter calculation of the Eastern Christians around them for the sake of unity. And we have not given that aspect sufficient attention, perhaps and unadvisedly because of our own "zeal" to override these considerations by concluding the "fact" of the correctness of the Gregorian calendar is not accepted by others only because of their willful blindness to the truth or other such positivistic arguments.

My own bias is in favour of my Church adopting the Gregorian calendar and that all Ukrainian Orthodox do so as well - a commission is being organized by all concerned to help educate the people NOT regarding the scientific correctness of the Gregorian calendar - that fact will change nothing in the minds of those who follow the Julian calendar - but in terms of how it can better relate our Church to western Catholicism while making an important step to severing a symbolic tie with Russian Orthodoxy.

Again, no one, and certainly I'm not, questioning your scientific understanding and expertise in this area. It is just that there is MORE to it by way of culture, tradition and politics which transcends that.

You were, at one point I believe, mocking my own critique of Phil Lawler - which is fair ball.

My own misgivings about his writings have more to do with what I perceive to be his own journalistic sloppiness in his use of terms such as "nationalistic" in describing the Orthodox churches and then somehow relating that to their inability to call an ecumenical council (as if the number of such councils somehow forms a standard for greater orthodoxy for any given Church).

In addition to my academic studies in sociology and cultural anthropology, I've spent a quarter of a century working in politics where I've had the opportunity to get to know many journalists. A good chunk of my job was to critique their articles attacking the politicians of my particular government etc., usually the left-leaning journalistic brand. I know that journalists tend to be sloppy in their terminology and sometimes deliberately so.

We all have our bias, but Mr. Lawler breaks a few of his own professional standards related to dispassionate writing when he refers to the Orthodox Churches as "nationalistic" as but one example (and there are others).

It matters not who his father is or how many years he has been reporting/writing or for whom. He simply shows a very anti-ecumenical bias against the Orthodox which is, in today's era of rapprochement, unacceptable and would be unacceptable by Rome. I'm sorry if there are those here, Tomassus included, who take umbrage at that. He also betrays a fundamental ignorance, if that is what it truly is, about "nationalism" and the 17 forms of it that have been identified by modern political scientists. How does he know that an entire Church is "nationalistic?" He and other Roman Catholic apologists will often, in my experience, use that unadvised term to somehow denigrate the Orthodox or else point to the fact of their not acknowledging the papacy as limiting their capacity for the development of doctrine, among other things. That is an assumption that Lawler and others of his ilk have not proven. And it is clear they've not really studied the conclusions of the Catholic-Orthodox ecumenical commissions over the years, nor do they appreciate the current viewpoints expressed by the Vatican with respect to Orthodox ecclesiological praxis.

With respect to what is or is not an ecumenical council, that is a subject which is the grist for the mill of Catholic-Orthodox commissions as well. Their discussions are well-advanced in that regard and their members, reading some of the comments here, would doubtless regard us as "johnny-come-latelies" to the entire ecumenical debate. I certainly don't deny the 21 ecumenical councils of the Catholic Church. But that doesn't mean a future, reunited Church, which is both East and West, cannot re-examine the issue. And that does NOT immediately imply that somehow the number of those councils will be reduced. Fr. John Meyendorff, for example, (+ memory eternal!) even went so far as to suggest that there is the possibility that what Rome has affirmed by way of its deposit of faith COULD be accepted by the East if it were re-presented to the East within the context of a reunion Council.

In addition, Rome COULD return to its recognition of the Photian Council, as it originally did recognize it before it altered its position. What many Orthodox refer to as the "Ninth Ecumenical Council" involving hesychasm could also be recognized by Rome, hypothetically, even as a valid Local Council.

The fact is that canons from Local Councils in the Orthodox Church can and do become universal canons, given their nature and purpose.

Reverend Father Deacon, if I have given you any offence by my earlier flippancy (a tragic character flaw in me, to be sure, which kept me from seeking ordination as a deacon myself . . .) or in any other way, I respectfully ask your forgiveness and pardon. Please overlook my childishness in that regard (but life is too short to get rid of one's childishness completely, I believe! ).

Alex

By your definition of zealot, a "fanatical defender of something which is patently false and can be proven to be false by means of reason and science," for instance, there cannot be a "Catholic zealot," since the tenets of the faith are not founded on "reason and science" but divine revelation.

The term I used was "calendar zealot."

That is indeed a clarification of your initial words:


You also raise this concern.
I've commented on this pastoral aspect in previous threads on the calendar. Did the people develop this attitude on their own or were they over the course of years, centuries, taught to reject? If pastoral concerns warrant it I have never said it's automatically unacceptable. Let them observe when they insist but tell them the truth even without all the science:

Dear people, you celebrate Pascha worthily and well but not when the Holy and Great Council of I_Nicaea desired. The way of I_Nicaea is followed instead by what you know as the civil calendar, that is, the calendar and paschal dating that the Pope of Rome gave some time ago. Like it or not, the Pope's calendar adheres to what the Council specified and yours does not. Also know that in following your beloved calendar you preclude, prevent the desire of the Council of I_Nicaea that all Christians observe Pashca together, on the same day, since it would be unfair for us to ask our fellow Christians, who diligently follow the Council's directive, to abandon it as we have done. Accept these word so that "Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” John 8:32.

First, for clarity, here is a better link to the post by Fr. Serge: Julian Calendar specifically a, b and c under

What he wrote so authoritatively was in a) wrong, in b) wrong and in c) wrong.

The reasons are:

a) The Julian usually does not get the timing of Pascha as specified by Nicaea_I. This can be demonstrated: observe the moon in the night sky and your local weatherman's announcement of spring for the two 2016 dates of Pascha.

b) The typicon works validly and correctly for for both calendars, they are just offset by, presently, 13 days.

c) The required precision of actual scientific data is far beyond any yearly calendar. Yearly calendars approximate in integer days (the rotation of the earth on its axis) the inherently non-integer, yearly revolution of the earth around the sun (as it is commonly modeled). I didn't stress this before but his comment that "... the Gregorian Paschalion...failed to take sidereal time adequately into account" is misleading and irrelevant. The desired purpose of a calendar is to best approximate the tropical (aka solar) year NOT the sidereal year.

What "scientific disciplines continue to use the Julian calendar" (i.e., for science not non-proleptic dating)? It's hard for me to imagine otherwise (but I'm all ears) then that as you say "some of my students in religion classs who are into science have argued for its use in certain contexts" may be headed for an F in their science class. What are you and they talking about?

Dear Father Deacon,

In that case, I don't know which scientific disciplines use the Julian calendar or whether you are (or are not) correct about the liturgical issues involved etc.

My knee-jerk reaction was to defend Fr. Keleher. If that is a vice, I'm sorry. We haven't had even one Orthodox Old Calendarist defend his or her position here with the same scientific (and other important) precisions that you have. Perhaps this will be remedied in the near future. Personally, I don't care which calendar is used - I've said that.

My only and over-arching concern is that which, as Fr. Deacon Richard noted above, is about ensuring that all Christians have one calendar. And indeed, my concern is to ensure that my Church, the UGCC, has one calendar. From a pastoral point of view, what is going on in my eparchy up here alone is . . . ridiculous.

Your point about defending the use of the Gregorian calendar even on the basis of the early ecumenical councils etc. would fall on deaf ears among the UGCC old calendarists - so we can forget about it. Remember, you belong to a Church that follows the Gregorian calendar - I don't believe you have any parishes that are with old calenar zealots (?).

The old calendar issue goes well beyond several pastoral points raised here and includes issues that do not, today, concern the BCC.

If you went into an old calendar parish of the UGCC saying what you wrote above . . . they would have you for after-Liturgy brunch . . .

And without salt . . . I know you temper your position with a pastoral perspective. But your pastoral perspective, shaped by your BCC experience, is woefully inadequate to deal with the cultural, political and other issues that the BCC is quite innocent of.

Alex