www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Is this the teaching of Orthodoxy?

As ORthodox Christians, we believe that the Holy Spirit has guided the Church in Council in the Sixteenth century, which put under anathema the New Calendar.

The Holy Spirit is not only present in an Ecumenical Council, but all Church councils ( that is, Orthodox councils).

Tim,

Is the New Calendar Satanic? What is intrinsically wrong with it? Is our 'liturgical calendar' an absolutely necessary item for salvation or theosis? You talk like a fundamentalist who takes every iota of liturgy, dogma, canon law as equal in importance.

Did not the First Ecumenical Council mandate the representation of the Pentarchy? It didn't state only those patriarchates which were in line with your thinking. It states all five must be represented. Duh! Yet you deny this to suit your fundamentalist thinking - or lack thereof. Did you overlook this canon? Selective acceptance of the canons?

Elias


[This message has been edited by Elias (edited 11-20-1999).]

First of all, I do not believe there needs to be an "eighth" Ecumenical Council. Our faith has been delivered to us already. What new teaching could this next Council bring forth?

If the Old Calendar is so wrong, then why does the Holy Fire occur in Jerusalem on the Orthodox Pascha? I think that is a divine sign, dont you? Remember what happened in 1971, When the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the WCC pressured the Patriarchate of Jerusalem to celebrate Holy Pascha according to the new style? What happened? I will tell you! No Holy Fire!!! The very next year the Patriarchate of Jerusalem celebrated Holy Pascha according to the Orthodox calendar. What happened? I think you know.

The issue is not over which of the two calendars is correct. It is a known fact that both calendars are inaccurate. The reason for the adoption of the new calendar into Greece was neither astronomical nor theological. It simply involved one of the many capitulations of the state-enslaved hierarchy to its lord, which asked it of them in order to facilitate its business transaction.

Actually, the liturgical unity of the Church was risked in favor of political interests.

In Greece when the church bells call the faithful to celebrate Christmas and the chanters chant joyfully the "Christ is born, glorify ye," millions of Orthodox throughout the rest of the world and on the Holy Mountain are still in the Nativity fast. This is a sad thing, that the liturgical unity was broken. And for what? The unity of the Church is liturgical. Thats why the festal calendar is so important.

Lets just say that I cannot be blamed for following the Old Calendar. If you choose to use the new style, fine. I just pointed out earlier that the Orthodox Church put under anathema the New Calendar. Which Church was it the put the Old Calendar under anathema?

Someone said that the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches are in schism from each other. If that is so, than the gates of hades has prevailed against the Church. According to the First Canon of St. Basil, all schismatics sacraments are without grace, since they are in schism ,the grace they did have left them when the schism occured!

Very interesting 'opinion'.

Dear Tim,
I highly recommend the book, "Orthodox Fundamentalists: A Critical View", by Fr. John Morris from Light and Life Publishing. I pray that it should cause you to reevaluate your fundamentalist mindset which is foreign to the early Church Fathers. The book does address the issue of the calendar issue which is dear to your heart. But Tim, the old calendar was established by the Roman Emperor Julius Caesar who was not Orthodox. It was not the most accurate calendar which the Orthodox Church was, later in time, adopted. Caesar's advisors the Greek Sosigenes miscalculated the length of the year by 11 minutes and 14 seconds. You and the fundamentalists should know that this was not an accurate calendar nor was created by the Church. This Julian Calendar was adopted as the Gregorian Calendar was to be adopted. However you continue to make a major issue over it because you do not know the history of the calendar. Orthodoxy will continue to follow the date for Pascha on the Julian Calendar decreed by the First Ecumenical Council. The Julian Calendar in the early Church was adopted because of the recognition of the authority of the state and not because of its accuracey. The Pan-Orthodox councils in Jerusalem and Constantinople condemned the Gregorian Calendar because it tampered with the formula for the Pascha calculation and other historical problems between the two churches. This Pan-Orthodox Council was not an Ecumenical Council which you make it out to be. Local councils have always responded to new situations by revising or rejecting the decisions of other local councils. Can you honestly say that the Julian Calendar causes no conflicts between the Paschal Cycle and some unmovable feasts? There is nothing in Holy Tradition or according to the Holy Fathers that indicates that one must follow the Julian Calendar or any other calendar. Thus the Fundamentalists Orthodox argue in vain. Adherence to the Julian Calendar is not a measure of Orthodoxy. This is the "new gospel" of fundamentalism inherent with schismatics.

In Christ,
Robert Sweiss

It is funny that you dont even know what a fundamentalist is. LOL!

Do you really think that the monks on Mt. Athos are fanatical fundamentalists? LOL.

One other thing, I never said you must observe the Julian calendar. If you choose to use the new style, great! But I certainly cannot be blamed for observing the Orthodox calendar. Now can I?

Its okay! Really, it is.

Did God give anyone a calendar to follow? The answer is yes.

Peace!

Timothy, reader

May I suggest reading the Bible, writings of the Church Fathers and lives of the Saints. That way you may understand the Orthodox mindset.

Timothy, reader

The text of this post is taken from:

BAPTISM AND "SACRAMENTAL ECONOMY"
An Agreed Statement of The North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation
St. Vladimir's Orthodox Seminary, Crestwood, New York
June 3, 1999

In Basil of Caesarea's First Canonical Epistle (Ep. 188, dated 374), addressed to Amphilochius of Iconium, whichclaiming to follow the practice of "the ancients"--distinguishes among three types of groups "outside" the Church: heretics, "who differ with regard to faith in God;" schismatics, who are separated from the body of the Church "for some ecclesiastical reasons and differ from other [Christians] on questions that can be resolved;" and "parasynagogues," or dissidents who have formed rival communities simply in opposition to legitimate authority (Ep. 188.1). Only in the case of heretics--in the strict sense those with a different understanding of God, among whom Basil includes Manichaeans, Gnostics, and Marcionites--is baptism required for entry into communion with the Church. Concerning the second and third groups, Basil declares that they are still "of the Church," and as such are to be admitted into full communion without baptism. This policy is also reflected in Canon 95 of the Council in Trullo, which distinguishes between "Severians" (i.e., non-Chalcedonians) and Nestorians, who are to be received by confession of faith; schismatics, who are to be received by chrismation; and heretics, who alone require baptism. Thus, in spite of the solemn rulings of the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils against their christological positions, "Severians" and Nestorians are clearly reckoned as still "of the Church," and seem to be understood in Basil's category of "parasynagogues;" their baptisms are thus understood--to use scholastic language--as valid, if perhaps illicit.

The above is the portion taken from St. Basil. The entire text can be found on this website.

Your last comment about the Severians and the Nestorians as being still in "the Church" is not included in St. Basils writing which you have quoted only in part. Not only that but you purposely exclude what else St. Basil says about schismatics: "although the origin of separation arose through schism, they who had apostatized from the Church had no longer on the the grace of the Holy Spirit, for it ceased to be imparted when the continuity was broken.....But they who were broken off had become laymen, and because they are no longer able to confer on others that grace of the Holy Spirit from which they themselves are fallen away, they had not authority either to baptize or to ordain."

The position of the Synod of Bishops of the True Orthodox Christians of Greece (H.O.C.N.A.) is that those in schism, like the New Calendar Orthodox , are recieved by Chrismation and not baptism (as long as they had an Orthodox baptism [3immersions]). Those coming from the Nestorian, Monophysite (Severians), Roman Catholics and Protestants are recieved by Baptism into the Church.

When one is recieved by Chrismation, it is because he is lacking the Holy Spirit. In other words, the baptisms of schismatics and heretics are the same, according to St. Basil the Great, that is void of grace.

Timothy, reader

Not to restart old arguements, but why anathematize the new calendar? It seems more a matter of discipline rather than dogma. If the assumption is that the new calendar is invalid because an ecumenical council wasn't held, if most (I don't know the number, this is simply a "what if") wouldn't the allowance for the new calendar become a defacto result?

The problem with most old calendar jurisdictions is that, according to their own statements, the new calendar should never be adopted no matter what. So they create a totology. They will never accept the new calendar and they hold themselves to be the true repository of the faith so they are the true Orthodoxy and are the only ones who can hold an ecumenical council. They can never leave their logical box, so debate is useless.

Holy Pascha, being the central mystery of the faith needs to be a unified holiday for all Orthodoxy and it is. Isn't the date determined by astronomy like the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox (because it places easter after the Jewish Passover) and not calendar date?

What were the parameters of the council which anathematized the new calendar? Was it a local council or something more far-reaching?

The Pan-Orthodox Councils of 1583,1587, and 1593, had been condemned. The use of the Gregorian calendar for liturgical purposes had been synodically condemned on many other occasions also---specifically by Patriarch Dositheos of Jerusalem in 1670, Ecumenical Patriarch Agathangelos in 1827, Ecumenical Patriarch Anthimos in 1895, the Holy Synod of the Church of Constantinople in 1902 and 1904; the Holy Synods of Russia, of Jerusalem, of Greece, and of Romania, each independently, in 1903; the Holy Synod of Greece again in 1919; and the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Alexandria in 1924.

Pan-Orthodox Councils are broader than local Councils.

The problem with the New calendar is not just the 13 days difference. The problem with? One word; Uniatism!

Timothy, reader

P.S. I am sure our Fr. Kyrill can explain it better than I can, the uneducated reader. I am sure he follows the Orthodox calendar.

Woops!

The Pan-Orthodox Councils have not been condemned, but the New calendar was condemned by them.

Ahhhh!

Timothy, reader

Dear Tim,
In March 1924 when the Ecumenical Patriarch introduced the Gregorian Calendar the Churches of Alexandria, Antioch, Greece, Cyprus, Romania, Poland followed as well. They had full authority to revise the decisions of previous local councils. Thus, the New Calendar Orthodox Churches have respected the wishes of the sixteenth century councils. They have not submitted to the authority of the Pope, but have only recognized the legitimate authority of the state to determine units of measurement, including the measurement of time. Nor have the New Calendar Orthodox Churches adopted the Papal method for the Paschal calculation. Therefore your previous conclusion on the adoption of the new calendar being uniatism is false and absurd. The need for an Eighth Ecumenical Council remains and awaits for Rome to come back to Orthodoxy. Just because Pope Gregory instituted the New Calendar and credited to him does not mean the infallibility of the Papacy nor does it imply the accuracy of it. The fact is that it is a universal calendar followed by the whole world. Can you name one Holy Father who wrote anything that one must follow the Julian Calendar or any other calendar? The Holy Fathers only used the Julian Calendar because it was the calendar in use during their lifetimes. The Holy Tradition of the Church is also manifested in the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, none of which mandate the usage of the Julian Calendar. Finally, one finds the witness of Holy Tradition in the liturgical texts of the Church. However, the calendar only influences the celebration of unmoveable feasts found in the Menaion. Those who follow the New and the Old Calendar use the same Menaion and both follow the same sequence of days and months. Therefore, the adoption of the Gregorian Calendar in no way violates the Holy tradition of the Orthodox Church. Think about it.

In Christ,
Robert Sweiss

Robert,

And to add to this is the fact that the Byzantine Church has always used two parallel ways to determine time: (1) the Greco-Roman calendar which considers the day to begin at midnight - which we use during Lent, and (2) the Semitic calendar which considers day to begin at the evening before - which we use outside of Great Lent. We also begin New Years on September 1. Do the Orthodox begin New Years on the same day?

So I guess the church, including the Byzantine Catholic Church, hasn't completely caved-in as some would make it.

Elias

Sorry, your history is incorrect.

It was first the Church of Greece which adopted the papal calendar, then Constantinople followed, being that it was the Greek government which supported the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Alexandria, Antioch later followed, Jerusalem and Russia still use the Orthodox Calendar.