www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Meatfare and Great Lent...a question

But, for those who wish, there is no need to wait for anyone else to "promulgate" the traditional fast, it is possible to begin it immediately.

Just to confuse the issue of the date of Easter, here are some links:

http://www.assa.org.au/edm.html

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/commondate.htm

http://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/docs/easter.html

http://www.smart.net/~mmontes/OrthEasttbl.html

http://www.smart.net/~mmontes/ec-cal.html

http://members.aol.com/exsult1/easnudat.html

Thank you, Fr Elias, for the suggestion that we can start the renewal of our tradition ourselves. I must admit that I am not any expert on this and fasting is a discipline that I struggle with. Yet, I recognize the need to implement it in my own life.

I found this link helpful in describing some of the differences between the traditional fast which we only lost in the last century:

http://members.tripod.com/~Kranyak/fasting.html

David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

While the goal should ideally be the restoration of the Orthodox practice for all Orthodox churches in communion with Rome, pastorally it is prudent for those contemplating the traditional fast to do this with the guidance of their spiritual father or pastor.

If one is not accustomed to any practice of fasting, it is not wise to go to extremes with the full fast or for that matter any extreme spiritual or ascetic practice without the guidance of a spiritual father.

Andrew, I beg to differ with your point on the Julian Calendar and Orthodox Pascha. As Tony quite correctly stated, Orthodox Pascha is directly dependent on the Julian calendar reckoning for the vernal equinox. I don't see how you can disassociate the two.

Also there are Greek Catholic parishes currently on the Julian Calendar in the USA and Canada, which therefore celebrate Orthodox Pascha. All are in the Ukrainian Catholic Church.

Dear Tony and Diak,

Dean and Professor at St. Vladimir's Seminary, John Erickson, published in the SVS Quarterly a very good argument for the Orthodox to use the Western reckoning, while cautioning that nothing be done to cause discord, harm the faithful, or cause a schism. The article was perhaps from one year ago.

I'm certainly no expert on the calendar issue or the dating of Pascha, but my response is thus:

If the date of Pascha varried according to the Julian and Gregorian calendars, why do the Russian and Greek Orthodox Churches ALWAYS celebrate it on the same day? The Russian Church is on the Julian calendar and the Greek Church is on the Gregorian calendar. Can you explain that to me?

If we look to a five week difference it is easy to explain based upon the Orthodox insistence on scheduling Pascha ALWAYS after the Jewish Passover.

Let us say that the real vernal equinox is on March 21st. The canon says to schedule it on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox. So that first Sunday, this year, is April 20th. So this tells us the Western reckoning for 2003. Now if the Jewish Passover falls on April 21st, then the Orthodox would have to schedule Pascha for April 27th. This explains the Orthodox reckoning for 2003.

But if the Jews put their Passover on May 19th, then the Orthodox would be obliged to select May 25th, a five week difference! Again, I understand the Jewish lunar reckonings to have slipped in regard to the vernal equinox (they are incorrect sometimes or all the time).

I hope that this is helpful.

In Christ.

Dear Tony and Diak,

PS: I have the Erickson article in my files and will consult it this evening.

In Christ.

Dear in Christ Andrew,

I am in no way opposed to any one system of dating of Pascha, I am in favor of the system the local Church uses.

If you check a prayerbook that has a paschalion I think you will find that the earliest date of Pascha for all Orthodox (other than Finland and others to be mentioned later) is April 3rd (I had said 5th I think) according to the civil calendar. It cannot fall in March. (You can confirm that here [oca.org] .)

If you are correct in saying that the Greeks and Russians have two different calendars and still arrive at the same date for Pascha why then do many insist (including the rubrics book put out by St. Tikhon's on calling the Gregorian calendar "the modified Julian calendar"? It is beacause it is a mixed calendar. New calendar for fixed feasts and old calendar for Pascha, at least for the date of the equinox.

Check out Erickson's article please, also give me the data so I can locate it and read it too.

Tony

Please see:

At this link [goarch.org] it says "Practically speaking, this means that Pascha may not be celebrated before April 3, which was March 21, the date of the vernal equinox, at the time of the First Ecumenical Council. In other words, a difference of 13 days exists between the accepted date for the vernal equinox then and now. Consequently, it is the combination of these variables which accounts for the different dates of ?ascha observed by the Orthodox Church and other Christian Churches."

And "Specifically with regard to this year's date of Pascha, the following observations are made. The invariable date of the vernal equinox is taken to be April 3 (March 21 on the Julian Calendar). Pascha must therefore be observed on the Sunday following the full moon which comes after that date. According to the 19-year Paschal cycle, the first full moon which comes after April 3 this year is on May 1 (April 18 on the Julian Calendar) - the day assigned to the Jewish Passover as calculated originally. In reality, this full moon falls on April 27, a discrepancy left uncorrected in the paschal cycle. As already stated, the provision of the First Ecumenical Council calls for Pascha to be observed on the Sunday following the first full moon after the vernal equinox. Since May 1, for the reasons stated above, is taken to be the date of that full moon, the following Sunday, May 5, is the day on which Pascha is observed this year."

(Note: this article was written in 2001 for 2002 Pascha)

To answer Andrew J. Rubis' question on Orthodox churches that use old and new calendars:

One has to remember that regardless of whether an Orthodox jurisdiction follows the Julian or Gregorian calendars for the fixed (immovable) feasts of the year, most all (with Finland being the exception) follow the Julian calendar for the movable feasts, which all depend on the date of Pascha.

Thus came into existence the so-called "revised Julian calendar" which means that a particular church is on the Gregorian usage for most all of the year (Christmas - Dec. 25; Dormition - Aug. 15, etc.), but that they celebrate Pascha as calculated on the Julian date. This creates a dual calendar usage that can bring up some odd or theoretically impossible combinations of feast days. One example of this is the Feast of St. George, Great-Martyr, which traditionally cannot fall within Great Lent or Passion Week, but with the combination of the two calendars (revised Julian) could occur.

It is also important to remember that regardless of calendar, all of the immovable holydays of the liturgical year are on the same dates, in essence. This means that Christmas is Dec. 25, Transfiguration is on Aug. 6, etc., no matter which calendar is used. These just happen to fall two weeks later, on the Julian Calendar. There is nothing magical about Christmas on Jan. 7. It is not on Jan. 7, but Dec. 25. To avoid confusion, the Julian holydays are most often referred to with the date they fall on the civil (Gregorian) calendar, so people know when to celebrate them. However, it is such a common misconception that the Julian feasts are actually, in the liturgical books, on those civil dates. They are not.

While I personally work within the context of the Julian calendar, intellectually I cannot help but feel that the whole church should use the Gregorian reckoning, not to depart from tradition, but for the sake of a smooth and meaningful integration of our church holidays with the calendar upon which we base the rest of our lives. One cannot productively live on two different calendars. I know many will not agree with this, but I believe that having a separate liturgical calendar, with important feasts that should coincide with celebrations within current society coming at a two week delay, we are defeating the purpose of the church sanctifying the world around it. Christianity has traditionally adapted to the cultures in which it exists, not run away from them. By doing this, the church brings Christ into the world around it, so as to allow his Word and sacrament to permeate the world.

The calculation of the passage of time, which the calendar is meant to keep track of is "man made" not "God-given." God is infinite and not subject to the limits of time and space. So, there is nothing divinely inspired about either way of marking the passage of time. It is merely a tool given to we human beings, so that we can effectively keep track of our lives. There have been many different calendars in use over the course of history. Each of these has eventually given way to newer, more accurate methods. The Gregorian calendar was devised to correct problems with the Julian reckoning, which was loosing time. So, what is so bad about being astronomically correct? God gives us wisdom and talent and expects us to use them for the good, not to revert backwards or remain in a stagnant position, merely for the sake of "tradition." Again, God did not mandate or bestow the Julian calendar. It was composed in the days of Julius Caesar, the Roman emperor. To continually insist on using a calendar which has been proven lacking seems to me to go against the common sense that God has given us.

One more point on the choice of calendars. Whether we like its style or not, the society in which we live, observes holidays on the Gregorian calendar. When Dec. 25 approaches, it is the Christmas season. When it is Easter time, the holiday is observed on the Gregorian date. All around us, it is Christmas, Easter or whatever, when those dates arrive. When following the Julian dates, I believe that we miss out on the chance to sanctify the world around us and likewise, no matter what some may say, when Dec. 25 is here, it is Christmas and by waiting two weeks, the reality is just not the same.

As I mentioned, I serve a parish primarily comprised of immigrant parishioners. They choose to use the Julian calendar to be in sincrination with their family and friends in Ukraine. It is cultural, not theological reasons that cause them to desire this and that, I fully understand. I think that this fact only underscores more, the need to celebrate the holidays according to the calendar in use by the world around us, or else, we miss the boat and are constantly late and "after the fact." For our immigrant people, the importance of celebrating with their compatriots oversees is a telling one. If they did not, they would feel that something was missing as I believe do American people or others living indigenously in "new calendar" societies. Just some food for thought from one who lives within a two calendar society. It is not easy.

To conclude, the main reason that many Orthodox insist on the Julian Pascha is both canonical and somewhat historically/culturally-influenced. As has been said, the only real difference between the two methods of calculation today is the fact of the Jewish Passover (and an astronomically miscalculated vernal equinox).

Many are concerned with keeping the "letter" of the canons which state that Pascha must always occur after Passover. To change this rule would be to change the canonical system. But, I believe it important to review this canon and consider if the reasons for it are still relevant or even more so, desirable in our world today. Christians of the early centuries did not want to celebrate the Christian passover with the Jewish one. Some will say that this stems from the well-known anti-Semitic attitude present in the early church and I would tend to agree with this. Is it really necessary today, given our hopefully changed attitude about relations between Christians and Jews, to be slavishly attached to a canon which may indeed express anti-Semitism? If Pascha would happen to fall simultaneously with the Jewish passover, would this be such a terrible thing? We need to change our thinking on this, in my opinion. If we could get over this one canonical stipulation that has long outlived its time, both Western and Eastern churches would be blessed with the wonderful ability to celebrate the Lord's Resurrection together. This would bring greater unity among Christians and allow the most important feast of the church year to stimulate healing and strengthen the witness we should give to the world around us, especially those who do not currently share our faith in Christ.

Fr. Joe

Gentlemen,

Thank you for turning on the light! I had completely forgotten that the Paschal calculation was still going off of the Julian calendar in all jurisdictions (with the exception of a few). Thank you very much!

I apologize for not remembering to retrieve the Ericson article last night, but your subsequent posts have clarified the issue for me. I'll try again tonight for Ericson's article.

What I do find most fascinating in the discussions of the calendar issue are the arguments made that we (the East) should concern ourselves with what the Western Churches are doing (calculating strictly according to the Gregorian) while we should not be concerned with what the Jews are doing. It seems to me to be thoroughly inconsistent!

I would like to point out that at the time of the canon requiring celebration of the Pascha after the Passover, a very, very large portion of the Church was still celebrating the Pascha and the Passover at the same time. This portion included the Arab lands and most of Illyria (evangelized by Paul, an Arab, and Titus, his disciple). In other words, for many early Christians, Holy Friday was the slaughter of the Passover lamb. As such, they celebrated the Pascha whenever the 14th day of Nissan (Passover) fell. The two different methods for calculating Pascha led to the Quartodecima controversy and its resolution through the meeting between blessed Polycarp of Smyrna and Pope Leo(?) of Rome and the subsequent canon.

We may not dismiss the canon lightly. When witnessing to the Gospel amongst the Jews, the fact that their Passover is a prototype of our Pascha is a most important point. The fact that we remember still the first Passover, is of still greater value.

The parishes that I attend have numerous Orthodox Christians who formerly were Jews!

In Christ.

Dear Beloved Brother Andrew,

As for your last comment regarding the Jewish converts, the Russian New Martyr, St Alexander Jacobson, was ministering to ailing Orthodox Christians.

Many were surprised to see what they thought was a Jewish doctor making the Sign of the Cross frequently and placing little icons of Sts Cosmas and Damian and of the Mother of God near their sick-beds, praying for miraculous healing in the Name of Christ . . .

Then one patient had the courage to ask, "Doctor, are you Jewish? And yet, you make the Sign of the Cross?"

"Yes," came the confident reply. "I am an 'Orthodox Jew!'"

Have a nice day.

Alex

and let us not forget the good Father Alexander Men

Dear Beloved Brother Brian,

Do you know any funny stories associated with him?

Alex

Talking of funny stories...

When St Anselm was on his way to Rome to get even with William II/Henry I, the unfortunate archbishop was suffering from pains in the leg. The poor man wondered whether the whole thing was worth it, when suddenly St Peter appeared. Now, you would think that saintly apparations would aid those in need - well, not our St Peter....he happily offered to cut the leg of the archbishop because he was being a lazy "git". Suffice to say, the venerable archbishop, desiring to keep his leg, hobbled off to Rome to get even...

Anton

Dear Anton,

I don't know the connection between that story and this thread, but I suppose he hobbled 'fast!'

Alex