Constantinople leadership.....

[eleni]

Do people understand the situation between old calenderists and the new calender situation...
Russia is still using the old calander....
Greece I believe is using the old one....

and what about the World council of Churches?

I would like to see what people think of this situation.
helen...

 

[Orthodox Andrew]

I can't decide how I feel about this issue. However I do tend to be more on the conservative side, I sometimes feel we should have just stuck with the Old Calendar. However my mind could change with more information on the issue.

 

[Seraphim Reeves]

The problem with the new calendar innovation, is two fold.

a) The New Calendar is materially the Gregorian Calendar. It is a sophism to say it is not the Gregorian Calendar, but simply the "revised Julain Calendar." The EP's Patriarchal Synodical of 1920 (which introduced this innovation) explicitely states the purpose of the new calendar, which is to cause the Orthodox calendar line up with the secular/Papal calendar. Thus, it is a difference that really is no difference.

b) The above is a problem, since three Orthodox synods (whose acceptance diffused throughout the entirity of the Orthodox world), which the EP itself presided at (meaning at the very least that their canons are obliging for the EP and it's dependencies - though, their pan-Orthodox acceptance makes their canons actually universal in character) not only rejected the Gregorian calendar, but actually anathematized it and those who may want to adopt it, results in a difficult, but unnavoidable conclusion - the EP fell under it's own anathema in 1920. On this basis alone, the Old Calendarists are vidicated for breaking ties with the EP and the Greek State Church - otherwise they too would have fallen under this canonical condemnation.

c) While often reasons of practicality and accuracy are cited as being the "real" reason for the New Calendar, this is simply not the case. The same Patriarchal Synodical of the EP (1920) states quite explicitely that the purpose of the "new calendar" (really just the old Papal calendar) was to facilitate ecumenism.

d) Ecumenism is a heresy (illicit innovation.) Many argue against this, stating that there is "good ecumenism" and "bad ecumenism." Allegedly, the "good ecumenism" involves witnessing to the Faith in front of non-Orthodox. However, this is nothing new - if that is what ecumenism really was about, there would have been no need for giving a new name to this - rather this is simply the age old apostolic mission of the Church.

Sadly, this is not what the actual ecumenical movement is about - and it's not what the ecumenism desired by the EP's Synodical of 1920 is about either! Please read the text - it is imbued with a false ecclessiology (ecclessiology - theology of the Church, doctrine about the Church, and what She is).

The ecclessiological heresy of ecumenism, has at it's root, the subtle, easy to miss assumption, that there is a need to restore a lost unity. This is heretical, for the Church has not lost it's unity, ever, for She is the Body of Christ - rather, individuals (sadly, lots of individuals) have left Her.

Even the name for this enterprise is heretical - in Orthodox usage, "ecumenical" denotes something within the Church, pertaining to the universality/catholicity of the Church. Thus, why the great councils are descibed as Ecumenical Councils. Thus, to speak of an "ecumenical movement" means one is trying to recover the supposedly lost/damaged "unity" of the Body of Christ. This is blasphemy.

The Patriarchal Synodical, which innaugerated the new calendar innovation, in addressing non-Orthodox bodies, addresses them as the "Churches of Christ everywhere" and that "fellowship between them is not excluded by the doctrinal differences which exist between them" (!!). This would be news to the Fathers, who accepted the Apostolic Canons (which are universally accepted in Orthodoxy; you'll find them in any edition of the Rudder, the compendium of Orthodox canons), which tell us...

Canon XLV - Let a bishop, presbyter, or deacon, who has only prayed with heretics, be excommunicated: but if he has permitted them to perform any clerical office, let him be deposed.

or

Canon LXIV - If any clergyman or layman shall enter into a synagogue of Jews or heretics to pray, let the former be deposed and let the latter be excommunicated.

Yet, unashamedly, the EP and those who are in communion with him (including the various heirarchs, archpastors, and patriarchs of the "official", in realit psuedo, Orthodox world) make quite a regular practice of not only praying with heretics in their houses of worship, but even performing liturgical acts with them, and carrying on with papalist clergy as if they were in fact genuine Priests.

This basic confusion about the Church's distinct identity, has obviously resulted in other related errors (for example, the common misunderstanding that there are genuine mysteries outside of the Orthodox Church - a total misunderstanding of the Church's economy in receiving converts, which is why so many genuine Orthodox Bishops now refuse to do this, but will receive converts only by exactitude, that is, baptizing them in water, so as to avoid any confusion.)

To see an official, online edition of the Patriarchal Synodical of 1920, go here.

http://www.patriarchate.org/encyclicals/patriarchal_encyclicals/Encyclical_1920

For written/pictoral examples of "Orthodox" heirarchs violating the canons, and undermining dogmatic principles with heretics, see the following...

http://www.russianorthodoxautonomouschurchinamerica.com/kissofjudas/kiss_of_judascontents%20page%20new1.htm

Seraphim

 

[Reader Nilus]

We remember what St Paul wrote about argueing about moons and new moons. If it was not the calendar it would be something else. No one has shown me any reason whatsoever why the calendar is such a big issue.
To me it makes sense, for the Church to be using the calendar that everyone else is using.
Jeff the Finn

 

[Seraphim Reeves]

We remember what St Paul wrote about argueing about moons and new moons. If it was not the calendar it would be something else. No one has shown me any reason whatsoever why the calendar is such a big issue.

St.Paul also taught us about the observance of ecclessiastical traditions (2 Thess 3:6, etc.) The calendar is such a "big deal" because...

a) The fathers of three pan-Orthodox synods (whose canons were received abroad) thought it was...

b) Because of the direct doctrinal issues associated with the decision to change the Church calendar. It is impossible to reduce these motives to mere triffles over "new moons." I am marveled that anyone could make so little of this matter, even just based on what little I've recounted (particularly without making any attempt to correct or refute any of my post's content.)

Seraphim

 

[Alfred M]

Interesting post Seraphim.

I have read many articles about the calender issue. Articles written by theologians much smarter than I will ever be. One thing I found (w/o going into the canon law issue) is that these smart people held fast to one side of the issue or the other. Leaving me in the middle. I have worried over the issue, wondering just how correct I must be. And after much prayer I find that I need to work on my heart toward my fellow man. I also find that I must keep my focus on Christ and that my worries about the calender will just have to fall under forgiveness of the known or unknown sins I may commit.

I find the unease I used to feel about this issue as unecessary and let those that want the old calender to have the old...and those that want the new to have the new. In all I have to agree with Jeff in that this has become a non-issue, at least for me...I am not smart enough to really make it one!

In the love of our Saviour to all on both sides of the issue,

Alfred

 

[Reader Nilus]

St.Paul also taught us about the observance of ecclessiastical traditions (2 Thess 3:6, etc.) The calendar is such a "big deal" because...

a) The fathers of three pan-Orthodox synods (whose canons were received abroad) thought it was...

b) Because of the direct doctrinal issues associated with the decision to change the Church calendar. It is impossible to reduce these motives to mere triffles over "new moons." I am marveled that anyone could make so little of this matter, even just based on what little I've recounted (particularly without making any attempt to correct or refute any of my post's content.)

Seraphim

First if you look at the times of the post I did not see yours when I posted mine, otherwise the tenor of my post would have been a great deal different. I am not going to engage in a conversation with this statement:

Yet, unashamedly, the EP and those who are in communion with him (including the various heirarchs, archpastors, and patriarchs of the "official", in realit psuedo, Orthodox world) make quite a regular practice of not only praying with heretics in their houses of worship, but even performing liturgical acts with them, and carrying on with papalist clergy as if they were in fact genuine Priests.

I would only add that the Holy Mountain and St Catherine's Monastery on Sinai are by that statement are also psuedo Orthodox, enough said.
Jeff the Finn

 

[Photini]

Off and on the calendar issue has bothered me. I really hope that something will be done about it to heal all the confusion. I even read somewhere (I do not recall exactly where...) that there are some who say that the sacraments of the new calendar churches do not have grace. I was greatly scandalized by this because my church happens to follow the new calendar.

 

[Reader Nilus]

The article below describes what I feel about the calendar issue. What is sacred about the Julian Calendar? And as it points out, how does one say if one 24 hour period is day x and not day y?​

Jeff the Finn​

The Calendar Issue We must remember the Church adopted the calendar of the Roman Empire, the civil calendar, as Its own. That happened to be the Julian Calendar. It was not a religious or Christian calendar in any sense, but the system used by the secular (pagan) government to mark the passing of time. The Roman Empire, even after it was christianized, did not change the name of the months - the names of all of them from January to August remain as reminders of the calendar s pagan ancestry.



It is significant that the modern nations from which our Orthodox ancestors came to this land followed the Julian Calendar in every day civil life, as did the Orthodox State Churches of those countries. In other words, in the Russian Empire, and the Kingdoms of Greece, Romania, etc., the Church's dates coincided with the government's dates. When there was any discussion of changing the civil calendar, a corresponding change of the Church's calendar was considered. In fact, when Greece switched calendars, the Church of Greece followed suit.

Because of the many centuries of following the Julian Calendar, many people in the Orthodox homelands had come to regard this calendar as a part of the Tradition. So strong was the feeling that a considerable segment of the Greek Church refused to accept the change and broke away from the Church. Some of the Orthodox churches "in exile" in the Western World, that once had a rather liberal attitude toward the new calendar and even allowed its use in some places, have come to denounce the Churches that follow the new calendar as modernist and heretical.

Why did the Church need to adopt a calendar in the first place? Why did it take the calendar of the Empire, when other possibilities were open to it? If a specifically religious calendar had been the point why not adopt the Jewish calendar? After all, the latter was the calendar that the Lord Jesus Christ observed, by which He lived and accomplished His work.

The mission of the Church in and to the world was, and still is, the main issue. This is the same as that of the Lord Himself to redeem the world - to save souls and to sanctify the world and everyone and everything in it. It constantly blesses things, material objects and thereby redeems them in the sense of returning them to the purpose for which the whole physical world was intended to be channels and signs of God s presence in the world; a world distorted by sin and misuse. When the Church set out to overcome the world, it undertook the transformation of the things of this world: the Roman Empire became a holy empire a Christian commonwealth; cities and towns were holy because of their having been the scene of the events of Christ's life, of the sacrifice of the martyrs and the lives of the saints.

St. Paul says that we must "redeem the time because the days are evil" (Ephesians 5:16). The Church has always seen the sanctification of the world's time as a part of its overall mission. Dates came to have, as the Church extended its influence over society, a Christian significance: January 6 was no longer simply the sixth day of the first month but a holy day on which the Lord's Baptism and the Manifestation of the Trinity was solemnly commemorated. Every date was sanctified because on each one some martyr made the supreme sacrifice or some saint who had given himself wholly to Christ fell asleep. Days came to be known, for example, not just as February 23 but St. Polycarp's Day and not December 20 but St. Ignatius'; Day.

It is obvious that the Church deliberately kept the calendar of this world in order to sanctify the time signified by it. The point was to give Christian meaning to the times and seasons, to the days of the year.

The Church cannot abandon this aspect of her mission. It helps little to maintain stubbornly that a certain date is not September 14, as everyone else thinks, but really September 1. And no matter what we have to say about September 1, its significance for the life of the Church and its meaning for the world, we will hardly be heard if we first have to convince the rest of society that they are wrong about the date. And it does matter that the voice of the Church be heard by the rest of society. Part of a larger work reprinted from the October 1982 issue of the Dawn, published by the OCA Diocese of the South.) The Orthodox Church, January, 1983.

 

[Alfred M]

Jeff,

Thanks for the post!

I do believe this was one of the very articles I read when researching the calender issue some time ago.

Keeping a focus on the great commission is what fills my calender...at least I try.

In the love of our Saviour,

Alfred

 

[MariaRegina]

Recently I heard that Bishop Nicolai of Alaska (OCA) has returned his whole diocese to the Old Calendar, instead of insisting that the few Old Calendarists be forced to go New Calendar. Does anyone have the full story here and why he made that decision?

 

[Reader Nilus]

Here is something from Orthodox England a ROCOR site on the calendar. A view which is very Orthodox.​

Jeff the Finn​

Isn't the true Orthodox calendar the old calendar?
T.P., Leeds ​

[font=Bookman Old Style, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Your question is a provocative one, and I would therefore take advantage of it to dispel a myth.

All Orthodox Christians (with the isolated and highly controversial exceptions of a handful of parishes under the Moscow Patriarchate in Holland and about twenty or so parishes in Finland which some consider to be under anathema) celebrate Easter and the feasts of the Easter cycle on the same Orthodox (so-called 'old') calendar. This is the calendar which has always been used by the whole Orthodox Church (and also Roman Catholicism until the end of the sixteenth century).

True, over the last few decades a minority of Orthodox (about 25% of the total) have moved on to the Roman Catholic ('new') calendar for the fixed feasts like Christmas. They have done this mainly because they find it convenient. Indeed, for some Anglicans and others converted to Orthodox Christianity, this use of the Roman Catholic calendar might be a useful and convenient bridge for them as they approach Orthodoxy.

There may be a real danger in the use by some Orthodox of the Roman Catholic calendar for the fixed feasts, not on account of this use in itself, but of the development of 'New Calendarism'. By this phrase I mean the refusal of some to concelebrate with those who use the age-old Orthodox calendar, contemptuously called 'the old calendar'. Of course, I would certainly agree that 'Old Calendarism', the reaction to the often violent and intolerant persecutions of New Calendarism, can also be dangerous. Just as New Calendarists are often fanatically opposed to any shred of honest Orthodox Tradition, so some Old Calendarists refuse to concelebrate with those who use the Roman Catholic calendar for the fixed feasts. It seems to me that in the calendar question we should avoid extreme positions. Thus although a change to the use of the Roman Catholic calendar for the fixed feasts is unthinkable for the vast majority of Orthodox, we who are in the majority should be tolerant of those who find it pastorally helpful to use the Roman Catholic calendar for the fixed feasts; just as those who use the Roman Catholic or 'new' calendar for the fixed feasts should be tolerant of those who are more traditional. Certainly the idea of refusing to concelebrate with new-calendar Orthodox is quite absurd. Such personalities as Metropolitan Antony (Khrapovitsky) or St John the Wonderworker had no qualms about the use of the new calendar for the fixed feasts, when pastorally necessary.

My answer to your question is: the true calendar is the calendar of Truth and Love.



[/font]

 

[MariaRegina]

Here is something from Orthodox England a ROCOR site on the calendar. A view which is very Orthodox.​

Jeff the Finn​

Isn't the true Orthodox calendar the old calendar?
T.P., Leeds ​

[font=Bookman Old Style, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Your question is a provocative one, and I would therefore take advantage of it to dispel a myth. ...

Such personalities as Metropolitan Antony (Khrapovitsky) or St John the Wonderworker had no qualms about the use of the new calendar for the fixed feasts, when pastorally necessary. [/font]

Who is St. John the Wonderworker? Is he the same St. John of San Francisco?

 

[Reader Nilus]

Yes St John of San Francisco is also known as the Wonderworker.
Jeff the Finn

 

[Seraphim Reeves]

Alfred,

One thing I found (w/o going into the canon law issue) is that these smart people held fast to one side of the issue or the other.

This is true, though it's not an excuse to not look into these matters seriously. Keep in mind, that the heresairch Arius was never accused of being an intellectual slouch, and in fact had a reputation of being quite the "mystic" by many of his Alexandrian contemporaries.

And after much prayer I find that I need to work on my heart toward my fellow man. I also find that I must keep my focus on Christ and that my worries about the calender will just have to fall under forgiveness of the known or unknown sins I may commit.

If the issue were solely the calendar, then there might be more room for indecision and tolerance - this could be charitably looked at simply as a canonical irregularity, to be fixed asap. Such would be a strain (since there are actually some very harsh anathemas regarding the adoption of this calendar), but it would be easier to "overlook", at least in the short term.

In fact, such "oversight" is precisely what happened for decades. The ROCOR, for example, while rebuking the calendar change as being anti-canonical, did maintain cautious relations with the EP and other such bodies (though this situation eroded due to the EP's acceptance of schismatics from the ROCOR under it's wing, as well as it's cordial relationship with the MP.) Whenever doctrinal/canonical violatons occur in the Church, historically the body that is "in the right" is not quick to make definitive condemnations. There is always a certain "grace period" with such things, in which these matters have to be sorted out. For example, though in 1054 the Eastern Patriarchs condemned the Papal See, it took decades (even in some cases centuries - keeping in mind that they did not have mass communications, telephones, airplanes, etc. in those days) for this reality to assimilate itself throughout western Christendom, or for the actual heresies of the Vatican to become a formal part of the life of the more remote parts of western Christendom.

ROCOR did exactly this. In fact it's relations with "world Orthodoxy" did not come totally to an end, until 1965, when Patriarch Athenagoras finally brought to fruition the very errors implied by the Patriarchal Synodical/Calendar Change of 1920, and pretended to "lift" the anathemas of the Church of Christ against Papism (and the Vatican exchanged the same mutual "courtesy" to the Orthodox Churches at the same time.) This act was totally unmerited (since the errors of Papism had only grown since 1054, and not in any way diminished; not to mention that the EP did not have the authority to personally do this anyway), and is why not only ROCOR broke it's relations with the EP in total (and those who remained in communion with her), but also the Old Calendarists of Greece and elsewhere, ceased to simply speak in terms of being "walled off" from erring members, but now came to the conclusion that the "world Orthodox" have sadly found themselves in an entirely seperate body entirely. The only exception to this were the Matthewites, who had long before this proclaimed world Orthodoxy to be "graceless" (something the other GOC's and definately ROCOR would have seen as pre-mature.)

The problem then, is not simply a canonical infracture (using an illicit calendar), but all that was implied by it's adoption and promulgation (which is clearly stated in the Patriarchal Synodical of 1920), and which came to a head/blossomed in 1965. These are facts every honest new-calendarist has to come to grips with, as they are in communion with heresairchs and leaders whose acts are entirely worthy of deposition or excommunication according to the Canons of the Holy Church (to which they too are subject.)

I find the unease I used to feel about this issue as unecessary and let those that want the old calender to have the old...and those that want the new to have the new.

Well, it's not for people to willy nilly choose the "old vs. new", since just as a matter of canonical order the "new calendar" is not an option for Orthodox Christians. Besides this, are the doctrinal errors which are associated with the calendar change (and which are, obviously, more serious than the calendar by itself.) While one can try to overlook canonical oversights, dogmatic errors cannot be overlooked (or pastoral policies that, as evidenced by time, are clearly founded on dogmatic errors.)

Seraphim

 

[Reader Nilus]

The solution is always if not in agreement with one's Bishops, is to find a schismatic bishop and all is well. There are no doctrinal issues in the calendar at all. As the article from the Diocese of the South pointed that out.
Seraphim if ecumenicalism is heresy, why do you post on ecumenical forums? The vision of Erwin the owner of the Christian Forums is: Christian Forums is a free, non-profit and non-denominational Christian forum community uniting all Christians as one body.
One needs to ask if the Church can overturn a canon, being canons are not the Gospel. To use the Rudder as a book to beat ones fellows with is not very loving, and for that matter not edifing either.
Jeff the Finn

 

[Seraphim Reeves]

Jeff,

Here is something from Orthodox England a ROCOR site on the calendar. A view which is very Orthodox.

Sadly, the style of argument in this article is very reflective of the "new and improved" ROCOR, which has been steadily moving towards repudiating it's noble past, and consumating a unia with the MP.​

True, over the last few decades a minority of Orthodox (about 25% of the total) have moved on to the Roman Catholic ('new') calendar for the fixed feasts like Christmas. They have done this mainly because they find it convenient.

​

While one can only speculate on how the average person later on retroactively tries to rationalize the move of his heirarchy to the papal calendar, the sad truth is that "convienence" is not so much as mentioned in the 1920 Synodical of the EP which inaugerated the calendar change. Rather, the furthering of "ecumenism" is cited, and said ecumenism (even in it's name) implies a heretical ecclessiology. This tragic truth has only been born out with time, in the acts and joint statements of various "world Orthodox" heirarchies.​

Indeed, for some Anglicans and others converted to Orthodox Christianity, this use of the Roman Catholic calendar might be a useful and convenient bridge for them as they approach Orthodoxy.

​

Which is why in times past, the ROCOR actually had a tolerance for the use of the new calendar in some parishes that had come under it's care, presumably as a temporary step to help with their regularization.​

Of course, I would certainly agree that 'Old Calendarism', the reaction to the often violent and intolerant persecutions of New Calendarism, can also be dangerous. Just as New Calendarists are often fanatically opposed to any shred of honest Orthodox Tradition, so some Old Calendarists refuse to concelebrate with those who use the Roman Catholic calendar for the fixed feasts.

​

And with the above comes a total repudiation of ROCOR's own past, when it too realized (along with the GOC's to be found in "new calendar" regions) the full implications of the calendar change - including ROCOR's support and communion with the various GOC's prior to 1995 (including even taking part in episcopal consecrations for the Old Calendarists.) The above type of statement is very typical of the "new ROCOR", but is unfaithful to ROCOR's past stand.​

Thus although a change to the use of the Roman Catholic calendar for the fixed feasts is unthinkable for the vast majority of Orthodox, we who are in the majority should be tolerant of those who find it pastorally helpful to use the Roman Catholic calendar for the fixed feasts; just as those who use the Roman Catholic or 'new' calendar for the fixed feasts should be tolerant of those who are more traditional.

​

The above seems to totally ignore the fact that the "new calendar" (besides it's ecclessiological implications/motives) itself is anti-canonical; this is not simply a question of personal preference.​

Certainly the idea of refusing to concelebrate with new-calendar Orthodox is quite absurd. Such personalities as Metropolitan Antony (Khrapovitsky) or St John the Wonderworker had no qualms about the use of the new calendar for the fixed feasts, when pastorally necessary.

​

An extremely revisionistic take on both men, loaded with a couple of grave ommissions. Ignored are the following...​

- ROCOR's tolerance of communities passing into it's care, temporarily using the "new calendar" is not a rubber stamping of such a practice, but an obvious case of economy.​

- Citing concelebrations with certain "world Orthodox" groups prior to 1965 is dishonest in so far as an honest appraisal of ROCOR's historical position is concerned, since ties with certain world Orthodox heirarchs were not definitively suspended until 1965 - St.John of San Francisco himself only reposed in 1966!​

- The above implies that a limited economic tolerance of the "new calendar" in some convert communities, is tantamount to a rubber stamp on concelebrations with "new calendarists" after 1965, as such. While such violations did occur on a local basis, they have only become an accepted matter of policy in the last 10 years (with ROCOR essentially trying to bury the anathema against ecumenism of 1983, and retroactively maintaining that it'd never left communion with the JP or Serbia - despite the explicit dictates of the 1983 anathema.)​

Seraphim​

 

[Alfred M]

Seraphim,

I dearly appreciate your response with such information and a heart that I feel is in great pursuit of the perfection of Christ! I did enjoy reading your words.

I just have to say that I do not recommend to anyone that a "willy-nilly" approach be made toward any decision one has to make within the Church. As I tried to say, I spent some time investigating the issue and many greater minds than I had positions on both sides of the fence. And, after much prayer, I personally had to come to the decision that basically boiled down to what may sound "willy-nilly"...let each follow his own heart, for that will be what God judges.

My wife and I did travel to visit a ROCOR church. It was a rather small one and we were quite uncomfortable in that Church. All the men were growing long beards and had taken on new names and the Church was trying to incorporate more and more Russian language in their service and the ladies were referred to as "Matushka _________". It was almost as if they had undergone some type of ethnic conversion as well. All were converts and all were American. Yet if they are following their hearts, I am all for them... it is just not for me.

I would also be careful in how we try to hold one another to canonical law... because if we did I think we would (one and all) fail. Not that canonical law is unimportant. (But I doubt if there are many Bishops that can quote all of The Psalms by heart) It seems shaky ground, though, from individual to individual.

That said, I would add to you Seraphim... follow your zeal and let the Holy Spirit be your guide...continue to dig deep the garden of your heart so that Christ's peoples will benefit from you and your knowledge...Ahh to be your age again.

In the love of our Saviour,

Alfred

 

[Seraphim Reeves]

Jeff,

I would only add that the Holy Mountain and St Catherine's Monastery on Sinai are by that statement are also psuedo Orthodox, enough said.

I was unaware that within Holy Orthodoxy, there was recognized any sort of "personal infallibility" associated with any particular region, group or person, that utterly negated the dread prospect that such groups could fall into error and be severed from the Church of Christ?

Actually, there is a holy, confessing monastery left on Mt.Athos - the Esphigmenou monastery - which is precisely why the EP is using the police to persecute and evict them (and the other monasteries are supporting the EP in doing such).

Orthodoxy fully believes in the Church founded upon rock - however She confesses that this rock is the unblemished confession of the Orthodox faith, and not any particular personality or group, irregardless of what they may say or do.

As for your article on the "new calendar" (in reality, it's the old Gregorian calendar), the OCA one on the first page of this thread... it is at best, a running fib, at worst, a deliberate attempt at deception.

It needs only be repeated again, that the "new calendar" is...

- condemned, and not an option, due to the decision of three pan-Orthodox Synods

- was explicitly instituted to further the ecumenistic agenda, and said ecumenism, in both word and deed, is clearly heretical. Sadly, the implications of the actual decision to change the calendar, have been born out in word and deed since 1920 (to the point now, you'll scandalize most new-calendarists if you tell them that there is no such thing as genuine baptism or holy mysteries outside of the Orthodox Church of Christ.)

In addition, the argument that having to celebrate fixed feasts on different days than the heterodox is some kind of exceptional burden is indicative either of shallowness (imho) or a lack of consideration. The fact is, there are many religious bodies who have their own distinct "calendars" as such, and they get by fine. Ask Old Calendarists, and I'm sure they'll tell you that their adherance to the Old Calendar is hardly onerous. Simply put, it's an unconvincing argument, particularly when the new-calendarists still "inconvienience their flocks" by using the Orthodox Paschellion. Besides, this type of argument is anachronistic - it was not the original motive for the inaugeration of the "new calendar" amongst Orthodox believers in the first place.

The solution is always if not in agreement with one's Bishops, is to find a schismatic bishop and all is well.

You'll have to re-phrase this. I think I get your meaning, but the way it's phrased poorly.

There are no doctrinal issues in the calendar at all.

This is incorrect. It's imposition in many parts of the Orthodox world was directly tied into the beginning of the ecumenical movement, which of itself pre-supposes a heretical ecclessiology (which is, sadly, manifest in the 1920 Synodical of the EP itself.) Unless we are to believe ecclessiology is not a branch of theology...

Seraphim if ecumenicalism is heresy, why do you post on ecumenical forums? The vision of Erwin the owner of the Christian Forums is: Christian Forums is a free, non-profit and non-denominational Christian forum community uniting all Christians as one body.

Judging from the type of postings in this in other forums, and the application process itself, I'm totally unaware that the site owner's desire requires agreement on the part of the forum's users. OTOH, if this were a condition of being a member, I would not sign up (or if I am told by site moderators that this is the case, I will ask for my membership to be cancelled.)

One needs to ask if the Church can overturn a canon, being canons are not the Gospel.

Of course the problem is that there was never so much as an attempt to "over-turn" this canon to begin with, even if we believed such should/could have occured.

Besides this, is the problem of the doctrinal issues that motivated the calendar change, and which it was intended to facilitate - those, irregardless of any argument about the possibility of canons falling into disuse or being abrogated, is unchangable.

Please read the link (which goes to the EP's official website) leading to the 1920 Synodical, and honestly tell me that the explicit purpose of the calendar change was not to facillitate ecumenism. I'd also appreciate, since I seem to be so obviously wrong in your view, a defense of the ecclessiology found in said Synodical. In particular...

- that heretical bodies can be referred to as the "Churches of Christ" and that the following is not heretical : "Secondly, that above all love should be rekindled and strengthened among the churches, so that they should no more consider one another as strangers and foreigners, but as relatives, and as being a part of the household of Christ and "fellow heirs, members of the same body and partakers of the promise of God in Christ" (Eph. 3. 6)." (!!)


- that doctrinal errors should not prevent fraternal relations from taking place between heretics and Orthodox Christians

- that shared use of sacred spaces is not something to be tolerated when there is no other choice (such as in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre), but something to be actively pursued.

- the reduction to the seperation of the Orthodox Church from false confessions to be due to "antiquated prejudices" and "pretentions" and not fundamental dogmatic issues

You'll have a very difficult time, I think, denying the ecumenistic import of the calendar change, when the Synodical says the following in it's own words...

We believe that the two following measures would greatly contribute to the rapprochement ' which is so much to be desired and which would be so useful, and we believe that they would be both successful and fruitful: ...

a. By the acceptance of a uniform calendar for the celebration of the great Christian feasts at the same time by all the churches.

Also, how is the below anything but heretical, in the face of the Great Commission;

First, we consider as necessary and indispensable the removal and abolition of all the mutual mistrust and bitterness between the different churches which arise from the tendency of some of them to entice and proselytize adherents of other confessions. For nobody ignores what is unfortunately happening today in many places, disturbing the internal peace of the churches, especially in the Exist. So many troubles and sufferings are caused by other Christians and great hatred and enemity are aroused, with such insignificant results, by this tendency of some to proselytize and entice the followers of other Christian confessions.

IOW, Orthodox are not supposed to missionize the heterodox? I wonder then what the various formulas of "repudiating heresies" are doing in the Church's service books?!

Jeff, it's very easy to shoot the messenger - but this is the doctrinal perversity you're seeking to defend.

Seraphim

 

[Photini]

When I was troubled by the calendar issue, it was this letter I read written by Father Philotheos Zervakos in a book entitled Paternal Counsels that put my mind at rest over it. I am in a new calendar church, but I pray for this issue to come to an end, and for one calendar to be common to all the Church again.

"...Now if you don't feel comfortable with the calendar, follow the old...However don't let the enemy deceive you that you will be saved since now you are an old calendarist. Christ, when He sent His disciples into the world told them: "Preach the gospel to all the world, and he who believes and is baptized will be saved." He did not say preach the old calendar and he who believes and is baptized will be saved in it.
"The Lord commanded us to love our enemies and to pray for those who trouble, hate and treat us unjustly. The old calendarists are divided and one portion hates, criticizes and curses the other as heretical. They scorn the words of the Lord, who says that we should have love for one another, that we should love our enemies. And after so much hate, criticisms, anathemas, they self-title themselves as genuine Orthodox! But since the one portion considers the other as heretical, which portion is the genuine Orthodox one? Since they don't have love, none of them is Orthodox, and since they do not keep the commandment of love nor shall they be saved, because whoever does not have love no matter how many virtues he has, even if he has prophetical gifts, apostolic gifts, and even martyrdom, without love does not save us. One cause which the paternal calendar does not return is the divisions and the lack of love in the old calendarists. If they repent, make up, and become peaceful with one another, and pray in humility and contrition of heart both for themselves and for the new calendarists, God shall hear their prayer and the old calendar shall return. ..May the most merciful God who does not want the death of sinners grant repentance and return and now allow us to be lost but save us according to His great and rich mercy."