St. Theophan the Recluse on the New Calendar

[OIT]

Archbishop Theophan on the new calendar.


In 1926, Archbishop Theophanes of Poltava and Pereyaslavl, wrote the following in his work, "Short canonical judgements on chronology":

"Question. Have the pastors of the Orthodox Church not made special judgements concerning the calendar?

"Answer. They have, many times - with regard to the introduction of the new Roman calendar - both in private assemblies and in councils.

"A proof of this is the following. First of all, the Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremiah II, who lived at the same time as the Roman calendar reform, immediately, in 1582, together with his Synod condemned the new Roman system of chronology as being not in agreement with the Tradition of the Church. In the next year (1583), with the participation of Patriarchs Sylvester of Alexandria and Sophronius VI of Jerusalem, he convened a Church Council. This Council recognised the Gregorian calendar to be not in agreement with the canons of the Universal Church and with the decree of the First Ecumenical Council on the method of calculating the day of Holy Pascha.

Through the labours of this Council there appeared: a Conciliar tome, which denounced the wrongness and unacceptability for the Orthodox Church of the Roman calendar, and a canonical conciliar Decree - the Sigillion of November 20, 1583. In this Sigillion all three of the above-mentioned Patriarchs with their Synods called on the Orthodox firmly and unbendingly, even to the shedding of their blood, to hold the Orthodox Menaion and Julian Paschalion, threatening the transgressors of this with anathema, cutting them off from the Church of Christ and the gathering of the faithful…

In the course of the following three centuries: the 17th, 18th and 19th, a whole series of Ecumenical Patriarchs decisively expressed themselves against the Gregorian calendar and, evaluating it in the spirit of the conciliar decree of Patriarch Jeremiah II, counselled the Orthodox to avoid it…"

"Question. Is the introduction of the new calendar important or of little importance?

"Answer. Very important, especially in connection with the Paschalion and it is an extreme disorder and ecclesiastical schism, which draws people away from communion and unity with the whole Church of Christ, deprives them of the grace of the Holy Spirit, shakes the dogma of the unity of the Church and, like Arius, tears the seamless robe of Christ, that is, everywhere divides the Orthodox, depriving them of oneness of mind; breaks the bond with Ecclesiastical Holy Tradition, and makes them fall under conciliar condemnation for despising Tradition…

"Question. How must the Orthodox relate to the new calendarist schismatics, according to the canons?

"Answer. They must have no communion in prayer with them, even before their conciliar condemnation…

"Question. What punishment is fitting, according to the Church canons, for those who pray with the new calendarist schismatics?

"Answer. The same condemnation with them…"

 

[MichaelNZ]

Well said. The New Calendar was introduced by a Masonic Patriarch for the purpose of ecumenism, the mother of all heresies. True Orthodox should follow the Calendar that the Church has used ever since the time of Christ and the Apostles, and not switch to the calendar created by the heretical Pope of Rome.

By using the New Calendar, in some years the Apostles' Fast disappears completely. The fast starts on the 8th day after Pentecost (the movable cycle), and finishes on the Feast of Ss. Peter and Paul (June 29th). If there is a late Pascha, then it's possible for the 8th day after Pentecost to be June 29th or after, according to the New Calendar.

 

[icxn]

St. Theophan the Recluse and Archbishop Theophan of Poltava are not the same person.

 

[Silentchapel]

Have Apostles fasted in their own honor? Did they celebrate the feast of Ss. Peter and Paul? Or was it introduced later? If the prime argument for not using the Old Calendar is that the Apostles' Fast occasionally disappears - then why is it so important that Apostles used it? They most certainly wouldn't be so uppity about Apostles' Fast.
Second - if the New Calendar is heretical, that makes, old Julian Calendar... what?
Enjoy the following:
"Three great Synods condemned the Gregorian calendar at the end of the 16th century. The historian F. Vafeidis writes that "during that year (1583) a Synod gathered in Constantinople, which mainly condemned the Gregorian calendar; for according to this calendar it happens that we celebrate [Pascha] with the Jews, which is contrary to the Synod in Nicaea."The Zealots, when they mention the above phrase, [often] stop after the word "calendar", omitting the rest! It seems they believe that the main work of the Synod was the condemnation of the Gregorian calendar per se."
Source: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/anti-patristic-stance-old-calendarist-zealots.aspx

Bojan, your friendly Serbian Orthodox who uses Old Calendar and doesn't mind the Revised Julian Calendar

 

[nutroll]

Well said. The New Calendar was introduced by a Masonic Patriarch for the purpose of ecumenism, the mother of all heresies. True Orthodox should follow the Calendar that the Church has used ever since the time of Christ and the Apostles, and not switch to the calendar created by the heretical Pope of Rome.

Masonic, Ecumenism, Mother of all heresies, yadda yadda yadda. The simple fact remains that the Julian Calendar does not conform to the world that God created. The Fathers of the Church were (generally speaking) not astronomers or mathematicians. They didn't realize that over the centuries the calendar would drift from the real astronomical occurrences with which it was timed. If they had known, they likely would have compensated for that. Now we can ignore God's Creation in favor of a Calendar, or we can pay attention to the sun and the moon that God appointed to tell time and establish the seasons. Whether the New Calendar lines up with the Catholic Church is almost incidental. It should line up with what God has established.

By using the New Calendar, in some years the Apostles' Fast disappears completely. The fast starts on the 8th day after Pentecost (the movable cycle), and finishes on the Feast of Ss. Peter and Paul (June 29th). If there is a late Pascha, then it's possible for the 8th day after Pentecost to be June 29th or after, according to the New Calendar.

I have heard this argument before, and I find it to be utterly ridiculous. There are two factors that lead to there being no Apostle's Fast. The Paschalion is just as much to blame for the disappearance of the Apostles fast as the New Calendar is. I could argue using the same point as you that the Paschalion is flawed based on the Apostle's Fast. For your argument to stand, one has to presuppose that the Old Calendar is correct and the New Calendar is not. The Paschalion is based on a 4th century equinox that doesn't match with the equinox now. Again it is a question of whether God is right in how he marks the seasons or whether we were right in our calculations. I would maintain that Holy men did the best that they could to discern how they should set up the calendar, and that if they had all the available evidence, they likely would have done it differently. Now just to clarify a few things, I have no problem with the Old Calendar. I have no problem with the current Paschalion. However, I also have no problem with the New Calendar, in fact I prefer it. What I do have a problem with is the notion of Orthodox attacking other Orthodox over calendar issues. Jesus said that the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath, I think we could say the same thing about the calendar. We ought not to break apart because of the calendar. We all want to celebrate the important moments in our Salvation History, we all want to commemorate the holy men and women that have gone before us. The Calendar sets the dates of those celebrations, but the dates of the celebrations ought not to become more important than the celebration itself, or the unity of our Faith.