The Betrayal of Orthodoxy Through the Calendar

 His Grace, Bishop Gregory of Washington and Florida

Source: Orthodox Life, Vol. 33, No. 6, November-December 1983, pp. 34-46. Typos corrected.

 

The American Metropolia has changed to the New Calendar, which they refer to as the "Revised Julian Calendar." Actually, this is only the Gregorian Calendar with an attempt to adapt it to the Orthodox Paschalion. This event calls attention to the question. It is even more significant that several parishes of the Metropolia have not accepted this "reform." As soon as pressure was exerted upon them, they left the Metropolia and, desiring to remain faithful to the Orthodox Tradition free of any modernism, they united themselves to the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia.

A certain amount of controversy has arisen as to the essence of this "reform." Representatives of the "Orthodox Church in America" seek to prove that it is a change to a more contemporary chronology. But those who write about this know only that they want to celebrate the feasts of the Church (especially the Nativity of Christ) simultaneously with the Roman Catholics and Protestants. Not a single article has been published among them by a learned astronomer with a factual knowledge of the subject.

It is interesting, however, that a learned work by such a specialist has appeared in an unexpected quarter, and that he comes out in favor of the Julian Calendar.

In the Anthology of the Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R., Context, 1978, [1] there appeared the extremely interesting research of A. N. Zelinsky, entitled "The Principles Used in the Construction of the Old Russian Calendar." The article runs to 45 pages and abounds with many citations from various sources.

We will not note all of the author's scientific arguments, but will present only excerpts from his work, primarily his conclusions. One should note, however, that his work is remarkable in its conscientiousness. Because he concentrates largely on the Paschalion, the author has also studied the widest possible range of ecclesiastical and liturgical literature related to it.

After a short history of the calculation and the development of various calendar systems in the ancient world, especially in Egypt, the author passes on to the system introduced under the name of "the Julian Calendar."

The First Ecumenical Council made it the basis of the Church's Julian Calendar and Paschalion. Thus, discarding this calendar and adopting a calendar of Roman Catholic origin is an anticanonical violation of the decision of the First Ecumenical Council, which we shall discuss in greater detail later. The work of Zelinsky shows what difficulties come to light in coordinating the fixed fasts of the Church's liturgical year with the Paschalion when the Gregorian Calendar is employed.

Zelinsky writes:

Strictly speaking, the use of the Julian Calendar did not last long from the reform of its originator (46 B.C.) until the Council of Nicea, convoked by Constantine the Great in 325 C.E. After this famous Council - which worked out for all Christians, among a number of the most important dogmatic pronouncements, the sole rules for the calculation of Pascha and the (calculation) of the single era "from the creation of the world," — then, the Calendar of Julius Caesar was transformed into the ecclesiastical Julian Calendar, and in this complex form, it served for more than a millennium as the universal calendar for the whole period of the Christian Middle Ages.

In point of fact, the ecclesiastical Julian Calendar was also the Great Indiction, or the cycle of the creation of the world, to which the present work is dedicated.

From the astronomical point of view, the essence of the Nicean reform of the calendar lies in the fact that into the Julian system of chronology, which was oriented only in relation to the sun (based on a median solar year of 365.25 days), there was introduced a "lunar course," i.e., the movement of the moon through the changes of its phases. The latter was necessary for the precise fixing of the principal Christian feast of Pascha and the twelve [sic] movable feasts that depend thereon. For the Pascha of the Christians depended in turn on the Old Testament Jewish Passover, which, from the time of Moses, has been celebrated by the Jews only at the time of the full moon. This is why there arose the need in the Christians' ecclesiastical Julian Calendar to unite the rhythm of the moon with the rhythm of the sun. In its reformed guise, the ecclesiastical Julian Calendar not only carried out this task, answering to the requirements of the Church's divine service, but also set the boundaries for the disputes between Rome, Constantinople, and other churches on the subject of when exactly one ought to celebrate the New Testament Pascha and by what rules one ought to be guided therein (pp. 67-68).

Zelinsky explains in detail the great complexity of the task that confronted the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council. He defines it as: how to relate the periodicity of the moon to the periodicity of the sun, and "moreover, to express this relationship in the mathematical values that underlie a lunar-solar calendar" (page 68).

Having voiced a number of general chronological and astronomical concepts, Zelinsky arrives at a definite conclusion:

The Christian paschalists, following the tradition of the Gospel and the sequence of the events connected with the final week of the life of Jesus Christ, strove, on the one hand, to preserve the historical bond between the New Testament Pascha and the Old Testament Passover, and, on the other hand, to be completely independent of it. These requirements were so important for them that this is why the Christian Pascha became a moveable feast, since otherwise, these conditions could not be met. For this purpose, the Meton and Sozigen cycle proved to be an ideal instrument for them. The chronological-astronomical mechanism of the Christian Paschalion, which we can be quite certain is based on it, was entirely independent of the mechanism of the Jewish Passover.

Of course, no one can dispute that, from the point of view of its conformity to the astronomical full moons, the Old Testament Passover leaves nothing to be desired. But the Christian paschalists were probably well aware that to hold to so-called "astronomical precision" in calendar matters is something which is both totally impractical and unnecessary. Actually, the Jewish Passover conceals within itself an error in regard to the sun of one day every 210 years. [2]

Thus, if the symbolic date of 14 Nisan in the Christian Paschalion falls behind the equinox at the rate of one day every 128 years, the Jewish Passover computation of 14 Nisan exceeds the equinox by one day in 210 years. The latter results from the fact that, in the chronological-astronomical plan of the movement of the moon, it is not possible to equate the length of the lunar months with the duration of the solar year. In this sense, any lunar-solar calendar - or any calendar at all - will be absolutely "precise" insofar, as here, the concept of "precision" is something quite relative. For this reason, any attempt to fix anything as "forever" in the calendar is, in the final reckoning, doomed to failure (pp. 84-85).

Zelinsky holds that the Gregorian Reform was introduced precisely as an attempt to fix the calendar "forever," which is totally impossible. Acknowledging that the astronomical accuracy in the Gregorian Calendar surpasses the accuracy of the Julian, Zelinsky notes, however, that "there is nonetheless an error and with time it will increase." Yet Zelinsky sees the great advantage of the Julian Calendar over the Gregorian in the fact that its period is shorter. The period of the Julian Calendar is four years, while in the Gregorian it is 400 years. Zelinsky writes:

If we recall that the essence of any one calendar period lies in the smallest span of a whole number of days, after which certain error against the accepted median length of a year is cancelled, then from that point of view, the Gregorian [astronomers] have complicated the calendar by introducing into the world's chronology a calendric period of such a vast duration. Besides, the median length of the Gregorian centuries (because of the introduction of leap centuries) has been found to be equal to a fractional number of days (36524.25 days), which in and of itself looks strange from the point of view of elementary chronology (pр. 86-87).

Zelinsky considers that one of the reasons for the Gregorian reform is an attempt by the Pope to realign the vernal equinox to the date set by the First Ecumenical Council. The Julian Calendar's gradual moving ahead of the vernal equinox caused alarm that Pascha, as a spring feast, was gradually moving towards summer and that thus its traditional position in the spring of the year would be violated. Zelinskly writes:

Inasmuch as, at the time of the Gregorian reform, the vernal equinox already fell, not on March 21, but on March 11, then, to return it to its former place, 10 days were added.

But in correcting what seemed to it to be a violation of the Church's canons for the celebration of Pascha, Rome itself violated one of the basic canons of the principal Christian feast. Thus Canon I of the Council of Antioch states: "If any one of those who preside in the Church, whether he be bishop, priest, or deacon, shall presume, after this decree, to exercise his own private judgment to the subversion of the people and to the disturbance of the Churches by observing Pascha [at the same time] with the Jews, the Holy Council decrees that he shall henceforth be an alien from the Church." This decision by the Council of Antioch is repeated in the Niconian Rudder. It stands to reason that one should not see any anti-Jewish tendency in this canon. The question is simply about the preservation of just that sequence of events which is set forth in the Gospel history and fixed by Christian tradition. The essence of this sequence lies in the fact that the crucifixion of Christ took place on the eve of the Jewish Passover (14 Nisan) and the resurrection on the second day thereafter (16 Nisan). The scales of time are not great, but the scale of the events (for traditional Christian history) are such that they cannot change places (pp. 87-88).

Zelinsky notes that, for reasons of a purely astronomical character, there were incidents in the Middle Ages when the Jewish Passover coincided with the Pascha of the western Christians, but before the Gregorian reform, Pascha never fell before Passover. He explains why this was impossible:

For the early Christians already were aware that, on the mystical-symbolic plane, the New Testament Pascha signifies the supplanting of the Old Testament sacrifice of the lamb by the redemptive sacrifice of Jesus Christ, Who appears therein as the "Lamb of God Who taketh away the sin of the world" (John 1:29).

For this reason, from the point of view of tradition, to change the sequence of these events in their yearly commemoration [i.e., to celebrate Pascha before the arrival of the date of the crucifixion according to the Jewish calendar - Bishop Gregory] means, voluntarily or involuntarily, to distort their meaning. It remains to some degree a mystery as to why the [Roman] Catholic Church did this (рр. 88-89).

Zelinsky notes that for one century (1851-1950), Roman Catholic Easter fell before the Jewish Passover 15 times. According to the quoted passage which Zelinsky cites from the bull of Pope Gregory XIII "Inter Gravissimas", dated the 24th of February, 1582 it is apparent that the Pope hoped

Not only to restore the vernal equinox to the position appointed it from of old, from which since the time of the Council of Nicea, it had receded roughly 10 days, and to return the 14th lunar cycle to its place, from which at present it diverges by 4 or 5 days, but also to establish a method and rules by which in the future the equinox and the 14th lunar cycle will never move from their places.

In reference to this Zelinsky notes:

Thus, the intention was to introduce a radical improvement in the Christian Calendar, which had up until then been in operation for more than 1000 years. "But one simple truth was forgotten, it seems: viz., that it will never be possible to fix anything in the calendar "forever," that the category of the eternal, if it can be related to anything at all, can be least of all related to chronological-astronomical values, which are time, and hence transitional.

Despite the fact that the precision of the Gregorian Calendar in relation to the length of the tropical solar year is quite close, it nevertheless results in an error equal to one day every 3280 years.... And in regard to the moon, the error is immeasurably greater: almost the same as in the Jewish Calendar, roughly for every 210 astronomical years the full moons of the Roman Catholics will gain one day from the equinox. It is not difficult to imagine that after 1000 years such full moons of the 14th lunar cycle, which are considered the first after the equinox, will be found to be the second, i.e. again the canon of the Council of Nicaea will be violated in the literal interpretation, which was imparted to it by the Gregorian reform.

What does this signify? One thing only: the impossibility of attaining that of which Pope Gregory XIII dreamed, i.e. "that, in the future, the equinox and the 14th lunar cycle would never move from their places." Were the authors of the Gregorian reform aware of these simple conclusions? One should think that, yes, they were, but the essence of the matter has not changed, inasmuch as they were then in the grip of a whole complex of cultural-historical and sociopsychological factors, which prepared for what we refer to as the epoch of the "Modern Times."

Here the author obviously has in mind the narrowly confessional interests of Roman Catholicism in its struggle with the Eastern Orthodox Church. At the same time that the Gregorian Calendar was being worked out, a tract by the scholar Joseph Skalliger, which disagreed with it, was composed and published in 1583 under the title "The New Task for the Improvement of the Reckoning of Time," which was issued almost simultaneously with the the Gregorian reform. He insisted that only the Julian calendric-chronological system can guarantee an unbroken reckoning of days in a universal chronology, for, reckoning in accordance with it, it is possible to keep an entire period continuous and sequential, beginning with any designated initial date.

"It is precisely for this reason," writes Zelinsky, "that the reckoning by Julian days is the basis of all chronological and astronomical calculations, independent of whether they are directed into the past or into the future. The solar and lunar eclipses, the maximums and the minimums of the variable stars and many other astronomical phenomena can be expressed by a definite and positive number of solar days only by calculating in Julian days"(р. 90).

The Julian period of Skalliger had no little significance in the historical chronology of the world, since it made it possible to connect various calendar dates, expressing them in Julian days. It is hardly necessary to emphasize that all of its positive qualities the above-mentioned period is indebted to its ancient prototype - the great world creation cycle of the Nicean Paschalion. In this sense, the paradoxical fact remains that this very same period, without which it is not possible to consider the astronomy and chronology of our days, was seen to be unfit for the calendar by Pope Gregory XIII.

For this reason one ought not to be surprised that at the very end of the last century, a highly educated man of his time, V. V. Bolotov, [3] who took part in the Commission which dealt with the question of the calendar reform in Russia, expressed himself on this topic thus: "I myself do not find the change of the Julian Calendar in Russia to be in any way desirable. As in the past, I still have much more respect for the Julian Calendar. Its extraordinary simplicity renders it scientifically preferable to all other calendar corrections. I think that the cultural mission of Russia, in this respect, lies in holding to the Julian Calendar for several centuries more, thus facilitating the return of the Western nations from the Gregorian reform, which no one needs, to the unspoiled old calendar" (р. 106).

Mendeleev, another great Russian scholar of universal stature, sided with Bolotov as a definite proponent of the Julian Calendar in the deliberations over the possibility of calendar reform. Such was also the view of the great astronomer Copernicus, who refused to participate in the preparation of the Gregorian reform, which was already being worked out at the Council of the Lateran in 1514.

Of similar interest is the opinion, which is also cited by Zelinsky, of the famous astronomer E. A. Predtechensky, an active member of the Russian Astronomical Society. Concerning the first compilers of the Great Indiction, Predtechensky writes:

This collective effort - in all probability that of many unknown authors - produced a result that has hitherto remained unsurpassed. The later Roman Paschalion, now accepted by the Western Church, is, by comparison with the Alexandrian, so clumsy and awkward, that it reminds one of a cheap popular print next to an artistically executed rendition of the same subject. Moreover, this dreadfully complicated and clumsy machine does not even achieve its intended goal (pр. 99-100).

We have read various works dedicated to the calendar problem and dare to say that not one of them can compare with the research of Zelinsky in either its scholarly groundwork or clarity of exposition. His efforts are remarkable in that they exhibit such a profound understanding of ecclesiastical materials and ideas connected with the calendar. We have given here only a very brief account of it, omitting a great deal of the specifically scientific and astronomical material which is quite unintelligible for readers lacking a specialist's preparation. We hope that the entire work of Zelinsky will be reprinted for readers outside of the Soviet Union. This, however, will take some time, and, meanwhile, the question of the calendar is being widely debated. Even in our condensed version, the reader will see that, contrary to the assurances of the modernists, the Gregorian Calendar in no wise constitutes progress in the field of science, but, quite the opposite, it leads people away from the best, to something which is worse, and the worst introduces division.

Furthermore, one must keep in mind that the astronomical aspect of the matter has great significance. But which of our parishioners and clergy has any working knowledge in the specialized field of cosmography? However, it is not because of astronomical accuracy that we hold to the Julian Calendar. The liturgical and even dogmatic aspects of this matter are far more important. This is what is of concern to the Christian mind and the conscience of the faithful.

The Fathers of Nicea, who put the calendar and its application to the liturgical life of the Church on a firm basis (as is apparent from Zelinsky's remarkable work), were doubtless granted wisdom by the Holy Spirit. Their divinely-inspired work has passed into the Tradition of the Church. For a thousand years (until its gradual deviation from Orthodoxy) it was kept by the Church of Rome as well. Its loss of Orthodoxy is revealed by its desire to alter the calendar.

Moreover, St. Basil the Great, in his Canons 87 and 91, explains that the preservation of Tradition and ancient custom has exactly the same significance as the preservation of written dogma. According to his Canon 91:

Of the dogmas and precepts... which are preserved in the Church, some which we possess are derived from written teaching; others which we have received, have been delivered to us "in a mystery" (I Cor. 2:7) by the tradition of the Apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force. And these no one will gainsay - no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the institutions of the Church. For were we to attempt to reject such customs that have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is minor, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in its very vitals; or, rather, should make our public definition a mere phrase and nothing more....

The famous canonist Bishop Nikodim (Milash), in his interpretation of Canon 87 of St. Basil the Great, writes: "In regard to custom, St. Basil the Great says that what is first and most important in questions of a similar nature, is to have in mind custom, for custom has the force of law. Custom has always had the same significance as law in the Church, so long as it has a basis justified by the Church and if it has been sanctified by long-standing usage."

The Julian Calendar and its Paschalion were accepted by the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea and have been sanctified by more than a millennium of use in the Church. For this reason, to abandon or violate it is a violation of dogma concerning the Church. It is understandable that the conscience of the Orthodox cannot be reconciled to this, and thus people who hold to it are abandoning bishops who have committed such a sin.

Under the influence of the spirit of modernism it becomes very easy to view casually the ancient resolutions laid down by the whole Orthodox Church. As Canon 7 of the 7th Ecumenical Council expresses it, "Some sins precede and some follow after." It is precisely this same spirit that explains how the resolution of an Ecumenical Council and the universal custom of the whole Church in regard to the calendar - in force for more than two millennia - began after 1920 to be reconsidered by individual Churches, while disregarding the rest of the Churches that remained faithful to Tradition. Adoption of the New Calendar - all the more so since this was not done by the entire Church - violated that which lies at the root of the Nicean resolution concerning the Paschalion. As we have already mentioned, the First Ecumenical Council set as its objective the celebration of Holy Pascha and the rest of the feasts simultaneously by the whole Church. The Council of Nicea was not so much concerned with astronomical precision (although it tried to preserve it as much as possible), as with unity in the prayer life of all the local Churches.

As is well known, the acts of the First Ecumenical Council have not been preserved in written form, but the holy Emperor Constantine wrote of them in detail:

...There [i.e., at the Council] a study was also made concerning the most holy day of Pascha, and by general opinion it was acknowledged to be for the good of all Christians, in whatever land they may dwell, to celebrate the saving feast of the most Holy Pascha on one and the same day. For what could be more beautiful and festive, than when a feast that instils within us the hope of immortality is celebrated by everyone without variation, in accordance with a single rite and an established order? Moreover, it appeared unseemly to celebrate this holy feast together with the Jews who, having defiled their hands with an iniquitous act, have rightly been stricken, as impure, with blindness of soul...

Another way has been indicated for us by the Saviour; it befits our most sacred reverence of God [that it have] its own order of time and its own law... And had all of this not been suggested to you, your prudence itself would have striven in every way to see to it that our pure souls would not in any way have communicated and would not have been taken with the customs of those most worthless of people. Furthermore, one ought also to consider that disagreement in such a matter and concerning such an important feast of the Faith is inconsistent in the extreme with piety... Reflect for yourselves, in accordance with your sanctity, on how bad and incongruous it is that at any given time some keep fast and others keep festival; and, moreover, after the days of Pascha, some pass the time in celebration and rest, and others keep the established fasts. For this reason, Divine Providence has been well pleased that, in a fitting manner, this be corrected and brought under a single rule... To state this briefly: by the common judgment of all, it has been resolved to celebrate the most holy feast of Pascha by all on one and the same day. It is not seemly that there be disparity with regard to so sacred a subject, and it is better to follow such a resolution, in which there is no admixture of foreign error and sin. What has been established in accordance with the divinely inspired deliberation of such holy bishops, accept with joy as a gift of the Most High and as a truly divine commandment; for all that has been decreed at the holy councils of the bishops must be ascribed to the divine will. And thus, having declared the decrees of the Council to all of our beloved brethren, you must accept and put into effect both that which was spoken of before, i.e., the Symbol of the Ecumenical Faith mentioned above, and also the keeping of the most holy day of Pascha...

The Council in Constantinople that convened on 20 November 1583, in response to the proposal of Rome concerning the New Calendar, promulgated a decision in which all the Roman Catholic innovations were committed to anathema. The seventh section of this decision refers to the calendar. It proclaims that:

He that does not follow the customs of the Church and what the seven Ecumenical Councils have decreed concerning the Holy Pascha and the calendar (Menologion) and have laid down as law for us to follow, but desires to follow the Gregorian Paschalion and calendar (Menologion), let him, as well as the impious astronomers, who counteracts all the decrees of the Holy Councils and wishes to change and weaken them, be anathema, separated from the Church of Christ and the assemblies of the faithful.

The question may arise: if the whole Orthodox Church believed thus in 325, repeated it in 1583, and yet again, 10 years after this, in the person of the four patriarchs, the representatives of the Church of Russia and many bishops - what has changed since then? Has that unity of the Orthodox Faith and ecclesiastical prayer, for which the Fathers of the First and subsequent Ecumenical Councils labored, lost its significance? They were concerned that the whole Orthodox world should mark the feasts simultaneously. Moreover in the 1920's of our [20th] century, local Churches, beginning with that of Greece, began to introduce the New Calendar, taking no account of the fact that their brethren in the other Churches (those of Jerusalem, Russia, Serbia, and, at that time, Bulgaria) continued to keep to the ancient order.

One cannot ignore the fact that the very introduction of the Gregorian Calendar into the Orthodox world was carried out in a completely uncanonical and incorrect way, with the object of completely opposing the decrees of the First Ecumenical Council.

This began in February of 1923, in the Kingdom of Greece, with the introduction of the Gregorian Calendar for civil use, while the Julian Calendar remained in force in the Church. Then shortly thereafter, when Chrysostomos Papadopoulos was elected Archbishop of Athens, he declared at a council that it was necessary to change the ecclesiastical calendar so that it would be identical with the civil calendar. The council acknowledged, however, that it was first necessary to take counsel with the other autocephalous Churches, especially with that of Constantinople.

The council, convened for a second time in December of the same year, decreed that in view of the turmoil among the simple people because of the simultaneous presence of two calendars, it was necessary to accept the civil calendar, again adding that it was first necessary to reach an agreement with all the other Churches, especially that of Constantinople. Meanwhile, Archbishop Chrysostomos, early in January of 1924, proposed a "middle of the road" decision: to accept the new calendar with the old Paschalion. The whole affair was conducted with such haste, that the consent of Constantinople was received by January 20, and on the 23rd of March of the same year, the Church of Greece went on the New Calendar, without waiting for the decisions of the other Orthodox Churches.

Bishop Paul, in his very authoritative article printed in Glasnik (Nov., 1982), finds no explanation for such haste. He is astonished that such a thing was done by Archbishop Chrysostomos, who himself took part in a State Commission in 1923 that resolved: "Taking into account that the Church of Greece, like the other autocephalous Churches, although independent internally, is nonetheless closely bound to the others and they are united by the principle of the spiritual unity of the Church, constituting the One Orthodox Church; consequently, no one of them can separate herself from the others and accept a new calendar without becoming schismatic in relation to the others." Bishop Paul notes that, contrary to this, by accepting the New Calendar so hastily, the Church of Greece forgot the decision cited above and the past statements of principles in the epistle of Patriarch Joachim III. And the Patriarch of Constantinople forgot the resolution of the Conference that convened in the city of his cathedra, less than a half a year before (May, 1923). In both cases it was envisioned that such a reform requires the common consent of all the Churches and caution in its implementation, so as not to cause scandal amongst the people. Parenthetically, the Russian Church Outside Russia took part in that Conference in Constantinople in the person of Archbishop (later Metropolitan) Anastassy.

Various justifications were put forward for such a hasty decision by a single Church, contrary to the decision of the Conference, which Bishop Paul conscientiously cites.

First, they said that it would be difficult for the Church of Greece to take part in the National Holiday on the day of the Annunciation, for which it was alleged that preparations were underway for its celebration according to the New Calendar. However, when examined, this argument clearly falls apart. In the royal decree on the government's change to the New Calendar, it is noted in paragraph 4: "The National Holiday of the 25th of March and all special festal days, in accordance with existing laws, will conform with the Julian Calendar." Then they alleged that the king was especially inclined that the New Calendar be introduced into the Church, that such a demand was being presented by the government, and that the Yugoslavian ambassador had urged the Church of Greece towards this measure, giving assurances to the Archbishop that the Church of Serbia would also join in such a decision.

In actual fact, the latter did not give its consent to this, and from the ecclesiastical point of view, any pressure exerted by civil authorities, even if by a king, must not be decisive, even if the matter is not inappropriate.

"Be that as it may," writes Bishop Paul, "this haste without prior explanation and preparation gave rise to one of the serious problems of the modern Greek Church - the Old Calendar [movement]" (p. 276). Later, the New Calendar was accepted by the Churches of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Romania, and Bulgaria. The latter did so many years afterwards, in comparatively recent times, probably to please its Communist government and the World Council of Churches.

We see, then, that the Church of Greece first introduced the calendar reform, a reform which is inconsistent with the Paschalion асcepted by the First Ecumenical Council, and thus separated herself from that unity of the Churches in keeping the feast simultaneously by the whole Church, which was achieved by the First Ecumenical Council. In other words, this was a decision directly opposed to that objective which, in regard to the calendar, the Council of Nicea had set for itself. In 1924 the Churches of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Serbia, and others categorically refused to accept the New Calendar (Church Registrar, #11 & 12, 1924, р. 4).

A very objective account of events led Bishop Paul to the following conclusion:

Apparently, the intention was that, if not all the Church, then the majority of the Churches would accept this decision, and the primacy of its introduction would be viewed as a matter of prestige. The possibility that they viewed the matter in this light in Greece is apparent from the statement of its representative at Constantinople, according to whom the use of the New Calendar and the change of the paschalion would have "great moral significance and would make a great impression upon the whole cultured world, as a voluntary rapprochement between the two Christian worlds, the East and the West, devoid of coercion, in the celebration of the Great Christian Feasts" (p. 276). In other words, the violation of unity in keeping the feasts, which the Council of Nicea established, was brought about for political reasons, to please the Greek government and for the "rapprochement of the two worlds" - that of the Orthodox and that of the heretics. The reform was introduced to please them, and not in the name of the preservation or the strengthening of Orthodoxy. However many Churches joined the Church of Greece in this, they did so not to strengthen Orthodoxy, but for rapprochement with the heresies. This was a sin against Orthodoxy. And if we judge their works by their fruit (Mt. 7:16), we see that the sin of violating the decision of the Council of Nicea, while it may delight the heretics, still violates the unity of the Orthodox Church.

The un-Orthodoxness of this act is especially clear when one tests it against the indispensable requirement: unity with Tradition, so that each individual act may not lose touch with Orthodoxy. With his customary clarity, our famous canonist Bishop John of Smolensk writes concerning this:

Thus, the other principle of ecclesiastical jurisprudence, a basic and guiding principle, is the steadfast following of the sacred Tradition of the Orthodox Catholic Church .... Only that which is in Sacred Tradition, or is explained thereby, or is in accordance therewith, can be recognized, in the true sense, as CANONICAL, as ecclesiastical; all of which has no basis in Tradition and is not in accord with it, even though accepted by one or another Christian community ... cannot be recognized as canonical or belonging to the Church Universal, and therefore, as true. Finally, all that changes Tradition in the basic rights and institutions of the Church, or undermines its power with the arbitrariness of opinions or human institutions, all that is clearly contrary to Tradition, must be discarded as false, as anti-Church (Archimandrite John, Survey Course of Ecclesiastical Jurisprudence, St. Petersburg, 1851, Section 1, р. 23).

Is astronomical accuracy (moreover, as we saw, a dubious accuracy) so important, that because of it we should lose the universal unity in prayer of the feasts? Does the simultaneous celebration of the Nativity of Christ and other feasts with non-Orthodox denominations really justify separation from the Orthodox Churches that are faithful to this patristic Tradition?

Something even worse took place in the Church of Poland, and later in the American Metropolia; there, in one and the same diocese, some parishes are living according to the Julian Calendar, while others (among whom is the bishop), live according to the Gregorian. If their bishop wishes to visit his flock, he must celebrate the Nativity of Christ in one parish, while in another he still keeps the Nativity Fast. Hе himself, it would seem, lives neither one way nor the other. In one diocese of the American Metropolia the situation is even more contradictory: within some of the bishop's parishes, including his cathedral, the Orthodox may live according to different calendars, according to their individually stated desires. The bishop has promised his flock that even if so much as a single parishioner demands a service for himself according to the Julian Calendar, his request will be satisfied. It is hard to imagine a worse spiritual position. Can one call such discord, Orthodoxy? Rather, they are returning to that disorder which the Equal-to-the-Apostles, Emperor St. Constantine, joyously proclaimed to the world as having been eliminated. Let us again quote his words:

Consider for yourselves, in accordance with your sanctity, on how bad and incongruous it is, that at any given time, some keep fast and others keep festival: and, moreover, after the days of Pascha, some pass the time in celebration and rest, and others keep the established fasts.

This judgment may apply not only to Pascha, but in general to any feast, beginning with the Nativity of Christ.

The First Ecumenical Council eliminated any lack of coordination between the Churches of the East and the West. At that time, the celebration of Pascha took place at different times, according to region; but it would not have occurred to anyone that the faithful of one and the same diocese, and even of the same parish and church, would live by different calendars. Truly, it is difficult to imagine such wild spiritual disorder in one and the same community. Only the principles of the ecumenical movement, which does not recognize absolute truth but reduces it to the state of opinion, could lead to such spiritual absurdity.

Thus, the study of the question of the New Calendar inevitably leads us to the conclusion that its introduction was uncanonical from the very beginning and constituted a betrayal of Orthodoxy. To adhere to this at some later date, especially now, is an adherence to a sinful, non-Orthodox act. No majority can change this position, any more than the seizure of authority in one or another Church by a majority of heretics could make them Orthodox.

Let us not be frightened that the New Calendarists may prove to be in the majority. Orthodoxy is not measured by that standard, but by the loyalty to Tradition, and the unity in Faith and life with the Holy Fathers who have departed this world before us. We believe that modernism is growing and that the warning of Canon 7 of the Seventh Ecumenical Council is coming to pass, "for the sins of some are open beforehand, and some they follow after" (cf. I Tim. 5:24). We will not be surprised if, to please the Papists, a Roman proposal to fix Pascha within a given week in April will be adopted. The "sins beforehand" are already here. Who will be surprised when "other sins follow after"?

 

[1] Sbornik Akademii Nauk SSSR, Kontekst 1978 goda, "Konstruktivnye printsipy drevnerusskaga kalendarya."

[2] This is because the median length of the Jewish year, constructed according to the cycle of Hipparchus, is longer than the tropical year. The tropical year is measured from vernal equinox to vernal equinox and is 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, and 46 seconds.

[3] Doctor of Ecclesiastical History, professor at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, 1854-1900.

Translated from the Russian by Isaac Lambertsen.