Recently on one of the Internet discussion groups, these questions were posed: 
What is the distinction between Old and New Calendars? Why is the division so prominent? 

As we all know, the 19th century saw the development of liberal ideas that ultimately led to the revolution in Russia. A number of the clergy in the Russian Orthodox church had become involved in the liberal movement and wished to "liberalize" the Church. Their proposals included: a change to the New Calendar (the Gregorian Calendar, introduced by Pope Gregory XIII at the end of the 16th century and rejected by all the Orthodox churches at that time, who continued to use the traditional Julian Calendar); married bishops; permission for priests to marry a second time; shortening of services; reduction of fasting periods and the strictness of the fasts; use of non-clerical garb by clergy outside of the church; eliminating the traditional requirement of beards and long hair for clergy; and many other innovations.

These priests became the kernel of the so-called "renovationist" movement in early post-revolutionary Soviet Russia, which cooperated with them, since they expressed complete support for the Communist regime. Most of the church buildings in the Soviet Union were transferred to the renovationists, and those who didn't cooperate (the followers of Patriarch Tikhon) were persecuted and often killed.

At the same time, a rather interesting figure had had himself elected to the office of Patriarch of Constantinople, Meletios Metaxakis. This individual had previously been Archbishop of Athens, then Patriarch of Alexandria. It is not exactly clear how he had been able to be the head of three independent local Orthodox Churches in succession. Suffice it to say, it is known that he was a Freemason and had "connections."

He was extremely modernist in his views. He supported all of the above-mentioned innovations of the renovationists, and shocked the Orthodox world by appearing in a civilian suit. In 1923 he instituted an official change to the new calendar, although the other innovations he proposed did not go through. He also recognized the Renovationists in Soviet Russia as the true Church of Russia and joined in their condemnation and deposition of Patriarch Tikhon.

To make a long story short, as a result of the calendar innovation, the Orthodox world was divided. Some of the Orthodox churches remained Old Calendar, some accepted the New, and the liturgical unity of the Church was shattered. In Greece, the introduction of the new calendar caused extraordinary upheaval and physical persecution of the old-calendarists was widespread.

The calendar question is one of extraordinary significance to "traditionalist" Orthodox, although it is presented as a matter of little importance by the new-calendarists ("This is not an issue of dogma, Father, just custom," one hears). The answer, of course, is that the Pope's calendar innovation had been condemned many times by pan-Orthodox Councils, so it is not a matter of "taste."

So how has this affected Orthodoxy in the United States? Today one can see the following: New-calendar churches, typically, have accepted many of the "trappings" of Roman Catholic and Protestant churches. They, for the most part, have pews in their churches, some have organs (!) and electronic carillons instead of bells, their priests, and in some cases even bishops, most often wear "clerical collars" and suits (outside of the services), almost all clergy have short hair and trimmed or no beards, and like to be called "Father Tom," or "Father Al." The services are typically shortened, frequently even Saturday-night Vigil services are eliminated. The new-calendarists have relatively few monasteries and monastic clergy. Many churches thrive on Bingo, and almost all have lay "presidents" of the congregation, who, together with a parish council, direct the affairs of the church. Being a Freemason is not considered to be in conflict with Orthodoxy.

On the other hand, traditionalist Orthodox parishes will never have pews, organs and the like; their clergy will never be seen without a rasson (they wouldn't be caught dead wearing a "dog collar" and "clergy shirt"!); no one would dream of addressing them as "Father Tom"; they typically do not cut their hair or beards (unless required by outside employment); the services follow a much fuller Typicon; the priests are rectors of their parishes and they are themselves the "presidents" of the parish corporations, with the parish council acting in a more advisory role; there are far more monastic clergy and many monasteries and convents. Freemasonry is soundly condemned as incompatible with Orthodoxy.

Another significant area dividing traditional Orthodox from their "modernist" brethren is the area of Ecumenism. To a traditionalist Orthodox, ecumenism is an outright heresy, condemned by innumerable Councils who clearly forbid praying with heretics.

The new-calendarists, on the other hand, are very active participants in the "ecumenical movement," in the WCC and the NCC, notwithstanding the incredible mixture of paganism, new-world thinking, radical feminism, and other weird stuff that goes on at WCC assemblies.

Unfortunately, the last three Patriarchs of Constantinople (Athenagoras, Demetrius, and, now, Bartholemew, have been rabid ecumenists. Patriarch Bartholemew, at least at the time he was Metropolitan) had frequently been photographed in a civilian business suit (with tie, not even an ecclesiastical collar), and studied at the Papal Institute in Rome. He recent meetings with the Pope underscore his desire to reunite with Rome by the year 2000. He, and other ecumenically-oriented Eastern Patriarchs have virtually accepted the Monophysite heretics as valid Orthodox, without making them renounce their views or accept the Orthodox position regarding the Divine and human natures of Christ.

All this is appalling to traditionalist Orthodox, who wish to preserve the faith of the Apostles and the Fathers without any change.

As a Roman Catholic, some of this may be familiar to you. You may remember the upheaval that was caused in the RC church when wholesale modernization took place.

The traditional Orthodox will struggle to keep this from happening within Orthodoxy. Although a relatively small part of the contemporary Orthodox population, the traditionalists (comprising the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, which has 400 clergy outside of Russia; the old calendarist churches of Greece, Bulgaria, Roumania, and like-minded Orthodox throughout the world) will continue to witness for the purity of Orthodoxy and against the heresies of modernism and ecumenism that have, so unfortunately, infected so much of World Orthodoxy.

While there are some fanatical fringe groups within the traditionalist movement (who aver that everyone else is devoid of grace), the majority of traditionalists do not agree. They consider the other (modernist) Orthodox to still be Orthodox, although in grave error, and pray for their return to the path of traditional Orthodoxy, as preserved by the Church for 2000 years. Among the "modernists" there is also a fanatic fringe, who consider the traditionalist Orthodox to be "schismatics" and outside the Church.

I think we should let the two fanatic fringes shout themselves out, while the more rationally-minded traditionalist and new-calendar Orthodox Christians should engage in peaceful and constructive dialogue in non-confrontational places such as this forum, and of course, pray for each other as brothers and sisters in Christ.

With love in Christ,

Fr. Alexander Lebedeff

---

I appreciate those who have expressed their opinions on the calendar issue. Amazing what kind of red herrings can be strewn out instead of addressing the issues head on! 

Here are some responses to the arguments that have been raised…. 

First, I have been deeply interested in the Calendar question for over thirty years. I have yet to hear even one compelling, or even good reason for the introduction of the new calendar and the resultant sundering of Church liturgical unity…. 

If I may summarize the reasons brought up so far on this list: 

1) Accuracy. The old calendar is supposed to be astronomically inaccurate, and the new calendar fixes this. 

Reply: All calendars are inherently astronomically inaccurate. The holy fathers who established the Church calendar knew perfectly well that assigning the vernal equinox to a fixed date was astronomically inaccurate. Yet, they went ahead and did this. 

The so-called "Revised Julian Calendar" is fundamentally flawed. By maintaining the traditional Paschalion while changing the fixed calendar, the Typicon goes out the window. The Apostles' Fast is severely shortened or even ends before it begins in certain years. Over the centuries, according to the "Revised Julian Calendar" the date of Pascha will gradually slip forward into the fixed year, so that Pascha (and all the moveable feasts) will eventually coincide with the Feasts of Sts. Peter and Paul, with the Transfiguration, with the Dormition, and even with the Nativity (the last will happen in about 35,000 years, so you may say, "What's the big deal?", but it will occur). 

As I said before, astronomers cannot use the Gregorian calendar for their calculations since it is "missing" the ten days that were "skipped" in 1583. Computer programmers are always making their calculation of the distance between dates by using the "Julian date." Copernicus among other astronomers was adamantly opposed to the Gregorian calendar change. The Russian Imperial Academy of Sciences at the beginning of this century found no scientific or astronomical reasons for adopting the Gregorian calendar. 

And, as I will address later, astronomical accuracy was absolutely not one of the reasons that the calendar change was introduced by Patriarch Meletios Metaxakis in 1924. 

2) Obedience to one's hierarchy. 

Reply. This is actually a good reason for using the calendar your bishops say you should. It is absolutely not in any way a justification for the original change of the calendar. 

An amazing issue here is the fact that some jurisdictions have allowed individual parishioners to actually vote and choose which calendar they wish to use! Here is a clear example of hierarchs abrogating their authority to lead and to teach. Lay parishioners have no concept of the liturgical and historical issues regarding the calendar. They are not theologically educated. Yet they are being asked to make decisions regarding abandoning the calendar that was part of the tradition of the church for sixteen centuries! 

Not too long ago there was an incident that occurred in the US Navy. The captain of one of the larger vessels offered his crew the opportunity to vote on the place where they were to have their week of shore leave after a long tour of duty. Because of this, the captain was relieved of his command and demoted--he had abrogated his authority as commander of his vessel and had given this authority to his subordinates. The same comes to mind when one reads the posts that the MP has allowed its parishes in Great Britain to choose which calendar they wish to follow, including even the date of Pascha. Do parishioners really have the authority to overturn the decisions of Ecumenical and local councils? Democracy run amok, in my opinion. 

3) We live by the civil calendar, which tells us what day of the month it is, so we should adjust our liturgical calendar to be in accord with it. 

Reply. This seems like an awfully weak argument. Certainly, the civil authorities regulate standards of weight and measure, and even time (that's what the atomic clocks are for at the Bureau of Standards). Do we really think that it is necessary or even permissible for the civil authorities to regulate when the Holy Church celebrates its feast days? Whatever happened to the separation of Church and State? The civil authorities should *never* be looked to in questions that concern the liturgical life of the Church. 

The Church has lived and functioned under a broad spectrum of civil authorities, with dozens of calendar systems. Yet it maintained its own Church calendar, as it should have. Yes, the Church calendar was based on a pagan civil calendar. But once that calendar had been adopted by the church, it became something different. It was now the Church calendar, the mechanism that regulates the "heartbeat" of the liturgical life of the Church in time--that tells us when to fast, when to feast, etc. 

At any time, in any place, the civil authorities can arbitrarily change things like the calendar. Does this mean that we have to immediately change the Church calendar correspondingly? I don't think so. Yes, the Jews, Moslems, Chinese, and others have maintained their own calendars and pay no attention to the civil calendars of the countries in which they live. There is no reason why the Orthodox should not be able to maintain a Church calendar, as well. 

Also, we never know when the state might introduce some serious change in the civil calendar. Seriously being discussed is the introduction of a calendar consisting of 13 months of 28 days each, plus a "world day" at the end of the year. This would, of course, ensure that every year, every date would fall on the same day of the week, simplifying all kinds of financial operations. If such a calendar becomes law, should the Orthodox "join in" and throw out their Church calendar to adopt the new civil one? 

Summary. 

The fact is, there was and there is no compelling reason for the calendar change. None of the reasons brought up by any of the participants on these lists can serve as justification for the Church abandoning its traditional ecclesiastical calendar and for causing a rift in the liturgical unity of the Church. 

So far, no one has come up with an answer to why it was permissible to ignore the anathemas of the three pan-Orthodox Councils held in the 16th century that condemned the Papal calendar as heretical. 

No one has come up with an answer as to why it is OK to use a "Revised Julian Calendar" that severely shortens or even eliminates the ages-old Apostle's Fast, or that will (albeit some time from now) allow Pascha to drift forward through the Church year until it can coincide with the Nativity. All this instead of an extremely well-organized and brilliantly executed traditional Church calendar where such aberrations are simply not possible. The argument that if one follows the Julian calendar eventually Pascha will occur in the autumn is unconvincing. That happens in the Southern hemisphere now. Perhaps it is only fair that the seasons be eventually reversed so that our Orthodox brothers and sisters in South America, Africa, and Australia would be able to celebrate Pascha in the Spring, as well. Also, the argument that the existence of different time zones keeps Orthodox from celebrating the feasts together is specious-the calendar envisions each feast as a whole day of celebration--a twenty-four hour period from evening to evening--so that even in different time zones, all are conceptually celebrating together. 

Finally, with all the discussion of astronomical "accuracy," "obedience to one's bishop's," "you can't make the calendar an idol," "there is no time in heaven," etc., people forget that the reason that the calendar change, with all its painful consequences, was introduced in this century is very well known--and it has nothing to do with any of these reasons. 

Patriarch Meletios Metaxakis, the architect of the Calendar reform, was perfectly clear about his reason--it was to achieve unity with other Christians. 

Let me repeat this again. The reason the calendar reform was introduced was to foster ecumenism. Period. 

We must remember that Patriarch Meletios of Constantinople (who had previously been Archbishop of Athens and Patriarch of Alexandria--how about that for the "independence" of these autocephalous churches!), a self-avowed Freemason, was a die-hard renovationist. In 1923, he recognized the renovationist Living Church of Russia (which had married bishops!) and its deposal of Patriarch Tikhon. He put together an agenda for a Pan-Orthodox Council that was to include not only acceptance of the Gregorian calendar, but also shortening and easing the restrictions of fast periods, of services, permission for twice-married clergy, and many other renovationist ideas. …. 

Now, he may have had other motives, as well. It is not unlikely that the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the early 1920's was in danger of annihilation by the newly secularized Turkish government. The Patriarchate had lost the protection of Imperial Russia, and needed the support of world public opinion in order to survive. Was the price of this support acceptance of the Western calendar? Very possibly. 

So, the avowed reason for the calendar change was to become closer to Roman Catholics and Protestants--not any of the reasons argued here. It does not accomplish the goal of union with the heterodox. It does, however, accomplish the goal of causing bitter and deep division in the Orthodox Church. Is this something we want to support? 

I have been accused of making an "emotional" appeal for the preservation and restoration of the traditional Church calendar. 

But is it rational that we are now living in a situation where a non-Orthodox coming up to an Orthodox Christian, say, on the streets of Los Angeles, and asking a simple question: "Is today a fast day?" cannot get a straight answer? Nor can he get an answer to the question of "what saint does the Church celebrate today?". 

Answers like: "Well, uh, you see, uh, some Orthodox are still fasting the Dormition Fast, and some already celebrated the Dormition," are not good or straight answers. 

Is it rational to cause schizophrenia in our bishops, who, visiting parishes, have to remember which calendar they're on? That bishops cannot be spiritually united with they're flock--cannot feast with them and fast with them because of the calendar issue? They may have to celebrate each major feast day twice! Not a very good way to follow the Typicon! In one parish they are fasting and preparing for the Feast--in another it has long passed. 

Does the bishop, who has already celebrated the Nativity have to go back and fast for two more weeks? Or does he start all his fasts two weeks early, just in case? The whole thing is ludicrous. 

The same renovationists that brought you the calendar reform are busy working on new ones. It is a fact that Constantinople is actively involved in discussions leading to a single date for Pascha for all Christians, and even discussing the possibility of a fixed date. Stay tuned. Maybe we'll hear some post-factum justifications of this reform as being more "accurate" as well. 

The issue of the calendar is painful and divisive, as can be seen from the discussions that have taken place on this list. In my opinion, this is an excellent example of why the calendar reform should never have taken place, especially in a piece-meal fashion. 

Although I cherish the traditions of the Church and consider the Church calendar to be one of the most enduring and sanctified of them, I would have been less bothered if the decision to revise the calendar had been made by all the bishops of the Orthodox Church acting together, with all Orthodox churches participating in the decision and its implementation. 

This, however, did not occur. 

Obviously, there are three possible resolutions. 

One, a return by all Orthodox Christians to the sanctified traditional Church Calendar. 

Two, acceptance by all Orthodox Christians of Pope Gregory's calendar reform, and the ensuing absurdities regarding the Apostle's Fast and Paschal drift, and acceptance of the ecumenist goals of Meletios Metaxakis. 

Three, maintenance of the status quo, continuing the division of Orthodoxy in the world into two groups who cannot even celebrate the Great Feasts together. 
It is clear to me which of these alternatives is consistent with the teaching of the Holy Councils and Fathers, and which are not. I hope it is clear for others, as well. With love in Christ, Fr Alexander [Lebedeff] - (August, 1996)

---

During September 22-24, 1988 in New Valaam in Finland there was an international conference devoted to the 1000th anniversary of the Baptism of Rus. Local and invited clergy and scholars were present: A paper was presented on "The Julian Calendar--the 1000-Year-Old Icon of Time in Rus' by Lyudmila Perepelkina (from Finland), an expert on the subject. The following is an excerpt from the printed text of the paper, taken from the unofficial Leningrad journal, Nevskiy Dukhovnyy Vestnik (no. 1, 1989). 

". . . The modern ecumenical movement is looking for a solution to the issue of the church calendar. Among the various proposals there were two which are discussed most frequently: (1) To celebrate Easter on a specific date of the Gregorian calendar (the first or second Sunday of April). This proposal, which is totally at odds with the determination of the Council of Nicaea, was supported by the Second Vatican Council. (2) To set the date of Easter by taking literally the astronomical terms 'equinox' and 'full moon'. 

According to A. Zelinsky (see his excellent study in Kontekst, Moscow, 1978), both of these proposals are unacceptable. The first is unacceptable because of the astronomical and canonical deficiencies of the Gregorian Calendar and its modified version- the second is unacceptable because "astronomical accuracy", taken literally, would make the Church constantly dependent on the progress of astronomical science. In addition, this decision ' would not be canonical, since it would permit simultaneous occurrence of Easter and Jewish Passover, i.e. would go completely against Church tradition. 

"If the Christian faiths are ever to unite," writes Zelinsky 'this unification, from the point of view of the liturgical Church calendar, must be based on a firm, unshakable foundation. This foundation can only be the sacred calendar-cosmological system of the Great Circle of Creation-the brilliant compilation of the works of unknown laborers of science and faith.' 

The Russian Church did not deviate from the instructions of the Holy Fathers. The Julian calendar remains unaltered in the life of the Russian Orthodox Church. The Julian calendar was supported in Russia by many famous scholars, including professors V. V. Bolotov, and E. A. Predtechensk_ the great Russian theologian professor N. G. Glubokovsky, the reverend D. A. Lebedev . . . and the entire devout Russian nation. Because of the decisive resistance of the people it became impossible to adopt the 'corrected Julian calendar' in Russia in 1923, despite the resolution which had been adopted concerning this. 

"…The Gregorian reform of the calendar is a truly 'new' approach, a witness to the new, rationalistic approach of man to the category of Time. Beginning with the Renaissance, man wants to become the ruler of Time. Time loses its mystical dimension for him, ceases to be the Time of hope and becomes the Time of progress. But 'progress . . . noticeable accelerated progress, is always a symptom of the end.' And, perhaps, then, there will be no more Time... for repentance." 

'Time is God's creation. As with all creatures, after the Fall, Time lost its original perfection and now, together with all creatures, hopes for its salvation. God sanctifies creation, which partakes of His life in Heaven. Time is sanctified in the same way. For this reason one can speak of the Church calendar as of an icon of this sanctified Time. Obviously, there is also unsanctified Time which has no place in this icon. Cosmic Time, with all its rhythms, is not of itself a subject for iconography and is sanctified only through communion with sacred history. From this flows the incomparability of sanctified and unsanctified Time, of the feasts of the Church and the feast, of the unholy. The profanation of the Church calendar is a sacriligeous attempt to desecrate that which is holy, an attempt to cast the sanctified from the Kingdom of Heaven into the kingdom of the unholy. 

In coming out against the Julian calendar and the Alexandrian Paschalia, which had been sanctified by the ages, the primary aim of the creators of the Gregorian calendar was to strengthen the authority of the papacy and of Rome, which had been weakened after the Reformation. The Gregorian reform, which permitted the 'elimination' of ten real days, reflected the general state of soul and mind in the West, in accordance with which Time became dependent on the will of man. Rationalism, having conquered the minds of men, began to mechanize the universe and wished to control the laws of nature and Time. 'The flowers of evil' sown in those times yielded their bitter harvest in our age. 

At the end of the twentieth century people began to look more skeptically at the 'achievements' of the Renaissance. A contemporary thinking person, looking at that which followed the Renaissance--secularization, dechristianization, together with the total decline in human society-begins to look at the Renaissance anew. In studying the genealogy of the degradation of contemporary man, one can note that its roots can be found in the time of the Renaissance time of an uncontrollable urge in man to rise up and to establish himself above everything: above nature, above those like him, and finally, above the Lord God Himself. 

What will the Time of the future, the Time of the Eighth Day, be like? We know only that it will be sanctified and not that Time which is calculated according to the sun and moon. One probably cannot categorically juxtapose Eternity and Time. Perhaps sanctified Time is already Eternity.

The Church of Christ unites the temporal and the eternal. This takes place, first of all, in the sacrament of the Eucharist. Existing in time, the Church, through the real presence of Christ, transforms time, as she transforms the world. The time of prayer is the entry into eternity, into the Kingdom of God where 'Christ is in everything and everyone.' Those who live in prayer know from experience that in church services or prayers in monks cells, during the reading of the Gospel or the Book of Psalms, the boundaries of time seem to vanish. This occurs when one feels united with God, when the merciful Lord seems to visit us in a special way. Then the heart replies to this divine call of Love and forgets everything and finds itself outside of time. We find this mystical experience of the Church in the works of the Holy Fathers; it is especially clearly expressed by St. Simeon the New Theologian in his Sermons and Hymns.

With regard to the differences of opinion about the Julian calendar, it seems to us that the main argument in its favor is the annual descent of the holy flame on the Tomb of the Lord-a miracle which occurs in the presence of thousands of pilgrims during Holy Saturday according to the Julian calendar. This shows the mystical sanctification of this thousand-year old icon of Time. 

In conclusion, we cite the words of an Orthodox monk: "Time is a great mystery and one can approach a mystery only through symbols. The Julian calendar is an Icon of Time. If we want to naturalize the concept of Time as icons were naturalized, to turn it into a portrait, then why do we need the Gregorian calendar? There are even more precise calendars. There is the calendar of the Incas, the calendar of Omar Khayam, which is mathematically brilliant, and perhaps tomorrow a new calendar will appear which is even more precise from the astronomical point of view. We should not stand with hands outstretched to the observatories. We, the Church, possess those mysteries of Time which are written in the Bible and in the works of the Holy Fathers. We are the bearers of these mysteries and must reveal them to the world.' 

From Parish Life 
July, 1989 

The Russian Orthodox Cathedral of St. John the Baptist
4001 17th St. Northwest, Washington, D.C.

---