Adoption of the
Reformed Orthodox Calendar and Easter Reckoning
| Orthodox Church of |
|
| Constantinople |
|
| Alexandria |
|
| Antioch |
|
| Greece |
|
| Cyprus |
|
| Rumania |
|
| Poland |
|
| Bulgaria |
1968
|
However, not all orthodox Christians have adopted the Reformed
Orthodox Calendar. Several groups, collectively known as the “Old Calendarists”
or the palaioemerologitai, such as the Churches of Jerusalem, Russia and
Serbia, along with the monasteries on Mt. Athos, still continue to adhere to the
Old (Julian) Calendar.
The Orthodox Churches which have adopted the New Calendar
observe Christmas with the other Churches of Christendom on December 25; the
Orthodox Churches which have not adopted it celebrate Christmas 13 days later,
on January 7. Epiphany is celebrated by the former on January 6 and by the
latter on January 19. And so it is with all the great feasts of the Christian
Calendar but one. Easter, the feast of feasts, continues to be calculated by all
Orthodox Churches to the dates of the Old Calendar. Consequently, all Orthodox
Churches observe the event of Christ’s Resurrection on the same day, regardless
of when the rest of Christendom does. An exception to this general rule is the
Orthodox Church of Finland. Owing to the fact that it makes up less than 2 per
cent of the population of a predominantly Lutheran country, it observes Easter
according to the New Calendar for practical reasons. It may well be that the
date of Orthodox Easter occasionally coincides with that of the other Christian
Churches; however, it may also occur as much as 5 weeks later. Thus arose the
formula applied by the Orthodox Churches adopting the New Calendar – viz., that
immovable feast days are to be observed 13 days earlier than in the Old
Calendar, while Easter and all movable feast days dependent on it are still
calculated according to the Old Calendar – which was seen as a compromise with
those who opposed the change. On the one hand, the necessary revisions were made
to correct the Old Calendar; on the other hand, the calculation of Easter was
retained as before so as not to violate the holy canons. Nevertheless, this
compromise was to prove incapable of preventing the schism of “Old Calendarists”
which ensued.
As is always the case with reform movements, there was strong
opposition to the adoption of the New Calendar, especially in Greece. What
differed in this situation, however, was that reform was initiated by the
established Church together with the total backing of the state. Groups of “Old
Calendarists” or palaioemerologitai, refused to abide by the Church’s
decision and continued to follow the Old Calendar for both movable and immovable
feast days. The basis of their refusal to abandon the Old Calendar rested on the
argument that canons ratified by an Ecumenical Synod knew only of the Julian
Calendar. Therefore, nothing less than an Ecumenical Synod had the authority to
institute a reform of such proportion. In view of their refusal to submit to the
authority of the Church of Greece, they were excommunicated by the official
Church. This was not the case with the monasteries of Mt. Athos. Although all
but one (i.e., 19 monasteries) continued to follow the Old Calendar, they are
under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople with which they
continue to be in communion. Despite attempts by the civil authorities in Greece
to suppress them, the “Old Calendarists” continue to exist there and abroad and
to maintain a hierarchy of their own together with parishes and monasteries.
- [Anon.], “Die Annahme des Gregorianischen Kalender”, Die Himmelswelt,
34 (1924), 72-74.
-
Bishop Photius of Triaditsa, “The 70th Anniversary of the Pan-Orthodox
Congress in Constantinople: A Major Step on the Path Towards Apostasy” (???,
1993),
???-???.
- Felber, H.-J., “Die Bestimmung des Frühlingsvollmondes in den
unterschiedlichen Osterberechnungen”, Die Sterne, 38 (1962),
192-197.
-
Freeze, G.L., “Counter-reformation in Russian Orthodoxy: Popular Response to
Religious Innovation, 1922-1925”,
Slavic Review, 54 (1995), 305-339.
- Hagen, J.G., “Die jetzige Stand der Kalenderfrage”, Stimmen der Zeit,
106 (1923/24), heft 3 & 4, 108 (1925), heft 4.
- Lange, L., “Paradoxe Osterdaten im Gregorianischen Kalender und ihre
Bedeutung für die moderne Kalenderreform”, Sitzungsberichte der
Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-philologische und
historische Klasse, Jg. 1929, Heft 9.
- Milankovitch, M., Reforma Julijanskog Kalendara [The Reform of the
Julian Calendar] (Belgrade, 1923 [= Glas Srpske Kraljevske Akademije
Nauka [Proceedings of the Serbian Royal Academy of Sciences], supplement
to vol. XLVII]).
- Milankovitch, M., “Das Ende des julianischen Kalenders und der neue
Kalender der orientalischen Kirche”, Astronomische Nachrichten,
220 (1924), 379-384 – English translation in
Shields, M.N., “The New Calendar of the Eastern Churches”, Popular
Astronomy, 32 (1924), 407-411.
- Milankovitch, M., Durch ferne Welten und Zeiten (???,
???, 19??).
- Przybyllok, E., Unser Kalender in Vergangenheit und Zukunft (J.C.
Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, Leipzig, 1930 [= Morgenland: Darstellungen
aus Geschichte und Kultur des Ostens, heft 22]), pp. 70-72.
- Rigge, W.F., “The Reform of the Present Calendar Begun”, Popular
Astronomy, 32 (1924), 129-133.
- Rigge, W.F., “The Second Stage in the Reform of the Present Calendar”,
Popular Astronomy, 33
(1925), 511-514.
- Seleschnikow, S.I., Wieviel Monde hat ein Jahr?: Kleine Kalenderkunde
(Aulis-Verlag Deubner & Co KG, Cologne, 1981).
Internet Sources