1

The Old Calendar

1- What is the Old Calendar?

The Old Calendar, also known as the "Julian" or "Patristic" calendar, is the cycle of
church feasts that is celebrated every year. The cycle comprises fixed feasts (those
that occur at the same time every year, such as Christmas and the Dormition) and
moveable feasts (those that occur at different times from year to year, such as Easter
and all the feasts dependent on it like Palm Sunday, Ascension, and Pentecost).

2- What does the calendar have to do with religion?

The Jews in the Old Testament were commanded to observe certain feasts that had
been ordained by the Lord, such as the Atonement and Passover, as well as the
weekly Sabbath. After the coming of Christ and the fulfilment of the Mosaic Law, the
Church replaced these feasts with new feasts commemorating the major events in the
life of Christ and the history of the Church. The calendar thus provides structure to the
Church’s worship of God and connects the faithful to the events of the Gospel and the
lives of the saints.

3- Why should we care about the calendar?

The Church Fathers did not only establish the Church’s dogmas, but also created
canons for its proper governance and discipline. The calendar is part of this outward
discipline that was bequeathed to us by the Apostles and their disciples, and so it must
be respected. For as it says in Scripture, “remove not the ancient boundaries which
thy fathers have set.” (i) According to Saint Photius the Great, “even the slightest
rejection of tradition allows contempt to fall upon the whole doctrine” while Saint
2

Symeon of Thessalonica teaches: “what tradition has appointed never violate, even if
it seems slight.” (ii)

Secondly, the church calendar provides the means for Christians to worship in unison,
and thereby to make their inner spiritual unity manifest. As Saint Ignatius writes,
“neither try that anything should appear reasonable to yourselves separately, but let
there be in unison one prayer, one supplication, one mind, one hope.” (iii) According
to canon 56 of the Quinisext Council, all Christians throughout the world should follow
but a “single order” (μία τάξις).

Thirdly, the date of Easter was officially fixed at the First Council of Nicaea in the year
325. According to the First Canon of the Council of Antioch, all those who set aside
the decree of Nicaea on the date of Easter are to be excommunicated. For all these
reasons, the Church calendar is not something we can ignore.

4- Why is there division among the Orthodox on the issue of the calendar?

In March 1924, the Church of Greece decided to start celebrating all fixed feast days
13 days earlier than prescribed in the Patristic Calendar. This decision violated all
previous tradition, introduced many liturgical anomalies, and was done unilaterally
without the consent of the other churches. The Church of Greece therefore became
schismatic. Many of the faithful and several bishops in Greece refused this change
and continued to celebrate the feast days according to the Patristic calendar. For this
they were subjected to violent persecution for three decades. A similar situation
transpired in Romania where the persecution was even more violent and lasted for
sixty years. The calendar reform was later introduced into the Patriarchates of
Constantinople (1924), Alexandria (1928), and lastly Antioch (1948). The churches of
Serbia, Russia, and Jerusalem refused the change.

5- What was the purpose of celebrating the fixed feast days 13 days earlier?

The reason for the change was to align the Church calendar with the Gregorian
calendar in use in the Western Church.

6- What is the Gregorian calendar and how does it differ from the Patristic one?

The Gregorian calendar was a calendar created in 1582 on the initiative of Pope
Gregory XIII of Rome. The main difference between the calendars is that the Patristic
calendar follows a 4-year cycle in which the first three years are "common" years that
have 365 days each and the fourth year is a "leap" year that has 366 days; by contrast,
the Gregorian calendar follows a 400-year cycle in which every fourth year is a leap
year unless it occurs at the beginning of certain centuries. So for example, under the
Gregorian calendar the years 1700, 1800, and 1900 were common years and the year
2000 was a leap year, but in the Patristic calendar they were all leap years. To put it
differently, for the same period of 400 years the Patristic calendar will contain 300
common years and 100 leap years, whereas the Gregorian calendar will contain 303
common years and 97 leap years.
 3

7- Why does the Gregorian calendar contain less leap years?

This has to do with the length of the solar year. Twice a year—in the spring and
autumn—the sun is positioned in the sky in such a way that there are exactly 12 hours
of sunlight and 12 hours of night. This event is known as an “equinox” and marks the
beginning of the seasons. The length of time between the spring equinoxes of two
consecutive years is known as the “solar” or “tropical” year. Because the tropical year
is slightly shorter than the calendar year, the equinoxes take place slightly earlier from
one year to the next. Over the length of 128 Julian years, this difference amounts to 1
whole day. The Gregorian calendar was an attempt to approximate the length of the
tropical year more precisely and to keep the calendar in closer step with the seasons.
Removing 3 leap years over a period of 400 years allowed the Gregorian calendar to
shorten the average length of the calendar year by a small fraction and slow the
precession of the equinox.

8- How does the length of the solar year relate to the 13-day difference introduced into
the celebration of the Orthodox Church in 1924?

In 1582, the astronomers under Pope Gregory of Rome estimated that the spring
equinox at their time was occurring 10 days earlier than it had during the Council of
Nicaea. The Council of Nicaea had established that the date of Easter would occur
between March 22 and April 25 inclusively, so the papal astronomers decided to move
the dates of Easter back 10 days to align them with the equinox. However, not wishing
to make it seem that they had changed the rule of Nicaea, they compensated for the
change by shifting the whole calendar forward by 10 imaginary days. So even though
Easter was now occurring as early as March 12, on the surface it did not seem that
there had been a change because March 12 was simply renamed “March 22.”

This leap is what accounts for the original 10-day difference between the old and new
calendars. In addition, since the years 1700, 1800, and 1900 were common years on
the Gregorian calendar but leap years on the Julian calendar, the dates on the
Gregorian calendar have advanced by a further 3 days relative to the Julian calendar
since 1582. This is because when it is February 29 on the Julian it is already March 1
on the Gregorian, so the Gregorian calendar skips ahead by 1 day every century. In
2100, the difference between the two calendars will become 14 days.

In 1924, the Church of Greece made all fixed feast days match the Gregorian
reckoning, but preserved the Julian reckoning for Easter and all the moveable feast
days. In this way, the Archbishop of Greece was able to pretend that he had not
violated the decree of Nicaea about Easter and that he had simply “corrected” the
calendar. This statement was false on both counts: firstly, because the difference of
13 days between the Patristic and the Gregorian calendars is directly connected to the
calculation of Easter and the spring equinox and, secondly, because celebrating the
fixed feast days according to the Gregorian dates actually introduces an error, not a
correction. To offer an illustration: Christ was born on December 25th (Julian). This
corresponds to January 7th (Gregorian). If the New Calendarists had been consistent,
they should have moved the celebration of Christmas to January 7th (Gregorian).
However, they continued celebrating Christmas on December 25th but on the
Gregorian calendar, which actually corresponds to December 12th on the Julian. In
other words, they celebrate Christmas 13 days too early.
4

9- What does the equinox have to do with the celebration of Easter?

The Jews celebrate their Passover on the first full moon of Spring. In order to
determine which is the first full moon of Spring, one must know when the equinox
occurs: if a full moon occurs before the equinox, the Jews must wait for the next full
moon to celebrate the Passover; if the full moon occurs after the equinox, it is reckoned
as the Passover moon. Since Christ was crucified a few hours before the Passover
and resurrected on the following Sunday, Christians have always celebrated His
Resurrection on the Sunday immediately following the Jewish Passover.

10- Was Pope Gregory justified in changing the date of Easter?

Not at all. The Fathers of the Council of Nicaea established two conditions for the
celebration of Easter: (1) that it occur after the spring equinox, and (2) that it occur
after the Jewish Passover (see Canon 7 of the Holy Apostles). Easter respected both
of these conditions in 1582. Furthermore, the Fathers did not want the date of Easter
to be dependent on ever-changing astronomical calculations but that it follow a
permanent cycle that would not change over time.

11- How do we know that the Fathers intended Easter to be celebrated according to a
permanent cycle that would not change over time?

Saint Ambrose, in his letter to the Bishops at Aemilia written in AD 386 (about sixty
years after the Council of Nicaea), writes:

"That to settle the day of the celebration of Easter requires more than ordinary
wisdom, we are taught both by the Holy Scripture and by the tradition of the
Fathers, who, when assembled at the Nicene Synod, in addition to their true
and admirable decrees concerning the Faith, formed also for the above-
mentioned celebration a plan of nineteen years with the aid of the most
skillful calculators, and constituted a sort of cycle to serve as a pattern for
subsequent years. This cycle they called the nineteen years cycle, their aim
being that we should not waver in uncertain and ungrounded opinions on such
a celebration, but ascertain the true method to ensure such concurrence of
the affections of all, that the sacrifice for the Lord's Resurrection should be
offered everywhere on the same night." (iv)
 5

Saint Proterius (d. 457), the Patriarch of Alexandria, in his letter to Pope Leo of Rome
writes further:

“Our most blessed Fathers, once they had determined the nineteen-year
cycle with great certainty—which it is impossible to violate, being, as it
were, the basis, foundation, and rule—appointed this very nineteen-year
calculation not according to the current unlearned and flawed manner of the
Jews nor the supposed and false wisdom of the Gentiles, but inspired by the
grace of the Holy Spirit.” (v)

As you can see, the Fathers did not decree that we should adjust the dates of Easter
to follow the astronomical equinox, which recedes slightly every year, but according to
a fixed 19-year cycle. By following this cycle, we would always celebrate Easter both
after the equinox and after the Jewish Passover.

12- Where does this 19-year cycle come from?

Nineteen years is the time it takes for the lunar year to synchronize with the calendar.
After the course of 19 years, the phases of the moon will occur on exactly the same
calendar dates as they did 19 years earlier. For example, if a full moon occurs on
March 21 in a given year, in 19 years it will again occur on March 21. This
mathematical phenomenon was known to the Jews of antiquity, who relied on it to
calculate the date of Passover. In the Church, we refer to this 19-year cycle as the
cycle of Anatolius, named after the 3rd century bishop of Laodicea who first compiled
it.

13- What is the relation of the cycle of Anatolius to the date of Easter?

The cycle of Anatolius allows one to calculate the date on which the Jewish Passover
will occur for any given year; the Christian Easter is always the first Sunday after this
day. The earliest date the Passover can occur on is March 21, so the earliest possible
date of Easter is March 22 (provided March 21 falls on a Saturday). The latest date
the Jewish Passover can occur on is April 18. If April 18 falls on a Sunday, the latest
possible Easter will occur on the following Sunday, April 25. This is how the Fathers
determined the range of March 22 to April 25 for the celebration of Easter.
6

14- Why is this 19-year cycle no longer in sync with the actual movements of the sun
and moon?

Any fixed cycle one creates will eventually fall out of sync with natural astronomical
cycles because it is impossible to approximate them precisely. Currently, the Church's
lunar cycle occurs 5 days later than the actual full moon, which means that Orthodox
Easter is gradually taking place further and further away from the Jewish Passover.
However, this poses no problem for the Church as the Church is only concerned with
respecting the order set by the Holy Fathers. For the twelve-and-a-half centuries
between the Council of Nicaea and the introduction of the Gregorian calendar—during
which all the Ecumenical Councils were held and all the Holy Fathers lived—the dates
of the spring equinox and full moon were not constant, yet the celebration of Easter
was in no way defective because of this.

15- Why shouldn’t the Church want to celebrate Easter closer to the equinox and the
spring moon like the Gregorian calendar does?

To think that Easter needs to be “corrected” by bringing it closer to certain astronomical

phenomena is a terrible blasphemy reminiscent of pagan astrology. It is not the
 7

created sun and moon that make Easter holy but the Holy Spirit. When Saint Paul
rebuked the Galatians for their Judaizing tendencies, he added: “ye observe days,
and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon
you labour in vain.” (vi) In the words of Saint John Chrysostom, “the Church does not
know the exactness of times; but since in the beginning all the Fathers decided to
come together from separated places and to fix the date [of Easter], the Church pays
respect to the harmony of their thinking, loves the oneness of mind, and accepts what
they enjoined." (vii)

The gradual distancing of Orthodox Easter from the equinox and the Passover moon
can even be interpreted as an advantage: in the Old Testament, religion consisted in
outward observances like circumcision, dietary laws, and festivals of the new moon.
But after the coming of Christ, we have received the spiritual law in all its perfection
and these old ordinances are no longer necessary. Christians already live with one
foot in eternity; in light of this great mystery, all worldly considerations about times and
astronomical events are insignificant. The distancing of Easter from the Jewish
Passover thus symbolizes the chasm between the worldly and the spiritual. (viii)

16- Isn't the Gregorian calendar more accurate than the Julian?

The idea that the Gregorian calendar is more accurate than the Julian is a myth. There
are in fact two different ways to measure the length of the year: the tropical year, which
is the average length of time between two equinoxes; and the sidereal year, which is
the time it takes the sun to return to the same position relative to the stars, which is
approximately 20 minutes longer than the tropical year. The length of the Julian year
is about half way between the two.

What a lot of people do not know is that the value of the tropical year itself fluctuates
within a margin of about 30 minutes every year. (ix) This fact is very significant
because it means that the equinoxes do not recede at a constant pace as is
commonly assumed. (x) Due to this phenomenon, any calendar one wishes to create
to stay in step with the equinoxes will always be inaccurate because it is impossible to
approximate the irregular motion of the equinoxes with a fixed leap-year formula.
Accordingly, the Gregorian calendar fails by its own standards: the papal astronomers
had wanted to keep the equinox fixed at March 21, but due to the leap-year rules, the
spring equinox on the Gregorian calendar can actually occur on March 21, 20, or 19.
The Gregorian reform was also internally inconsistent: for if the length of the tropical
year was truly 365.2425 days as the reformers had assumed, then from the time of
the council of Nicaea in 325 to the time of the reform in 1582, the equinox would have
receded by only 9 days and 10 hours, not a full 10 days as the reformers implemented.
(xi)

Because of these deficiencies, many astronomers at the time rejected the Gregorian
calendar. The Veronese astronomer Giuseppe Valdagno who was part of the 1582
papal commission entrusted with the reform opposed the leap-year rule because of
the irregularity of the movement of the equinoxes and proposed that the calendar
should be adjusted manually every few centuries when it deviates from the equinox.
(xii) The German Michael Maestlin, one of the leading astronomers in Europe and the
teacher of the famed Johannes Kepler, called the Gregorian calendar “the conflux of
all errors” (colluvium omnium errorum). (xiii) Maestlin argued that the precise date on
8

which the equinox occurs is of no consequence to astronomers as the only thing that
concerns them is consistency in the way time is counted. (xiv) The renowned French
chronologist Joseph Scaliger wrote against the Gregorian calendar at length, saying
that “nothing more clumsy, more absurd, and more childish could have been
conceived.” (xv)

In modern times, the Julian calendar was favoured by none other than the famous
19th-century astronomer Simon Newcomb who boldly asserted that the Gregorian
reform had been a mistake. (xvi) Like Maestlin, Newcomb did not see any benefit in
trying to tie the calendar to the equinox. He said that the equinox on the Julian calendar
recedes so slowly that the difference over succeeding generations is not noticeable.
(xvii) In 1899, the Russian imperial government created a specific scientific
commission to study whether the country should adopt the Gregorian calendar, but
the commission declared in favour of the Julian. Vasily Bolotov, one of the professors
present, remarked:

"As formerly, I remain a decisive reverer of the Julian Calendar. Its extreme
simplicity constitutes its scientific advantage over every reformed calendar. I
think that the cultural mission of Russia regarding this question consists in
retaining the Julian Calendar in existence for a few more centuries and
through this means facilitate for the Western peoples a return to the unspoiled
Old Style from the Gregorian reform, which is not needed by anyone." (xviii)

A similar decision was reached in 1903 by a committee of scholars from the Greek
Philological Association of Constantinople. (xix) As a matter of interest, the Julian
calendar actually keeps better time on the lunar calendar than the Gregorian does.
This is why when the mathematician Aloysius Lilius was creating new lunar tables for
Pope Gregory in 1582, he used the Julian year as the basis for his calculations. (xx)

18- Can’t the Church decide to change the calendar if it so wishes?

It is a principle in the Church that customs that prevail over a long period of time obtain
the force of law. To cite Patriarch Germanos IV of Constantinople:

“With regard to common and ecclesiastical affairs, it is not right to alter with
innovations those things that are well established to the common benefit
and stability of the Church, but one ought to preserve them faithfully and
maintain them inviolate. With respect to those things which harm and
endanger the Church, however, it is both fitting and necessary to change,
modify, and forbid them.” (xxi)

In what way did a calendar that was in use for nineteen centuries “harm and endanger
the Church?” Clearly it did not. It should also be noted that the calendar question is
not something on which the Church has never expressed an opinion. As mentioned
earlier, the First Canon of the Council of Antioch expressly forbids anyone upon pain
of excommunication from changing the calculation of Easter approved by the Nicene
Council.

Furthermore, from the very moment of the Gregorian calendar’s inception, the
Orthodox Church condemned it. In May of 1582, the Patriarch of Constantinople
 9

Jeremias II was approached by the papal legate Livio Cellini who informed him of Pope
Gregory’s calendar change and asked him to adopt it. In response, Jeremias called a
synod in Constantinople together with Patriarch Silvester of Alexandria and issued a
Tome condemning the Gregorian reform. While this Tome no longer survives, its
contents were summarized by Patriarch Jeremias in a letter he wrote to Duke
Constantine Ostrogrosky and the Christians of Little Russia in January of 1583:

“Our Mediocrity…having considered [the matter] synodically together with the

most blessed and holy Patriarch of Alexandria…writes to you and in the Holy
Spirit prescribes and ordains…that, since our Easter rule and festal calendar
are not faulty…and will never be laid aside…it is not possible to alter the
divinely-wise and rightly-determined order and rule about Easter and the
other feasts which was created by the Holy Fathers and made sure by
the divine Spirit.” (xxii)

On the 12th of February 1593, Patriarch Jeremias II of Constantinople, Patriarch

Sophronius IV of Jerusalem, Patriarch Meletios Pegas of Alexandria (who was also
representing Patriarch Joachim VI of Antioch), together with bishops from all the
dioceses of the Eastern Church met in Constantinople to decide upon various pressing
ecclesiastical matters. The eighth canon issued by this pan-Orthodox council reads:

“We wish that the Fathers’ decree regarding the feast of holy and salvific
Easter remain unchanged. And so, all those who dare to violate the decrees
of the holy and great ecumenical synod held in Nicaea in the presence of the
pious and God-beloved king Constantine regarding the holy feast of salvific
Easter, should they persist and contentiously oppose what has been rightly
decided, may they be excommunicated and expelled from the Church;
may this apply to laymen; but should any one of the bishops who oversees the
Church, or a priest, or a deacon dare to act on his own to the corruption of the
nations and the disruption of the churches and celebrate Easter with the Jews*
in violation of this decree, such a one is henceforth already judged to be
foreign to the Church; for, with the grace of God, the Fathers’ canon must
be followed even to this day, and the Church of God preserves it along with
all other things.” (xxiii)

*Technically speaking, the Gregorian Easter never occurs on the same day as
the modern Jewish Passover, but what the reform did do was shift Easter
much closer to the Jewish celebration, which was certainly contrary to the
spirit of Nicaea. In fact, in some years, Gregorian Easter occurs a full month
before the Jewish Passover.
10

In 1705, the learned historian and theologian Dositheos Patriarch of Jerusalem listed
the Gregorian calendar as one of the principal heresies of the Western Church. (xxiv)
In 1727, another important synod held in Constantinople reiterated the importance of
following the Holy Fathers and not introducing even the slightest innovation in the
Church:

“All the faithful of whatever order or degree…are obliged to love and accept
all the ecclesiastical traditions, written and unwritten, just as the Eastern
Church of Christ has received and inherited them from the time of the Apostles
themselves and follows and preserves unchanged until the present day…All
those…who through the influence of the envious devil were led astray…and
rejected, violated, or in any way altered either completely or in the smallest
detail the dogmas and traditions contained in her…may they thus confess
and believe according to the above-stated definitions, and honestly accept in
their fullness everything contained in this holy confession, and they will surely
be saved in Christ.” (xxv)

In 1827, the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople under Agathangelos I

“unanimously rejected” a proposal by certain members of the Academy of St.
Petersburg to introduce the Gregorian calendar in Russia. (xxvi) In 1848, in response
to the aggressive proselytism in the East on the part of the Roman Catholics, the
Orthodox Patriarchs issued a new confession in which they again condemned all
ecclesiastical innovations:

“Οur faith, brethren, is not of men nor by man, but by revelation of Jesus Christ,
which the divine Apostles preached, the holy Ecumenical Councils confirmed,
the greatest and wisest teachers of the world handed down in succession, and
the shed blood of the holy martyrs ratified. Let us hold fast to the confession
which we have received unadulterated from such men, turning away from
every novelty as a suggestion of the devil...All, therefore, who innovate,
either by heresy or schism, have voluntarily clothed themselves, according to
the Psalmist, ‘with a curse as with a garment,’ whether they be Popes or
Patriarchs or Clergy or Laity.” (xxvii)
 11

In 1895, Patriarch Anthimos VII of Constantinople—known to history for his eloquent

and judicious reply to Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical to the Easterners—forbade any
discussion of the new calendar. (xxviii) In 1902, the Patriarchate of Constantinople
requested the opinion of the various autocephalous Orthodox churches on the
calendar question. In response, the churches of Russia, Romania, and Montenegro
unreservedly condemned the idea of changing the calendar. The churches of
Jerusalem and Greece stated that a reform of the calendar would be possible only
with the unanimous consensus of all the churches and only if it could be achieved
without detriment to Orthodoxy or the conscience of the faithful, while the church of
Serbia stressed that such a change would need to be in complete accordance with the
spirit of the Church.

As a result of this consultation, the Holy Synod of Constantinople issued a new

encyclical in 1904 which stated that it is “not possible” to change the Church’s current
Easter rule and that any reform of the Julian calendar would be “premature…and
completely useless”. The encyclical stressed that there is absolutely no religious need
to change the calendar, and that such a reform is not even warranted from a scientific
perspective as scientists have not been able to precisely determine the length of the
tropical year. (xxix) Finally, in 1918, the Holy Synod of the Russian Church again
revisited the calendar question and declared its adherence to the Julian. (xxx) Thus,
we can clearly see that the Orthodox Church has consistently rejected the Gregorian
calendar throughout the centuries. No less than five synods (1582, 1593, 1827, 1904,
and 1918) condemned it explicitly, and two (1727 and 1848) condemned it implicitly.
Therefore, to pretend that this issue is irrelevant or as yet unsettled is blatantly false.

Changing the calendar is not an insignificant affair. It would be an admission that the
Church which is supposed to be guided by the Holy Spirit has been celebrating its
feast days incorrectly for most of its history, inducing people to call into question all its
other dogmas. This is exactly what the scholars of the prestigious University of Paris
(the Sorbonne) told Pope Gregory in 1582 when he asked them for their opinion on
his proposed reform. (xxxi) Unfortunately, the Pope did not heed their warnings.

The calendar also possesses an iconic function: just as a wooden board becomes
more than a simple board when one paints the image of the Saviour or the Saints on
it, so does a secular calendar become more than a simple calendar when the feast
days of the Church are applied to it. In such an instance, the calendar truly becomes
an icon of sacred time, and to change it is tantamount to an act of iconoclasm. This
fact has not been lost even on secular observers. As one modern researcher writes,
"in the longer term, the repeated calendar reforms of early modern Europe and the
various quarrels they generated contributed to an increasingly secular perception of
calendrical time. Once stripped of its former lustre as a divinely ordained and therefore
unchanging representation of sacred time, the calendar became a malleable tool of
controlling and organizing social life, fit to change along with the political and
confessional tides." (xxxii)

19- Is the calendar really something we should excommunicate people over?

The Holy Fathers certainly thought so. The 150 Fathers who gathered in
Constantinople for the Second Ecumenical Council declared the following:
12

"As for those heretics who join themselves to Orthodoxy and to the lot of the
saved, we receive them according to the following order and custom: Arians,
Macedonians, Sabbatians, Novatians, Quartodecimans or Tetradites, and
Apollinarians we receive when they present statements of faith and
anathematize every heresy which does not hold as does the Holy Catholic and
Apostolic Church of God; and first of all, we anoint them with holy Chrism on
their forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth, and ears, and in sealing them we say:
'The seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit.'" (Canon 7)

The Quartodecimans were Christians who celebrated Easter on the date of the Jewish
Passover. Though this detail might seem "trivial" to modern worldly sensibilities, the
Fathers thought it was serious enough to classify them in the same category as Arians,
heretics who denied the divinity of the Son of God. Besides, the calendar innovation
of 1924 was part of the larger heresy of ecumenism, so even if it were harmless in
itself, it is heretical by association.

20- What is ecumenism?

Ecumenism is a heresy that holds that all Christian denominations are part of the One
Church irrespective of their different dogmas. Ecumenism is a heresy because it blurs
the distinction between truth and falsehood for which the Holy Fathers fought and the
martyrs gave their lives.

21- What is the relation between the new calendar and ecumenism?

Τhe new calendar was adopted as a means to facilitate the Orthodox Church's
communion with Western Christians. In January of 1920, the Patriarchate of
Constantinople issued a heretical encyclical addressed "To the Churches of Christ
Wheresoever They Be." The encyclical claimed that communion between the
churches "is not prevented by the doctrinal differences existing between them" and
called all Christians, irrespective of denomination, "fellow-heirs and members of the
same body." The very first proposal made by the 1920 Encyclical to foster closer
communion between the Orthodox and the Westerners was "the acceptance of a
uniform calendar for the simultaneous celebration of all the great Christian feasts by
all the Churches." (xxxiii) Later in that same year, Archbishop Chrysostom
Papadopoulos of Greece, the author of the calendar change, played an integral part
in the proceedings of the "Faith and Order" summit in Geneva which laid the
foundations of the future World Council of Churches.
 13

In 1923, a year before the introduction of the new calendar in Greece, the modernist
Patriarch Meletios Metaxakis—a close friend of Papadopoulos—held a synod in
Constantinople to discuss various changes to Orthodox practices. During the council's
fifth session, the Anglican delegate Charles Gore expressed his wish that Anglicans
and Orthodox might be able to celebrate the major Christian feasts together, to which
Meletios responded: "I would ask Your Reverence to inform the Archbishop of
Canterbury that we are well disposed to accept the New Calendar which you in the
West have decided upon." (xxxiv) The connection between the new calendar and
ecumenism is therefore undeniable. Incidentally, among the other proposals
discussed at the infamous 1923 synod was the second marriage of priests, marriage
after ordination, the marriage of bishops, the shortening of services and fasts, the
lessening of the number of holidays, and the abolition of clerical rassa. One needs no
other proof of the rotten origin of the new calendar than this.

22- Aren't there many modern grace-filled elders who have supported the new
calendar?

Saint Ignatius the God-Bearer says that "every one that teaches anything beyond what
is commanded, though he be worthy of credit, though he be in the habit of fasting,
though he live in continence, though he work miracles, though he have the gift of
prophecy, let him be in your sight as a wolf in sheep’s clothing, labouring for the
14

destruction of the sheep." (xxxv) Saint Paul declares that the even if an "angel from
heaven" appears to us, if he should teach anything contrary to the Gospel, "let him be
accursed." (xxxvi) Christ himself warned us that in the last times there will arise false
Christs and false prophets who will try to "deceive if possible even the elect." (xxxvii)
Therefore, we must be extremely cautious when it comes to interpreting "signs and
wonders." If we hold fast to the canons of the Church, we will never go wrong.

If you are looking for a miraculous confirmation of the truth of the Patristic Calendar, it
is a well-known fact that on the eve of September 14, 1925 (Julian), a luminous cross
appeared in the night sky on the outskirts of Athens during the vigil of the Exaltation
of the Life-Giving Cross which was being celebrated by the traditionalist faithful who
had rejected the New Calendar. This miraculous event was witnessed by thousands
of people, including the police officers who had been sent by the Archbishop to break
up the celebration and arrest the priest. It constituted a "validation from on high" of the
correctness of the calendar struggle.

23- Has the Old Calendar Church produced any saints and grace-filled elders?

Of course! You need only look at such examples as Elder Kallinikos the Hesychast of
the Holy Mountain, Saint Chrysostom the New of Florina, Saint John of Amphiale,
Elder Moses the Clairvoyant of Corinth, Elder Matthew of Bresthena, Saint John the
New Hozebite, Saint Ieronymos the New of Aegina, Elder Habbakuk the Barefoot of
the Great Lavra, Eldress Myrtidiotissa of Klissoura, Saint Philoumen of Jacob's Well,
and Saint Glicherie of Romania.

In addition, many traditionalist figures who are well-respected in New Calendarist

circles such as Saint Nikolai Velimirovic, Philotheos Zervakos, and Joseph the
 15

Hesychast were intimately connected to the Old Calendarist movement during their
lifetimes. Saint John Maximovitch and Saint Philaret of New York considered the Old
Calendarists a "sister church" and concelebrated with them. We could go so far as to
say that everything wholesome and traditional that has existed in the Orthodox world
in the past century has been due to the influence of the Old Calendarists who provided
a check against the ever-worsening modernism and heresies of the state churches
and the Patriarchates. Though few, they have not betrayed the faith, ever mindful of
the words of Christ: "Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give
you the kingdom." (xxxviii)
16

References

(i) Proverbs 22:28.

(ii) Οἶδε δὲ καὶ ἡ μικρὰ τῶν παραδοθέντων ἀθέτησις καὶ πρὸς ὅλην τοῦ δόγματος
ἐπιτρέψαι καταφρόνησιν. (Φωτίου ἐπιστολαί, ed. Ioannis Valettas (1864), Letter 4.1,
pp. 168-169); Tὰ κατὰ παράδοσιν ὄντα μὴ καταλύειν ποτέ, κἂν δοκῶσιν ἐλάχιστα.
(Saint Symeon, Ἀποκρίσεις πρός τινας ἐρωτήσεις ἀρχιερέως, Question 17, Patrologia
Graeca 155, col. 868)

(iii) Μηδὲ πειράσητε εὔλογόν τι φαίνεσθαι ἰδίᾳ ὑμῖν. Ἀλλ' ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ μία προσευχή,
μία δέησις, εἷς νοῦς, μία ἐλπίς. (To the Magnesians 7:1, Patrologia Gracea 5, col. 668)

(iv) Non mediocris esse sapientiae, diem celebritatis definire paschalis et Scriptura
divina nos instruit et traditio majorum: qui convenientes ad synodum Nicaenam, inter
illa fidei ut vera, ita admiranda decreta, etiam super celebritate memorata, congregatis
peritissimis calculandi, decem et novem annorum circulum, ex quo exemplum in annos
reliquos gigneretur. Hunc circulum enneadecaterida nuncuparunt, sequentes illud,
quod non debeamus vana quadam opinione super celebritate hujusmodi fluctuare:
sed vera ratione comperta, ita omnium concurrat affectio, ut una nocte ubique
sacrificium pro resurrectione Domini deferatur. (Patrologia Latina 16, col. 1026-1027,
trans. Oxford: J. Parker, 1881)

(v) Sed beatissimi Patres nostri cyclum decemnovennalem certius affigentes, quem
violari impossibile est velut crepidinem ac fundamentum et regulam, hunc eumdem
decemnovennalem computum statuerunt, non juxta Judaeorum nunc indoctas atque
ineptas actiones [rationes], neque secundum exterorum putativam fictamque
prudentiam, sed secundum gratiam Spiritus sancti instituti. (Patrologia Latina 67, col.
511)

(vi) Galatians 6:10-11.

(vii) Οὐδὲ γὰρ ἡ Ἐκκλησία χρόνου ἀκρίβειαν οἶδεν, ἂλλ ἐπειδὴ παρὰ τὴν ἀρχὴν πᾶσιν
ἔδοξεν τοῖς Πατράσιν διηρημένοις, ὁμοῦ συνελθεῖν καὶ τούτων ὁρισάντων ἡμέραν, τὴν
συμφωνίαν πανταχοῦ τιμῶσα καὶ τὴν ὁμόνοιαν ἀγαπῶσα, κατεδέξατο τὸ ἐπιταχθέν.
(Third Homily Against the Judaizers, Ρatrologia Graeca 48, col. 871-872)

(viii) Hiermonk Cassian, A Scientific Examination of the Orthodox Church Calendar,

Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies: 1998, p. 26.

(ix) "The tropical years do not have the same duration, but can differ from each other
up to 33' 15"; the result is that the years do not fall back by 1 day in the Julian year in
133 years, but in intervals that fluctuate between 50 and 300." Ferdinand
Kaltenbrunner, "Die Polemik über die Gregorianische Kalendar-Reform,"
Sitzungsberichte der Wiener Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-
Historische Klasse, Volume 87 (1877), p. 541.

"In the period understood between the year 2000 and 3000 the maximum difference
between two seasonal years of the same type is 28 minutes, which is almost
 17

exclusively due to periodic oscillations." Wenceslao Segura González, "Tropical and

Seasonal Year," 29 January 2014, p. 4. Accessed on vixra.org.

For an example of individual equinoctial measurements taken over successive years,

see Jacques Cassini, Éléments d'Astronomie, Paris: 1740, pp. 209-211.

(x) Kaltenbrunner, "Die Polemik," p. 541.

(xi) This inconsistency was also noticed and commented upon by Patriarch Jeremias
II of Constantinople in his letter to the Armenians dated November 20, 1583. In
Δοσιθέου Τόμος Ἀγάπης (1698), p. 540.

(xii) Kaltenbrunner, "Beiträge zur Geschichte der Gregorianischen Kalenderreform,"

Sitzungsberichte der Wiener Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-
Historische Klasse, Volume 97 (1880), p. 26.

(xiii) Kaltenbrunner, "Die Polemik," p. 542.

(xiv) Charlotte Methuen, "Time Human or Divine? Theological Aspects in the

Opposition to the Gregorian Calendar Reform," Reformation and Renaissance Review
3:1 (2001), p. 49.

(xv) Haec est vera Tetracosieteris tropica, non quae in fine trium centuriarum bisexta
expungit, deinde per ducentos annos Soli dat vacationem munerum. quo nihil
ineptius, absurdius, puerilius excogitari potest. (Isagogicorum Chronologiae
Canonum, Book 3, p. 203. In Thesaurus Temporum Eusebii Pamphili Caesareae
Palestinae Episcopi, Leiden: 1606)

(xvi) A. M. W. Downing. "The Determination of Easter Day," Journal of the

Transactions of the Victoria Institute, Or Philosophical Society of Great Britain, Volume
47 (1915), p. 157.

(xvii) Simon Newcomb, Popular Astronomy, New York: 1894, p. 49.

(xviii) "Minutes of the 8th Session of the Commission on the Question of the Reform
of the Calendar" (in Russian), 21 February 1900.

(xix) Μητροπολίτου Βιζύης Ἀνθίμου, Τὸ ἡμερολογιακὸν ζήτημα (Constantinople:

1922), pp. 25ff.

The committee was made up of Professors G. Lianopoulos, B. Antoniadis, A.

Spatharis, and E. Balsamakis. They examined a proposal to reform the calendar made
by the Smyrnaean mathematician Epaminondas Polydoros, who proposed that the
Church adopt the Gregorian calendar and a new Paschal Canon to ensure that Easter
would always occur the first Sunday after the modern Jewish Passover. As to the first
point, the committee concluded that astronomical accuracy is irrelevant to the
celebration of spiritual feasts and that the Gregorian calendar is also inaccurate; as to
the second point, it explained that after a few centuries, Polydoros’ canon would itself
require revision as the dates of the Jewish Passover are inconstant; furthermore, the
Church is not concerned with the modern Jewish celebration, but calculates the
18

Passover (Nomikon Phaska) in accordance with the ancient provisions of the Mosaic
Law.

Lianopoulos believed that the Julian calendar’s simplicity made it scientifically superior
to the Gregorian. His proposal, which was shared by the Church of Russia, was simply
to shift all of the Church’s feast days forward by 13 days. This would adjust the Julian
dates to the Gregorian calendar, without for that matter changing the time of their
celebration.

(xx) See Kaltenbrunner, "Die Polemik," pp. 497, 502; Francesco Vizza, "Aloysius
Lilius Author of the Gregorian Reform of the Calendar," 16 October 2018, pp. 30-31.
Accessed on philsci- archive.pitt.edu

The Gregorian year falls back by 1 lunar day every 235 years while the Julian year
advances by 1 day every 307 years. Since Lilius used a value of the lunar month
which is slightly different than the modern one, he calculated that the Julian calendar
would advance by one lunar day every 312.5 years. In order to prevent this inaccuracy,
Lilius replaced the old cycle of Anatolius with a complex mathematical formula that
pushes back the moon by 1 day every three or four hundred years. For the formula,
see Vizza, "Aloysius Lilius," pp. 30-31.

(xxi) Tῶν γὰρ κοινῶν καὶ ἐκκλησιαστικῶν πραγμάτων, ὅσα μὲν καλῶς καὶ πρὸς κοινὴν
τῆς Ἐκκλησίας ὠφέλειαν καὶ εὐστάθειαν καθεστηκότα τυγχάνουσιν, ἐπὶ τούτων οὐδέν
τι προσήκει μετακινεῖν καινοτομοῦντας, ἀλλ’ ἐμμένειν εἰς τὸ ἀκριβὲς ἀπαράβατα
φυλάττοντας· ὅσα δὲ ἐπιβλαβῶς καὶ ἐπικινδύνως ἔχουσι τῇ Ἐκκλησίᾳ, ἐπὶ τούτων καὶ
μετακινεῖν προσήκει καὶ μεταβάλλειν καὶ διακωλύειν χρεών. (1842 Tome, Κανονικαὶ
Διατάξεις τῶν Ἁγιωτάτων Πατριαρχῶν Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, Emmanuel Gedeon,
Volume 2 (1889), p. 346)

(xxii) Ἡ μετριότης ἡμῶν...διασκεψάμενη συνοδικῶς, παρόντος καὶ τοῦ μακαριωτάτου

ἁγιωτάτου Πατριάρχου Αλεξανδρείας...γράφει πρὸς ὑμᾶς καὶ ἐν Ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι
ὑφειγεῖται καὶ διατάττεται...ὡς οὐκ ἔστιν ἀσύστατον τὸ παρ’ ἡμῖν Πασχάλιον καὶ
Ἑορτολόγιον...καὶ οὐδέποτε ἀθετηθήσεται...οὐκ ἔξεστι μεταποιεῖν τὴν καλῶς καὶ
θεοσόφως παρὰ τῶν Ἁγίων Πατέρων γεγονυίαν τάξιν καὶ ὁροθέτησιν περὶ τοῦ Πάσχα
καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν κατασφαλιζομένην τῷ θείῳ Πνεύματι. (Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 2014
(1), pp. 246-249)

(xxiii) Ἀσάλευτον διαμένειν βουλόμεθα τὸ τοῖς πατρᾶσι διορισθὲν περὶ τοῦ ἁγίου καὶ
σωτηρίου Πάσχα· ἔχει δὲ οὕτως: ἅπαντας τοὺς τολμῶντας παραλύειν τοὺς ὅρους τῆς
ἁγίας καὶ οἰκουμενικῆς μεγάλης συνόδου, τῆς ἐν Νικαίᾳ συγκροτηθείσης ἐπὶ παρουσία
τῆς εὐσεβείας τοῦ θεοφιλεστάτου Βασιλέως Κωνσταντίνου περὶ τῆς ἁγίας ἑορτῆς τοῦ
σωτηριώδους Πάσχα, ἀκοινωνήτους καὶ ἀποβλήτους εἶναι τῆς Ἐκκλησίας, εἰ
ἐπιμένοιεν φιλονεικότερον ἐνιστάμενοι πρὸς τὰ καλῶς δεδιδαγμένα· καὶ ταῦτα
εἰρήσθω περὶ τῶν λαϊκῶν, εἰ δέ τις τῶν προεστώτων τῆς Ἐκκλησίας ἐπίσκοπος, ἢ
πρεσβύτερος, ἢ διάκονος, μετὰ τὸν ὅρον τοῦτον τολμήσειεν ἐπὶ διαστροφῇ τῶν λαῶν
καὶ ταραχῇ τῶν Ἐκκλησιῶν ἰδιάζειν καὶ μετὰ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἐπιτελεῖν τὸ Πάσχα, τοῦτον
ἡ ἁγία Σύνοδος, ἐντεῦθεν ἤδη ἀλλότριον ἔκρινε τῆς Ἐκκλησίας· δεῖ γὰρ στοιχεῖν τῷ
τῶν πατέρων κανόνι μέχρι καὶ σήμερον Θεοῦ χάριτι· ὅν, καθὸ δὴ καὶ τὰ λοιπά, ἡ Θεοῦ
Ἐκκλησία διαφυλάττει. (Δοσιθέου Ἱερουσαλήμ, Τόμος Ἀγάπης (1698), p. 547)
 19

(xxiv) Τὰ κεφαλαιωδέστερα τῆς κακίας ὑποδείγματα εἰσὶ ταῦτα τερατοποιούμενα.

Πρῶτον ἡ ἐκ Πατρός, καὶ Υἱοῦ ἐκπόρευσις τῆς ὑποστάσεως τοῦ Παναγίου Πνεύματος.
Δεύτερον ἡ ἰουδαϊκή, καὶ τῶν Μονοφυσιτῶν, καὶ Μονοθελητῶν παραγωγὴ τῶν
ἀζύμων. Τρίτον ὁ τοῦ καθαρτηρίου πυρὸς παραλογισμός. Τέταρτον ἡ προαρπαγὴ τῆς
οὐρανῶν Βασιλείας, καὶ ἡ πρὸς τῆς τελείας ψήφου κατάκρισις, ὅπου καὶ τὸ
ἀκατάληπτον τοῦ Θεοῦ καταληπτὸν πειρᾶται ἀποφαίνειν. Πέμπτον ἡ τοῦ νέου
Καλενδαρίου εἰσαγωγή. (Δοσιθέου Τόμος Χαρᾶς (1705), pp. 478-479)

(xxv) Ὀφείλει ἅπας εὐσεβής, ὁποίας ἂν εἴη τάξεως ἢ βαθμοῦ…στέργειν καὶ

ἀποδέχεσθαι καὶ πάσας τὰς ἐκκλησιαστικὰς παραδόσεις, ἐγγράφους τε καὶ ἀγράφους,
καθὼς αὐτὰς ἡ Ἀνατολικὴ τοῦ Χριστοῦ Ἐκκλησία ἄνωθεν ἔτι ἐξ αὐτῶν τῶν Ἀποστόλων
παρέλαβε καὶ διεδέξατο καὶ ἐνεργεῖ καὶ φυλάττει ἀπαρατρέπτως μέχρι τῆς
σήμερον…πάντες οἱ… ἐπηρείᾳ τοῦ μισοκάλου δαίμονος παρατραπέντες…καὶ…ἢ
ὅλως [ἢ] μίαν κεραίαν τῶν ἐμπεριεχομένων αὐτῇ δογμάτων καὶ παραδόσεων
ἠθέτησαν καὶ παρέβησαν ἢ μετέβαλον ὁπωσοῦν…οὔτως ὁμολογήτωσαν κατὰ τὸν
ἀνωτέρω ὑποδειχθέντα τύπον, καὶ πάντα τὰ ἐν τῇ ἱερᾷ ταύτῃ ὁμολογίᾳ περιεχόμενα
εἰλικρινῶς καὶ ἀπαραμειώτως ἀποδεχέσθωσαν, καὶ πάντως σωθήσονται ἐν Χριστῷ.
(Ioannis Karmiris, The Dogmatic and Symbolic Monuments of the Orthodox Catholic
Church (in Greek), 1968 (2nd edition), Vol. 2, pp. 943-944, 949-950)

(xxvi) Ἐπὶ τῆς Αὐτοκρατορίας Νικολάου τοῦ Α ́ τῷ 1827 προεβλήθη παρά τινων
Ἀκαδημαϊτῶν τῆς Πετρουπόλεως πρόβλημα περὶ παραδοχῆς τοῦ Εὐρωπαϊκοῦ
ἡμερολογίου (καλενδαρίου). Τὸ πρόβλημα παρὰ τῆς Κυβερνήσεως ἐστάλη εἰς τὴν
Σύνοδον, ἡ Σύνοδος ἐψήφησεν ἵνα ἐπικριθῇ ὑπὸ τῆς κοινῆς τῶν ὀρθοδόξων μητρὸς
τῆς Μεγ. Ἐκκλησίας· ἐπεκρίθη καὶ συμφώνως ἀπεβλήθη. (Κωνσταντίνου
Οἰκονόμου ἐξ Οἰκονόμων, Τὰ σωζόμενα ἐκκλησιαστικὰ συγγράμματα, Volume 3,
Athens: 1866, pp. 556-557)

(xxvii) Ἡ γὰρ πίστις ἡμῶν, ἀδελφοί, οὐκ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων οὐδὲ δι' ἀνθρώπου, ἀλλὰ δι'
ἀποκαλύψεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἢν ἐκήρυξαν οἱ θείοι Ἀπόστολοι, ἐκράτυναν αἱ ἱεραὶ
οἰκουμενικαὶ Σύνοδοι, παρέδωκαν ἐκ διαδοχῆς οἱ μέγιστοι σοφοὶ Διδάσκαλοι τῆς
οἰκουμένης καὶ ἐπεκύρωσαν τὰ ἐκχυθέντα αἵματα τῶν ἁγίων Μαρτύρων. Κρατῶμεν
τῆς ὁμολογίας, ἢν παρελάβομεν ἄδολον παρὰ τηλικούτων ἀνδρῶν, ἀποστρεφόμενοι
πάντα νεωτερισμὸν ὡς ὑπαγόρευμα τοῦ διαβόλου...Ἅπαντες οὖν οἱ νεωτερίζοντες ἢ
αἱρέσει ἢ σχίσματι, ἑκουσίως ἐνεδύθησαν, κατὰ τὸν ψαλμῳδόν, κατάραν ὡς ἱμάτιον,
κἄν τε Πάπαι, κἄν τε Πατριάρχαι, κἄν τε Κληρικοί, κἄν τε Λαϊκοὶ ἔτυχον εἶναι. (1848
Confession of the Eastern Patriarchs, Section 20, Karmiris, Vol. 2, pp. 1002-1003)

(xxviii) Μητροπολίτου Βιζύης Ἀνθίμου, Τὸ ἡμερολογιακὸν ζήτημα (Constantinople:

1922), p. 25.

(xxix) Περὶ δὲ τοῦ καθ’ ἡμᾶς ἡμερολογίου τοιαύτην ἔχομεν γνώμην· αἰδέσιμον εἶναι καὶ
ἔμπεδον τὸ ἀπὸ αἰώνων μὲν ἤδη καθωρισμένον, κεκυρωμένον δὲ τῇ διηνεκεῖ τῆς
Ἐκκλησίας πράξει Πασχάλιον, καθ᾽ ὃ τὴν Λαμπροφόρον τοῦ Κυρίου Ἀνάστασιν
ἑορτάζειν δεδιδάγμεθα τῇ πρώτῃ κυριακῇ τῇ μετὰ τὴν πανσέληνον τῆς ἑαρινῆς
ἰσημερίας, ἢ συμπιπτούσῃ ἢ μεθεπομένῃ, ὡς οὐκ ἐξὸν περὶ τοῦτo
καινοτομῆσαι…Ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ μεταρρυθμίσαι τὸ Ἰουλιανὸν ἡμερολόγιον, ὡς δῆθεν
ἐπιστημονικῶς ἀνακριβὲς καὶ τὸ μέσον πολιτικὸν ἔτος καταστῆσαι οὔτω
συμφωνότερον τῷ τροπικῷ, πρόωρον, το γε νῦν καὶ ὅλως περιττὸν ἡγούμεθα· ἡμεῖς
τε γὰρ οὐδαμῶς ἀπὸ ἐκκλησιαστικῆς ἀπόψεως ὑποχρεούμεθα μεταλλάττειν
20

ἡμερολόγιον, καὶ ἡ ἐπιστήμη ὥς γε παρ’ εἰδικῶν ἀνδρῶν βεβαιοῦται, οὔπω ὁριστικῶς

ἀπεφήνατο περὶ τῆς ἀκριβείας, μεθ᾽ ἧς τὸ τροπικὸν λογίζεται ἔτος. (Ἡ Περὶ τῶν
Σχέσεων τῶν Αὐτοκεφάλων Ὀρθοδόξων Ἐκκλησιῶν καὶ Περὶ Ἄλλων Γενικῶν
Ζητημάτων Πατριαρχικὴκαὶ Συνοδικὴ Ἐγκύκλιος του 1902 καὶ εἰς Αὐτὴν Ἀπαντήσεις
τῶν Ἁγίων Αὐτοκεφάλων Ἐκκλησιῶν καὶ ἡ Ἀνταπάντησις τοῦ Οἰκουμενικοῦ
Πατριαρχείου, Constantinople: 1904, p. 79)

(xxx) Vladimir Moss, “The Russian Church and the New Calendar,” September 26/
October 9, 2003.

(xxxi) Kaltenbrunner, "Beiträge," p. 38.

(xxxii) Philipp E. Nothaft, Scandalous Error: Calendar Reform and Calendrical

Astronomy in Medieval Europe, Oxford UP: 2018, pp. 301-302.

(xxxiii) "Unto All the Churches of Christ Wheresoever They Be" (1920).

(xxxiv) Πρακτικὰ καὶ Ἀποφάσεις τοῦ ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει Πανορθοδόξου Συνεδρίου

10 Mαΐου-8 Ἰουνίου 1923, ed. Dionysios Batistatos, Athens: 1982, p. 88.

(xxxv) Πᾶς ὁ λέγων παρὰ τὰ διατεταγμένα, κἂν ἀξιόπιστος ᾖ, κἂν νηστεύῃ, κἂν
παρθενεύῃ, κἂν σημεῖα ποιῇ, κἂν προφητεύῃ, λύκος σοὶ φαινέσθω ἐν προβάτου δορᾷ
προβάτων φθορὰν κατεργαζόμενος. (Epistle to Hero, Section 2, Patrologia Graeca 5,
col. 912)

(xxxvi) Galatians 1:8-9.

(xxxvii) Matthew 24:24.

(xxxviii) Luke 12:32.