Русская Православная Церковь

ПРАВОСЛАВНЫЙ АПОЛОГЕТ
Богословский комментарий на некоторые современные
непростые вопросы вероучения.

«Никогда, о человек, то, что относится к Церкви,
не исправляется через компромиссы:
нет ничего среднего между истиной и ложью.»

Свт. Марк Эфесский


Интернет-содружество преподавателей и студентов православных духовных учебных заведений, монашествующих и мирян, ищущих чистоты православной веры.


Карта сайта

Разделы сайта

Православный журнал «Благодатный Огонь»
Церковная-жизнь.рф

Реформа церковного календаря

Наши календари
Почему Русская Церковь живет по старому стилю

Александр Чхартишвили

Рис. Геннадия Комарова

Как известно, Русская Православная Церковь пользуется в своем богослужении юлианским календарем, в то время как Российское государство, вместе с большинством стран, с некоторых пор пользуется календарем григорианским. При этом и в самой Церкви, и в обществе время от времени раздаются голоса, призывающие перейти на новый стиль.

Аргументы защитников юлианского календаря, которые можно встретить в православной печати, в основном сводятся к двум. Первый аргумент: юлианский календарь освящен многовековым использованием в Церкви, а веских причин отказываться от него нет. Второй аргумент: при переходе на "новый стиль" с сохранением традиционной пасхалии (системы вычисления даты праздника Пасхи) возникает множество несообразностей, и неизбежны нарушения богослужебного Устава.

Оба эти аргумента для верующего православного человека вполне убедительны. Однако они как бы не касаются юлианского календаря как такового. Ведь Церковь не создала новый календарь, а приняла тот, который уже существовал в Римской империи. А что если календарь был бы другим? Быть может, тогда именно тот, другой, календарь был бы освящен богослужебным использованием, именно с его учетом была бы составлена пасхалия?

Данная статья представляет собой попытку рассмотреть некоторые аспекты календарной проблемы, предоставляя читателю материал для самостоятельных размышлений. Автор не считает нужным скрывать свои симпатии по отношению к юлианскому календарю, однако отдает себе отчет в том, что как-либо доказать его преимущество невозможно. Так же, как недоказуемо преимущество богослужебного церковно-славянского языка перед русским или икон преп. Андрея Рублева перед живописью Рафаэля.

Изложение будет вестись в три этапа: сначала краткие выводы, затем более подробное математическое обоснование и, наконец, небольшой исторический очерк.

 

Для измерения времени и составления календаря может служить любое явление природы, если оно равномерно и периодически повторяется: смена дня и ночи, смена фаз Луны, времен года и пр. Все эти явления связаны с определенными астрономическими объектами. В книге Бытия читаем: И сказал Бог: да будут светила на тверди небесной для… времен, и дней, и годов... И создал Бог два светила великие: светило большее, для управления днем, и светило меньшее, для управления ночью, и звезды (Быт. 1, 14-16). Юлианский календарь составлен как раз с учетом трех основных астрономических объектов - Солнца, Луны и звезд. Это дает основания считать его подлинно библейским календарем.

В отличие от юлианского, григорианский календарь учитывает лишь один объект - Солнце. Он составлен таким образом, чтобы точка весеннего равноденствия (когда равны продолжительности дня и ночи) по возможности медленнее отклонялась бы от даты 21 марта. При этом разрушилась связь календаря с Луной и звездами; кроме того, календарь усложнился и потерял ритмичность (по сравнению с юлианским).

Рассмотрим одно свойство юлианского календаря, наиболее часто подвергаемое критике. В юлианском календаре точка весеннего равноденствия перемещается назад по календарным датам со скоростью примерно 1 сутки в 128 лет. (Вообще, разница между датами по юлианскому и григорианскому календарям составляет в настоящее время 13 суток и увеличивается на 3 суток за каждые 400 лет.) Это означает, например, что день празднования Рождества Христова, 25 декабря, со временем переместится на весну. Но, во-первых, это произойдет примерно через 6000 лет, а во-вторых, и сейчас в южном полушарии Рождество празднуется даже не весной, а летом (поскольку там декабрь, январь и февраль - летние месяцы).

С учетом всего вышеизложенного можно заключить, что утверждение "григорианский календарь точнее юлианского" далеко не бесспорно. Все здесь определяется критериями точности, а они могут быть разными.

 

Для обоснования высказанных выше положений приведем некоторые астрономические и арифметические рассуждения и факты.

Одним из основных промежутков времени для нас является год. Но, оказывается, существует несколько разных "видов" года. Упомянем два важнейших для наших рассмотрений.

  1. Сидерический, или звездный, год. Именно его имеют в виду, когда говорят, что за год Солнце проходит двенадцать зодиакальных знаков. Например, святитель Василий Великий (IV век) в "Беседах на Шестоднев" пишет: "Солнечный же год есть возвращение Солнца, вследствие собственного его движения, из известного знака в тот же самый знак".
  2. Тропический год. Он учитывает смену времен года на Земле.

Юлианский год составляет в среднем 365,25 суток, то есть находится между сидерическим и тропическим годами. Григорианский год составляет в среднем 365,2425 суток, он весьма близок к тропическому.

Для того чтобы лучше понять эстетику и логику календаря, полезно несколько осветить возникающие при его создании проблемы. Собственно говоря, построение календаря включает в себя две достаточно независимые процедуры. Первая носит эмпирический характер: надо по возможности точно измерить продолжительности астрономических циклов. (Заметим, что продолжительности сидерического и тропического годов были с большой точностью найдены во II в. до Р. Х. греческим астрономом Гиппархом.) Вторая процедура уже чисто теоретическая: на основании проделанных наблюдений составить такую систему измерения времени, которая, с одной стороны, по возможности меньше отклонялась бы от выбранных космических ориентиров, а с другой - была бы не очень громоздкой и сложной.

Пусть, например, требуется составить календарь, ориентированный на тропический год (после того, как измерена продолжительность последнего - 365,24220 суток). Ясно, что каждый год такого календаря должен содержать либо 365, либо 366 суток (в последнем случае год называется високосным). При этом надо постараться чтобы, во-первых, среднее число суток в году было как можно ближе к 365,2422 и, во-вторых, чтобы правило чередования простых и високосных годов было как можно проще. Иными словами, надо определить цикл продолжительностью в N лет, из которых M будут високосными. При этом, во-первых, дробь M/N должна быть как можно ближе к 0,2422, а во-вторых число N должно быть как можно меньше.

Эти два требования противоречат друг другу, поскольку точность достигается лишь ценой увеличения числа N. Самым простым решением проблемы является дробь 1/4, на которой и основывается юлианский календарь. Цикл состоит из четырех лет, каждый четвертый год (порядковый номер которого без остатка делится на 4) - високосный. Юлианский год составляет в среднем 365,25 суток, что на 0,0078 суток больше продолжительности тропического года. При этом погрешность в одни сутки накапливается за 128 лет (0,0078 × 128 ~ 1).

Григорианский календарь основывается на дроби 97 / 400, т.е. в 400-летнем цикле 97 високосных годов. Високосными считаются годы, порядковый номер которых либо делится на 4 и не делится на 100, либо делится на 400. Григорианский год составляет в среднем 365,2425 суток, что на 0,0003 суток больше продолжительности тропического года. При этом погрешность в одни сутки накапливается за 3333 года (0,0003 × 3333 ~ 1).

Из сказанного видно, что преимущество григорианского календаря над юлианским спорно даже в качестве ориентированного лишь на тропический год - точность достигается ценой усложнения.

Рассмотрим теперь юлианский и григорианский календари с точки зрения соотнесенности с Луной.

Смене фаз Луны соответствует синодический, или лунный, месяц, составляющий 29,53059 суток. За это время сменяются все фазы Луны - новолуние, первая четверть, полнолуние, последняя четверть. В один год не укладывается без остатка целое число месяцев, поэтому для построения почти всех действовавших лунно-солнечных календарей применялся 19-летний цикл, носящий имя греческого астронома Метона (V в. до Р. Х.). В этом цикле выполняется соотношение

19 годов ~ 235 синодическим месяцам,

т. е. если начало некоторого года совпадает с появлением на небе новой Луны, то это совпадение будет иметь место и через 19 лет.

Если год григорианский (365,2425 суток), то погрешность метонова цикла составляет

235 × 29,53059 - 19 × 365,2425 ~ 0,08115.

Для юлианского года (365,25 суток) погрешность меньше, а именно

235 × 29,53059 - 19 × 365,25 ~ 0,06135.

Таким образом получаем, что юлианский календарь лучше соотнесен с изменениями фаз Луны (см. также: Климишин И.А. Календарь и хронология. - 3-е изд, перераб. и доп. - М., Наука, 1990. - С. 92).

В целом юлианский календарь представляет собой сочетание простоты, ритмичности (цикл продолжительностью всего 4 года), гармоничности (соотнесенность сразу с Солнцем, Луной и звездами). Уместно упомянуть и о его практичности: одинаковое число дней в каждом столетии и непрерывный счет времени на протяжении двух тысячелетий (нарушенный при переходе на григорианский календарь) упрощают астрономические и хронологические расчеты.

Два удивительных обстоятельства связаны с юлианским календарем. Первое обстоятельство астрономическое - близость дробной части продолжительности года (как сидерического, так и тропического) к столь простой дроби 1/4 (предлагаем читателю, знакомому с методами проверки статистических гипотез, подсчитать соответствующую вероятность). Однако еще удивительнее второе обстоятельство - при всех своих достоинствах юлианский календарь никогда и нигде не применялся вплоть до I в. до Р. Х.

Предшественником юлианского календаря можно считать календарь, на протяжении многих столетий применявшийся в Египте. В египетском календаре каждый год содержал ровно 365 дней. Разумеется, погрешность этого календаря была очень большой. Примерно за полторы тысячи лет день весеннего равноденствия "пробегал" все числа календарного года (который состоял из 12 месяцев по 30 дней и еще пяти дополнительных дней).

Около 1700 г. до Р. Х. северная часть дельты Нила попала под владычество кочевых племен гиксосов. Один из правителей-гиксосов, составивших XV династию Египта, провел календарную реформу. Через 130 лет гиксосы были изгнаны, традиционный календарь восстановлен, и с тех пор каждый фараон, вступая на престол, давал клятву не менять длины года.

В 238 г. до Р. Х. правивший в Египте Птолемей III Евергет (потомок одного из военачальников Александра Македонского) попытался провести реформу, добавив в каждые 4 года дополнительный день. Это сделало бы египетский календарь практически тождественным юлианскому. Однако по неизвестным причинам реформа не была осуществлена.

И вот приблизилось время боговоплощения и основания Церкви. Уже ходили по земле Палестины некоторые из участников событий, описанных евангелистами. С 1 января 45 г. до Р. Х. в Римской империи по приказу Гая Юлия Цезаря (100-44 гг.) был введен новый календарь. Этот календарь, называемый теперь юлианским, был разработан группой александрийских астрономов во главе с Созигеном. С тех пор до XVI века, т. е. примерно 1600 лет, Европа жила по юлианскому календарю.

Чтобы не уклониться от нашей темы, мы не будем рассматривать календарные системы разных стран и народов. Заметим, что некоторые из них довольно-таки неудачны (одним из худших, кажется, был календарь, применявшийся в Римской империи до введения юлианского). Упомянем лишь один календарь, интересный тем, что в нем календарный год ближе к тропическому, чем у созданного позже григорианского. С 1079 г. до середины XIX в. в Иране действовал персидский календарь, разработанный комиссией под руководством ученого и поэта Омара Хайяма (1048-1123). Персидский календарь основан на дроби 8/33, т. е. цикл составляют 33 года, из которых 8 високосных. Високосными были 3-й, 7-й, 11-й, 15-й, 20-й, 24-й, 28-й и 32-й годы цикла. Средняя продолжительность года в персидском календаре составляет 365,24242 суток, что на 0,00022 больше, чем в тропическом. Погрешность в одни сутки накапливается за 4545 лет (0,00022 × 4545 ~ 1).

В 1582 году папой Григорием XIII был введен григорианский календарь. При переходе от юлианского календаря к григорианскому были выброшены 10 дней, т. е. после 4 октября шло сразу 15 октября. Календарная реформа 1582 года вызвала множество протестов (в частности, против нее высказались почти все университеты Западной Европы). Тем не менее католические страны по понятным причинам практически сразу перешли на григорианский календарь. Протестанты делали это постепенно (например Великобритания - лишь в 1752 году).

В ноябре 1917 года, сразу после захвата большевиками власти в России, вопрос о календаре был поставлен на обсуждение Совнаркома РСФСР. 24 января 1918 года был принят "Декрет о введении в Российской республике западноевропейского календаря".

Поместные Православные Церкви придерживались юлианского календаря до 20-х годов XX века, когда Вселенский (Константинопольский) Патриархат отказался от него. Главной целью этого решения было, по-видимому, празднование христианских праздников совместно с католиками и протестантами.

В течение последующих десятилетий новый стиль приняло большинство Поместных Церквей, причем формально переход был осуществлен не на григорианский, а на так называемый новоюлианский календарь, основанный на дроби 218/900. Впрочем, до 2800 года он полностью совпадает с григорианским.

Единство Поместных Православных Церквей выражается в совместном праздновании Пасхи Христовой и связанных с ней так называемых переходящих праздников (единственным исключением является Финляндская Православная Церковь, которая празднует Пасху в один день с западными христианами). Дата Пасхи вычисляется по особому лунно-солнечному календарю, неразрывно связанному с юлианским. Вообще, способ вычисления даты Пасхи - важнейший пункт сравнения юлианского и григорианского календарей как церковных. Однако эта тема, требующая как научного, так и богословского рассмотрения, выходит за рамки данной статьи. Отметим лишь, что создатели православной пасхалии достигли той же цели, что и создатели юлианского календаря - максимально возможная простота при разумном уровне точности.

10.10.2000

Источник: Православие.ru

О целесообразности перехода России на старый календарный стиль

9.01.2013
Протоиерей Константин Буфеев

 

В России сегодня реально существуют два календаря: один «светский», другой церковный. Нередкими стали дискуссии о возможности перехода Православной Церкви на гражданский стиль. Но примирить разногласие в счете времени между русской Церковью и русским обществом можно и иным, более естественным путем: возвращением российского государства к традиционному национальному календарю. Есть основания полагать, что принятие нашего предложения после рассмотрения его общественными и правительственными инстанциями дало бы благие плоды.


1. Невозможность перехода Православной Церкви на новый стиль

Попытки перевести Православную Церковь на новый календарь всегда встречали серьезное и обоснованное возражение со стороны верующих, в особенности богословски образованных людей. Архиепископ Иннокентий Пекинский писал: «Всякая попытка "исправить" или заменить нашу Пасхалию должна рассматриваться как попытка изъять из сокровищницы церковной одну из великих ее ценностей, которою она по справедливости может хвалиться даже перед учеными нашего времени». Глубокий богословский анализ этой проблемы представил в своем докладе «О новом и старом стиле» один из крупнейших церковных авторитетов нашего века архиепископ Серафим (Соболев) на московском Всеправославном Совещании 1948 года. Не вдаваясь в тонкости, достаточно отметить, что юлианский календарь имеет для Церкви сакральное значение, так что его иногда называют «иконой времени». Поэтому упразднить старый стиль можно только вместе с Русской Церковью.

То возражение, что некоторые автокефалии перешли на новый стиль, убедительным аргументом быть не может, поскольку эти самочинные действия воспринимаются церковным сознанием как антиканонические и отступнические. Измена Священному Преданию Отцов не есть добрый пример для подражания.

 

2. Православный календарь — основа здорового духовного режима жизни нации.

Исторический и нравственный аспекты

Исторически юлианский календарь утвердился в нашем Отечестве со времени Крещения Руси при равноапостольном великом князе Владимире. Таким образом, он существует у нас вот уже более 1000 лет и стал национальным и традиционным. Григорианский же календарь был введен искусственно антинародной большевистской властью, и его затянувшееся существование измеряется десятками лет.

Смена календаря в России 1918 года сопоставима с такими кощунственными революционными нововведениями, как переименование названий городов и улиц, уничтожение древних памятников культуры, разорение святынь, истребление лучших российских людей старого режима. Слава Богу, людей сейчас начинают реабилитировать (и даже канонизировать), святыни оплакивать, памятники восстанавливать, старинные названия воскресают на почтовых путях. Но календарь пока остается для русских людей чужим и противоестественным. А ведь счет и наименование дней касается всех нас едва ли не более существенно, чем все остальное в окружающем мире.

Никакое благочестие не сможет привиться в народе, пока организация повседневной жизни так кричаще противоречит животворящей традиции Церкви. Вот Новый год вклинивается в Рождественский пост. Вот праздник Богоявления попадает на рабочий день, так что семья не успевает набрать в этом году святой крещенской воды. Вот студенты пишут зачетную контрольную работу в Великий Четверг. Вот на Великий Пяток назначен отчетный концерт участников самодеятельности. Вот опять школьные весенние каникулы не совпадают со Светлой пасхальной седмицей. Вот на Благовещение, когда птица гнезда не вьет и девица косы не плетет, работники фирмы начинают ремонт нашей квартиры... Вся жизнь протекает уродливо, антидуховно. Церковь бессильна освятить человека, пока он обращен к ней спиной или боком. Как следствие этого, будет обречено духовное здоровье нации.

Самый естественный и непринужденный способ развернуть человека к Церкви — предложить ему, как это было на Руси испокон веков, жить церковным временем. Тогда какие-то дела придется успевать «до Успенского поста», какие-то начинать «после Красной горки». Никто не забудет, что Вознесение Господне празднуется в четверг (день-то будет не рабочий!). И уж обязательно каждый освятит яблочки на Преображение.

 

3. Старый стиль вовсе не является признаком отсталости.

Передовая наука — за старый стиль

Стыдиться «отставания» от западного мира нам не пристало. Сегодня наше отставание по всем показателям уровня жизни отнюдь не двухнедельное.

Бояться разрыва с «цивилизованным» миром тем более не следует. Он так агрессивно подавляет нас, что спасу нет. Скорее есть повод беспокоиться за опасность ассимиляции нашей традиционной культуры.

Полезно учесть опыт тех стран, которые находят внутренние силы для сохранения своей самобытности, языка, культуры, веры. В пример можно привести не только страны третьего мира из числа арабских, считающих время от Хиджры, а также Эфиопии и стран Юго-Восточной Азии, верных своим древним календарям. Национальный календарь используется в таких передовых государствах, как Япония и Израиль. Для внешнего экономического и политического общения эти государства используют европейский счет времени, а для поддержания внутренней духовной культуры строго придерживаются традиционного религиозного календаря. И отказываться от последнего не желают.

Из сказанного, между прочим, можно сделать вывод, что григорианский календарь ни в коем случае не следует считать «цивилизованным» общечеловеческим. Если Россия от него откажется, будет справедливо сказать, что европейский календарь не принят практически во всей Азии (и Северной Африке).

Кое-кого может удивить, но переход от нового стиля к старому должен быть по справедливости расценен не как возвращение к глухому средневековью, но как вполне прогрессивный шаг.

Дело в том, что точные науки, изучающие течение времени, — хронология, астрофизика — пользуются только естественной временной шкалой, то есть юлианским равномерным календарем. Григорианский календарь оказался слишком искусственным, сложным и неудобным при научных расчетах из-за путаной системы високосных годов.

Так что старый стиль выбирают не только захолустные пустыньки и монастыри, но также передовые международные обсерватории.


4. Для России старый стиль — естествен, новый стиль — чужероден

Что естественно для Европы и Америки, то странным и негодным видится нередко на русской почве. Это в полной мере относится и к григорианскому календарю. Между прочим, ошибаются те, кто полагает, будто европейский календарь — «светский», в отличие от русского, «церковного». Объективность требует признать, что он по происхождению своему такой же сакральный — но только не православный, а еретический, латинский. Зачем же заставлять жителей России мерить время по западному эталону, к тому же связанному с именем папы Григория XIII?

Архимандрит Рафаил (Карелин) в работе «Мистика земного времени» так оценивает календарную реформу папы Григория XIII: «Символизм, красота и гармония юлианского календаря были отброшены как ненужный хлам, календарь был прокручен сквозь узкое мышление рационалистов, как через мясорубку: от него было оставлено только то, что отвечало новой шкале ценностей, на вершине которой находились практицизм, унификация и обезличивающий коллективизм. Не научные достижения, а духовное снижение, приземленность и ползучий позитивизм создали в протестантских странах Европы попе для распространения этого календаря. С католическими странами дело обстояло проще. Папа, "безгрешный" папа, являлся творцом календаря. В честь реформы была изображена медаль с изображением Григория XIII и надписью: "Лучший из священников" (буквально — "жрецов"). Указ (булла) папы повелевал католикам безоговорочно принять новый календарь под угрозой отлучения от Церкви. Голоса известных католических ученых, которые раздавались против календарной реформы, вскоре замолкли перед угрозой отлучения. Самыми энергичными распространителями григорианского календаря в то время были не ученые, а иезуиты».

На Западе появление и принятие нового календаря в XVI веке объяснимо, понятно и даже как бы неизбежно. Но для России он как кафтан с чужого плеча. Отметим, что царь Петр I, известный своими решительными реформами всей российской жизни на европейский лад, не забыл коснуться и календарной реформы. Именно ему мы обязаны обычаем считать началом года 1 января вместо 1 сентября. Однако даже сей дерзновенный император не посмел посягать на то, на что посягнул папа Григорий XIII, — на идущую от сотворения мира чреду последовательно сменяющихся дней и месяцев. То, что не посмел сделать российский государь, через 217 лет осуществили большевики во главе с Троцким и Лениным.

Этот волюнтаристский акт был совершен вопреки специально образованной 18 февраля 1899 года Русским астрономическим обществом особой ученой комиссии для выяснения возможности и целесообразности перехода на новый стиль, постановившей, что «нет основания к введению в России (а тем более в Церкви) заведомо неправильного григорианского календаря». Знаменитый профессор Петербургской Духовной академии В. В. Болотов так высказался о православном юлианском календаре. «Его чрезвычайная простота составляет его научное преимущество перед всякими календарями исправленными. Думаю, что культурная миссия России по этому вопросу состоит в том, чтобы еще несколько столетий удержать в жизни юлианский календарь и через то облегчить и для западных народов возвращение от не нужной никому григорианской реформы к неиспорченному старому стилю».

У французской нации однажды (в 1808 году) хватило благоразумия опомниться и отменить введенный было в 1793 году нелепый революционный календарь с «брюмерами». Пора и нам признать григорианский календарь неудачной и вредной затеей, мешающей нашему народу исповедовать свою традиционную православную веру.

Если кто-то считает, что возвращение к юлианскому летосчислению ущемит чьи-то интересы и права, то пусть зря не беспокоится. Атеистам это должно быть практически безразлично. Православным (и старообрядцам) — весьма желательно. Магометанам и иудеям, как традиционному этническому меньшинству, можно предоставить исключительное право жить своим календарем (они и так им пользуются). А других значительных национальных интересов в России пока нет. Так что в полном соответствии с недавно принятым законом о свободе вероисповедания государство, учитывая интересы подавляющего большинства населения, должно вернуться к традиционному русскому церковному календарю.

 

* * *

Историческая справка: В России григорианский календарь введён в 1918 году декретом Совнаркома, согласно которому в 1918 году после 31 января следовало 14 февраля. С 1923 года большинство поместных Православных Церквей, за исключением Русской, Иерусалимской, Грузинской, Сербской и Афона, приняло похожий на григорианский новоюлианский календарь, совпадающий с ним до 2800 года. Он также был формально введён Святейшим Патриархом Тихоном для употребления в Русской Православной Церкви 15 октября 1923 года. Однако это нововведение, хотя и было принято практически всеми московскими приходами, в общем вызвало несогласие в Церкви, поэтому уже 8 ноября 1923 года Патриарх Тихон распорядился «повсеместное и обязательное введение нового стиля в церковное употребление временно отложить». Таким образом, новый стиль действовал в Русской Православной Церкви только 24 дня.

Из Определения Священного Синода от 17 февраля 1997 года

Свидетельствовать, что в нашей церковной и общественной среде юлианский календарь (старый стиль) отождествляется с частью национальной духовной традиции, приверженность которой стала нормой религиозной жизни миллионов людей. В связи с этим ясно заявить, что вопрос об изменении календаря в нашей Церкви не стоит.

 


 
http://www.blagogon.ru/digest/21/

календарный вопрос

 

Chapter 7

SCIENCE—IN SUPPORT OF THE CHURCH CALENDAR

глава 7

Наука в поддержку церковного (т.н. старого) календаря

из

 книги иеромонаха Кассиана  (by Hieromonk Cassian)

A Scientific Examination of the Orthodox Church Calendar"

Научное исследование о Православном Церковном Календаре

 

 

 

 

 

For He hath given me certain knowledge of...the beginning, ending, and midst of the times: the alterations of the turning of the sun, and the changes of the seasons: the circuits of years, and the positions of stars....

Wisdom of Solomon 7:17-19

Sincere disciples of the Evangelical astronomers—those who truly examine matters scientifically—support the Church Calendar. Let us now give them the floor.

When we take into consideration that the Paschal tables were cre-aied by the most educated of the ancient Christian Churches, the Church of Alexandria, we come to understand the attitude of reverence of our predecessors—an attitude which had not yet been corrupted by civilization. However, we do not at all mean to imply that the Alexandrian tables strike only the uneducated mind as a perfect work. This collective work remains unsurpassable up to the present. The later Paschalion, the so-called Roman Paschalion, which is currently used by the Western Church, is unwieldy, clumsy, and crude in comparison with the Alexandrian one, and resembles an amateurish picture placed next to a wonderful artistic representation of the same subject. Moreover, this complicated and clumsy mechanism does not serve its purpose. Jn the era of the initial spread of Christianity, the Paschal tables were created for practical purposes. The so-called 'Paschal Cycle' consists of 532 years and is named 'alpha,' since the sum of the numeric values of the Greek letters of the word oAcpa' (a = 1, V = 30, = 500, a' = 1) yields 532. After the passage of акра, the celebration of Pascha recurs on the same dates. These tables, known as the 'visual Paschalion, ' were accompanied by a key and instructions, and have been handed down through practical training, as a thing accessible to any literate individual.9 5

Thus, the correspondence of the Alexandrian tables, which are the foundation of the Nicene Paschalion, to the actual lunar and solar cycles inspires a deep sense of confidence in the Orthodox Faithful that their Church possesses great wisdom in maintaining these tables unaltered.

 

The Papacy, however, deviating as it did from the criterion of Orthodoxy, gradually undermined and eventually ruined this confidence. In Western Europe, the medieval centuries were a time of widespread ignorance, and during the Middle Ages no one was interested in the theoretical aspects of the calculation of Pascha. Although the general level of learning in Western Europe at this time was perhaps higher than it was in Russia, it certainly was much lower than it was in the Byzantine Empire. As is well known, Arabs were the ones who primarily engaged in scientific pursuits during the Middle Ages, and they obviously were uninterested in the Christian Paschalion. It was not until the Renaissance, therefore, that inquisitive minds in the West began to probe Paschal calculations, looking for rational rules by which the celebration of Pascha could be determined. Unfortunately, Western scholars, having only a vague idea of the construction of the Alexandrian tables, decided to reform them and self—reliant-ly set about doing so. If the Renaissance had begun simultaneously in the West and in the East; if unfortunate circumstances had not resulted in the loss of the knowledge of the early Christian Church and Byzantium; if the Library of Alexandria had been preserved from fire; then, true scientists, understanding the essence of the Christian Paschalion, would have been able to raise serious objections to the Papal innovation of 1582. It could even be said that if Alexandrian traditions and erudition from the early centuries had not faded away in the East, then it would hardly have been possible for Pope Gregory xin to carry out his calendar innovation. Although Orthodox intuitively knew that there was something amiss with the Gregorian reform, their difficult historical situation left them ill-equipped to defend the ancient scientific virtue of the Church Calendar. Instead, they had to resort to a silent resistance to the Papal Calendar, leaving time itself to be the final judge of the matter.

The calendar issue, then, became very popular in Western Europe in the sixteenth century. This was a time when many scholars hoped to "discover" the supposed rules and regulations of the Synod of Nicasa, even though few data from the Acts of this Synod are extant. Advocates of the Gregorian Calendar claim that the calendar was changed by three days at the First Oecumenical Synod, and argue that no positive verification of this fact has been preserved because the Acts of the Synod were lost. Orthodox, however, base their information about the decisions of the Nicene Synod on the epistle of Saint Constantine the Great addressed to the Hi-erarchs who were absent from the deliberations. Since the decisions of this Synod are well known, it is unnecessary to search for the actual minutes in order to draw conclusions about the Acts of the Synod. Westerners were not satisfied with this approach and, instead, set forth fraudulent documentation, purporting to be the minutes of the First (Ecumenical Synod, a forgery soon exposed for what it was. ^ We might simply note, here, that Latin polemicists are notorious for several "reconstructionist" forgeries which disingenuously support the Papist agenda {e.g., the Donation of Constantine, the Pseudo—Isidoran Decretals, etc.).9? It is obvious that if the Nicene Fathers had actually changed the calendar by as much as three days, they certainly would have indicated something to this effect in the Church Typicon, since for details of much less significance they did not fail to make note. For example, the Typicon includes explicit instructions describing how to combine various aspects of the movable and immovable cycles in the Divine Services, down to the last detail.

Nonetheless, the "new" Paschal tables—which according to their authors removed the "shortcomings" of the Alexandrian ones—quickly entered textbooks of astronomy and geography. In carrying out his calendar reform, Pope Gregory xin ostensibly wished to stay abreast of the latest astronomical advances and to create a work that was on the cutting edge of scientific achievement. But the sufferings inflicted by the Inquisition upon a host of famous scientists—Galileo Galilei, Joseph Scaliger, Andreas Vesalius (1514-1564), Giordano Bruno (1548-1600), Molilio Va-niny, etc.—showed diat the Papal commitment to "scientific precision" was mere window—dressing.

Western science in the sixteenth century knew but one cosmology, viz. у geocentrism, the theory that the earth is the immobile center of the universe, while around it revolve all of the other heavenly bodies in perfectly circular orbits. In particular, the modified version of Aristotelian geocentrism developed by the influential astronomer Ptolemaeus dominated astronomy for centuries on end. But a growing body of fresh observational data had begun to tax the ability of Ptolemaism to deal with the intricacies of celestial motion; as an alternative to this increasingly cumbersome geocentric model, the Polish priest Copernicus introduced a new school of astronomical thought. His cosmology envisioned a solar system, i.e., a group of planets (with the earth as just another member) in common orbit around the sun: a theory known as heliocentrism. (Copernicanism contained a vestige of geocentrism in that it preserved the notion of circular orbits, but Kepler, famous for his formulation of the three laws of planetary motions, subsequently did away with diis vestige by proving that planetary orbits were actually elliptical, not circular; however, this discovery did no harm to Copernicus' heliocentric thesis, 98) From an historical point of view, heliocentric cosmology was, in fact, nothing more than a revival of an ancient idea. 99 In 1543, on his deathbed, Copernicus published his classic statement of heliocentric theory, On the Revolutions of the Heave?tly Spheres. Despite the earlier positive repute in which the Papacy had held Copernicus (recall that in 1514, he had been invited by Rome to contribute to the calendar reform, but had declined the offer), on March 5, 1616, Pope Paul v (1552—1621) placed this treatise on the Index Librorum Pro-hibitomm. Copernicus' Revolutions had started a revolution of its own, a scientific revolution, a revolution against the sacred cow of Scholasticism and its obsession with Aristode as the philosopher. Heliocentrism unmasked the pretended "scientific character" of

the Gregorian Calendar.

 


The key figure in this revolution would be Galileo Galilei (Figure 14). Famed as the inventor of the telescope, Galileo had initially subscribed to the geocentric model of the universe, but later converted to the heliocentric view of Copernicus when, in 1610, his new scientific instrument allowed him to witness the four largest moons of Jupiter100 revolving around their primary. Galileo went to Rome in an attempt to defend the idea that Catholicism and Copernicanism were, in га<л, compatible; he argued that both Holy Scripture and nature speak die Word of God, yet do so in different languages. His arguments, however, fell on deaf ears. At the time, die Latin Church was little concerned with scientific truth; instead, its attention was wholly focused on gaining the upper hand in its struggle with Protestantism. Thus, when Rome declared Copernicanism to be a heresy "more scandalous, more detestable, and more pernicious to Christianity than any contained in the books of Calvin, of Luther, and of all other heretics

 

Figure 14. One of the pivotal figures in the development of modern science, Galileo was condemned by the Papacy as a heretic for his empirical views—this from a church which ostensibly pursued "astronomical accuracy** at the expense of well—established Christian precedent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

put together," it did so precisely in response to the fact that, ironically enough, the heretics Martin Luther (1483-1546) and John Calvin (1509-1564) had decried heliocentrism as frightfully un-Biblical. Quite simply, Popery wanted to steal Protestant thunder.

Finding itself under theological scrutiny, the Latin Church had no desire to risk supporting a potentially scandalous theory which might damage its credibility as the standard of doctrinal purity. Thus, Rome demanded that Galileo never advocate or uphold the theory of Copernicanism; zealous Papist that he was, Galileo managed to suppress his sense of scientific objectivity and submitted to this Papal decision. Yet his public submission in no way altered his private conviction, and in 1623, when his longtime friend Maffeo Barberini was enthroned as Pope Urban vin (1568-1644), Galileo tried to use his personal influence on the Pope to annul the decree of 1616. Although this attempt proved unsuccessful, Galileo did obtain permission to write a book contrasting the Ptolemaic and Copernican theories in terms of tidal motion, a work he tentatively entided Dialogue on the Tides. The Papacy, for its part, had calculatedly granted Galileo its permission for this endeavor, stipulating two conditions: firsdy, that he not favor one theory over and against the other; and, secondly, that a foregone conclusion of the book was to be that, as a product of the Omnipotence of God, the universe was out of the reach of limited human cognition. With these stipulations, the Papacy felt certain that it had protected geocentrism from the rigors of scientific criticism to which Galileo might otherwise subject it.

Published at Florence in 1632 as Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems, Galileo offered the required prefatory disclaimer that the idea that the earth revolved around the sun was merely an imaginative fiction. However, his comparison of the two cos-mological schemes proved to be a devastating critique of geocentrism. Written in the vernacular Italian instead of the usual academic Latin, his book reached a very broad audience and was hailed throughout Europe as a philosophical tour de force—to the great consternation of rome. Despite its two official licenses from papal censors, licenses which the papacy later denied ever having granted, the dialogue resulted in galileo, by then a frail old man, being literally hauled before the inquisition on "grave suspicion of heresy." given the opportunity to contemplate "burning faggots, the wheel, the rack, the gallows, and other ingenious refinements of torture,"101 the aged astronomer quickly realized the error of his ways, acknowledging that, "...i must altogether abandon the false opinion that the sun is the center of the world and immobile, and that the earth is not the center of the world and moves...." having uttered this forced abjuration of beliefs, he subsequently muttered the famous words, "eppur si muove!" pleading for leniency on account of his advanced years, galileo managed to have his sentence of life imprisonment commuted to permanent house arrest.

In 1638, four years before his death and despite being under house arrest, galileo secretly published his discourses and mathematical demonstrations concerning two new sciences, this work is considered by contemporary scientists to mark the beginning of classical physics, and thus the beginning of modern physics. As the british theoretical physicist stephen william hawking (b. 1942), former lucasian professor of mathematics at cambridge university (a position once occupied by sir isaac newton [1642—1727]), has noted:

Galileo, perhaps more than any other single person, was responsible for the birth of modern science. His renowned conflict with the catholic church was central to his philosophy, for galileo was one of the first to argue that man could hope to understand how the world works, and, moreover, that we could do this by observing the real world.102

Thus, both papism and protestantism had failed to appreciate that the work of such scientists as copernicus and galileo revealed the orthodox paschalion to be established on solid empirical footing.

As mentioned earlier, Joseph Scaliger, the founder of the science of chronology, made clear his rejection of the Papal calendar reform by publishing A New Work on Improving the Reckoning of Time, in 1583. In this work, the foundation of contemporary scientific investigations into chronological issues, Scaliger demonstrated the practical convenience inherent in the Julian Calendar's ability to provide an invariable continuity in the reckoning of events. In fact, the modern disciplines of astronomy and chronology continue to utilize Scaliger's "Julian period" (so named after his father, Julius Caesar Scaliger [1484—1558]), a 7,980—year cycle, with Julian Day 1 beginning at noon, January 1, 4713 B.C. Scaliger was unaware of the Great Indiction and the Nicene Paschalion, according to which the creation of the world occurred in 5508 B.C.; he nonetheless recognized the nature and excellence of the Orthodox chronological system. Although he did not introduce the Julian Calendar to science in the fullness of its ecclesiastical meaning and form, Scaliger's independent discovery of its scientific merits was an invaluable confirmation, by an impartial and objective observer, of the validity of the theoretical principles underpinning the Church Calendar.

When Renaissance science began spreading to the East (particularly, in the Balkan peninsula and Russia), much information about Paschal calculations, or rather, misinformation, since it deviated from the criteria of the Orthodox Paschalion, intruded into Orthodox thought. New books from the West bearing an air of scientific authority poured into the East. Many Eastern authors and translators, lacking the spiritual and theological credentials necessary to examine issues relating to the Paschalion, uncritically and enthusiastically accepted the modern Western influence of these works. For example, a textbook on astronomy written by the French physicist and astronomer Dominique Francois Jean Arago (1786—1853) only confused the reader with its "data" on the Pas-chalion, yet it was a very popular text in its time. Unfortunately, an uncritical acceptance of Western ideas continues unabated in many Orthodox circles even today; we might simply mention the annual report of the Bureau of Measures (Annuaire), where completely incorrect criteria for the vernal equinox—and thus for Pascha—are given.IQ3 Statements, often limited to no more than unsubstantiated repetitions of second—hand opinions, are freely given by Pas-chalists in Russia, including even the Presbyter Iakovkin. On the other hand, the Russian astronomers Perevoshtikov and Savich took the trouble to acquaint themselves with the Paschal tables of the Church Menaion and, as a consequence, their methodology comes very close to that of the Orthodox Paschalion; yet, even they were not immune to Western influence.

An unexpected vindication of the Church Calendar came in the nineteenth century, in the works of the mathematical genius Carl Friedrich Gauss (Figure 15). Director of the Gottingen Observatory and a professor at Gottingen University, where he died, Gauss derived the mathematical formulas for the calculation of the Orthodox Paschalion. By his time, Easter was celebrated according to the Gregorian Calendar. Yet the Western Paschalion was of no scientific interest to him, since it deviated from the ancient Paschal tables and could not be calculated by means of mathematical formulae. (In fact, it is by relying on the calculations of the Orthodox Pascha that the Gregorian Paschalists recalculate and make corrections to their own Paschalion—though this is

 

 

Figure 15. Ranked with Archimedes (ca. 287B.C.—212 в.с) and Newton as one of the greatest mathematical minds of all time, Gauss analyzed the Orthodox Paschalion with an admiring fascination.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


possible only for certain periods.) Although Gauss was not Orthodox, he was obviously impressed by the antiquity and cyclicity of the Great Indiction, clearly recognizing its scientific worth. From the Paschal tables, he extracted simple equations that can be understood by anyone who can count, even a child. Gauss thus presented the sophisticated astronomical aspects of the Orthodox Paschalion in a straightforward and intelligible scientific form. This simplicity helps to give clarity to faith in the Church Calendar, which is why these formulae are now included in textbooks on the Paschalion.

Throughout the centuries, there have often been controversies about Pascha among great scientists, some of whom were mistaken in their presuppositions.

Such was the case with the Russian chemist Dmitry Ivanovich Mendeleyev (1834—1907). In 1899, a commission of the Russian Astronomical Society was created at his initiative to reform the Julian Calendar, which was still in civil use in Tsarist Russia. This scientific genius decided that as a prerequisite for the successful completion of this undertaking, more accurate scientific data and, in particular, data for the exact duration of the tropical year,I04 would need to be available. For this purpose, Mendeleyev approached an American astronomer, Simon Newcomb, who had an established reputation in his field. The latter sent back to Mendeleyev a comprehensive reply on the issue with an attachment: a table of the length of the tropical year during different periods, drawn up by Newcomb himself. This table could be found in astronomy textbooks, and it clearly showed that the length of the tropical year varies. Newcomb expressed his own preference for the chronological system of the Julian Calendar, a fact which influenced Mendeleyev to abandon his plans of a calendar reform.

The most crucial aspect in evaluating a calendar is its rhythm. The shorter and more mathematically simple its rhythm, the more useful for astronomical and chronological calculations a calendar is. And vice versa; if a rhythm is lacking or is artificially complicated, then a calendar is impractical for ecclesiastical, scientific, and historical usage. In this regard, the Julian Calendar is manifestly superior to the Gregorian Calendar. The Julian Calendar's rhythm is very short and simple: it is an unvarying cycle of three 365—day years, followed by one 366—day year. On the other hand, the Gregorian Calendar, in the words of V. V. Bolotov, is "truly torture for chronologists." The rule chosen by the Papal reformers to "fix" the vernal equinox to March 21 consisted of reckoning every centesimal year—i.e., the final year of a century—indivisible by four hundred {e.g., 1700, 1800, 1900, etc.), not as a leap year, but as common year. Thus, in the Gregorian Calendar, only one out of four consecutive centesimal years is a leap year, while in the Julian Calendar, every centesimal year is a leap year (and this is precisely why approximately every 128 years the Julian and Gregorian Calendars move apart by one day). This means that in the Papal Calendar, unlike the Orthodox Church Calendar, the novelty of "common centesimal years" breaks its chronological rhythm: the number of days in the centuries is unequal, the days of the week no longer correspond to the dates of the months, etc.l0<> Thus, while the Julian Calendar fulfills the quintessential ideal of calendric time-reckoning by maintaining a minimal period of sequential whole days as its rhythm—one qua-drennium (1,461 days)—, the Gregorian Calendar does not. The latter complicates the rhythm of the Julian Calendar literally a hundredfold, for its minimal period is one quadricentennium (146,097 days). Moreover, the "New Julian" Calendar, which pretends to be an improvement on the Papal reform of 1582, shows itself to be vasdy inferior even to the Gregorian Calendar: its minimal period is 3,600 years (1,314,872 days)! It is not surprising, therefore, that calculations for historical and chronological purposes are first made according to the Julian Calendar, with a subsequent transition to Gregorian dates.

Since there is no perfect principle of cyclicity in nature, as there is in the Julian Calendar, both astronomy and the Gregorian Paschalion must turn to the Julian chronological system for the sake of practicality. However, when the former uses the Julian time-reckoning, it leaves the Church Calendar intact, while the latter, when it uses the Julian Calendar, literally destroys it, for the Gregorian Calendar fails to meet its own standard as a criterion for accuracy. In order to understand this clearly, we will now focus our attention on some issues faced by contemporary science in the field of temporal calculation. These issues directly relate to the problems and difficulties inherent in trying to create an "astronomically accurate" calendar. We will see if this is possible, and we will demonstrate how contemporary science uses the Julian chronological system in particular cases because of its superiority over the Gregorian system.

There are two ways to measure the earth's rotation on its axis: sidereal days and solar days. A sidereal day is the time required for a star to pass successively over a given meridian, while a solar day is the time required for the sun to pass successively over a given meridian. The latter differs from the former in that the combined motion of the earth's rotation and revolution around the sun causes the solar day to vary in length, while the apparent "fixed" positions of the stars cause the sidereal day to remain constant. Thus, the mean solar day of twenty—four hours, which is in common practical use, is an average of all true solar days in a year; with regard to the sidereal day, it is approximately four minutes longer. The time between two successive homon-omous culminations of a given meridian at a given point in the vault of the heavens defines the term "local time." The generally accepted time system is mean solar time at the meridian running through Greenwich, England, or universal time (тио, Temps Universelles). The relation between this time system and other ones (local time, zone time, etc.) is studied by the science of spherical astronomy. World time is determined through the calculation of local time and results from astronomical observations from many observatories throughout the world. It is known that, as a result of the circulation of the poles, the longitude and latitude of points on the surface of the earth constantly change. This fact creates many problems for astronomers. For a number of scientific purposes, such as the study of the unevenness of the movement of the earth and the development of a theory of the movement of planets and their satellites, universal time, based on the rotation of the earth around its axis, is not practical, since it lacks an accurate criterion. This explains some of the unevenness (periodic or accumulated) in universal time. As a result, two types of times were introduced: ephemeris time (те, Temps Ephemerides) and atomic time (tua, Temps Universelles Atomique). An orderly, structured chronological system is needed for determining the exact difference between the various systems for the calculation of time, and the only system that can do that is the Julian system. It is the foundation of all other systems. The relationship between these different systems is expressed in mathematical formulae, where the basic independent variable is T-—time according to the Julian chronological system.10^

The accumulated difference between ephemeris and universal time is explained by the gradual slowing down of the earths rotation. This necessitates the introduction of atomic time, which is independent of astronomical observations of the movement of celestial bodies. The results from investigations several years in duration by different observatories do not coincide perfectly, though science has achieved relative precision. Hence, universal coordinated time (тис, Temps Universelles Coordonne) was introduced. It was meant to maintain harmony among atomic standards worldwide.

It is obvious that the precise time measurement which the Gregorian Paschalists unsuccessfully pursued creates significant problems for scientists, even though the Julian chronological system was used as its basis. Since the initial principles of the Julian Calendar were not used, however, the Gregorian Calendar loses its accuracy. An accurate Gregorian Calendar cannot be constructed on the basis of the Julian Calendar. That is, an accurate system according to the Gregorian criterion for accuracy cannot be created on the basis of the Julian chronological system.

Another problem in the accurate measurement of time in science is the unstable rotation of the earth; i.e., the velocity of the rotation of the earth around its axis is not constant. Three components of this unstable movement can be observed: periodic oscillations, permanent {i.e., uninterrupted) changes, and random fluctuations. Though these oscillations have no practical significance for daily life or for the Julian Calendar, their scientific importance is great. The discovery of the unequable movement of the earth brought contemporary science to a completely new approach in reckoning time, resulting in great technical progress in the area of the improvement of apparatuses for the calculation of time. Hence, there began a new chapter in the study of the earth.

In the beginning of the 1930s, the periodic oscillations in the movement of the earth were registered in greater detail by the scientists Paul and Unk at the Observatory of Potsdam and, also, independently, by N. Stoyko of the Observatory of Paris. As a result of this, it was determined that the duration of a combined day and night is not constant through different months (Figure 16). If the velocity of the rotation of the earth around its axis is not constant, how could the Gregorian Paschalists have fixed Nisan 14 and the vernal equinox as constants? And relative to what? Neither believers nor scientists know how the objective of the Papal bull that established the Gregorian calendar reform can be accomplished.

In relation to the constant change of the rotation of the earth, science argues that the duration of a combined day and night has increased over the last two millennia, i.e., there is a slowing— down in the rotation of the earth. This implies that certain astronomical phenomena that occurred in the remote past {e.g., an eclipse) actually took place earlier than the dates caluclated by classical Newtonian physics. To establish this, however, we must look for corroborating data in the ancient manuscripts. In many

 

 

Figure 16. Data collected from several meteorological institutes, worldwide, show that the duration of the day osallates over the course of a year.

respects, this is very complicated and hard to do. Let us look at one example. There is a statement on a Babylonian tablet that, "On the twenty—sixth day of the month of Sivan in the seventh year, the day turned into night." This can be interpreted as an eclipse, and one can check for agreement between this record and the calculations of celestial physics. After conducting a diligent analysis, the English astronomer and expert in ancient philology, G. Fotering, came to the conclusion that there was, indeed, a total solar eclipse in Babylon on July 31,1062 B.C. Now, such scientific solutions require an accurate astronomical and chronological system. The Julian chronological system is used by scientists in all such cases. Its perfect cyclical recurrence between the lunar and solar cycles—enabling it to function as a "stopwatch" that keeps good time in celestial physics—is its major asset and a basic necessity for the attainment of such goals. Such objectives could not be attained with the Gregorian Calendar.

Another problem in the calculation of time was found in 1693 by the English astronomer, Edmond Halley (1656-1742). He compared the contemporary location of the moon with locations recalculated by the use of data from ancient eclipses. From his calculations, he came to the conclusion that the moon was accelerating in its rotation around the earth. The imprecision inherent in observations in his time did not permit the investigation of analogous effects in the movement of the sun or the other planets. Therefore, the moon's apparent accelerating rotation was considered actual. Many attempts were made to account for this observation. Finally, in 1777, a French astronomer and mathematician, Pierre Simon de Laplace (1749—1827), developed a theory that explained the apparent acceleration of the moon as the consequence of a constant change in the eccentricity of the earth's orbit.

Aside from the periodic and permanent changes mentioned above, changes in velocity of an irregular kind were also discovered. In this case, too, investigations initially centered only on the moon, specifically on a theory of lunar movement put forth by Newcomb and Brown. Later such changes were discovered in the movement of planets and the sun. The Dutch astronomer Willem de Sitter (1872-1934) and Spencer Jones found that these changes varied both in value and in frequency. The observable differences—the duration of ephemeris and other changes—were deemed significant. Moreover, these differences fluctuated between a positive and negative value in a random pattern. As a result of these observations, these two authorities reached the conclusion that the velocity of rotation of the earth around its axis changes randomly. These changes in the velocity of the earth's rotation occur at uneven intervals, last from one year to several decades, have different magnitudes and signs, and do not follow a clear pattern (Figure 17).

Unfortunately, the character and nature of these random changes in the speed of the earth's rotation have been poorly studied. It is not even known if they occur for short periods of time

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 17. The variation in the velocity of the earth's rotation is demonstrated here in relation to the deviations of the sun. Mercury, Venus, and Mars from the, theoretically predicted positions to then actual or observed posttions over the course of a century.

 

or if these values are the result of accumulated effects over months or years. It is only certain that random changes exceed tidal changes in the velocity of the earth by a whole century. Such great and quick fluctuations cannot be explained by events on the surface of the earth. To comprehend this, it is sufficient to mention that for such a change to occur in the earth's angular velocity, millions of meteorites, weighing millions of tons each, would have to fall in the area of the earths equator. This, of course, has not happened.

These scientific facts show that what the Gregorian Paschal-ists tried to achieve (as stated in the Papal bull "Inter Gravissi-mas")—viz., significant accuracy in the measurement of time—is impossible. An even more significant obstacle for the attempt of the Latins to "fix" the vernal equinox is the shifting of the poles and the movement of the continents. This issue has been examined by scientists for several centuries. There is a theory that at one time the poles were positioned in the present equatorial plane.

It is based on the discovery of the remains of tropical flora and fauna close to the poles, as well as ice precipitations from the Palaeozoic era in the area of what is now the equator. We have data regarding the position of the poles for the last one hundred years only. These data are provided by the International Agency on the Movement of the Poles (iamp) and are derived from the observations of many different observatories located at various latitudes.

Information about the location of the poles over hundreds and thousands of years ago is collected from palaeomagnetic, pa-laeontological, palseoclimatic, and astronomical data. We do not consider it appropriate to examine each of these fields separately. Suffice it to say that there is a consensus among contemporary scientists that the solution of the problem of the movement of the poles will not be found soon. The palaeomagnetic and palae-ontological data are rather vague, and the astronomical observations draw from a comparatively short period of time.

As can be seen from the graph below (Figure 18), there is no regularity in the change of the poles' location. Although it is in the nature of science continually to perfect its experimental methods and to introduce new approaches to problems, science has come to

 

 



Figure 18. The north and south poles are not fixed to specific points on the surface of the earth. They are in constant random motion, as this chart of the trajectory of their movement throughout the ages illustrates.

 

a deadlock on this issue. Research is extremely costly, and scientists on the whole do not feel that this problem and its solution constitute an efficient use of their resources or are worthy of their undertaking. Thus far, it has proved impossible to find a stable coordinate system relative to any natural phenomenon on the earth. Again, this relates directly to the issue of the "precise" determination of the vernal equinox, as claimed in "Inter Gravissimas."

The problem of the movement of the earth's poles, through the ages, is closely connected to that of the movement of the continents on the surface of the earth. The German meteorologist and geophysicist Alfred Lothar Wegener (1880—1930), founder of the theory of continental drift, writes:

In 1911, I scrutinized palaeontological data on the former land connection between Brazil and Africa. This prompted me to analyze the geological and palseontological research related to the issue. After an examination of these data, I was convinced of the correctness of my idea.

Wegener concluded that Africa and South America must have been one continent. So it was that the brave hypothesis of continental drift was born—an hypothesis which is supported by contemporary scientific facts. We are not going to dwell on these facts, but simply remark that, from yet one more perspective, we see how the search by the Gregorian Paschalists for absolute coordinates, relative to Rome, for a perfect calendar was doomed to failure.

Another problem related to the study of the movement of the earth is lunar—solar precession (the precession of the equinoxes). io7 This phenomenon was discovered as early as the second century b.c. by the Greek astronomer Hipparchus of Nicaea (ca. 190-ca. 120 b.c.). The calculation of values for a set of parameters in this precession, on the bases of various observations, is ascribed to him. The phenomenon was a matter of some speculation to scientists well into the nineteenth century, when fundamental research on the parameters of the precession was con-

ducted on the basis of the astrometric work of the English astronomer James Bradley (1693—1762).

The issue of the determination of a permanent lunisolar precession is rather complicated, since the velocity of movement of the vernal equinox is the result of a condition that has nothing in common with the nature of precession. This phenomenon is, again, not directly related to the problems of the Julian chronological system, but it is very important, since it is equivalent to the empirical determination of the coordinates of inertia, to which equations from Newtonian physics on the movement of the planets are applicable. We should mention here that the values of the permanent precession calculated from actual observations differ from the values derived from Newtonian physics and the Gregorian Paschalion: a difference accounted for by the special theory of relativity, which takes ino account influences from the gravitational field of the sun and the rotation of the earth. The history of the study of this phenomenon includes the names of many scientists, including Laplace, Friedrich Wilhelm Bessel (1784-1846), G. Piatsi, Otto Struve (1897-1963), H. Peterson, etc. The classic work of Simon Newcomb, published in 1897, is considered the final word on this problem. It brought to an end arguments over the use of precession quantities. This phenomenon causes serious problems for efforts to create an absolutely accurate Gregorian Calendar. It demonstrates the advantages of the Julian Calendar, which is based on different principles, since permanent precession has no influence on this calendar's determination of the vernal equinox, and therefore no influence on the Julian Calendar itself.

At the end of the nineteenth century, science faced insuperable difficulties in explaining various phenomena since their analyses were based on Galilean and Newtonian physics. An experiment in 1877 by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley, as well as other scientific discoveries, set the stage for the special theory of relativity developed in 1905 by Albert Einstein (1879-1955) (Figure 19). This theory very adequately explained the fact that the velocity of dimensional space. The theory of relativity fundamentally changes our notion of space and time. Time is not fully independent of space, but the two are related and constitute a four-dimensional space-time continuum. The general theory of relativity also predicts that light will be curved, as a result of gravitational fields. In other words, if light coming to the earth from a remote star passed close to the sun, it would be curved and the actual location of the star would be different from that seen by observers on earth (Figure 20).

Because of World War 1, the theory of the curvature of light posed by Einstein could not be tested at that time. It was not until 1919, when an English expedition in West Africa, observing an eclipse, confirmed that light deviates exacdy in accordance with its prediction, that the theory was validated. This confirmation of a German theory by English scientists was hailed as an important token of reconciliation between the two countries after the war, but spread unrest among astronomers and discouraged their attempts at an absolutely precise description of the universe—including the criterion for accuracy in the Gregorian Paschalion. Another prediction of the general theory of relativity is that time becomes slower at points close to such massive bodies as the earth. This is explained by the relationship between the energy of light and its frequency. When light moves away from the gravitational field of the earth, it loses energy and its frequency is reduced. This prediction was tested in 1962, with the help of two very precise clocks positioned at the top and at the foot of a tall tower. With the introduction of extremely precise navigational systems using

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 20. The general theory of relativity postulated that light travels in a geodesic line through a space-time continuum. This prediction was verified by scientific observation.

 

 

 

 

satellite signals, the difference in the progression of clocks located at different altitudes became very important. If one were to ignore the predictions of the general theory of relativity, the calculated location might be off by tens of miles—a significant error by the supposedly precise standards of the Gregorian calendar. So it was that the theory of relativity put an end to the idea of absolute position in space and destroyed the notion of absolute time. Space and time are now considered dynamic quantities, and they not only influence, but are also influenced by all that happens in the universe. Scientific fact now demonstrates that a method seeking to preclude the shifting of the vernal equinox (as required by the Papal bull of 1582) cannot be found. In recent times, a new concept of space and time has produced a revolution in our understanding of the universe. The old idea of a basically unchanging universe that had ever existed and that would continue to exist was permanently replaced by the notion of a dynamic, expanding universe that probably came into existence at a certain moment in die past and that will terminate its existence at an undetermined moment in the future. This view does not contradict Holy Scripture but, rather, is in agreement with it. Stephen Hawking and his fellow physicist, Roger Penrose, have proved that Einstein's general theory of relativity implies that the life of the universe has a beginning as well as an end.

All of these scientific discoveries should be taken into consideration by the Gregorian Paschalists in their attempts to achieve the goal of "Inter Gravissimas." We have shown that, in many cases, phenomena related to the calculation of time cannot be explained and expressed through mathematical formulae. As we noted, some of these phenomena cannot even be properly studied. In terms of achieving astronomical accuracy, it becomes evident that the criterion put forth in the bull cannot be established.

The aforementioned scientific discoveries, however, do not compromise the teaching of the Orthodox Church regarding the calendar issue. On the contrary, science uses as a basic tool the Julian chronological system. The Roman Catholic Church is oftentimes in a very difficult position. It feels compelled, at times, to acknowledge certain scientific discoveries, as it did in 1951, when it officially declared that the "the Big Bang" theory of the universe was in agreement with the Bible. In most cases, however, as with those involving Galileo and Copernicus, the antagonism between the Papacy and true science continues, even to this day.108 Lest this conclusion should appear unsubstantiated, consider the following words of Hawking:

...[I]n 1981, my interest in questions about the origin and fate of the universe was reawakened when I attended a conference on cosmology organized by the Jesuits in the Vatican. The Catholic Church had made a bad mistake with Galileo, when it tried to lay down the law on a question of science, declaring that the sun revolved around the earth [a scientific view compatible with Orthodox doctrine, incidentally] . Now, centuries later, it decided to invite a number of experts to advise it on cosmology [but not in the manner that Galileo was obliged to advise it]. At the end of the conference, the participants were granted an audience with the pope.... I was glad then that he did not know the subject of the talk I had just given.... I had no desire to share the fate of Galileo...! 109

So, we see that science looks at the calendar issue in a completely different way than the Gregorian Paschalists—data are not considered absolute, but dynamic. It is evident that the pursuit of the Gregorian Paschalists to perfect the Julian Calendar by removing the sham difference of eleven minutes and fourteen seconds is not at all justifiable. We allow ourselves the use of the term "sham" because the difference it is not a constant, but a variable quantity. And we justify ourselves in this appraisal by the explanations offered above. There is no longer any serious scientist who would argue that the difference between the Julian and the "absolute" tropical year is a constant quantity. We do not know how it would be possible to attain the goal of the Papal bull: the development of a method and rules for fixing the vernal equinox and "the fourteenth moon." In our day and age, the term "vernal equinox" has crossed the borders of the Roman Empire and is now allegorical or figurative; it is not "vernal" for the different points on earth. It turns out to be "vernal" in spirit, but not in time and place,110 as the Papists would have it. Thus, it is high time for the Gregorian Paschalists to acknowledge that the "infallible one" was wrong.111

This is an opportune time to attract the interest of scientists to the teachings of the Orthodox Church. We should demonstrate to them that their scientific discoveries regarding the calendar correspond to the Church's teaching. They should return to this forgotten spiritual and scientific treasury. In order to become honorable disciples of the Evangelical astronomers, they should acknowledge, after the example of Hieromonk Seraphim of Platina (1934-1982), that Orthodoxy is the religion of the future. Contemporary scientists can successfully establish truths; what they now need to do is something very simple: they must honor the Creator Himself, without any fear of men.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Scientific Examination of the Orthodox Church Calendar

Научное исседование о Православном Церковном календаре

Ch. 4: The Essence of the Church Calendar

гл 4. Содержание и смысл Церковного календаря

by Hieromonk Cassian

God exercised His authority over time through the Holy Fathers at the Œcumenical Synods. 24 This is vividly expressed by Synodal decrees, wherein the words of Holy Scripture are pronounced: "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us." 25 Although the calendar is a human invention, its definitive acceptance by the Holy Orthodox Church elevates its status to the Divine. Therefore, the violation of the calendar is a sin, and according to the ordinances of the Œcumenical Synods, it is a sin against the Holy Spirit, Who inspired these Synods. Furthermore, following the words of the Holy Gospel of Saint Luke, "And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Spirit it shall not be forgiven," 26 logic dictates that this is the gravest of sins.

Strictly speaking, the Julian Calendar is not a Christian calendar; it is actually a pagan one. When Julius Caesar inaugurated his eponymous calendar in 46 b.c., it was intended for general civil use in the Roman Empire, and so it remained until the First Œcumenical Synod (Figure 4). Summoned in Nicaea, a town of Asia Minor, the week before the Feast of Pentecost in 325, this celebrated Synod not only defended some of the most important dogmatic principles of Christianity, but also appropriated the Julian Calendar for ecclesiastical use by conjoining it to the Jewish Calendar in the establishment of a uniform calculation of Pascha—the Paschalion—, a calculation that was to supersede the various local practices which up to that time had caused liturgical confusion within the Church. It did so by introducing a universal time-reckoning scheme, the Great Indiction, or Cycle from the Creation of the World, 27 which remains to this day as the basis of all of the service books of the Orthodox Church. The Divine Services, immutably determined by the Church Calendar, consist of two concurrent cycles: the immovable cycle of Feasts, those which are fixed to a specific calendar date, and the movable cycle of Feasts, those which are dependent on the Feast of the Resurrection, the date  of which is variable. (After the calendar reform, all Feasts became movable, as will be shown later in the chapter, "Liturgical Havoc Wreaked by the 'New Julian' Calendar.") Thus, when speaking of the Church Calendar, we mean both the immovable, Menaion (from the Greek "men," "month") cycle and the movable, Paschal cycle as well.

The essential role of the Julian Calendar in the Divine Services lies in its relationship to the first cycle, that of the immovable Feasts. The Julian Calendar serves as a framework for the Menaion cycle; yet, the two are not coterminous. The Menaion cycle differs from the Julian Calendar, inasmuch as it has certain characteristics modelled on Biblical precedents which distinguish it from the civil reckoning of time. For example, the liturgical or ecclesiastical day always runs from evening to evening, following the Scriptural reckoning: "And there was evening, and there was morning, the first day." 28 This is why the daily liturgical order starts with Vespers. With the Julian computation of time, however, the civil day runs from midnight to midnight. This discrepancy is not unimportant, because the difference between the liturgical and civil reckoning will be an entire day for events between dusk and midnight. Likewise, there is an analogous discrepancy with the reckoning of annual events: the ecclesiastical year (i.e., the Indiction) begins on September 1, while the civil year begins on January 1. Therefore, there will be a difference of one year between the ecclesiastical and civil reckonings for events between September 1 and December 31. In addition, the liturgical hours are designated differently than the civil hours of the Julian Calendar: the First Hour corresponds to 7:00 a.m., the Third Hour to 9:00 a.m., and so on. Hence, the Menaion (in Slavonic, "Mesetsoslov" ) 29 is a liturgical book which details the cycle of ecclesiastical celebrations for the Faithful, while the Julian Calendar reckons time periods in general and is for use outside of the Church.

Distinct from this immovable cycle of Feasts is the Paschal cycle, which derives from and is linked to the ancient Jewish Calendar. This linkage is a result of Christ's Passion having been directly connected to the Jewish Passover; strictly maintaining the sequence of events described in the Holy Gospel, the Orthodox Church always celebrates the Resurrection of Christ after the Passover. From antiquity, the chosen people of the Jews celebrated the Passover in accordance with its lunar calendar, 30 a practice faithfully observed by the Lord Jesus Christ. The Word of God incarnate was a Jew, Who obeyed the requirements of the Old Testament, because He did not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it. 31 As the God-Man, Christ fulfilled what was lacking in the Law by offering Himself as a Sacrifice for the redemption of mankind from sin, death, and damnation, becoming thereby a New Passover—"the Sun of righteousness" 32 —for all who believe in Him. Thus, the Old Testament Pascha, 33 on which the Jews commemorated their Exodus from Egypt, was replaced by the New Testament Pascha, on which Christians celebrate the deliverance of their souls from slavery to the noetic Egypt, that is, sin. 34 Saint John Chrysostomos draws a theological parallel between the Old and New Testament Passovers:

The Jewish Passover was a foreshadowing, while the Christian one is truth.... The former was a deliverance from corporeal death, while the latter brought an end to the wrath of God, under which the whole universe had fallen; the former was a deliverance from the Egypt of old, the latter was a ransom from idolatry; the former did away with Pharaoh, the latter with the Devil; after the former, the Promised Land followed, while after the latter, Heaven. 35

The Church Calendar is thus a combination of two harmoniously interwoven cycles, the Menaion cycle, which utilizes the solar Julian Calendar, and the Paschal cycle, which relies on the lunar Jewish Calendar, and it is only under these names that the Church Calendar is encountered in service books. The fruit of the ingenious efforts of numberless scholars and theologians, the Church Calendar alone fulfills the canonical and dogmatic requirements of the Orthodox Faith. All other calendars are unable to fulfill these requirements practically, because the combination of the movable and immovable cycles is univocal and unique. The Church Calendar is inseparable from the cycles of the sun and the moon, in much the same way that a replica of a picture is inseparable from its original: without the original, the replica would not exist, and in the same way, the Church Calendar reflects the solar and lunar cycles. Therefore, every effort to replace the Church Calendar is doomed to failure, for the Church Calendar is, by definition, never at odds with the Biblical, canonical, and liturgical dictates of ecclesiastical life. But let us prove this.

In the immediate centuries after Christ, Christianity quickly spread throughout the Empire (and beyond). The impediments to communication at the time, however, allowed local traditions to develop an undue strength. So it was that the early Christians did not necessarily celebrate Pascha at the same time. It thus became imperative to formalize the Apostolic teaching concerning the celebration of this Feast of Feasts as an inviolable rule. The Seventh Apostolic Canon proclaims: "A Bishop, a Presbyter, or a Deacon who celebrates the Holy Day of Pascha before the vernal equinox, together with the Jews, shall be deposed from his sacred rank." This strict rule is the fundamental criterion of the Christian Paschalion. It stipulates that Pascha be celebrated after the Jewish Passover 36 and after the vernal equinox. The Passover is always celebrated on the fourteenth of Nisan (March/April), which is the date of the first full moon of spring in the Jewish Calendar. Therefore, the Paschal full moon is determined by the lunar calendar, while the vernal equinox is determined by the solar calendar. The Nicene Paschalists faced the problem of how to combine the lunar and solar calendars in compliance with the requirements of the Seventh Apostolic Canon. Their primary objective was to link permanently, both in theory and in practice, the cycle of the moon with the cycle of the sun, thereby obtaining an indivisible and harmonic bond between the two differently-based calendars. This would preserve the sequence of events in the last days of our Lord Jesus Christ as they are described in the Holy Gospel.

In order to appreciate the ingenuity of the Church Calendar, it is necessary to evaluate it from the perspective of the Nicene Fathers. We must consider their explicit goal in composing a Christian calendar, the problems they faced in undertaking this task, and the manner in which they tackled these problems. For the Synod of Nicaea, the overriding concern was how to fulfill canonical requirements in the composition of the Paschalion. Its goal, therefore, was to harmonize the rhythms of the lunar and solar cycles exactly. This type of exactitude is quite different from that which the Gregorian reformers sought. Unlike the Holy Fathers of Nicaea, the latter set as their goal the attainment of an "astronomically accurate" calendar, as stated in the Papal bull "Inter Gravissimas." 37 As we shall see later, the concept of "astronomical accuracy" is wholly relative and extremely uncertain. Contemporary science readily admits that the composition of a calendar which is "astronomically accurate" in relation to the reckoning of fictive time, such as the Gregorian Calendar, is unfeasible. Thus, the Gregorian reformers ultimately failed to achieve their goal, whereas the Nicene Fathers entirely succeeded in achieving theirs, which was again, a different one. Let us now consider how.

In order to synchronize the two differently-based calendars—viz., the Julian Calendar, which is solar, and the Jewish Calendar, which is lunar—, it is necessary to determine a period of time after which the dates of each calendar will "realign." For example, let us say that a cycle begins with the day on which March 1 ( Julian Calendar) occurs simultaneously as Nisan 1 ( Jewish Calendar). This cycle will be considered complete when March 1 and Nisan 1 fall once again on the same day. We have already discussed the nineteen-year cycle ascribed to Meton of Athens—a cycle which several ancient civilizations, Eastern and Western (Babylon, Greece, China, et al.), had discovered independently in the middle of the first millennium b.c. The chief merit of the Metonic cycle resides in its determination of the least common multiple of the lunar and solar cycles. Again, as explained earlier, in the Metonic cycle, the lunar year has 354 days, while the solar year has 365 days. The addition of seven embolismic months, each having thirty days, "realigns" the lunar and solar years after a period of nineteen years. This lunisolar harmonization appealed to the Nicene Fathers, because they needed just this sort of link between the lunar phases and the vernal equinox, in order to conform to the dictates of the Seventh Apostolic Canon. However, for their purposes, the Metonic cycle had a slight drawback: it was designed for a solar year of 365 days, whereas the Holy Fathers intended to use the Julian Calendar with its solar year of 365.25 days. When the Metonic cycle is applied to the Julian Calendar, the extra six hours of the Julian solar year add up to four days and eighteen hours over the course of nineteen years.

Thus, the First Œcumenical Synod faced a quandary. If, in a given year, Nisan 1 coincided with March 1, after nineteen years, Nisan 1 would apparently begin six hours earlier than March 1, though the actual difference between the two dates would be four days and eighteen hours. Here, again, the least common multiple of this difference had to be found. This was easy enough: after four nineteen-year cycles (i.e., seventy-six years), the apparent difference of six hours quadruples, adding up to an entire day. In reality, however, the actual difference of four days and eighteen hours also quadruples, meaning that the vernal equinox occurs nineteen days later, i.e., at its original starting point—and thus a full cycle is completed. These simple calculations were carried out in 330 b.c. by the Greek astronomer Callippus, who discovered an astounding natural phenomenon: Thus, by quadrupling the Metonic cycle—a Callipic cycle—, the Jewish lunar year is synchronized to the Julian solar year. Although the Julian Calendar has some imprecision, this imprecision is found to almost the same extent in the Jewish Calendar. Thus, the vernal equinox, which moves ahead by the Julian calculation, moves ahead according to the Jewish one as well.

The Callipic cycle, therefore, made it possible to calibrate the Metonic cycle to the Julian solar year. But in order to make this adjustment work properly, it was imperative to know the average lengths of the lunar month and of the solar year. 38 It is unreasonable to assume, as some modern scholars do, that the Nicene Fathers were ignorant of the accurate measurements of these intervals, for these measurements were already known from very ancient times. For example, by the middle of the third millennium b.c. in Babylon, and by 104 b.c. in China, the precision of their determination nearly matched the accuracy of contemporary scientific methods. Furthermore, considering the computations of the American astronomer Simon Newcomb (1835-1909) in regard to the change in the day during the millennia, the correspondence between ancient and contemporary data is astounding; we can only guess what astronomical means were used by the ancients to accomplish such precision. In any event, for the purposes of Christian chronology, the Holy Fathers of Nicaea accepted the length of the lunar month to be approximately 29.53 days and the length of the solar year to be 365.25 days. (Later, we will elucidate how the exactitude of these figures is often deemed satisfactory, even for the most up-to-date astronomical research.)

These figures are crucial to the formation of the Great Indiction, the aim of which is, as we have shown, the combination of the solar cycle with the lunar one. We have already discussed the fact that after a period of nineteen years, new and full moons fall on the same dates as they initially did. Analogously, after a period of twenty-eight years, the sun completes a cycle in which the calendar dates fall once again on the exact same days of the week as they did at the beginning of this cycle. Thus, the Great Indiction, a period of 532 years, is established by joining the nineteen-year lunar cycle with the twenty-eight-year solar cycle—in the language of arithmetic: 19x28=532. In other words, the Great Indiction can be considered either as nineteen twenty-eight-year solar cycles or as twenty-eight nineteen-year lunar cycles. 39 This, then, is how the unique astronomical, mathematical, and Paschal rhythm of the Church Calendar was obtained. Whenever the Great Indiction elapses, the cycles of the sun and of the moon and the days of the week revert to their initial order. Since 1941, we have been in the Fifteenth Indiction; Pascha of  that year was celebrated on the same calendar date as Pascha in 1409, i.e., 532 years earlier. Likewise, Pascha in 1998, April 6 (Old Style), was celebrated on the same date as the years 402, 934, and 1466.

Nineteen Julian solar years exceed nineteen Jewish lunar years by one hour, twenty-eight minutes, and fifteen seconds. 40 This means that after the passage of nineteen solar years, the lunar phases occur again on the same dates of the month, only they do so one hour, twenty-eight minutes, and fifteen seconds earlier; and after the passage of sixteen nineteen-year cycles (i.e., 304 years), they occur almost a day earlier. 41 This is the reason that the Paschal full moon since the time of the First Œcumenical Synod has been appearing earlier and earlier, with respect to its appearance in 325. At that time, Nisan 14 coincided with the vernal equinox; now it is lagging behind the vernal equinox by about ten days. In other words, the earliest Paschal full moon at the time fell on March 21 (Old Style), while it now falls on March 18 (Old Style). Likewise, this lagging behind the vernal equinox can be observed in the Julian Calendar: in 325 it fell on March 21 (Old Style), while today it falls on March 8 (Old Style). The amazing thing is that the Nicene Paschalists succeeded in linking the two calendars—inexact in themselves—, so that ultimately they obtained a nineteen–year cycle which is of great scientific merit, one that unerringly reckons, even to this day, the lunar phases and their connection with the vernal equinox.

Moreover, when the Evangelical sequence of events between the Jewish Passover and the Christian Pascha is maintained as it is in the Nicene Paschalion, over the course of time, the Jewish and Christian feasts gradually move apart from each other, precisely because the lagging of the Julian Calendar behind the vernal equinox is slightly greater than that of the Jewish Calendar. This lagging of the Orthodox Pascha was called "an advantage" by the prominent Byzantine canonist, Hieromonk Matthew Blastares of Thessalonica ( fl . 14th cen.). His claim is the antithesis of that of contemporary ecumenists, who call this lagging "a defect." The phenomenon demonstrates the acceleration of the relative velocity of the moon in relation to the earth through the course of centuries. It is a complicated problem for scientists undertaking the compilation of an exact lunisolar calendar, which we will deal with in detail in the chapter "Science—In Support of the Church Calendar." One can only marvel at the ingenious solution of this complex astronomical problem. Furthermore, the drawing apart of the Jewish Passover from the Orthodox Pascha has deep theological significance, clearly indicating the proportionally increasing hostility over the centuries of Judaism towards Christianity. This brings to mind the words of the Savior: "...For the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in Me." 42 By the same token, this chronological distancing of the central Orthodox Feast from the Jewish one providentially signifies the spiritual distance between these faiths, viz., that Orthodoxy has nothing in common with Judaism. For the adherents of the Gregorian Paschalion, just the opposite is the case, since they often celebrate their Easter together with, or before, the Jewish Passover.

Thus, in practice, there is an indefectible natural phenomenon, observable within the course of a human life, which serves as the basis of the Church Calendar. 43 Our aim is not to show in detail how this was accomplished, for those who desire to know this can consult the textbooks of the Orthodox Paschalion; rather, our purpose is to demonstrate that given the elementary knowledge just presented, an understanding of the Orthodox Church Calendar is quite easy. From an ecclesiastical viewpoint, a study of the Paschalion does not require astronomical details—such are not necessary to the goal of theology. It is enough to be acquainted with the structure of the Church Calendar and to grasp the synchronization of the movable and immovable cycles, readily apparent in the Typicon of the Church, which establishes the proper ordering of the Divine Services. It is unnecessary for the ordinary Priest to investigate highly technical matters, which are hardly intelligible to the average person. For an Orthodox Priest, what is essential is the ability, upon opening the service books, to apprehend the immovable Feast of the day and its relationship to the Paschal cycle, so that he can celebrate the Divine Services in accordance with the requirements of the Church Typicon. For example, in order to determine the appointed Epistle and Gospel readings for the Divine Liturgy for every day of the year, it is necessary to know how many weeks have passed since the movable Feast of Pentecost.

This conscious overlooking of the astronomical aspect of the Orthodox Paschalion is often a source of doubt in rationalistically-inclined minds. Such doubts, however, are a manifestation of an ignorance of the essence and goal of the Paschalion. The perennial tradition of the Holy Fathers has established an extremely simple, yet exact, method for the calculation of Pascha—without calendars—, one based on the most important criterion: that expressed by the Seventh Apostolic Canon. This method is so perfect in practice that even until the present, the determination of the vernal equinox, the full moon, and the Jewish Passover based on it corresponds to real events. The consistent coincidence between theory and practice achieved by the Church Calendar, from antiquity to modernity, inspires confidence that it is not the mere fruit of rationalistic human philosophizing, but is sanctified for liturgical use by God Himself, according to the words of the Holy Œcumenical Synods: "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us." 44

The fact that the Orthodox Church has released Her Faithful from an obligation to know the astronomical technicalities of the Paschalion is not a flaw; on the contrary, it is a strength. Just as schoolchildren need not reinvent letters and numbers anew, so it is for Orthodox who possess the Paschalion. Without delving into a semeiological analysis of alphanumeric figures, schoolchildren take these conventional graphic symbols for granted, once they have learned them; in the same manner, the Church Calendar, since its development and subsequent testing by the Holy Fathers, has been handed down to each new generation of Orthodox for practical, liturgical purposes. Quite simply, it is impossible to create another, similar calendar—even the smallest change would lead to a discrepancy with the cycles of the sun and the moon, and, more importantly, would allow for human infringement in the Divinely-inspired liturgical texts. This is neither permissible nor exigent. Therefore, any Orthodox who thinks that the Faith must be "corrected" proves that he does not wish to obey his Holy Mother, the Orthodox Church, but rather that he desires to "reform" Her; that is, he does not accept Her as She is, protesting instead against Her essence. Such an individual may be called a "reformer," a "Protestant," or whatever, but he may not be properly called Orthodox. An Orthodox is one who observes diligently and immutably the teachings of the Holy Orthodox Church, which long ago sanctified the externals of our Faith, releasing us from the need to "reinvent" these externals.

Orthodox Christians have much more pressing concerns than astronomy, the chief of these being the mastering of the science of spiritual life, viz., the struggle with sin and passions, both those found internally within a man and those found externally in his surrounding environment. This science of sciences directly involves one in the future, eternal life, and is infinitely more important than the present, temporal life, despite the fact that it is unfortunately neglected and forgotten today. The Holy Fathers discharged us from the onerous task of composing a liturgical calendar and accompanying services, so that by utilizing what they have passed on to us, by way of Holy Tradition, we might be able to pursue the universally essential fight for salvation unencumbered by technical distractions. With the eternal salvation of the human soul as the focal point, the imaginary problem of "meticulosity" posed by the Gregorian calendar reformers not only pales, but literally vanishes, as a consideration, in the same way that in mathematics every finite number in relation to infinity is equal to zero. Therefore, even if the "concern" of the Gregorian Paschalists were well grounded, if it displaces our most important concern and objective—salvation—, it becomes groundless and senseless. What need is there to "reinvent" that which has already been established once and for all times?

The natural phenomenon which forms the basis of the Orthodox Church Calendar impressed the brilliant German mathematician and astronomer, Carl Friedrich Gauss (1777-1855 ), so much that he constructed his own "Paschalion," reproduced herein as Addendum 2, "The Gaussian Formula for the Orthodox Calculation of Pascha." As far as modern science is concerned, Gauss' method is purely classical physics. However, the theory of relativity, first introduced in the realm of physics, revolutionized our thinking by its discovery that there are no constant phenomena in nature. Yet it is wondrous to observe how the orderly Paschal theory of Orthodoxy stands up to all such new discoveries, and, furthermore, not only does not contradict them, but just the opposite, serves as the basis for the most modern astrophysical and chronometrical measurements. Perhaps this proves that genuine science merely rediscovers Biblical truths and should thus be guided by them.

Endnotes

23. Resurrectional Canon to the Most Holy Theotokos, Tone 2, Ode 3, Troparion 1.

24. An Œcumenical Synod is a convocation of Bishops from all of the local Churches for the resolution of matters concerning the Church as a whole (T. Koev, Orthodox Catechism and the Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith [Sofia: Texim Ltd., 1991], p. 34 ).

25. Acts 15:28.

26. St. Luke 12:10.

27. The starting point of the Great Indiction is Sunday, September 1, 5508 b.c.

28. Genesis 1:5.

29. "Menaion" is used as a collective name for the Menaia, the twelve volumes corresponding to the months of the year, in which the Feasts of the immovable cycle are set forth.

30. [The ancient Jewish Calendar was the product of the spiritual and scientific insight of Saint Moses the God-seer (   ca. 1430 b.c.). This Holy Prophet lived for 120 years: his first forty years he spent as a prince at the court of Pharaoh, where he received the best education available, including studies in the sciences of astronomy and chronology; after having slain an Egyptian who was beating a Jew, he spent his next forty years as a fugitive in Midian, where, laboring as a shepherd for his father-in-law Jethro, he had ample opportunity to hone his abilities as an astronomical observer; and after his encounter with the Burning Bush on Mount Sinai, when he received his Divine commission to lead the Hebrews to freedom in the Promised Land, he applied his knowledge of celestial motion to construct the Jewish Calendar, while wandering through the wilderness with the chosen people for his last forty years.——Eds.]

31. Cf. St. Matthew 5:17.

32. Malachi 4:2.

33. [In Holy Scripture, the word used to denote the Jewish Passover is the same as that used for the Christian Feast of the Resurrection: "Pascha"—Eds.]

34. St. Dorotheos of Gaza, Church Sermons (Thessaloniki: 1991), p. 120.

35. St. John Chrysostomos, Works, Vol. i (1985 ), p. 667.

36. Although the explicit wording of the Seventh Apostolic Canon only forbids the celebration of Pascha "together with the Jews," Patristic interpretation has always taken this to include  a celebration of Pascha before the Jewish Passover as well. Great Friday, the day of the Crucifixion of Christ, fell on Nisan 14, the day of the Feast of the Passover, at the very time when   the Paschal lamb was being slaughtered. To celebrate His Resurrection before the Jewish Passover would thus destroy the important theological connection between these events.

37. The history of which is discussed in Chapter 5.

38. But not the length of the lunar year, since it does not have a constant number of months.

39. The Callipic cycle occurs seven times during the Great Indiction (76x7=532), corresponding to the number of days in a week.

40. Nineteen Julian solar years (each containing 365 days and six hours) equals 6,939 days and eighteen hours, whereas nineteen Jewish lunar years (i.e., 235 lunar months) equals 6,939 days, sixteen hours, thirty-one minutes, and forty-five seconds.

41. The actual difference after 304 years is twenty-three hours and thirty-two minutes.

42. St. John 14:30.

43. Contemporary scientific research shows that over the course of millennia, the velocity of the earth is slowing down, whereas the velocity of the moon, in relation to the earth, is speeding up; however, this difference is so minimal that it in no way affects the goal of exactitude in the Church Calendar.

44. Acts 15:28.

From A Scientific Examination of the Orthodox Church Calendar, by Hieromonk Cassian, eds. Archbishop Chrysostomos and Hieromonk Gregory (Etna, CA: Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 1998), Ch. 4.

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/calsci_ch4.aspx

 

 

Рождество Христово, время, историческое преемство, традиция Церкви

историческая достоверность празднования его Православной Церковью по Юлианскому календарю и о необходимости ее сохранения

 

Γέννησις το Χριστο,

καιρός, στορική παράδοση, και παράδοση τς κκλησίας

ιστορική αξιοπιστία της εορτής της Ορθόδοξης Εκκλησίας κατά Ιουλιανού ημερολογίου και για την ανάγκη διατήρησης της

 

Christmas, time, historical continuity, the tradition of the Church

historical reliability of the celebration of its Orthodox Church in the Julian calendar and on the need for conservation

 

продолжение часть 3

chapter 3

τέυχος 3

 

Заключение

πίλογος

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

В нашей обзорной статье мы не стали заострять внимание на дальнейшем распространении празднования Рождества Христова по всей Церкви, поскольку это не входит в нашу задачу. Безусловно, и в V столетии шел дальнейший процесс встраивания этого праздника в литургическую жизнь церквей. Безусловно, большой интерес с точки зрения истории литургии представляет и дискуссия о праздновании Рождества Христова с Армянской Церковью.1 Однако, по этой проблематике существуют достаточно исчерпывающие по своему содержанию исследования и статьи.2

Мы лишь можем с нашей стороны константировать факт органичного усвоения этого праздника Рождества Христова, который происходил в контексте арианских споров, то есть борьбы Церкви с очень коварной ересью. Следовательно введение празднования Рождества Христова было своего рода и ответом Церкви на уровне литургической жизни и творчества, которые всегда стоят в непосредственной взаимосвязью с верой Церкви, её догматами, отражают и догматическое сознание Церкви, её взгляды на те догматические споры, которые охватили преимущественно большую часть Востока Римской империи. Как мы уже видели и замечали, все произносимые проповеди этого времени в день Рождества Христова Святыми Отцами Церкви были направлены, прежде всего, на раскрытие учения о действительном вочеловечении Бога Слова, раскрытие учения о совершенстве двух природ во Христе и т. д.

Относительно же даты празднования Рождества Христова 25 декабря мы остаемся убеждёнными сторонниками той мысли, что эта дата является всё же днём Рождения во плоти Бога Слова от Пречистой Девы Марии, как она была принята издревле, изначально, согласно словам свт. Иоанна Златоуста а Римской Церкви. И праздновалась эта дата по Юлианскому календарю.

Сохранившиеся же до нашего времени достаточно скудные памятники христианской письменности касательно празднования Рождества Христова, либо их отсутствие, нисколько не умаляет справедливости свидетельства свт. Иоанна Златоуста. Нам важно отчетливо осознавать, что те или иные сохранившиеся памятники раннехристианской письменности должны быть верно и беспристрастно оценены. То, что вплоть до IV в. не сохранилось прямых либо даже косвенных доказательств в пользу празднования Рождества Христова, это ещё не означает, что его не было, по крайней мере в Риме. Ссылки же на Климента Александрийского, Оригена относительно постыдности праздновать дни рождения, на подобие «рождения эллинских богов» неуместны для данного случая. Точно также из них не следовало бы выводить идеи о пренебрежительном отношении ранних христиан к плотскому рождению, поскольку это противоречит всему учению Церкви Христовой о человеке как бесценном творении Божии по образу и подобию Божию. Неслучайно в век отцов каппадокийцев и позже, когда пишутся знаменитые трактаты «об устроении человека», а также слова «О вочеловечинии Бога Слова». То подчеркивается факт прохождения Христом всех стадий человеческого развития, всех возрастов, «чтобы освятить всех и все». То есть и зачатие — Благовещение и Рождение являются теми стадиями человеческой жизни Бога Слова, которые были Им освящены в перспективе божественного домостроительства. Поэтому, мы ещё раз подчеркнём, что для сознания Церкви, её учения идеи о пренебрежении к рождению человека и празднования его, а данном случае Бога Слова по плоти, совершенно чужды.

Несколько слов относительно важности сохранения празднования Рождества Христова в Православной Церкви 25 декабря по Юлианскому календарю. Первый аргумент нами уже был не раз озвучен: ибо во времена Рождества Христова и после в основном пользовались Юлианским календарем. Мы не станем останавливаться на исторически известном факте применения параллельных календарей: лунного, эры Диоклетиана, Египетского календаря, поскольку они все имели свои пересчеты и согласования с официальным календарем империи.3 Но мы хотели бы прежде сделать ссылку на весьма важное замечание одного из известных литургистов-эортологов. Он говорит, что повсеместное введение празднование Рождества Христова ввело в литургическую жизнь Церкви наряду с ранее принятым Пасхальным кругом и круг месяцеловный. И оба эти круга составили единый круг литургического времени Церкви. «Несомненно, праздник Рождества Христова по богословским причинам его важности, что составляет вместе в праздником Пасхи два великих полюса вокруг которых вращается литургический год. Пасха является венцом подвижных, а Рождество Христово неподвижных праздников. Если говорить конкретнеепраздник Рождества Христова является «митрополией» праздников, согласно словам свт. Иоанна Златоуста, потому что событие, которое мы празднуем само по себе является предпосылкой, условием всех иных стадий нашего спасения. Если бы родился Христос, он бы и не крестился...».4 Итак, Рождество Христово в жизни Церкви обрело свое законное, богоопределенное место. И пересматривать то, что установлено обычаем, освященным авторитетом Вселенской Церквиэто признание утраты церковного сознания.

К сожалению, введение, подчеркнём, из чисто политических соображений и не имевших никакого отношения к нуждам Православной Церкви, в ряде поместных Православных Церквей «нового стиля», разрушило уникальный строй литургического времени церкви Христовой. Совершенно ложное мнение о возможности сохранения Александрийской Пасхалии при изменении месяцелова5, на котором уже по инерции привыкли настаивать и говорить, не дают возможности всей полноте Православной Вселенской Церкви вернуть прежний уникальный строй литургической жизни, имеющий свой небесный и пренебесный ритм, связывающий земное время с временем будущего века. Одним из таких уникальных примеров сочетания календаря и пасхалии — это празднование Кириопасхи, когда Благовещение совпадает с Пасхой Христовой. Что полностью исчезает из жизни новостильников.

И всё же, уходя от апофатических рассуждений о времени и о календаре, которые, безусловно важны, поскольку с момента Боговоплощения время приобретает несколько иное измерение, не математическое, а эсхатологическое, не как отсчёт земной истории, а как приближение в Царству Божию и вхождение в него6, мы остановимся ещё на простой математике. Некоторые математические важные выводы были сделаны во время заседания специальной Комиссии по вопросу о реформ календаря в России при Русском Астрономическом обществе в 1899г. Комиссия признала:

  • невозможность иметь совершенно и абсолютно точный календарь по причине подвижности вселенной,

  • неточности как Григорианского (в меньшей степени), так и Юлианского года при вычислении тропического года,

  • неверность реформы календаря, проведенной при папе Григории в 1582г., который не учёл накопившуюся разницу в 2 суток между временем ориентировочного года Рождества Христова (4г. до н. э) и 325г., годом проведения I Вселенского собора,

  • то есть Григорианский календарь неприемлем для православного мира, как заранее содержащий в себе ошибку.7

Однако важно то, что Юлианский, а вернее сказать Церковный Православный календарь уникальным образом соединяя через Великий индиктион Пасхалию и месяцеслов, учел абсолютно все реально теперь открываемые погрешности. Всё это доказывает, что празднование Рождества Христова 25 декабря по старому стилю должно быть неколебимо сохраняемо Русской Православной Церковью как «древнее правило и священный обычай» (ἄνωθεν καὶ ἐκ παλαιᾶς παραδόσεως αὐτὴν ἐπιτελοῦντες по свт. Иоанну Златоусту) Вселенской Церкви. В качестве подтверждения данной позиции мы можем привести и слова св. императора Юстиниана, который отстаивал в своё время празднование Рождества Христова в качестве отдельного праздника 25 декабря в Иерусалиме и по всей империи: «Из Святого Писания и от Благовещения видно, что иной день Рождества и иной день Крещения. Во время Рождества Христова полки ангелов, откровение света, удивление пастухов, пришествие волхвов, ведомых звездой с востока, и выпытывание времени Иродом. А о Крещении и о Богоявлении в Писании имеется другое свидетельство у святых евангелистов..8. Послание Юстиниана завершается указанием на традиционность византийской литургической практики: «Ныне мы не что-то новое изыскиваем у вас, но то, что отцы и учители изыскали из священных книг и православные совершали изначала, совершается ныне нами, и вам также надлежит поступать, дабы согласно славить нам Отца и Сына и Святого Духа ныне и присно и во веки веков. Аминь».9
 

1Проф. И. Фунтулис упоминает о том, что к концу IV столетия почти вся Церковь приняла праздник Рождества Христова кроме Армянской, которая продолжала праздновать Богоявление. Ι. Μ. ΦΟΥΝΤΟΥΛΗ. «ΛΟΓΙΚΗ ΛΑΤΡΕΙΑ» Χριστούγεννα.

2См. например: Игумен Дионисий (Шленов). Празднование Рождества и Крещения согласно древним свидетельствам и памятникам полемической письменности середины XI века. На

3 Ι. Μ. ΦΟΥΝΤΟΥΛΗ.  «ΛΟΓΙΚΗ ΛΑΤΡΕΙΑ»


 

4Там же

5A Scientific Examination of the Orthodox Church Calendar. Ch. 4. The Essence of the Church Calendar. By Hieromonk Cassian:«The Church Calendar is thus a combination of two harmoniously interwoven cycles, the Menaion cycle, which utilizes the solar Julian Calendar, and the Paschal cycle, which relies on the lunar Jewish Calendar, and it is only under these names that the Church Calendar is encountered in service books. The fruit of the ingenious efforts of numberless scholars and theologians, the Church Calendar alone fulfills the canonical and dogmatic requirements of the Orthodox Faith. All other calendars are unable to fulfill these requirements practically, because the combination of the movable and immovable cycles is univocal and unique. The Church Calendar is inseparable from the cycles of the sun and the moon, in much the same way that a replica of a picture is inseparable from its original: without the original, the replica would not exist, and in the same way, the Church Calendar reflects the solar and lunar cycles. Therefore, every effort to replace the Church Calendar is doomed to failure, for the Church Calendar is, by definition, never at odds with the Biblical, canonical, and liturgical dictates of ecclesiastical life».

6Θεολογική θεώρηση του χρόνου, του Σεβασμ. Μητροπολήτου Χίου, Ψαρών και Οινουσσών κ. Μάρκου, http://www.imchiou.gr/i и на apologet.spb.ru

7См. . Русское Астрономическое Общество. Журалы заседаний Комиссии по реформе календаря в России. Приложение 1. Доклад Д. Меделеева, Приложение V Мнение профессора В. В. Болотова.

8 Just. Sermo de festis IV, 12 (Esbroeck 1968. P. 359. Ср. рус. пер. Кекелидзе 1905. С. 155)

9 Там же.

 



Подписка на новости

Последние обновления

События