Forgive me if I got this all wrong, but I think the answer to this question deals with how we were taught, what we believe, and maybe even our own opinion. I think this is also very dangerous ground to tread. I do 'prefer' to use the Old Calendar for things dealing with the Church, one thing I like about it is that with the O.C. we don't skip over fasts like the Apostles fast that sometimes gets cut from the N.C. like what happened last year after Pascha.
MaryCecilia
So you are asking then, removing the thought that the new-calendar ever even happened - is there anything about it that is heretical by itself.
Heres my answer:
1) Holy Tradition has always demanded that we fast like the Apostles after Pentecost. The new-calendar s a teaching instrument of the Church, on certain years has this fast completley removed, which is a teaching against the Church.
2) The Churches calendar is not independent. It works hand-in-hand with the Typicon and the Typicon's formula's work this year, next year, and forever! But with the new-calendar, there are combinations of schedules and services which have to be made up on the fly! In this regard, it makes the service books, which are a part of Holy Tradition, obsolete.
3) A piece of wood is a neutral object. It has no religious value whatsoever. It could be cast into the fire or chopped up. It makes no difference. But as soon as an iconographer writes the words of the Lord on it, it becomes an Icon and is Holy - it has no need of being blessed. It cannot be chopped up or defaced in any way.
Likewise the calendar is a neutral object until the Church imprints God's holy days on it. It then forever becomes an icon of time. The new-calendar casts this icon of time, which took hundreds of years to develop, and it into the fire; the new-calendar declares the festal order of the Church Fathers to be in error; it overturns the festal relation between the Paschal cycle and immovable feasts; it abolishes fasts; it changes immovable feasts to movable ones (for example, the feast of Saint
George); But most of all, it destroys the work of the Holy Spirit, who does not make mistakes, and who guides the Orthodox in all truths!
Is the use of the new-calendar a heresy, without any other consideration? I would only ask why is it important to know?
While I understand how the New Calendar can be sinful (violation of canonical order in the way it was implimented), I have a hard time understanding how it can be heretical of itself.
I can see full well how it's implimentation can have bad motives (an over eagerness to facilitate reunion between various western religious bodies and the Church of Christ), or how the new calendar can be a friend of those who are in fact heretics (extreme ecumenists who believe in "branch theory" ecclessiology or who confuse Orthodox mysteries with non-Orthodox rites); so in that respect it is perhaps more friendly to heresy, and can be used to facilitate heresy, or it's supporters can often (though certainly not always) be heretics...but I have a hard time understanding how the new calendar itself can be heretical.
Seraphim
Nicholas wrote:The implementation of the New Calendar was straight from Satan himself. Of course God chimed in when the Holy Cross appeared in the sky on the said Feast Day on the Old Calendar date. He further chimes in for the proper Julian date Pascha every year with the Holy Light.
Dear Nik,
One of my problems with traditional Eastern Orthodox Christians (and this is a problem that doesn't always come up, but is a problem all the same) is this train of thought that says that because of the Holy Fire or some other miracle, the old calendar is right, or Orthodoxy is right.
The reason I have a problem with this is because even the Latins have miracles. Their Eucharist has turned to flesh and blood at certain times in history, even in the present day. The "miraculous" waters at shrines such as Lourdes and Fatima heal people of incurable diseases. They have visions. They have mystics. I could go on. But I doubt any of you would take any of these and say "Oh, well I guess the Pope is really the infallible Vicar of Christ, I'm going to run to the nearest RC church and beg to be received." Miracles, however awesome, should never be used as "proof" for our faith. Our faith stands on its own merits.
I suppose some here would say that the miracles of the Latins are the work of Satan. Surely, I wouldn't wish to prevent someone from reasonably having that point of view, but they should be open to the possibility that they are not the work of Satan (who are we to tell God where to do what He wants?), or that we might also be deceived at times (even Satan can appear as an angel of light). I do not mean to denigrate any miracle at all, not the Holy Fire, not crosses in the sky, not any of them. But I think we should realise that our faith does not need help proving its truth, and we should be cautious about "the miraculous".
